Presented below are Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB). The top of
the this page lists LPAB meeting dates, click
on the date and you will reach the calendar for that that week. The minutes
present a summary of actions taken at the LPAB hearings and provides a Motion,
Resolution or other decision document for that action.
With
most browsers you will be able to search for any text item by using the Ctrl-F
keys. It is recommended you search by case number and suffix, if you know it,
as that will always be a unique item. You may search by any identifying phrase,
including project addresses.
OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION
ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
CITY HALL
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT
PLACE, ROOM 400
JUNE 7, 2000
ROLL
CALL
ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW COMMITTEE
?1.??????? 2000.456A???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LIGHT:
558-6254)
1155 HAYES STREET, south side between Pierce and Scott Streets.? Assessor=s Block 824, Lot 10.?
A four-story, 7-unit stucco Edwardian apartment building in the Alamo
Square Historic District. ?The subject
property is zoned RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District and is
in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.?
Request for Architectural Review Committee review and comment on a
proposal to replace windows, in kind.?
The windows will be changed from wood to architectural grade aluminum.
Note: Case was not heard at this time due to a lack of
quorum and the project sponsor was not present.
?
1:15
P.M. ROLL CALL
FOR FULL
BOARD CONSIDERATION
MEMBERS
PRESENT: FINWALL, HO-BELLI, KELLEY, REIDY and SHATARA
MEMBERS
ABSENT: DEARMAN,
KOTAS, LEVITT and MAGRANE
PUBLIC
COMMENT
Bruce Judd, re: 722-728 Montgomery Street, The Belli
Building
Charles E. Chase, re: 722-728 Montgomery Street, The Belli
Building
REPORTS
?1.??????? STAFF REPORT AND
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Neil Hart,
Preservation Coordinator:
P????????? Informed
the Board that landmark designation of 700 Montgomery Street, The Columbus Bank
Building was approved by the Planning Commission.? The designation will now go back to the Board of Supervisors
Committee for approval.
P????????? Reminded
the Board of the Landmark Designation Work Program scheduled for the July 5
hearing.
P????????? Proposed
landmark designation of the City Lights Bookstore is scheduled for June 21.
P????????? The
Grant Application was sent to Sacramento on June 1.? Special thanks was given to Preservation Staff, Mary Koonts for
preparing the grant application.
P????????? Copies
of the Draft Preservation Element was included in the Board=s correspondence folder and review
and comment of this draft is scheduled for June 21.
Tape No.: 1a
??????????? ?2.??????? PRESIDENT'S
REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
President Reidy:?????? P????????? Informed
members of the Board and the public on hearings/tours of the Old Mint Building
on 5th Street.
?3.??????? MATTERS OF THE
BOARD
Board Member Finwall:??????? P????????? Asked
Staff for direction in obtaining information regarding the car wash at
Divisadero and Oak Streets.
REGULAR
CALENDAR ITEMS
?4.??????? APPROVAL OF THE
MAY 17, 2000 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
April 5 -????????? Moved by Member Kelley (seconded by Shatara) to approve
draft minutes.? Vote was unanimous
(Absent: Dearman, Kotas, Levitt and Magrane).
Tape No.: 1a
O???????? Informational
Item
?5.??????? 722-728
MONTGOMERY STREET, The Belli Building, City Landmark Nos. 9 and 10.? Assessor=s Block 196, Lot 26.?
Update on the status of The Belli Building.? (Note:? Item is
continued from the May 3, 2000 Hearing.)
Item was pulled from the calendar.
O???????? Survey,
Landmark/Historic District Landmark Designation Methodology
?6.??????? Consideration of adoption
of resolutions adopting the California Office of Historic Preservation
instructions for recording historical resources as the methodology for historic
surveys, landmark and historic district designation reports and nominations and
Structures of Merit nominations.
Speakers:???? Charles
E. Chase
Gee Gee Platt
Board Action
and Comments:????? $???????? After
hearing public comments, Board Member Ho-Belli moved to adopt the resolution
adopting the California Office of Historic Preservation Instructions for
recording Historical Resources as the Methodology for Historic Surveys
(seconded by Member Shatara), with one correction suggested by a member of the
public and agreed to by the Board as follows:
Under PROVIDED: 1.?
