December 19, 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
DECEMBER 19, 2001
12:40 P.M. ROLL CALL
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
MEMBERS PRESENT: FINWALL, KELLEY and SHATARA
MEMBER(S) ABSENT: KOTAS and MAGRANE
1. 2001.1056A (LIGHT/SIMONSON: 558-6254)
280 DIVISADERO STREET, Charles L. Hinkel House and Carriage House, Landmark No. 190, east side of street between Page and Haight Streets. Assessor's Block 1238, Lot 23. The subject property is zoned NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial, Small-Scale) and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Request for Architectural Review Committee review and comment on a proposal to rehabilitate the old carriage house at the rear of the property; in stall new foundation, replace non-original aluminum windows, replace garage roofing, replace siding in-kind , install additional doors and windows to provide adequate light and air to interior dwelling unit.
ARC comments and recommendations:
Speaker(s): Gary Bell
Richard Zel
Charles Chase
i Asked if an alternative had been discussed regarding toning down the ornateness of the building?
i Would like to see a more scaled down version of the project.
i Concerned about the windows on the rear of the house. Will they be closed in?
i Would like to see a greater level of presentation in terms of what happens on all facades and the amount of detailing; more elevations.
i Commented that the level of detailing, generally, is more ornate than the original house.
i Stated the house should stay as a simple design.
2. 2001.0614A (LIGHT: 558-6254)
155 GROVE STREET, south side between Van Ness Avenue and Polk Street. Assessor's Block 811, Lot 16. A one-story, reinforced concrete vernacular building with Spanish Revival detailing, a Non-Contributory building to the Civic Center Historic District. The subject property is zoned C-3-G (Downtown, General) District and is in a 70-X Height and Bulk District. Request for the Architectural Review Committee review and comment on a proposal to demolish the existing building and replace it with a new four-story-over-basement-with-penthouse office building to house the San Francisco Arts Commission. The building will also contain an art gallery on the ground floor and subgrade parking accessed via the adjacent Health Department garage.
ARC comments and recommendations:
Speaker(s): Jeff Heller
Charles Chase
i Asked what is the material?
i Commented that the balustrade above the cornice needs more work.
i Commented that the penthouse has potential; more attention should be paid toward the design of the penthouse. Will the color of the penthouse be compatible with the rest of the building?
i Would like to bring the horizontal line of the cornice around the side of the building.
i There was good support for the design – well presented.
Tape No(s).: 1a
ADJOURNMENT
1:45 P.M. ROLL CALL
FOR FULL BOARD CONSIDERATION
MEMBERS PRESENT: DEARMAN, FINWALL, HO-BELLI, KELLEY, REIDY, SHATARA and SKRONDAL
MEMBER(S) ABSENT: KOTAS and MAGRANE
PUBLIC COMMENT
Charles Chase re: Thanks to the Landmarks Board, Department Staff and team who put together the survey for the Dogpatch and Central Waterfront.
REPORTS
1. MATTERS OF THE BOARD
Speaker(s): Charles Chase
Board Member
Reidy:
i Announced that this meeting will be his last meeting with the Landmarks Board. He turned in his resignation mid-October 2001. He commented that he very much appreciate working with his fellow Commissioners for nearly six year. Thanked Department Staff for their support.
i Board Members thanked Member Reidy for his dedication to the Landmarks Board and expressed their appreciation.
i President Kelley read a Resolution to Member Reidy on behalf of the Landmarks Board and Department Staff. The Members of the Landmarks Board moved to approve the Resolution. The vote was unanimous (Dearman, Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Shatara and Skrondal with Kotas and Magrane absent).
