July 18, 2001
Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB)
FINAL ACTION MINUTES
OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
CITY HALL
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE, ROOM 400
JULY 18, 2001
12:42 P.M. ROLL CALL
FOR FULL BOARD CONSIDERATION
MEMBERS PRESENT: FINWALL, KELLEY, KOTAS, SHATARA and SKRONDAL
MEMBERS ABSENT: DEARMAN, HO-BELLI, MAGRANE and REIDY
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
REPORTS
1. DEPARTMENT REPORT
Neil Hart
Chief of Neighborhood
Planning:
i Apologized for some mis-information he had previously given the Landmarks Board regarding the Landmarks Board's time frame for reviewing landmark initiations that begin with the Board of Supervisors. He had said that the Code had changed to change the time period from 30 days to 60 days. This information was inaccurate. The intention was to change the Code – Supervisor Becerril had written legislation, it had been reviewed by the Planning Commission and had gone over to the Board of Supervisors – believes it was the same time we had gotten a new Board of Supervisors. The Committee it had been referred to didn't take any action. Staff and others are currently investigating ways of reintroducing the legislation.
i Status of the Filbert Street Cottages landmark designation – project was heard before the Planning Commission last week, where the Planning Commission voted not to recommend landmark designation to the Board of Supervisors.
i Status on 290 Union Street (subject of a discretionary review) was heard before the Planning Commission on 6/21/01 – the Commission took discretionary review and conditioned approval on the elimination of the roof deck, minimizing the fourth floor near the balcony and modifying the detailing of the front façade. The project sponsor has indicated to Staff that he is not agreeable to the conditions imposed by discretionary review and would be asking the Planning Department to disapprove the building permit application so that he can appeal it to the Board of Appeals.
2 STAFF REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
See Department Report above.
Tape No(s).: 1a
3. PRESIDENT’S REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
None
4. MATTERS OF THE BOARD
None
Tape No(s).: 1a
REGULAR CALENDAR ITEMS
5. APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 6 and JUNE 20, 2001 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
No quorum – move to next hearing.
n Landmark Designation
6. 2001.0690L (LIGHT: 558-6254)
88 5TH STREET, Old San Francisco U.S. Mint, west side between Jessie and Mission Streets. Assessor's Block 3704, Lot 11. The Greek Revival, steel-frame and brick building is clad with granite and sandstone, and was built between 1869-1874. The site was operated as a museum until 1994, and is currently vacant. The subject property is zoned P (Public) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Request for Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board recommendation to the Planning Commission on the proposed landmark designation, which was initiated by the Board of Supervisors on June 29, 2001.
Speaker(s): Charles Chase
Michael Levin
Board
Action: After Staff presentation and public comment, Board Member Shatara moved (seconded by Skrondal) to recommend landmark designation to the Planning Commission. The vote was unanimous – Finwall, Kelley, Kotas, Shatara and Skrondal. Absent: Dearman, Ho-Belli, Magrane and Reidy
Tape No(s).: 1a
n Certificates of Appropriateness
7. 2001.0515A (BORDEN: 558-6321)
2330 POLK STREET, Alhambra Theater, Landmark No. 217, east side between Union and Green Streets. Assessor's Block 548, Lot 22. The subject property is located in the Polk Street Neighborhood Commercial District and is in the 65-A Height and Bulk District. Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the existing assortment of plastic panels and letter rails in the horizontal marquis with new white Lexan panels carrying the Gorilla Sports logo and clear plastic rails; install changeable letters announcing their offerings in the horizontal marquis and install two window signs and one wall sign surrounding the retail entrance south of the original theater entrance.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
Speaker(s): Bret Gladstone
Charles Chase
Tim Brilon
Action: After public testimony, Member Kotas moved (seconded by Skrondal) to adopt the draft resolution and staff report recommending approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Ayes: Finwall, Kelley, Kotas Shatara and Skrondal
Noes: None
Absent: Dearman, Ho-Belli, Magrane and Reidy
Tape No(s).: 1a
8. 2001.0557A (BORDEN: 558-6321)
1668 BUSH STREET (1600 GOUGH STREET), Trinity Church, Landmark No. 65, northeast corner of Gough and Bush Streets. Assessor's Block 665, Lot 015. The subject property is zoned RM-4 (Mixed Residential, High Density) District and is in an 80-A Height and Bulk District. Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add an accessible entrance to the Parish Hall on the Bush Street façade, including a ramp and new entry door, requiring removal of an existing leaded glass window, its splayed stone reveal, and a portion of the stone wall below.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
Speaker(s): Jason Hayden
Rob Droste
Action: After public testimony, Member Finwall moved (seconded by Shatara) to adopt the draft resolution and staff report recommending approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Ayes: Finwall, Kelley, Kotas Shatara and Skrondal
Noes: None
Absent: Dearman, Ho-Belli, Magrane and Reidy
Tape No(s).: 1a
n Review and Comment
9. 2001.0544G (KOMETANI: 558-6478)
572 FOLSOM STREET, north side between First and Second Streets. Assessor's Block 3736, Lot 25. A brick, industrial building built in 1912. The subject property is a Category V (unrated) building, is zoned C-3-0 SF (Downtown Office) District and is in a 200-S Height and Bulk District. Request for the Landmarks Board recommendation on a proposal to change the Article 11 designation of the building from Category V (Unrated) to Category III (Contributory).