That nothing in this action.....included in existing official surveys...
- change the word Aofficial@ to Aadopted@.
The vote was unanimous (5-0, Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley,
Reidy and Shatara).? Absent:? Dearman, Kotas, Levitt and Magrane.
?
????????? $???????? Board
Member Kelley moved to adopt the resolution adopting the California Office of
Historic Preservation Instructions for recording Historical Resources as the
Methodology for Landmark and Historic District Designation Reports and
Nominations and Structures of Merit Nominations.? The vote was unanimous (5-0, Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Reidy and
Shatara).? Absent:? Dearman, Kotas, Levitt and Magrane.
Tape No.: 1a
O???????? Certificates
of Appropriateness
?7.??????? 2000.456A???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LIGHT:
558-6254)
1155 HAYES STREET, south side between Pierce and Scott Streets.? Assessor=s Block 824, Lot 10.?
A four-story, 7-unit stucco Edwardian apartment building in the Alamo
Square Historic District.? The subject
property is zoned RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District and is
in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.?
Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace windows, in
kind.? The windows will be changed from
wood to architectural grade aluminum.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
By way of a telephone call, the project sponsor requested a
continuance of this item to the next hearing (6/21/00).? It was moved by Member Kelley (seconded by
Finwall) to grant the continuance.? The
vote was unanimous.
?8.??????? 2000.007A??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (M.
SYNDER: 575-6891)
611 SECOND STREET, The D.N. & E. Walter Company Building, north side
between Brannan and Townsend Streets, Assessor=s Block 3789, Lot 8.?
A six-story, brick, industrial building built in 1909.? The original of the site was a warehouse.? The current use of the building is
storage.? The building is contributory
to the South End Historic District.? The
property is zoned SSO (Secondary/Service/Office) District and is in a 50-X
Height and Bulk District.? Request for
Certificate of Appropriateness to install two electrical wall signs at 24 feet,
paint out the existing non-conforming sign, and legalize existing red painted
brick on the lower portion of the building.?
(Note:? Item was heard before the
Architectural Review Committee on March 15, 2000.)
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
Speaker:???????? Bo
Brummett
Action:??????????? Board Member Finwall moved to accept Staff=s recommendation for the approval of
the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Ayes:?????????????? Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Reidy and Shatara
Noes:????????????? None
Absent:?????????? Dearman,
Kotas, Levitt and Magrane
Tape Nos.: 1a & b
?9.??????? 1999.908A????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KOMETANI:
558-6478)
2090 JACKSON STREET, north side of street between Laguna and Octavia
Streets.? Assessor=s Block 591, Lot 7.? A three-story, Richardson Romanesque, steel-reinforced
masonry with cement plaster exterior finish, single-family house with a wood
frame carriage house in the rear yard.?
The subject property is Landmark No. 75; zoned RH-2 (House, Two-Family)
District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.? Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace the
existing rear yard area with a semi-subgrade parking garage for four cars with
a garden terrace above, and a family room addition connecting the main house to
the carriage house.? (Note: Item was
heard before the Architectural Review Committee, April 5, 2000.)
Speaker:???????? Frank
Fung
Action:??????????? Board Member Finwall moved to accept Staff=s Resolution for the approval of the
Certificate of Appropriateness.?
Additional findings should include: 1) verbiage regarding retaining the
palm trees per the proposal submitted to the Board by the project sponsor dated
6/6/00; 2) updated plans.? Also, every
attempt should be made to reuse masonry of the dismantled wall.
Ayes:?????????????? Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Reidy and Shatara
Noes:????????????? None
Absent:?????????? Dearman,
Kotas, Levitt and Magrane
Tape No.: 1b
10.?????? 2000.548A????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KOMETANI:
558-6478)
430 PACIFIC AVENUE, north side between Montgomery and Sansome Streets.? Assessor=s Block 164, Lots 3 and 3A.?
A two-story stucco over brick commercial building built in 1906.? The subject property is a compatible
building in the Jackson Square Historic District, is zoned C-2 (Community
Business) District and is in a 65-A Height and Bulk District.? Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness
to replace existing, non-original storefront and entrance with new storefront
and entrance.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
Speaker:???????? James
Linebarger
Action:??????????? Board Member Shatara moved to accept Staff=s recommendation for the approval of
the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Ayes:?????????????? Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Reidy and Shatara
Noes:????????????? None
Absent:?????????? Dearman,
Kotas, Levitt and Magrane
Tape No.: 1b
ADJOURNMENT:
3:00 P.M.
