Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pier70 topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic Preservation Commission broadly endorses Pier 70 Draft EIR mitigation approach but records a dissent on demolition impacts
Summary
Commissioners generally agreed the Pier 70 Draft EIR and the project's design-for-development provide mitigation to reduce significant impacts to less-than-significant when implemented, but at least one commissioner said the demolition of multiple contributing structures is inadequately mitigated and should be noted as a minority opinion.
The Historic Preservation Commission spent an extended portion of its Feb. 1 hearing reviewing the Pier 70 Mixed Use District Draft Environmental Impact Report and the project's design-for-development standards. Planning staff and project sponsors (Forest City and the Port of San Francisco) presented the draft findings and the proposed mitigation program.
Melinda Hugh, the Planning Department's EIR coordinator, and Rich Sucre, historic preservation technical specialist, described the scale of the project and the department's analysis. The Draft EIR finds that demolition of certain contributing structures and some new infill would result in significant historic-resource impacts; the report proposes mitigation measures that include preparation of historic resource evaluation reports, performance criteria for rehabilitation of important structures (Buildings 21 and 212), a review process for new construction, documentation of demolished contributors and a public interpretation program.
Kelly Pretzer of Forest City summarized the project goals: rehabilitation of some buildings, new market-rate and affordable housing, commercial uses, parking and public open space across approximately 35 acres, much of it inside the Union Iron Works Historic District.
Most commissioners said the mitigation package and the design-for-development criteria provided an adequate framework to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level when implemented. Commissioner John (speaking as a commissioner) noted that the project sponsor and consultants provided a thorough rationale and that the technical appendices addressed Irish Hill as a cultural landscape. Planning staff confirmed a cultural-landscape analysis is included as an appendix and offered to provide the appendix to commissioners.
Commissioner Pearlman (recorded in the transcript as a dissenting voice on this point) said she "completely disagree[d] with the analysis that was done," arguing that demolition of several attached contributing buildings around Building 12 would materially alter the shipbuilding complex's character and that the proposed mitigation (documentation and interpretation) falls short of compensating for the physical loss. That viewpoint was recorded as a formal minority comment for the commission's letter. Other commissioners acknowledged the tension but agreed the document's proposed mitigation measures and performance criteria were generally appropriate.
Staff concluded by reminding the commission that public comment on the Draft EIR to the Planning Commission is due Feb. 21 and that the Planning Commission will hold its public hearing Feb. 9. Commissioners asked staff to include specific recommendations in the commission's comment letter: ensure the public-interpretation program addresses the site's circulation and the three eras of the shipyard's evolution and confirm that view corridors and site-planning logic are more fully explained in the document. The commission did not take a formal vote on the Draft EIR, but directed staff to prepare comments taking account of the majority view and to include the minority position raised by Commissioner Pearlman.
