The San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission on Feb. 18 considered a draft resolution establishing what it expects to see in preservation alternatives included in Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs), then voted to continue the item for further revision.

Planning Department staff presented the draft. Tim Frey said staff circulated a revised version and that the resolution was brought at the request of Commission leadership. Lisa Gibson, Senior Environmental Planner, reviewed CEQA basics and the role of alternatives in an EIR, telling commissioners that “EIRs must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the project or to the location of the project that would feasibly attain most of the project sponsor’s objectives, but would substantially avoid or lessen the significant impacts of the project.” She explained the difference between full and partial preservation alternatives and urged that alternatives include sufficient detail and graphic materials to permit meaningful evaluation.

Commissioners pressed staff on standards for feasibility, scoping, and presentation. Several commissioners said past DEIRs offered only cursory preservation alternatives and asked for clearer expectations on floor plans, elevations, renderings and background memos from preservation consultants. Commissioner Hyland emphasized that “we need more information” and asked that preservation alternatives be fleshed out so the Commission and public can meaningfully assess tradeoffs.

A central dispute arose over language addressing facade retention. Staff clarified that facade retention by itself typically does not avoid a CEQA significant impact and recommended changing drafting that said facade retention “constitutes” demolition to wording that makes clear facade retention alone is generally not sufficient but may be considered within a fuller preservation alternative on a case-by-case basis.

Public commenters urged precise, workable wording. Desiree Smith of San Francisco Heritage said the policy should clarify that alternatives need to meet “most” project objectives rather than all, and suggested inserting the phrase “potentially feasible preservation alternatives.” Catherine Howard of the Golden Gate Park Preservation Alliance urged adding the word “landscape” in several places so the policy will apply to historic landscapes as well as buildings.

Commissioners directed staff to incorporate Heritage’s edits and GGPPA’s landscape recommendations, to clarify facade-retention language, and to return with a revised resolution. By motion and unanimous vote, the Commission continued the item to March 18, 2015.

Next steps: staff will revise the draft to reflect the changes discussed and redistribute it in advance of the next hearing.