January 16, 2008 FINAL ACTION MINUTES
OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
CITY HALL
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE, ROOM 400
JANUARY 16, 2008
12:35 P.M. ROLL CALL
FOR FULL LANDMARKS BOARD CONSIDERATION
BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Chan, Cherny, Damkroger, Hasz, Maley, Martinez, Samaha, Street
BOARD MEMBER(S) ABSENT: Dearman
STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Mark Luellen, Preservation Coordinator; M. Corrette; T. Frye; P. LaValley; T. Sullivan-Lenane; Sonya Banks, Commission Secretary; Marlena Byrne, Deputy City Attorney
PUBLIC COMMENT
Wayne Hu: He informed the Landmarks Board that their concerns regarding the proposed project at the Chinatown YMCA were not being ignored. Most of the Landmarks Board comments have been addressed and additional information has been included. His organization will continue to work with planning staff and Page & Turnbull on revising ways to reduce the impact to the historic structure.
ELECTION
- ELECTION OF OFFICERS: In accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the Landmark Preservation Advisory Board, the President and Vice President of the Board shall be elected at the first Regular Meeting of the Board held on or after the 15th day of January of each year, or at a subsequent meeting, the date which shall be fixed by the board at the first Regular Meeting on or after the 15th day of January each year.
Speaker(s):
None
Board Action
It was moved by Board Member Martinez (seconded by Damkroger) to elect Bridget Maley as President and Robert Cherny as Vice President. The vote was unanimous.
AYES: Chan, Cherny, Damkroger, Hasz, Maley, Martinez, Samaha, Street
NOES: None
ABSENT: Dearman
REPORTS
2. STAFF REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mark Luellen, Preservation Coordinator:
i He welcomed newly appointed Board member Jean-Paul Samaha to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board.
i The entire site of the San Francisco Teacher's College also known as 55 Laguna was listed on the National Register on January 7th. The draft EIR for the proposed rehabilitation will be heard by the Planning Commission on January 17th.
i On January 17th, the Certificate of Appropriateness for the Board of Supervisors Chamber will be heard by the Planning Commission.
i He requested a continuance from January 16th to February 6th Landmarks agenda on items 15 and 16 because the Mills Act contract has not been completed.
3. PRESIDENT'S REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
She received a letter from San Francisco Heritage stating that they have reviewed and approved the proposed project at 109 Liberty Street.
The Executive Director of S.F. Heritage (Jack Gold) requested that the Landmarks Board delay their review of the draft Preservation Element until he could review the document.
She thanked Board members Cherny and Martinez on their efforts regarding the National Register nomination of 55 Laguna.
4. MATTERS OF THE BOARD
Damkroger
She asked if there was any discussion regarding the David Ireland House at 500 Capp Street. She suggested that staff make contact regarding the wide range of possibility including landmarking the site.
Cherny
He requested to discuss their presentation to the Planning Commission regarding 55 Laguna. He discussed the two comment letters regarding 55 Laguna that were submitted to the Planning Commission by the Landmarks Board.
He asked if the Landmarks Board could provide their input on the competing proposal (a history museum vs. an art museum) at the Presidio. He requested to agendize an informational presentation on the proposed projects, with the possibility of the board drafting a letter regarding the proposals.
Maley
She thanked Board Members Cherny and Martinez for representing the Landmarks Board at the Planning Commission hearing on January 17, 2008, regarding 55 Laguna.
Martinez
He stated that there was an error in the letter regarding 55 Laguna. He believes the letter should have stated Nightingale House (and include the city landmark #) instead of just stating specifically Nightingale's .
5. LANDMARKS WORK PROGRAM 2005-2007 UPDATE
- HISTORIC PRESERVATION FUND COMMITTEE UPDATE
ACTION ITEM(S)
7. APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 19, 2007 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES.
Speaker(s):
None
Board Action
It was moved by Board Member Street (seconded by Cherny) to approve the draft action minutes with the correction from agendized to agendize. The vote was unanimous.