Andrea Green
Recording Secretary
ADOPTED:
June 21, 2000
N:\LPAB\MINUTES\DRAFTS\JUNE7DFT.MIN
OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO
LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY
BOARD MEETING
CITY HALL
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE,
ROOM 400
JUNE 21, 2000
12:40
P.M.? ROLL CALL
ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW COMMITTEE
MEMBERS
PRESENT: FINWALL, KOTAS (arr. @ 12:48 p.m.), MAGRANE, REIDY and SHATARA? (arr.
@ 12:45 p.m.)
?1.??????? 2000.555A??????????????????????????????????????????????? (GORDON/SYNDER:
558-6309/575-6891)
75? FEDERAL STREET, The American Licorice Company
Building #2, southeast side between First and Second Streets.? Assessor=s Block 3774, Lot 70.?
A non-contributory, two-story reinforced concrete office building in the
South End Historic District, built in 1948.?
The subject property is zoned M-1 (Light Industrial) District and is in
a 50-X Height and Bulk District.?
Request for Architectural Review Committee review and comment on a
proposal to add a new open-air paved extension (9 additional off-street parking
spaces) to the existing open-air parking lot.?
Relocation of railing enclosing the parking lot is required.
Speaker:???????? Stanley
Wong
ARC comments and recommendations:
$????????? Committee
member asked the project sponsor to clarify what land is being used to expand;
what is being sacrificed?
$????????? What
is the condition of the land being utilized for parking (its appearance and how
is it occupied)?
$????????? What
kind of landscaping is on the property now?
$????????? Had
concern with keeping the existing trees.
$????????? Because
the existing trees has size to them and create some visual relief and break in
the area, it is suggested that the project architect work with staff to come up
with plans to mitigate the trees, perhaps using 24" planter boxes.
$????????? The
ARC would recommend approval to the Full Board with a condition to add as much
greenery, using 24" planter boxes.
Tape No.: 1a
?2.??????? 2000.456A???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LIGHT:
558-6254)
1155 HAYES STREET, south side between Pierce and Scott Streets.? Assessor=s Block 824, Lot 10.?
A four-story, 7-unit stucco Edwardian apartment building in the Alamo
Square Historic District.? The subject
property is zoned RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District and is
in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.?
Request for Architectural Review Committee review and comment on a
proposal to replace windows, in kind.?
The windows will be changed from wood to architectural grade aluminum.
Speaker:???????? Peter
Weiss
ARC comments and recommendations:
$????????? Asked
for the meaning of architectural grade windows.
$????????? Had
major concerns with using aluminum windows.
$????????? The
use of aluminum windows would be a loss of the historic fabric.
$????????? Agreed
with Staff recommendation to replace windows with wood.
$????????? Would
not be able to recommend approval of the current application to the Full Board.
$????????? The
project sponsor is to think about considering the ARC and Staff recommendation
to replace windows with wood.
Tape No.: 1a
?3.??????? 2000.357A???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LIGHT:
558-6254)
2317 WEBSTER STREET, west side between Washington and Jackson Streets.? A two-story wooden Victorian, single-family
house in the Webster Street Historic District.?
The subject project is zoned RH-2 (House, Two Family) District and is in
a 40-X Height and Bulk District.?
Request for Architectural Review Committee review and comment on a
proposal for a garage addition at the front facade require excavation of the
existing front yard, and? a rear
addition.
Recused:??????? Jeremy
Kotas, Board Member
Speakers:?????? Tony
Pantaleoni
Heidi Englebrechten
ARC comments and recommendations:
$????????? Asked
the project architect to give further details on the appearance of the front of
the building after putting in the garage, in reference to landscaping.
$????????? Commented
on the height of the retaining wall, in comparison to the house next door.