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
Speaker(s): Robert Mayer
Alene Pierce
Action: After public testimony, Member Finwall moved (seconded by Skrondal) to recommend the request to change the designation of the building from Category V (Unrated) to Category III (Contributory).
Ayes: Finwall, Kelley, Kotas Shatara and Skrondal
Noes: None
Absent: Dearman, Ho-Belli, Magrane and Reidy
Tape No(s).: 1a & b
n Nominations to the National Register of Historic Places
10. (BORDEN: 558-6321)
1000 VAN NESS AVENUE, Don Lee Building, Don Lee Motor Sales Rooms, east side bounded by Van Ness Avenue to the west, O'Farrell Street to the south, Polk Street to the east and Myrtle Street to the north. Assessor's Block 715, Lot 5. The subject property is zoned RC-4 (Residential Commercial Combined, High Density) District, is in a 130-E Height and Bulk District and is in the Van Ness/Automotive Special Use District. The State Office of Historic Preservation is seeking the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board comments on a proposed nomination to the National Register of Historic Places for all of the land occupied by the building known originally as the Don Lee Building, Don Lee Motor Sales Rooms, as part of San Francisco's role as a Certified Local Government.
Speaker(s): Jay Turnbull
Board comments
and actions:
i President Kelley asked for an explanation as to why Category A was dropped. He also asked if the data supporting a claim under A had been deleted?
i President Kelley was disappointed to see Criterion A claim deleted. He felt there was sufficient work, in fact he felt this is what they all should look like – it's a pretty thorough statement. He commented that the Board could recommend that it do supports significances Criterion A. Board Member Finwall concurred.
i The Board felt the building is eligible under Categories A and C; with almost an argument for B.
i The Board requested that the original report be submitted to the State Office.
i Commented that they would like to see the rest of the nominations look like this nomination.
i Expressed they would like to have seen one or two pictures included in the report.
i Would like to use 1921 to 1950 as the period of significance.
i The Board agreed to recommend that nomination of this property be listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Tape No(s).: 1b
11. (LIGHT: 558-6254)
50 GREEN STREET, The W. P. Fuller & Company Glass Warehouse, northeast corner of Green and Battery Streets. Assessor's Block 111, Lot 2. The building is contributory to the City's Northeastern Waterfront Historic District, is listed in Here Today , is rated in the City's 1976 Architectural Survey, is on the California National Register, and is a contributor to a district determined eligible for the National Register. The two-story brick structure was built in 1907; was originally used as glass warehouse, and is currently used as office space. The site is zoned C-2 (Community Business) District, is in a 65-X Height and Bulk District, and is in the Northeastern Waterfront #3 Special Use District. The State Office of Historic Preservation is seeking the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board comments on a proposed nomination to the National Register of Historic Places for the north, south, and east facades of the structure through a façade easement as part of San Francisco's role as a Certified Local Government.
Speaker(s): Ron Kaufman
Staff comments:
i Apologized for the miscommunication/misunderstanding between Staff and the project sponsor regarding the proposed nomination. The report before the Board is incorrect (proposed nomination to the National Register of Historic Places for the north, south and east facades of the structure through a façade easement). The proposed nomination to the National Register is actually for the entire building; however, the project sponsor is considering donating an easement for three of the four facades.
