August 01, 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
AUGUST 1, 2001
12:40 P.M. ROLL CALL
FOR FULL BOARD CONSIDERATION
MEMBERS PRESENT: DEARMAN (arr. @ 12:47 p.m.), FINWALL, HO-BELLI, KELLEY, KOTAS, MAGRANE, SHATARA and SKRONDAL
MEMBER(S) ABSENT: REIDY
PUBLIC COMMENT
None
REPORTS
1. DEPARTMENT REPORT
Elizabeth Gordon
Preservation
Coordinator:
i Informed the Landmarks Board that Sunshine Ordinance Training Manual is in their correspondence for the review and that they are to return the Sunshine Ordinance Declaration to the Recording Secretary.
i Designated landmark cases scheduled before the Planning Commission are as follows:
- Carnegie Libraries (Chinatown and Mission Branches) – August 23
- Golden Triangle Light Standards – September 6
i Copies of letters in support of the nomination of the New Mission Theater to the National Register of Historic Places is in the Board's correspondence folders.
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, JUNE 20 and JULY 18, 2001 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
June 6, 2001: Moved by Member Finwall (seconded by Ho-Belli) to approve the draft minutes. The vote was unanimous – Dearman, Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Magrane, Shatara and Skrondal (Absent: Reidy).
June 20, 2001: Moved by Member Finwall (seconded by Ho-Belli) to approve the draft minutes. The vote was unanimous – Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Magrane and Shatara (Absent: Reidy).
July 18, 2001: Moved by Member Skrondal (seconded by Finwall) to approve the draft minutes with a correction on page 10 – fourth bullet from the bottom – vote should read +4 –1 . The vote was unanimous – Finwall, Kelley, Kotas, Shatara and Skrondal (Absent: Dearman, Ho-Belli, Magrane and Reidy).
Tape No(s).: 1a
n Certificate(s) of Appropriateness
6. 2001.0706A (LIGHT: 558-6254)
901 BATTERY STREET, northwest corner of Vallejo Street. Assessor's Block 135, Lot 3. The subject property is a contributor to the Northeastern Waterfront Historic District, is zoned C-2 (Community Business) District and is in a 65-X Height and Bulk District. Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add an emergency generator to the roof of a four-story reinforced concrete frame building constructed in 1923.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
Speaker(s): None
Action: Board Member Finwall moved (seconded by Skrondal) to adopt the draft resolution and staff report recommending approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Ayes: Dearman, Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Kotas, Magrane, Shatara and Skrondal
Noes: None
Absent: Reidy
Tape No(s).: 1a
n Nomination(s) to the National Register of Historic Places
7. (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 recommendation and 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.
(Note: This is a rehearing of the above item. The item was heard before the Landmarks Board on July 18, 2001. No formal action was taken at that time.)
Speaker(s): Charles Chase, Alan Martinez, Mrs. Bland Platt, Mike Buhler, Katherine Petrin, Will Shank, U. B. Morgan, Sylvia Alvarez-Lynch, Rob Bregoff, Sara Lardinois, Nancy Charraga, Jim Rowe, Dr. Philip Day, Alicia Becerril, Emilio Cruz, Tamara Galanter, Roberto Y. Hernandez, Carlota del Partillo, Julio Ramos, Valerie Tulier, Supervisor Gerando Sandoval, Tracy Brown Gallardo, Allen White, Jesse Arreguin
Action: After Staff presentation and numerous comments made by members of the public, the Landmarks Board made the following comments:
i President Kelley started by responding to the request for deferment of action of this item. He stated that it is the purview of the Chair to have granted such a request. President Kelley stated that he would decline to grant the request for the following reasons:
4 President Kelley believes the Landmarks Board has an obligation under the Certified Local Government Agreement to participate in the process in a timely manner, that in turn would require the Landmarks Board to consider the question today.
4 President Kelley did exercise the prerogative of the Chair in April and granted a continuation at that time on this item. He believes that there has been adequate time to prepare positions on both sides of the issues. Therefore, President Kelley declined to unilaterally grant the continuation, however, as they discuss the main question, which is the recommendation or non-recommendation, to list or not to list; of course, like any other question, a motion to continue at that point would be in order and considered.
4 Also, under the language in the agenda item, it would be possible, they would have to address the question again, unless a vote/motion to continue is made and sustained; that the Landmarks Board have to address the main question of recommendation or non-recommendation for listing on the Register, but that the Landmarks Board could also entertain a motion to recommend, in addition, recommend that the State continue their consideration of the item (there is no way of knowing prior to Friday if the State will do that); therefore, President Kelley see the Landmarks Board as obligated to address the question.
i A member of the Landmarks Board asked that if the Landmarks Board make a recommendation to the State Historic Commission, that they continue the item on their calendar, can the Landmarks Board include language of the Landmarks Board's concern for City College's research on funding issues?
i A member of the Landmarks Board asked for clarity on the jeopardy of the funding aspect, if the building were nominated to the National Register. It was stated that it is still not absolutely clear, what the effect of the Landmarks Board's embrace of the nomination will have in terms of the progress City College needs to make on its campus.
i It was noted that City College was given time to come back to the Landmarks Board and present their design plan. This never happened.
i It was stated that the local landmark nomination is alive, it has been deferred, and it could be re-instituted. This action was put aside until a presentation was made by City College.
i President Kelley stated that if the Landmarks Board deferred its action today, they are in affect, abdicating their responsibility as a CLG. Because it is scheduled to be heard before the State Commission on Friday, if the Landmarks Board bow out now, the Landmarks Board is out.
i Member Shatara made a motion to continue the Landmarks Board's action on the National Register nomination for a period no longer than six months (seconded by Ho-Belli). A roll call vote was taken with the results shown below. (Note: up to six months – because City College needs a six-month period of time to maybe evaluate the funding sources.)
MOTION PASSED +5 –3
Ayes: Dearman, Ho-Belli, Kotas, Magrane and Shatara
Noes: Finwall, Kelley and Skrondal
Absent: Reidy
Tape No(s).: 1a, b & 2a
ADJOURNMENT: 3:35 P.M.
Adopted: October 17, 2001
N:\LPAB\MINUTES\ AUG01FIN.MIN