$????????? Asked
if they plan to use sectional, traditional doors sold on the market, and
suggested they use a company that makes detailed garage doors with upper glass.
$????????? It
was stated that the garden is a significant part of the neighborhood.
$????????? Questioned
when the new retaining wall is built, will the concrete striations/block be
duplicated?
$????????? In
reference to the driveway and keeping it as narrow as possible to maximize the
available garden; was consideration given to taking the outside eight or ten
inches of the driveway and leaving it as a planter bed?
$????????? ARC
supported the Staff Report with the potential modifications to the garage door.
Tape No.: 1a & b
ADJOURNMENT
2:20
P.M. ROLL CALL
FOR FULL
BOARD CONSIDERATION
MEMBERS
PRESENT: FINWALL, HO-BELLI, KELLEY, KOTAS, LEVITT (arr. @ 3:45 p.m.), MAGRANE, REIDY and SHATARA
MEMBER
ABSENT: DEARMAN
PUBLIC
COMMENT
John Barbey, re: Under grounding (P. G. & E)
Mary Anne Miller, re: 1934 Great Highway
REPORTS
?1.??????? STAFF REPORT AND
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Neil Hart,
Preservation Coordinator:
P????????? Reminded
the Board and members of the public of the July 5 Hearing, regarding Landmark
Designation Work Program.
P????????? Resolutions
526 and 527 were finalized - Adoptions of the California Office of Historic
Preservation Instructions for Recording Historic Resources as the Methodology
for Historic Surveys; and the California Office of Historic Preservation
Instructions for Recording Historical Resources as the Methodology for Landmark
and Historic District Designation Reports and Nominations and Structures of
Merit Nominations.
P????????? Landmark
designation of the Jewish Community Center is calendared for July 5, 2000.
P????????? Announced
the return of employees Adam Light, Planner III, and former intern, Moses
Corrette, now Planner II.? Mary Koonts
has rotated to the TAC Team and will continue to work with the Preservation
Technical Staff.? Intern, Jennifer
Hirsch will come on board in July.
Tape No.: 1b
??????????? ?2.??????? PRESIDENT'S
REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
President Reidy:?????? P????????? Letter
was sent to the Smith-Kettlewell Eye Research Institute regarding their
building in the Webster Street Historic District.
?3.??????? MATTERS OF THE
BOARD
Board Member
Finwall:?????????? P????????? Updated the
Board on a meeting held regarding the Old Mint Building.
P????????? Requested
status on the Firehouse on Oak Street and the building at 500 Divisadero
Street.
Board Member
Kelley:??????????? P????????? Had concerns
regarding the timeliness on the public receiving detailed information on cases
scheduled before the Board.? Suggested
having staff explore the possibility of sending complete packets to the Main
Library.
REGULAR CALENDAR ITEMS
?4.??????? APPROVAL OF THE
JUNE 7, 2000 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
June 7 -???????? Moved by Member Kelley (seconded by Ho-Belli) to approve
draft minutes.? Vote was unanimous
(Absent: Dearman and Levitt).
Tape No.: 1b
O???????? Review
and Comment
5.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (BAUMAN:
558-6287)
PRESERVATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN.?
Review and comment on the draft Preservation Element of the General
Plan.
Speakers:???? Charles E. Chase
Mary Anne Miller
John Barbey
Board/Staff
comments
and actions:??????????? P????????? President
Reidy stated that he wanted to make it clear to the public that the purpose of
hearing this item today was to introduce the draft Preservation Element to the
Board, to begin the process of input from the members of the Board and members
of the public.? There will be an extensive
period of time for opportunity for input.?
He asked those who wanted to comment to please focus on the content
whether than comment on the process.
P????????? Staff,
Catherine Bauman stated that the purpose of this hearing was to reopen the
discussion of the preservation element and that no action was proposed.? After receiving a sense of the scope of the
changes from public comment, environmental review will begin and then the
document will be put into graphically better shape, so that it will be
illustrated using GIS maps.? Staff will
also get a sense of what actions, including amendments to the Planning Code are
going to be necessary to implement the proposed objectives and policies.? After all components have been reviewed by
the Board, the element in the form of a draft for citizen review, will be
forwarded to the Planning Commission with a recommendation of the Board.? After it is adopted by the Planning
Commission, it will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors for its approval.
