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
AUGUST
16, 2000
12:42
P.M.? ROLL CALL
ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW COMMITTEE
MEMBERS PRESENT: FINWALL, KOTAS, MAGRANE (arr. @ 12:50 p.m.), REIDY and SHATARA
?1.??????? 2000.735A???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LIGHT:
558-6254)
1901 SCOTT STREET, The
Ortman-Shumate House, west side between Pine and California Streets.? Assessor=s Block
1027, Lot 3.? The two-story Italianate
house is Landmark No. 98.? The subject
property 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 to
repair/replace in-kind wood deck, wood porch and stairs, and front iron gates
(not original). Removal of non-original addition to be replaced with windows
and a pair of french doors; an increase in the height of perimeter fence and
the removal of a yew tree.
Speakers:?????? Peter Wald
Christina Hall
Courtney Clarkston
ARC comments and
recommendations:
$????????? There was some concern regarding the
removal of trees - why? what is the width of trees? what will the existing
trees be replaced with?
$????????? The ARC would recommend approval of
the Certificate of Appropriateness to the Full Board.
Tape No.: 1a
?2.??????? 1999.812A??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GORDON:
558-6309)
700 7th STREET, The
Baker-Hamilton Building, southwest corner of 7th and Townsend Streets, between
Harrison and Bryant Streets.? Assessor=s Block 3799, Lot 1.? The three-story, unreinforced masonry
warehouse building is City designated Landmark No. 193, is zoned M-1 (Light
Industrial) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.? Request for Architectural Review Committee
review and comment on a proposal for new basement windows on the west exterior
wall, deletion of proposed loading ramp on the west elevation, a new enlarged
opening in the existing masonry on the west side of the building to provide
entry to the new west lobby, a new guardrail for a loading dock along King
Street, and new equipment on the roof.
Not heard by ARC,
carried over to the Full Board.
?3.??????? 2000.812A????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KOMETANI:
558-6478)
843-847 MONTGOMERY STREET, west side
between Pacific Avenue and Jackson Street.?
Assessor=s Block 176,
Lots 3 and 3A.? A three-story, brick,
office/retail building built in 1911 (originally two buildings, now
combined).? The subject property is a ACompatible@ 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
Architectural Review Committee review and comment on a proposal to replace non
original ground floor storefronts and to construct a two-story rooftop
addition.
Speakers:?????? Tom Hardy
Ashton Periera
ARC comments and
recommendations:
$????????? There was some concern regarding the
color of the stucco - too red.
$????????? It was suggested that the project
sponsor downplay the color of roof top addition.
$????????? The ARC would recommend approval of
the Certificate of Appropriateness to the Full Board.
Tape No.: 1a
ADJOURNMENT
1:52
P.M. ROLL CALL
FOR FULL BOARD CONSIDERATION
MEMBERS PRESENT: DEARMAN, FINWALL, KELLEY,
KOTAS, MAGRANE, REIDY and SHATARA
MEMBER ABSENT:? LEVITT
PUBLIC COMMENT
Claire McGhee re:
1032 Broadway
Michael Levin re:
The Emporium Site Project
REPORTS
?1.??????? STAFF
REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Neil Hart,
Preservation Coordinator:
P????????? Announced that the Department received
a $15,000 grant from SHPO for the Central Waterfront Survey.
P????????? Informational presentation on the
Central Waterfront Cultural Resources Survey is scheduled before the Landmarks
Board, 9/20/00.
P????????? Landmark designation of 700 Montgomery
Street was heard before the Board of Supervisor Transportation and Land Use
Committee.
P????????? Continued discussion of the Landmark
Designation Work Program, 2000-2001, is scheduled for 9/20/00.
P????????? Landmarks Board hearing for September
6, 2000 is canceled.
P????????? Agenda packets are being sent to the
Main Library.
Tape No.: 1a
??????????? ?2.??????? PRESIDENT'S
REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Daniel Reidy: P????????? Asked Staff to look into the
controversial regarding the brick on Commercial Street (above Kearny).? According to the California Register of
Historic Places, the brick is historic.
P????????? Attended Section 106 consultation on
the Jewish Museum with FEMA - suggested discussion of this be scheduled for the
next meeting.
P????????? 1032 Broadway - asked Staff to
research public concerns regarding work done on the property and inform him and
Claire McGhee of the results.