AYES: Chan, Cherny, Damkroger, Hasz, Maley, Martinez, Street
NOES: None
ABSENT: Dearman
OBSTAIN: Samaha
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
8. 2007.1331A (P. LaVALLEY: 415/575-9084)
711 22ND STREET(AKA 2500 3RD STREET), known formerly as the Kentucky House Hotel, is located in Assessor's Block 4172, Lot 001. Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace non-historic storefront entry doors, remove non-historic canopy, modify non-historic window, and install two new business signs. The subject property is a contributing structure to the Dogpatch Historic District and is located within a NC-2 (Neighborhood/Commercial) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk limit.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
Speaker(s):
Joe Boss
Frederick Knapp
Board Action
It was moved by Board Member Martinez (seconded by Hasz) to approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the following condition: that the quarter-round molding around the window be aluminum rather than wood. The vote was unanimous.
AYES: Chan, Cherny, Damkroger, Hasz, Maley, Martinez, Samaha, Street
NOES: None
ABSENT: Dearman
- (
D. DiBARTOLO: M. LUELLEN)
22 NAPIER LANE, east side of Napier Lane, contained between Montgomery, Sansome, Filbert and Greenwich Streets, in Assessor's Block 085, Lot 009 - Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add an approximately 145 square foot ground level rear deck below the existing two-story stacked deck structure that currently projects into the rear yard open area. The property is a three story building, originally built as a one-story single-family home circa 1876. The subject building is a Contributory/Compatible Building to the Telegraph Hill Historic District and is listed in the City's 1976 Architectural Survey and in Here Today Page 65 and is located within an RH-3 (Residential, House, Three-Family) District and a 40-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
Speaker(s):
None
Board Action
It was moved by Board Member Martinez (seconded by Damkroger) to approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness with the following condition: that if the design alters the upper deck the project be reviewed and approved by planning staff. The vote was unanimous.
AYES: Chan, Cherny, Damkroger, Hasz, Maley, Martinez, Samaha, Street
NOES: None
ABSENT: Dearman
ITEMS 10, 11, AND 12 WAS HEARD TOGETHER
NON-ACTION ITEM
INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION
10. 2005.0470E (T. FRYE: 415/575-6822)
166-178 TOWNSEND STREET PROJECT, An informational presentation on the proposed project and proposed National Register Historic District modifications.
ACTION ITEM(S)
REVIEW AND COMMENT
11. 2005.0470E (S. JONES: 415/575-9034)
166-178 TOWNSEND STREET PROJECT , Public Hearing to assist the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board to prepare a comment letter on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The 22,000 square foot project site is located at 178 Townsend Street, on the corner of Townsend Street and Clarence Place between Second Street and Third Street (Assessor's Block 3788, Lot 012). The site is zoned SLI (Service/Light Industrial), is in a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and is occupied by the California Electric Light Company Station B building, a Contributory Building within the South End Historic District. The proposed project involves conversion of the building from its current use as a valet parking garage to a mix of ground-floor retail and up to 85 housing units, with accessory off-street parking for the residential uses. The proposed uses would be housed in the existing building and a vertical addition, and would occupy 96,350 square feet (sf) of floor area, including 71,500 sf in residential uses,1,050 sf in retail uses, and 13,200 sf of parking. The proposed vertical addition would be set back 40 feet from Townsend Street and would rise above the existing 23-to 42-foot tall roofline to a height of 50 feet. The proposed project also includes a one-level underground parking garage with 74 parking spaces in two-car stackers accessed from Clarence Place.
The Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board will receive public testimony and discuss the DEIR in order to frame its written comments on the adequacy of the DEIR, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
NOTE: The Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2007012109) was published on December 22, 2007. The DEIR found that implementation of the project would result in a considerable contribution to the loss of Production, Distribution, and Repair space in the Eastern Neighborhoods, a significant cumulative land use impact. The proposed project would result in no other significant environmental effects that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level with implementation of mitigation measures. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive comments on the Draft EIR to submit to the Planning Department. Written comments on the Draft EIR will be accepted at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 5, 2008.