P????????? The
major changes since the 1992 draft (the most widely circulated recent draft)
are as follows:
$???????? There
is a split between the Discussion of Identification of Resources from the
Discussion of Protection of Resources.?
Previous drafts was organized by the kind of resources.? An effort has been made to generalize all
resources and first have a section that concentrates on the methodology and
process for surveying and evaluating all resources - then go on to talk about
different kinds of resources are best treated.
$???????? Two
sections have been added in the last several years - 1) the last section on
Sustain ability; and 2) a section on Disaster Preparedness.
$???????? This
draft establishes the National Register Methodology.? The previous drafts have gone in some detail in the Kalman
Methodology.
P????????? The
Board felt the preservation element deserves some workshop attention. Suggested
the Department Staff schedule at least one workshop in the Department,
conveniently during working hours.?
Suggested having one or more workshops at perhaps, a library on the
weekend or in the evening (maybe Heritage would offer to sponsor one).? The Board thinks that all the major
neighborhood organizations that have a preservation interest, that have been
participating in hearings, etc., should receive a copy of the draft
preservation element, with a letter encouraging them for their input.? Allow time (a couple of months) to review,
and perhaps in late August or early September, gather again at a scheduled
Landmarks Board hearing.? Stated that a
participatory planning process is really warranted in order for people to buy
into it, understand it, embrace it where it will be more effective later
completed.
P????????? It
was suggested that a special attempt be made to outreach to people beyond the
ordinary preservation, neighborhood community, such as, builder associations,
developers and professionals, who have a vested interest.
P????????? Asked
Catherine Bauman to work with Neil Hart on coordinating the above
suggestions.? Ms. Bauman believes a
schedule, coordinating the workshops can be provided within the next two weeks.
This? item should be brought back to the
Board, late August or early September.
Tape No.: 2a
O???????? Landmark
Designation
?6.??????? 2000.507L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LIGHT:
558-6254)
261-271 COLUMBUS AVENUE, City Lights Bookstore, south side of street between
Jack Kerouac Street and Broadway.?
Assessor=s Block 162, Lot 18.? The subject project is zoned Broadway NCD
and is in a 65-A-1 Height and Bulk District.?
Review and comment, and consideration to endorse the Context Statement -
Bohemian Literary Culture in Post-War San Francisco.? Consideration to initiate landmark designation and adopt a
resolution initiating and recommending landmark designation of the City Lights
Bookstore as Landmark No. 228.
Recused:????? Tim
Kelley, Board Vice President
Speakers:???? Charles
E. Chase
Nancy Peters
Lawrence Ferlinghetti
Aaron Peskin
Board comments
and actions:??????????? P????????? After public
comments and discussion by the Board, it was moved by Member Ho-Belli to
endorse the Context Statement and recommended that it be included in the new
preservation library.? The vote was
unanimous (Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kotas, Magrane, Reidy and Shatara).? (Absent: Dearman and Levitt).
P????????? It
was moved by Member Magrane to initiate designation of City Lights Bookstore as
Landmark No. 228.? The vote was
unanimous (Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kotas, Magrane, Reidy and Shatara).? (Absent: Dearman and Levitt)
P????????? Member
Kotas moved to adopt the resolution, recommending to the Planning Commission,
initiating landmark designation of City Lights Bookstore as Landmark No. 228
with modifications.? The vote was
unanimous (Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kotas, Magrane, Reidy and Shatara).? (Absent: Dearman and Levitt)
Tape Nos.: 1b & 2a
O???????? Certificates
of Appropriateness
?7.??????? 2000.555A??????????????????????????????????????????????? (GORDON/SYNDER:
558-6309/575-6891)
75? FEDERAL STREET, The American Licorice Company
Building #2, southeast side between First and Second Streets.? Assessor=s Block 3774, Lot 70.?
A non-contributory, two-story reinforced concrete office building in the
South End Historic District, built in 1948.?
The subject property is zoned M-1 (Light Industrial) District and is in
a 50-X Height and Bulk District.?
Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add a new open-air paved
extension (9 additional off-street parking spaces) to the existing open-air
parking lot.? Relocation of railing
enclosing the parking lot is required.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
Speaker:???????? Stanley
Wong
Action:??????????? Board Member Magrane moved to recommend approval of the
Certificate of Appropriateness, with the condition that 24" planter boxes
(a minimum of four) be added to replace the lost of the existing trees.
Ayes:?????????????? Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Kotas, Levitt, Magrane,
Reidy and Shatara
Noes:????????????? None
Absent:?????????? Dearman
Tape No.: 2a
?8.??????? 2000.456A???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LIGHT:
558-6254)
1155 HAYES STREET, south side between Pierce and Scott Streets.? Assessor=s Block 824, Lot 10.?
A four-story, 7-unit stucco Edwardian apartment building in the Alamo
Square Historic District.? The subject
property is zoned RM-2 (Residential, Mixed, Moderate Density) District and is
in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.?
Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace windows, in
kind.? The windows will be changed from
wood to architectural grade aluminum.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with conditions
Applicant was not present at this time, so the item was not
heard before the Full Board.
?9.??????? 2000.357A???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LIGHT:
558-6254)
2317 WEBSTER STREET, west side between Washington and Jackson Streets.? A two-story wooden Victorian, single-family
house in the Webster Street Historic District.?
The subject project is zoned RH-2 (House, Two Family) District and is in
a 40-X Height and Bulk District.?
Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for a garage addition at
the front facade require excavation of the existing front yard, and? a rear addition.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
Recused:????? Board
Member Kotas
Speaker:???????? Anthony
Pantaleoni
Action:??????????? Board Member Finwall moved to recommend approval of the
Certificate of Appropriateness, with the following conditions/modifications:
$????????? Score
line and texture similar to the existing wall be added.
$????????? Landscaping
be added wherever possible.
$????????? Take
another look at the garage door - the articulation of the paneling on the
garage door and where any glass would be located on the door; with particular
emphasis as to the proportions of the bottom panel.
Ayes:?????????????? Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Kotas, Levitt, Magrane,
Reidy and Shatara
Noes:????????????? None
Absent:?????????? Dearman
Tape No.: 2a
10.?????? 1997.433A????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KOMETANI:
558-6478)
22 ALTA STREET, north side between Montgomery and Sansome Streets in
Assessor=s Block 106, Lot 34A.? Former site of a contributory building in
the Telegraph Hill Historic District, now demolished.? The subject property is zoned RH-3 (House, Three-Family) District
and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.?
Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness authorization to construct
a new one-unit residential building in the Telegraph Hill Historic District.? (Note: Item was heard before the Full
Board, May 5, 1999.? At that time, a
motion recommending denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness was passed 7-1
(with one member absent).? The Board
recommended that the project sponsor redesign the project and bring the
redesign back to the Board for review.)
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
Speakers:???? Aaron Peskin, Rozell Overmire, James Attwood, Brandan Kelly, Joe
Luttrell, Sherry Goodman, Firouzah Attwood, Nancy Shanahan, Gerry Crowley,
Cheryl Bentley, Kathy Dooley, Peter Overmire, Larry Habegger, Ken Maley, Donald
Jans, Louis Sheppard, Ed McEachron, Debra Stein
Note:? Staff, Michael Kometani briefed the public and Board as to what
action took place at the May 5, 1999 Hearing, as follows:
$???????? The
Board recommended disapproval of a new five-unit building in the Telegraph Hill
District.
$???????? The
Board made design recommendations as to what might be acceptable on this site.
Board Comments
and Actions:
P????????? It
was asked how did the previous building (demolished) fit legally into the whole
consideration - is the site different from any other vacant lot in the
Telegraph Hill District?
P????????? It
was asked of the project architect, what was the square footage of the new
proposed building?? Is the square
footage all internal or does it include the decks??
P????????? Questioned
if the vertical mass at the right of the building, as you=re facing it, is it all vertical
circulation?
P????????? In
reference to the fourth floor (garage floor), what was the rationale for the
extension of the lower floors - why do they extend as far as they do and what
judgements were made to have them come out as far?