?3.??????? MATTERS
OF THE BOARD
Paul Finwall:????????????? P????????? Receipt of an e-mail regarding a
ongoing work on a building in the Jackson Square Historic District.? Asked if the building was under
construction.
REGULAR CALENDAR
ITEMS
?4.??????? APPROVAL
OF THE JUNE 21, 2000 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
July 19 -??????? Continued to
September 20, 2000 Hearing.? Check notes
regarding vote on priorities stated by Kelley.
Tape
No.: 1a
O???????? Certificates
of Appropriateness
?5.??????? 2000.735A???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LIGHT:
558-6254)
1901 SCOTT STREET, The
Ortman-Shumate House, west side between Pine and California Streets.? Assessor=s Block
1027, Lot 3.? The two-story Italianate
house is Landmark No. 98.? The subject
property is zoned RH-2 (House, Two-Family) District and is in a 40-X Height and
Bulk District.? Request for a
Certificate of Appropriateness to repair/replace in-kind wood deck, wood porch
and stairs, and front iron gates (not original). Removal of non-original
addition to be replaced with windows and a pair of french doors; an increase in
the height of perimeter fence and the removal of a yew tree.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval
Speaker:???????? Peter Wald
Action:??????????? Chair Finwall,
summarized comments made by the ARC, recommending approval.? Board Member Finwall moved to recommend
approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Ayes:?????????????? Dearman,
Finwall, Kelley, Kotas, Magrane, Reidy and Shatara
Noes:????????????? None
Absent:?????????? Ho-Belli and Levitt
Tape No.: 1b
?6.??????? 1999.812A??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (GORDON:
558-6309)
700 7th STREET, The
Baker-Hamilton Building, southwest corner of 7th and Townsend Streets, between
Harrison and Bryant Streets.? Assessor=s Block 3799, Lot 1.? The three-story, unreinforced masonry
warehouse building is City designated Landmark No. 193, is zoned M-1 (Light
Industrial) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.? Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness
for new basement windows on the west exterior wall, deletion of proposed
loading ramp on the west elevation, a new enlarged opening in the existing
masonry on the west side of the building to provide entry to the new west
lobby, a new guardrail for a loading dock along King Street, and new equipment
on the roof.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval
Speaker:???????? Richard Stacy
Action:??????????? Board Member
Dearman moved to accept Staff=s recommendation to
approve the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Ayes:?????????????? Dearman,
Finwall, Kelley, Kotas, Magrane, Reidy and Shatara
Noes:????????????? None
Absent:?????????? Ho-Belli and Levitt
Tape No.: 1b
?7.??????? 2000.812A????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KOMETANI:
558-6478)
843-847 MONTGOMERY STREET, west side
between Pacific Avenue and Jackson Street.?
Assessor=s Block 176,
Lots 3 and 3A.? A three-story, brick,
office/retail building built in 1911 (originally two buildings, now
combined).? The subject property is a ACompatible@ 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 non original ground floor storefronts
and to construct a two-story rooftop addition.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval
Speaker:???????? Tom Hardy
Action:??????????? Chair Finwall,
summarized comments made by the ARC, recommending approval with the condition
that the color of the stucco be downplayed - make the color more of a brown/red
instead of a true red.
Board Member Kelley
had concerns with the deck and made to reserve findings regarding the street
line deck is in violation of the street wall and be eliminated - approve with
the absence of the deck (seconded by Dearman).?
The vote was 2-5 (Dearman and Kelley - Yes; Finwall, Kotas, Magrane,
Reidy and Shatara - No).? The motion
failed.
Board Member
Shatara moved to accept Staff=s recommendation to
approve the Certificate of Appropriateness, with the condition of making the
stucco a brown/red color.
Ayes:?????????????? Finwall, Kotas,
Magrane, Reidy and Shatara
Noes:????????????? Dearman and Kelley
Absent:?????????? Ho-Belli and Levitt
Tape Nos.: 1b &
2a
?8.??????? 2000.814A????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (KOMETANI:
558-6478)
30 DARRELL PLACE, east side
between Greenwich and Filbert Streets.?
Assessor=s Block 85,
Lot 18.? A three-story plus basement,
wood frame, residential? building,
originally built in 1871.? The subject
property is a AContributory
Altered@ building in
the Telegraph Hill Historic District, is zoned RH-3 (House, Three-Family)
District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.? Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for work to the rear
of the building to replace a door at the sub-basement level, install new
windows at the basement level and to modify deck.