Board comments
and actions:
i President Kelley expressed his disappointment that any industrial building can be presented for historic significance without even considering the nature of the workforce. He felt that you cannot adequately study the history of an industrial building without paying any attention to the nature of the work and the people who did the work in the building.
i Commented that this was a great project.
i The Board agreed that the building is eligible under Category C – Architectural Significance.
i President Kelley wanted to include a comment that the labor history of an industrial building should be a part of the discussion of significance.
i The Board agreed to recommend that nomination of this property be listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Tape No(s).: 1b
12. (TAM: 558-6325)
2701 16th STREET, Long Syrup Refinery Building, southwest corner of 16th Street and Treat Avenue. Assessor's Block 3572, Lot 1. The building is listed on the California National Register and is eligible for separate listing. The three-story brick structure was built in 1908; was originally used as a fruit syrup and preserve refinery, and is currently being rehabilitated for use as an office building. The site is zoned M-1 (Light Industrial) District and is in a 50-X Height and Bulk District. The State Office of Historic Preservation is seeking the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board comments on a proposed nomination to the National Register of Historic Places for all of the land occupied by the building known originally as the Long Syrup Refinery, as part of San Francisco's role as a Certified Local Government.
Speaker(s): Marty Dalton
Board comments
and actions:
i President Kelley felt that you cannot adequately study the history of an industrial building without paying any attention to the nature of the work and the people who did the work in the building.
i Member Finwall commented that he felt the building was a strong building in the neighborhood.
i The Board agreed that the building is eligible under Category C – Architectural Significance.
i The Board agreed to recommend that nomination of this property be listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Tape No(s).: 1b
13. (M. SNYDER: 575-6891)
2550 MISSION STREET, The New Mission Theater, east side between 21st and 22nd Streets. Assessor's Block 3616, Lot 7. The New Mission Theater was built in 1916. The building was originally used as a movie theater and is currently used as a furniture store. It is within an NC-3 (Neighborhood Commercial, Moderate-Scale) District and is in a 65-J Height and Bulk District. The State Office of Historic Preservation is seeking the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board comments on a proposed nomination to the National Register of Historic Places for all of the land occupied by the building known originally as the New Mission Theater, as part of San Francisco's role as a Certified Local Government.
Speaker(s): Dr. Philip Day, Nancy Charraga, Will Shank, U. B. Morgan, Alice Carey, Sara Lardinois, John Barbey, Sylvia Alvarez-Ly, Mike Buhler, Katherine Petrin, Susan Leal, Mary T. Hernandez, Russ Kyle, Tracy Brown, Antonio Ruiz, Pete Galiezor, Jesse E. Tello, Valene Tulier, Samuel Guia, Elizabeth Dodd, Susan Lopez, Denise Jindrich, Dominic Newman, Gregory Roberts, Arnie Lerner, Natalie Berg, Molly Valentino, Milton Marks, Dave Lewis, Charles Chase
Board comments
and actions:
i First, Staff explained to the Board and members of the public, that the purpose of this hearing is to comment and indicate either their support on the nomination for the National Register, which is administered by the State Office of Historic Preservation. This is not a landmark designation or about the land use of this particular parcel, but only to comment on another nomination of the building.
i The original report indicated that the historic property was eligible under both Criteria A and C. However, the report has been revised (distributed at this hearing) that has been changed so that only the second criteria is now being considered (Criteria C).
i President Kelley asked why Criteria A was deleted.
i President Kelley reiterated what the purpose of this hearing is about – to receive comments on the nomination for the National Register.
i Member Kotas asked for clarification – will this nomination move forward no matter what the Board says or do, is this correct?
i President Kelley stated that he certainly want to support the creation of the campus in the Mission.
i Member Shatara stated that he feels that the building should be preserved on some grand level. Although he felt that the Community College will probably serve the Mission community in such a great way, he feels he is weighing in support of the College, and strongly feels that the Mission district has such a strong community and City College has an obligation to hear the community's needs, that he thinks a preservation element of some sort could be worked out with the College themselves. He encourages the College to preserve as much of the theater as they possibly can and find some kind of adaptive reuse for it (if it can be worked into the funding process somehow). He thinks with the community's continuous involvement; continuous support for some means of preservation, City College could end up with one of the grandest campuses in San Francisco and a gem to the Mission District.
i Member Skrondal asked if there was a way, in the Board's comments, to include Board Member Shatara's words stated above.
i President Kelley stated that he thinks the Board has latitude to make comments; the scope is narrow for a recommendation, but, not that narrow for what kind of comments can be made. He stated that he felt that there was a consensus that the Board would really like the project to be able to go forward, but then said, maybe there wasn't a consensus.
i President Kelley stated that he feels he would have to say that he does recommend that the property be listed on the National Register, because the argument is made and the argument is valid in the nomination. However, he does really strongly want to encourage the creation of the campus at this location by some reuse of the building, if possible.
i Member Skrondal asked who pays for the renovation of the building if placed on the National Register?
i The question is – recommend or not recommend?