P????????? What
would be the cost of bringing the northern most wall of the two lower levels
back so that they do not extend any further than the adjacent building?? Are there any technical reasons?
P????????? Stated
that the roof dominates the shadow line to some degree (except further into the
summer).
P????????? If
the proposed building was constructed, how will the garden be salvaged?? Will or can it be protected?
P????????? Board
Member Finwall complimented the architect for a beautiful Aart moderne@ design, however, because of the
restriction of following the ordinance, their interruption was that the
proposed design should not be in the Aart moderne@ style.
P????????? Vice
President Kelley agreed that the proposed design is a nice building, but, it=s in the wrong place - it=s still too big.? He hopes that clarification has been made
that the demolished building has no role.?
Stated that the proposed building has to relate to the ones around it
(not the demolished or previously proposed building).? Perhaps it=s the most prominent home site in San Francisco, which not
only have an impact on the Garden, but also on the cliff.? Feels there are some inherent problems with
the definition for this district, because of the broad spread in the styling
contained in the district.?
P????????? Board
Member Kotas referred to the resolution that followed the Board=s action at the May 5, 1999 Hearing,
which the Board clearly asked for three things: 1) the toe of the building
should be moved back to align with the toe of the other buildings on Alta
Street (don=t believe this current proposal does
that); 2) suggested a reworking of the proposal might allow borrowing space
from the east (believes this proposal does show this); 3) affirmed that the Aart moderne@ style was a part of the district,
but the Board did not recommend that specific design mode.? He was not comfortable supporting this
proposal in its current state.
P????????? Board
Member Levitt did not have a problem with the style of the building, but she
had a problem with the mass of the building - a single-family home of this size
is not compatible.? At this time, she
could not support the proposed project.
P????????? President
Reidy commented on the directions that were given on the previous proposal at
the May 5, 1999 Hearing - the two lower levels are not within the line of the
existing lines of the buildings along Alta Street.?? Mentioned that 221 Filbert (the cottage), is a case of its own,
because it faces the stairs, but the others do create something of a pattern,
which would have been an opportunity to line up with the existing buildings.? The guidance the Board given before should
have been followed.? Although several of
the neighboring buildings are quite small, in his view, it=s not a requirement that those
buildings have to be replicated on the site.?
He did not have a problem with the terrace downhill.? The Board had suggested that the project
sponsor consider design alternatives that would cantilever out over the
cliff.? The project sponsors did listen
to some of the guidance suggested by the Board, however, the proposed building
is still too large for the setting.?
While there are many merits to the proposed building, there are still
problems with the scale and massing - it=s not compatible with the
neighborhood and with the styles of are existing.
P????????? Board
Member Magrane stated that she agreed with the other Board Members - she was
less concerned about the Garden.? The
Garden will survive and be exquisite (even as a shade garden), but the mass of
the building is so out of scale to the process.
P????????? Board
Member Shatara stated looking at the proposed project, he sees two stories
above the street level, which is probably the case of any project that goes
into this site, alone, that sets up sun angles that might dominate the rest of
the proposed project.? Did not expect
the widening of the proposed building to be in such a vertical mass.? Something spectacular should be built on the
site, but, it must be compatible with the neighborhood.? A reduction back to the adjacent property
would be appropriate.? Suggested that
project be scaled back - the rooms do not have to be as large as proposed.? The north elevation looking south does not
work - it=s massive, bulky.? Suggested moving stairs to the west side of
the building, which would open up the eastern side, where the primary view is.
Action:??????????? Vice President Kelley moved to recommend disapproval of
the Certificate of Appropriateness for the project as presented, because it is
still too bulky, too massive for the site and that it is not compatible with
the adjacent, nearby contributory properties.
Ayes:?????????????? Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Kotas, Levitt, Magrane,
Reidy and Shatara
Noes:????????????? None
Absent:?????????? Dearman
Tape Nos.: 2b & 3a
?
ADJOURNMENT:
6:15 P.M.
Andrea Green
Recording Secretary
ADOPTED:
July 19, 2000
N:\LPAB\MINUTES\DRAFTS\JUN21DFT.MIN
Return to the Planning Department's Home Page. Click here.