2. PRESIDENT’S REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
President Kelley:
i The Central Waterfront Survey went before the Planning Commission December 13. The Planning Commission ultimately adopted the Dogpatch Survey in its entirety. The Context Statement for Dogpatch and the Central Waterfront and the DPR 523A forms, the descriptive forms for the remainder of the survey; some very valid points were raised by Planning Commissioners that do need to be addressed; the remainder of the survey will go back to the Planning Commission in the near future for their approval.
i He and Staff attended the MUNI Commission (the governing Commission for MUNI), at which they swiftly and unanimously passed a resolution of support for the landmarking of the Forest Hill Muni Station; the Landmarks Board will be proceeding with that designation eminently
i A dinner is being arranged in honor of Member Reidy, Monday, January 14, 2002. Place to be determined.
3. STAFF REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Neil Hart, Chief
Neighborhood Planning:
i Expressed Department Staff's and his own personal appreciation to Member Reidy for his contributions to the Landmarks Board.
i Please sign and return Andrea Green, their Declaration from the Ethnic Commission regarding the Sunshine Ordinance, found in their correspondence file
i January 2, 2002 Landmarks Board hearing will be canceled. There will be a Public Communication Committee meeting on January 16, 2002. There will be a special meeting on January 23, 2002, to conduct the Landmarks Board business for the month of January.
i Several items of interest were before the Planning Commission in the month of December -
4 December 6 – Landmark designations of the Old Mint and MUNI Car No. 1 were approved and are being forwarded to the Board of Supervisors.
i Introduced Kaye Simonson; Mark Luellen
Tape No(s).: 1b
REGULAR CALENDAR ITEMS
4. APPROVAL OF THE NOVEMBER 7, 2001 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
It was moved by Member Skrondal to approve the draft action minutes. The vote was unanimous.
n Review and Comment
5. (KELLEY)
Consideration of sending a letter of concern to the Department of Public Works and the Department of Parking and Traffic regarding the Castro Theatre.
Member Reidy moved to authorize President Kelley to write a letter that would respond to the comments that were made at the last Landmarks Board meeting by a representative of the theatre and recommending to the appropriate body that there be a bulb that comes out to the street or some other physical feature that would help protect that landmark resource from being hit by tipping trucks. The vote was unanimous (Kotas and Magrane absent).
6. (SHATARA)
Consideration of sending a letter of concern to the Department of Building Inspection regarding emergency exiting requirement for 128 King Street.
President Kelley was recused.
Member Finwall moved to authorize Vice President Shatara to write a letter encouraging the Department of Building Inspection, to have the exit removed as quickly as possible, encouraging them to consider the State Historic Building Code, if they need to, to make it work. The vote was unanimous (Kotas and Magrane absent).
n Informational Presentation
7. (CRAWFORD: 558-6358)
LAGUNA HONDA HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT – 375 LAGUNA HONDA BLVD. Informational presentation on the proposed demolition and replacement of some of the existing facilities at the Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center, located on the western slopes of Twin Peaks in central San Francisco, and additional site improvements. The project includes: 1) demolition of all existing hospital facilities except the front wings of the Main Hospital Building; 2) construction of four new hospital buildings; 3) construction of an assisted living facility; and 4) expansion of existing outpatient programs and services.
Speaker(s): Michael Lane
Gordon Chong
Jim Kauts
Board
Comments:
i Asked how many beds are in the hospital? Has the City done a study of the demographics to look at what they can reasonably expect the demand on the facility to be?
i There were questions regarding the heights of the buildings.
i Asked about the setback requirement for vegetation.
i Asked if they have met with Heritage and if they have identified neighborhood groups.
i What's the visibility of the new buildings from Laguna Honda and Woodside?
i Commented that it is important to preserve as much of the setting as possible.
i Thanked the project sponsors for an excellent presentation.