12. 2005.0470A (T. FRYE: 415/575-6822)
166-178 TOWNSEND STREET PROJECT , The 22,000 square foot project site is located at 178 Townsend Street, on the corner of Townsend Street and Clarence Place between Second Street and Third Street (Assessor's Block 3788, Lot 012). The site is zoned SLI (Service/Light Industrial), is in a 50-X Height and Bulk District, and is occupied by the California Electric Light Company Station B building, a Contributory Building within the South End Historic District. Request for Review and Comment on the proposed rehabilitation and addition to the historical resource.
Speaker(s):
Michael Yarne
Rich Surce
Gee Gee Platt
BOARD MEMBER CHAN LEFT THE HEARING AT 3:00 P.M.
Board Comments
On the Project
A Board member questioned the materials that would be used and suggested white or black glass would be more appropriate for a historic district. A Board member requested that the project sponsor provide more details on the materials before returning to the Landmarks Board to request a Certificate of Appropriateness (the Board would like to understand how the aluminum would look and would like to see an actual sample of the glass selection). A Board member suggested viewing the proposed project from all angles of the block (a massing study) to ensure minimal visibility of the proposed new addition. A Board member suggested performing a brick survey (structural concerns) and recommended water testing (to check for water intrusions in the walls on Townsend St.). A Board member suggested fleshing out the building history by addressing some early history of electric lighting currents and on the people that worked in the building, and that there be some publicly accessible information on the building's history. The display information should be reviewed by the Landmarks Board. A Board member recommended using a qualified historian on the display. A Board member is pleased that the setback has been increased from 20 to 40 ft. A Board member requested clarification on the rationale for the restoration of only the first floor of the building. A Board member was disappointed that the smokestack had been removed and suggested that the new construction somehow evoke the missing smokestack. A Board member suggested including maps. A Board member feels that the building would be more attractive if the Arch remained over the façade. A Board member asked the project sponsor for their plans for the alley.
Changes to the National Register Historic District
A Board member feels that since the District was designated under Article 10 there have been extensive changes to the District. The Board feels that reassessing the District would be appropriate and would like to be a part of the process. A Board member recommended obtaining more information on what the period of significance would be, what the boundaries should be, what should be contributing and non-contributing, what the integrity may be of each of the contributor/non-contributor structures, and the rationale for eliminating any buildings from the survey. A Board member would like for the Landmark Board to track the proposed project closely, recommended that the project sponsor return during intermediate stages of the project. A Board member suggested obtaining information on how to expand a District.
Marlena Byrne, Deputy City Attorney
This item on the agenda as an Informational presentation only, not Review and Comment. She clarified what the standard of significance is under CEQA for impact to historic resources.
EIR Comments
A Board member feels that removing the corrugated metal roof and the intermediate wall would be damaging to the historic fabric that can't be mitigated and should be addressed. A Board member requested that the images be larger. A Board member cannot come to the conclusion that this project meets the Secretary of Interior Standards because of the bulk of the addition. A Board member feels that the new addition is overwhelming the building. A Board member feels that the EIR needs to address all the changes to the building. Some of the Board members feel that the EIR is fundamentally flawed. A Board member asked if the Building was a resource per se or is it only a resource because it's a District contributor. A Board member was concerned about the effects the project would have on the character-defining features, and concerned that the character-defining features would not be diminished. A Board member is concerned that the analysis has focused on whether or not the project meets the Standards. A Board member recommended including in the EIR a discussion of all the changes that have occurred to the District and how this change would fit. A Board member asked if the project sponsor would be receiving any types of incentives and questioned who will hold the easement on the property. A Board member suggested revisiting how the property taxes would be adjusted. A Board member asked about the implication to the District under Article 10 if the boundaries are expanded. The Board is concerned that this project would tilt the scale for this district. The Board feels that there are no guidelines (CEQA) to adhere for this proposed project, however the Board feels that the proposed project has merit.
