Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Draft EIR finds demolition of 1123 Sutter would be a significant, unavoidable historic-resource impact
Summary
City staff presented a draft environmental impact report for the Sutter Park project at 1101–1123 Sutter Street, finding demolition of the historic funeral home at 1123 Sutter would create a significant and unavoidable impact despite mitigation measures; the Historic Preservation Commission concurred and recommended alternatives including partial preservation.
City planning staff on Wednesday presented the draft environmental impact report (EIR) for the proposed Sutter Park residential project at 1101–1123 Sutter Street and invited public comment on the document’s adequacy and completeness. Joy Navarrete, environmental planning staff, told the Planning Commission the draft EIR concluded that renovations at 1101 Sutter would meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards but that demolition of 1123 Sutter, a mortuary found eligible for the California Register, would result in a project‑level significant and unavoidable impact.
The lead‑planner said the EIR analyzed four alternatives, including full preservation, two partial‑preservation options and the project as proposed. The draft report identifies three mitigation measures for the loss of 1123 Sutter: high‑fidelity documentation of the building, development of an interpretive program about the site’s history and architectural features, and historical architectural salvage. Navarrete said staff determined those measures would reduce but not eliminate the impact.
Navarrete said the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed the draft EIR on Sept. 15 and found the historic‑resource analysis adequate and accurate. The HPC agreed the draft EIR reasonably analyzed preservation alternatives and recommended that some interior spaces of 1123 Sutter be retained; staff said that feedback led to changes in the alternatives analyzed in the EIR.
Architect David Baker, representing the project sponsor Martin Building Group, described the proposed development as a 50 percent density‑bonus building with 221 rental apartments, 20 percent on‑site affordable units, generous bicycle parking and on‑site early‑childhood space. Baker showed renderings and explained massing choices intended to be compatible with the surrounding historic fabric.
Public comment included support from the Housing Action Coalition, which said the project would add housing near transit and street‑level activation. Commissioners asked technical questions about the alternatives and commended staff for the scope of analysis. Navarrete said the response‑to‑comments document and any revisions will be circulated two weeks before the EIR certification hearing and that no approval action on the EIR was requested at this meeting.