Tape No(s).: 1b & 2a
n Review and Comment
8. 2000.005E (GIBSON: 558-5993)
LAGUNA HONDA HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT – 375 LAGUNA HONDA BLVD. The proposed project is the demolition and replacement of some of the existing facilities at the Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center, located on the western slopes of Twin Peaks in central San Francisco, and additional site improvements. The project includes: 1) demolition of all existing hospital facilities except the front wings of the Main Hospital Building; 2) construction of four new hospital buildings; 3) construction of an assisted living facility; and 4) expansion of existing outpatient programs and services. The new buildings plus the retained building area would total about 987,000 gross square feet (gsf) (approximately 282,500 gsf more than the existing building area) and would accommodate 1,200 hospital beds (about 135 more beds than are provided at the existing hospital), plus 140 assisted living beds. The new hospital buildings would range from 4 to 7 stories tall, with heights up to about 86.5 feet. A total of 655 off-street parking spaces would be provided, an increase of 52 spaces above existing capacity. Off-street loading facilities would be consolidated into 11 loading spaces, about half the existing supply. The project site, which encompasses most of Assessor's Block 2842, Lot 7, is zoned P (Public) and is within two height and bulk districts: 80-D and OS (Open Space). The project may require a Zoning Map Amendment and a General Plan Amendment, and would require Conditional Use authorization. The 62-acre hospital campus, which is owned by the City and County of San Francisco, has been determined to be eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as an historic district and contains two buildings that appear eligible for NRHP listing as individually significant. The purpose of the hearing is to facilitate the formulation of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board's comments on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Speaker(s): Charles Chase
Board
Comments:
i After Staff presentation, the Landmarks Board made the following comments:
4 The Landmarks Board concurs that the Laguna Honda complex is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as an historic district under Criterion A, and that the Main Hospital Building and Clarendon Hall are individually eligible for listing under Criterion C.
4 The Landmarks Board supports the Project Objectives enumerated in the DEIR, including the Proposed Demolition Plan outlined on page 1.0-9. The Board feels that, although the identified historic resources are extremely significant and worthy of protection, the more compelling need to sustain the viability of Laguna Honda in its social mission justifies their demolition.
4 The Landmarks Board generally concurs with the mitigation measures proposed for the loss of historic resources. However, the Board believes the following should also be included as further mitigation:
- Further research should be done regarding the social history of the people housed and employed over the years in those buildings proposed for demolition. The social history of Laguna Honda is not adequately documented in the DEIR, nor in the Laguna Honda Hospital Historic Background Report, dated October 2001, which concentrate only on architectural and institutional history.
- Historic photographs showing the social use of the spaces should be included both in the HABS documentation and the on-site interpretive display.
4 The Landmarks Board believes that the elements of the existing landscaping throughout the site are important resources and should be protected to the extent possible. The Board also urges that the project include spaces in which future residents may themselves engage in gardening.
i The Landmarks Board views the proposed loss of important historic resources as extremely significant. However, the Board concurs with the necessity for their demolition, and urges the adoption of the additional mitigation measures proposed above.
Tape No(s).: 2a
9. 2001.0619F – SECTION 106 (LIGHT: 558-6254)
GOLDEN GATE PARK IMPROVEMENTS (PANHANDLE PEDESTRIAN/BIKE PATH AND LIGHTING PROJECT), at the Panhandle of Golden Gate Park, bounded by Stanyan, Baker, Oak and Fell Streets. Assessor's Block 1700, Lot 1. The Panhandle of Golden Gate Park is located in a P (Public) District and an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District. The Panhandle of Golden Gate Park has been determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Golden Gate Historic District. The Panhandle of Golden Gate Park is not listed as a San Francisco Landmark. San Francisco's Department of Public Works (DPW), on behalf of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), is conducting a Section 106 review of the proposed Panhandle Pedestrian/Bike Path and Lighting Project. The proposed project consists of physical upgrades to the Panhandle. The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (Landmarks Board) will, as a consulting party in the Section 106 review process, review and comment on the Historic Resource Evaluation Report, Historic Property Survey Report, and Finding of Effect Report. A letter containing comments of the Landmarks Board will be addressed to the Director of Planning. The Director will then forward the comments of the Landmarks Board and the comments of the Planning Department to the lead Agency.