The Board feels that it may be possible that the City Attorney's office have provided advice to the Planning Department on this issue but that advice is not available to the Landmarks members at this time. The issue regarding this proposed project is whether to address the building as a resource or to address the District as a resource; the board asked if there is case law on this issue. The Board does not agree with the analysis but the building should be looked at (even if the building is just a district contributor) in itself as a resource not the District as a whole as a resource. The Landmarks Board members struggled with whether or not this was the appropriate analysis for this project. The Board could not come to a consensus as to whether or not this project would result in substantial adverse change of either the building or the district.
Board Action
Motion #1 It was moved by Board Member Martinez (seconded by Street) that the proposed design does not meet the Secretary of the Interior Standards. The Board feels that because there is no discussion in the draft EIR on whether or not the proposed project has a cumulative impact to the District, the analysis is flawed. The Board cannot make a recommendation at this time about whether or not the proposed project has a cumulative impact in regards to the District.
It was moved by Board Member Martinez (seconded by Street) to amend the previous motion to include: The Landmarks Board members disagrees with the conclusion of the draft EIR that the proposed project meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Motion failed 3-3.
AYES: Damkroger, Martinez, Street
NOES: Hasz, Maley, Samaha
ABSENT: Chan, Dearman
OBSTAIN: Cherny
Motion #2 It was moved by Board Member Martinez (seconded by Street) that removing the corrugated metal roof and the intermediate wall (the wall will be visible from the street) would be a significant change. The Board disagrees with the DEIR statement that the roof should not be characterized as not being a significant part of the historic fabric however it doesn't affect the conclusion about whether or not the proposed project meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Motion failed 2-5
AYES: Martinez, Street
NOES: Cherny, Damkroger, Hasz, Maley, Samaha
ABSENT: Chan, Dearman
Motion #3 It was moved by Board Member Samaha (seconded by Hasz) that the Board agrees with the DEIR analysis (that the building does not impact the historic district) but as a whole the Board could not come a consensus on whether or not (as a building) it meets the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Motion failed 4-3.
AYES: Cherny, Hasz, Martinez, Samaha
NOES: Damkroger, Maley, Street
ABSENT: Chan, Dearman
Motion #4 It was moved by the Landmarks Board that the Landmarks Board members could not come to consensus on the DEIR adequacy of the impacts analysis. The vote was unanimous.
AYES: Cherny, Damkroger, Hasz, Maley, Martinez, Samaha, Street
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chan, Dearman
Tape Nos: 1a, 1b and 2a
13. (T. SULLIVAN-LENANE: 415/558-6257)
MILLS ACT, is a program enacted by the State of California in 1976 and amended in the San Francisco Administrative Code in 1996, that grants local governments the ability to directly participate in an historic preservation and economic incentive program. Request for Review and Comment on revisions to San Francisco's Mills Act criteria and program outline that were originally drafted in October 2006. Comments will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for their consideration prior to adopting the criteria.
Speaker(s):
Matthew Thomas
Gee Gee Platt
Board Comments
A Board member requested background information on the cap amounts and how were they assessed. A Board member suggested requiring property owners to be responsible for completing a portion of the annual report (regarding how funds were used on maintenance for the property). A Board member recommended that the property owners should submit a report before receiving funding and that the property owners should be a part of the Annual Report. A Board member asked how will the Mills Act program be advertised and suggested advertising through the Planning department's website and mass mailings to all eligible property owners. A Board member questioned if condos would be considered individual lots and asked that definitions be provided for what is considered to be a property. A Board member asked what is considered a residential and mixed use building, and how would their property tax valued be assessed, since the draft addresses only residential and commercial properties. A Board member asked that the process for amending the Administrative Code exclude the Planning Commission. A Board member suggested including photo documentation of the exterior. Board Member Damkroger was designated to review the Mills Act revisions by the Department.
Tape Nos: 2a and b
14. CITYWIDE SURVEY UPDATE (M. CORRETTE: 415/558-6295)
Request for Review and Comment on the Planning Department's proposed scopes of work for Survey Enhancement Plan for Market and Octavia and the Eastern Neighborhoods. The Plan will be presented to the Finance Committee of the Board of Supervisor to release of funds.