i Member Finwall felt it was important to acknowledge the input of the community and the concern the administration has for funding and what being on the National Register potential does to that. It will demand some creative thinking as to how to approach it and work through the process to keep funding. It may require , and likely will require some politicking at a level in the State government that would ensure that funding would still be there or funding from alternative sources would be there. He suspect that support for a campus at that location beyond the support that was demonstrated at today's hearing, is also at the State level. Some use of the building would only be more appropriate to the preservation of the building in its reuse. Our purview is the narrow purview of whether or not the building meets the minimum criteria, and he don't think they have much choice except to say that it does. He would agreed that it does.
i President Kelley asked what was the Board's consensus on recommend? He thought the consensus was that the Board do believe that the case was made and recommends the listing. He asked if there was any disagreement? He then stated that they (the Board) are suppose to do a consensus, but they (the Board) can take an informal straw pole.
i Member Shatara commented that the consensus of the Board is to recommend, but if it comes down to a vote, it would be a no vote for him.
i Member Kotas questioned if their action was for two separate things: 1) a recommendation as to whether or not the building meets the criteria; and 2) whether or not they recommend that it then be listed (Page 3 of the Staff Summary).
i President Kelley stated he would feel constrained to recommend listing, but would want to make comments in their transmittal about the quandary they find themselves in, and the State finds themselves in.
i Member Kotas stated that he didn't think there were five unanimous votes on the Board, if it's a single action they are doing. But, if it's two actions, he saw it for himself, it's clear that the building is worthy of consideration, (whether or not he wants to endorse it in the face of $30 million tax dollars – he always has a conflict doing that). It's not clear to him if it's one action or two actions that the Board has to take.
(Staff clarified that the action is: whether the Board want to recommend or not recommend listing on the National Register. If the Board does recommend listing, they have to concur with the criteria that has been selected and then going through the report, if the Board finds anything in the report they would like to change or need further clarification or if you concur with the Statement of Significance and features and the associations written in the reports. If you choose not to list the building on the National Register, you can also just discuss your comments that the Board would like to put in a letter, but, the Board really should discuss at this public forum what their comments are and what they want to put in a letter so that the public hears their discussion.)
i Member Kotas stated that he heard a comment made at the hearing that if the owner of the property dissents, then listing isn't actually made.
(Staff responded by saying: the Keeper of the National Register won't list a property unless the property owner concurs. But, then, it won't get a code rating of 1 (listed on the National Register), it would get a code rating of 2 (eligible for listing on the National Register); however, that still triggers the CEQA requirements – that the building was deemed to be an historic resource, but just not listed because the property owner objects to listing.)
i Member Finwall asked President Kelley if it is the Board's intention to list comments about the quandary the Board is in, quoting Member Shatara's comments about the difficulties that it creates in listing the building.
i President Kelley responded - yes, and about the Board's belief that the National Register status should not be allowed to stop the project – stop the location of a campus in the Mission.
i Member Skrondal asked if their objections had to pertain to the report?
i President Kelley stated that they can include any comments. He stated he would recommend that the Board mention the quandary that this is going to put the project in, if the Board indeed recommends listing, that listing should not be allowed to create funding difficulties for the project. They believe that the social need is to have a Mission campus. Realizing that these are not directly pertinent to the question of the significance, but, being a public body, these are our comments.
i Member Shatara asked if it is the State's decision ultimately that decides whether the building will have additional EIR review; it's not necessarily hinging on the Board whether this happens or not?
i President Kelley responded – it's his understanding that if it's determined eligible for the National Register, then it will trigger CEQA, but if it's not determined eligible, that doesn't necessarily mean – someone can still go in a make the claim that there is substantial evidence that it is an historic resource, whereas an EIR may be required anyway. With that said, also it's in general true that with a recognized historic resource, if the reuse, the alterations are in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards then that qualifies for a mitigated neg dec.
i President asked the Board – recommend or not recommend? The response was to recommend (+4 -1).
i Member Finwall asked President Kelley if he will write the comments?
i President Kelley responded by saying yes, he will write the comments.
i After Staff asked President Kelley to please reiterate what the comments will be, President Kelly said, the comments will state our concern about the National Register status stopping the project – the comments will relate our support for the location of Mission Campus at this site. I think that's what the comments will deal with& any other suggestions what the comments should deal with?
i After a member of the public asked what was the Board's final vote – President Kelley responded: There's no vote, there is no vote – four people, informal straw vote – four people wish to recommend and one does not.
Tape No(s).: 1b & 2a & b
ADJOURNMENT: 5:15 P.M.
ADOPTED: August 1, 2001
N:\LPAB\MINUTES\ JULY18FIN.MIN