Speaker(s): Frank Felice
Board
Comments:
i There was a question – the definition of the APE is literally narrow; how was that definition arrived at? Commented that because of the very narrow APE, they are excluding all of the buildings on Fell and Oak Streets, which arguably are effected by this.
i Regarding the Historic Resources Evaluation Report – some discussion as to how the APE was defined.
i The map in the Report shows Baker Street and Masonic Street mislabeled. Asked why the path system, indicated by hash marks on either side, but appears to stop and start at some odd places, asked to explain why it shows them as stopping and starting.
i Asked if existing lighting is at the children's play area?
i Asked if anyone studied the impact on the children's play area or did anyone decide to locate these standards because they provided lighting to the children's play area?
i Having the area appropriately lit is important to the safety and use of the facility; not just the children's play area, but also, the restroom (which is often used by the homeless).
i Regarding the Historic Property Survey Report - some discussion as to how the APE was defined.
i The hippie period is definitely a part of the history of the Panhandle.
i Asked, where the pathway is being removed, are any trees going to be impacted?
i Regarding the Finding of Facts Report – commented that based on the assertion that the lights, the kind of lighting will be similar as what's in the Park, the Park lighting in the main part of the Park is a positive feature (the historic standards), really doesn't have an adverse impact on the Park (it doesn't feel like a parking lot in a shopping center); it is an introduction to the visual element (E), but it would not diminish the integrity of the resource; the additional paving on the northern path, which will not change the perception for those passing by. Therefore, so the elements being added would not diminish the integrity of the historic resources.
i Overall, it will be a good project for the City, which will promote more use and more appreciation.
i Some parts look a little neglected, while this is not a park project, as explained by the Department of Public Works, it really will enhance park appearance and use.
Tape No(s).: 2a & b
n Certificates of Appropriateness
10. 2000.0656A (LIGHT: 558-6254)
1000 GREAT HIGHWAY, Beach Chalet, Landmark No. 179, east side between South Drive and John F. Kennedy Drive. Assessor's Block 1700, Lot 1. A two-story, free-standing, Spanish Mission-style, stucco building located in Golden Gate Park near Ocean Beach, containing a visitors center and restaurant. The subject property is zoned P (Public) District and an OS Height and Bulk District. Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct a new deck and garden on the east side of the beach chalet building.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
Speaker(s): Bob McDonald
Michael Nolan
Action: It was moved by Member Shatara (seconded by Ho-Belli) to adopt the draft resolution and staff report recommending approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Ayes: Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Reidy, Shatara and Skrondal
Noes: None
Absent: Dearman, Kotas and Magrane
Tape No(s).: 2b
11. 2001.1133A (LIGHT: 558-6254)
11 BLACKSTONE COURT, north side near southwest corner of Franklin and Lombard Street. Assessor's Block 504, Lot 8. A wood frame, two-story Gothic Revival Victorian two-unit house built in 1850 and moved to existing site in 1893, located in the Blackstone Court Historic District. The subject property is zoned NC-3 (Commercial, Moderate) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to approve new vinyl-clad wood windows previously installed without benefit of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Alterations for this property were approved per the provisions of a previous Certificate of Appropriateness, which did not include the new windows.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
Speaker(s): Ed Hardin
Al Giannini
Mrs. Giannini
Action: It was moved by Member Shatara (seconded by Skrondal) to adopt the draft resolution and staff report recommending approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Ayes: Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Reidy, Shatara and Skrondal
Noes: None
Absent: Dearman, Kotas and Magrane
Tape No(s).: 2b
12. 2001.1120A (HASTIE: 558-6381)
953 DE HARO, the Potrero Hill Neighborhood House, Landmark No. 86, at the northeast corner with Southern Heights. Assessor's Block 4096, Lot 43. The subject building is a shingled, wood-frame building designed by the architect Julia Morgan; it is zoned RH-2 (House, Two-Family) and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install solar panels on the roof, which would not be visible from the public right-of-way.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
Speaker(s): Dan Thompson
Action: It was moved by Member Finwall (seconded by Shatara) to adopt the draft resolution and staff report recommending approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Ayes: Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Reidy, Shatara and Skrondal
Noes: None
Absent: Dearman, Kotas and Magrane
Tape No(s).: 2b
n Informational Presentation
13. (IRONS)
135 VAN NESS AVENUE/170 FELL STREET, High School of Commerce. Informational presentation on San Francisco Unified School District's intent for rehabilitation of 135 Van Ness Avenue, the High School of Commerce, Landmark No. 140 and a Contributory Building to the Civic Center Historic District; and 170 Fell Street, located on a portion of Landmark No. 140 and identified as a Contributory Building to the Civic Center Historic District.