Speaker(s):
Gee Gee Platt
Stephen Haigh (comments read into record by President Maley)
Peter Lewis (comments read into record by President Maley)
Board Comments
A Board member recommended incorporating the comments from the Duboce Triangle Neighborhood Association into the survey. A Board member requested that the final language be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Fund Sub-committee. A Board member requested that the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board write a letter commending the Planning Department for their creative thinking with limited resources and recommended approval of the Citywide Survey.
15. 2008.0014GU (A. HEITTER: 415/558-6602)
690 MARKET STREET, the Chronicle Building, is located at the northeast intersection of Market, Geary and Kearny Streets, Lot 6 in Assessor's Block 311 -- Request for Review and Comment and Consideration of a Draft Resolution on a proposal to designate the subject property as Category II (Significant) per Article 11 of Planning Code. The subject property consists of two sections: a nine-story plus mezzanine office tower originally designed by Burnham & Root in 1887 and constructed in 1889-90, enlarged in 1905 by D.H. Burnham & Co. into an eleven-story tower and reconstructed in 1907-09 by Willis Polk; and an adjoining sixteen-story tower designed and constructed in 1905 by D. H. Burnham & Co. and reconstructed in 1908 by Willis Polk. An eight story addition was constructed in 2007. They are within a C-3-O (Downtown Office) District and a 285-S Height and Bulk District.
Speaker(s):
None
Board Action
It was moved by Board member Cherny (seconded by Samaha) to continue this item until February 6, 2008, Landmarks hearing. The vote was unanimous.
AYES: Cherny, Damkroger, Hasz, Maley, Martinez, Samaha, Street
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chan, Dearman
16. 2008.0014GU (A. HEITTER: 415/558-6602)
690 MARKET STREET, the Chronicle Building, is located at the northeast intersection of Market, Geary and Kearny Streets, Lot 6 in Assessor's Block 311 – Request for Review and Comment and Consideration of a Draft Resolution recommending approval of a Mills Act historical property contract for 690 Market Street, the Chronicle Building, which is proposed to be designated as a Category II (Significant) building pursuant to Article 11 of the Planning Code. The Mills Act authorizes local governments to enter into contracts with owners of private historical property who, through the historical property contract, assure the rehabilitation, restoration, preservation and maintenance of a qualified historical property. In return, the property owner enjoys a reduction in property taxes for a given period. The subject property is within a C-3-O (Downtown Office) District and a 285-S Height and Bulk District.
Speaker(s):
None
Board Action
It was moved by Board member Cherny (seconded by Samaha) to continue this item until February 6, 2008, Landmarks hearing. The vote was unanimous.
AYES: Cherny, Damkroger, Hasz, Maley, Martinez, Samaha, Street
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chan, Dearman
17. 2007.1229A (R. FORCE: 415/558-6418)
DRAFT PRESERVATION ELEMENT OF THE SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN, Request for Review and Comment in preparation of a Preservation Element. The Planning Department seeks comments from the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board and members of the public on the proposed draft Preservation Element of the San Francisco General Plan. Following this hearing, the Planning Department will produce a final draft Preservation Element and return to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board for review. After final review by the LPAB, the proposed Preservation Element would be brought before the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for adoption, project at early Spring, 2008.
(Continued from 11/7/07 and 12/5/07)
THIS ITEM IS BEING PROPOSED FOR CONTINUANCE UNTIL FEBRUARY 20TH, 2008 HEARING.
Board Action
It was moved by Board member Cherny (seconded by Damkroger) to accept the continuance request of this item until the February 20, 2008, Landmarks hearing. The vote was unanimous.
AYES: Cherny, Damkroger, Hasz, Maley, Martinez, Samaha, Street
NOES: None
ABSENT: Chan, Dearman
ADJOURNMENT: 5:05 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Sonya Banks
Recording Secretary
ADOPTED: February 20, 2008
N:\LPAB\MINUTES\m1.16.08.doc
