Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission presses for stronger preservation alternatives in draft Market Street EIR
Summary
Historic Preservation commissioners and public commenters challenged the draft EIR for 1546–1564 Market Street, arguing the preservation alternatives are too binary and urging more partial-preservation options, clearer analysis of CEQA historic-resource findings, and scrutiny of 'facadeism.'
The Historic Preservation Commission on Feb. 4 reviewed the draft environmental-impact report for a proposed Market Street project (1546–1564 Market Street) and urged staff and the project sponsor to provide more robust preservation alternatives and clearer written responses in the EIR record.
Chris Curran of the Planning Department’s Environmental Planning Division told the Commission the draft EIR was published Jan. 7 and that the document is a focused EIR addressing historic-resource impacts; the public-comment period runs through Feb. 23. Curran said other environmental topics were "focused out" via a community-plan exemption and that staff would respond to comments in the written response-to-comments document.
Project developer TreMark Urban presented conceptual plans for a 12-story project with three buildings, 109 for-sale units including 13 below-market-rate units, ground-floor retail and a roof deck. Project materials show two of the three existing buildings on the site have been determined historic resources under CEQA and would be demolished under the sponsor’s preferred approach.
Commissioners and public commenters pushed back on the EIR's treatment of alternatives. Commissioner Pearlman said the analysis "felt like it was an either or that you developed the little sliver parcel," and asked for bridging alternatives that would preserve more of the historic fabric (for example, setbacks, partial retention or articulated façades). Mike Bueller of San Francisco Heritage told the Commission Heritage will review the document and intends to submit formal comments; he also said Heritage will study and publish a position on "facadeism," the practice of retaining only street-facing façades as preservation mitigation.
Staff acknowledged the Commission’s concerns and noted that written responses to comments will be prepared. Commissioners asked staff to ensure the EIR includes clear analyses of each named alternative and that preservation-focused options be presented in a way that allows the Commission and the public to assess tradeoffs between preservation and development goals.
The Planning Commission hearing on the draft EIR was scheduled to be continued by staff; the HPC limited its role to providing direction and comments for the written record rather than resolving CEQA findings at the Feb. 4 meeting.