Speaker(s): Tony Irons
Al Lanier
Ruth Asawa
Charles Chase
Gee Gee Platt
Board
Comments:
i Asked if the funding that was assigned to the site (135 Van Ness Avenue and 170 Fell Street) had been transferred to 555 Franklin Street? Asked how old is 555 Franklin Street?
i Asked if the transfer was based at all on the understanding that 135 Van Ness was used as an administration building, and that function is moved to 555 Franklin?
i Stated that in the past, the Landmarks Board had been told that they could be comfortable, that the money was locked up, would not be wasted, would be there when needed to add to bond money, etc.. The Landmarks Board was also told that 170 Fell Street building would be kept secure and that monies would be spent to protect the building. Commented that the preservation of the building was not done in a decent manner (it wasn't a commercially responsible job), which made the building vulnerable.
i In the past, the Landmarks Board had been told that FEMA money was going to be used as part of the rehabilitation and that there was going to be a School of the Arts in the near term.
i It's disconcerting to hear that the money has been transferred and is not available. How does this affect the timing of getting the School of the Arts that utilizes 135 Van Ness Avenue/170 Fell Street?
i Asked if there are any plans to improve the protection (mothballing) of the building, so that the building is not as vulnerable for break-ins and deterioration?
i Was the $17 million dollars earmarked for Fell Street or Van Ness Avenue or both?
i Asked if there was any point throughout the process where the money had to remain for the buildings, or was there a loop hole that the Board of Education had to transfer the funds to 555 Franklin Street?
i Asked if this informational presentation hearing was part of the agreement to get final approval? Is the agreement finalized at this point?
i Does the property become surplus as far as the School Board is concerned?
i Commented that it is disconcerting to see the School of the Arts project being given the position it has by the School Board and potentially by the new Superintendent.
i A member of the Board stated that to their recollection, there was an agreement, there was money put into a separate account and that if indeed this was true, then it should be available to help move the project forward.
i It was the opinion of one Board Member that if FEMA has asked Mr. Irons to come before the Landmarks Board to validate their agreement, they would put it in the strongest terms that it is not a valid thing to do – to take the money and spend it at 555 Franklin Street is the wrong thing to do, in this case. It's taking the District and District offices and putting them as more important than the children, which is absolutely wrong.
i Other Board Members concurred with the above statement.
i Commented that this location is the perfect site for the School of the Arts; it should be championed in the City by everybody; championed to the level of the raising the funds and getting the project off the ground.
i Board Members were hoping to hear a very aggressive schedule.
i In previous hearings, the Landmarks Board was given assurances; very strongly placed assurances. There must be something about the accountability of the spokes people for the District, who can make these statements and then just walk away from them. The Department (whoever is staffing) should check and see what the records are, because there are some very clear strong statements made. Someone should be able to explain. The buildings should be secured properly and then think about a real construction schedule. Someone needs to grab their arms around the project and say let's make it happen, which is what has been missing in this fiasco.
i Asked if UMB money can be used?
i The Board thanked Mr. Irons for his presentation and the information he provided.
i Mr. Irons stated that they will continue working with the preservation community.
i Individual Board Members will express their concerns to the School Board.
ADJOURNMENT: 6:55 P.M.
Adopted: January 23, 2002
N:\LPAB\MINUTES\DEC19FIN.MIN