Preliminary
Recommendation: Approval
Speaker:???????? Paul Scott
Action:??????????? Board Member
Kelley moved to accept Staff=s recommendation to
approve the Certificate of Appropriateness.
Ayes:?????????????? Dearman,
Finwall, Kelley, Kotas, Magrane, Reidy and Shatara
Noes:????????????? None
Absent:?????????? Ho-Belli and Levitt
Tape No.: 2a
O???????? Informational
Presentation
?9.???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
3200 CALIFORNIA STREET, Jewish
Community Center of San Francisco, north side between Presidio Avenue and
Walnut Street.? Assessor=s Block 1021, Lots 5, 6, 24, 28, 29
and 31-37.? The subject property is
within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) Zoning District, the
Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial District, and is in a 40-X Height and
Bulk District.
Speakers:?????? Joshua Steinhauser
Nate Levine
Kevin Hart
The project
sponsors began by giving the background of the Jewish Community Center (JCC).
Board Member
Magrane asked what is the square footage of the proposed project vs. the
existing - how does it work out?
O???????? Review
and Comment
10.?????? 1999.812E?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (P.
DEUTSCH: 558-5965)
3200 CALIFORNIA STREET, Jewish
Community Center of San Francisco, north side between Presidio Avenue and
Walnut Street.? Assessor=s Block 1021, Lots 5, 6, 24, 28, 29
and 31-37.? The subject property is
within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) Zoning District, the
Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial District, and is in a 40-X Height and
Bulk District.? The proposed project
would demolish the existing Jewish Community Center (JCC) and the four other
structures on the project site for the construction of a three-story community
center building containing approximately 120,225 gross square feet, excluding
parking.? The new building would range
in height from 50 to 61 feet.? The new
building would accommodate JCC community, recreational and educational uses,
which would be generally a continuation of its current programs.? New or expanded space would include an
expanded theater/auditorium, additional meeting rooms and classrooms, and a new
restaurant and a retail store.? The
fitness and recreation facilities would be expanded to contain a lap pool,
recreational pool and new workout areas.?
The project would provide up to 180 parking spaces in two below-grade
parking levels in an approximately 89,000 gross-square-foot garage.? The project includes the establishment of a
proposed California Street and Presidio Avenue Community Center Special Use
District, and modification of the Height and Bulk District from the current
40-X to a proposed 65-X.? Request for
Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board=s comments
on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Board Action
and Comments:????? P????????? Members of the Board commented on how
well the Draft Environmental Impact Report was written.? Board Member Kelley commented that the
discussion of the Historical Resources Section was actually a? very good exposition of a somewhat
complicated situation - he commended that section.? A comment was made that the Alternatives in this Report are very
viable.? Overall, the Board felt the EIR
was very thorough.? President Reidy will
write comment letter to the Office of Environmental Review.
Tape No.: 2a
O???????? Landmark Designation
11.?????? 1999.812L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? (LIGHT:
558-6254)
3200 CALIFORNIA STREET, Jewish
Community Center, north side between Presidio and Walnut Streets.? Assessor=s Block
1021, Lot 21.? The subject property is
zoned RM-1 (Mixed Residential, Low Density) District and is in a 40-X Height
and Bulk District.? Consideration to
initiate landmark designation and adopt a resolution initiating and
recommending landmark designation of the Jewish Community Center as Landmark
No. 229.? (Note: This item was not heard at the July 5, 2000 Landmarks Board
Hearing, due to a lack of quorum.)
Preliminary
Recommendation: Not to initiate landmark designation
Speakers:?????? Michael F. Crowe,
Rabbi Doug Kahn, Howard Fine, Supervisor Barbara Kaufman,Peter Winkelstein, Ron
Blatman, Alan Rothenberg, Nate Levine, Joshua Steinhauer, Kevin Hart, Arnie
Lerner, Charles Chase, Alice Carey, Nancy Goldenberg, Mary Anne Miller, Nina
Margolis, Jill Tregor, Rabbi David Teitelbaum, Jean Weiner, Jeffrey T. Tilman,
Rebecca Lilienthal, Masha Zakheim, Eleanor L. Fried, Mel Liehtman, Claire
Wahrhaftig, Jefrie Palmer, Lev Weisbach, Sandee Blechman, Zachary Nathan,
Annamarie Firley, J. Moreau Brown, Linaida Rubinovich, Laurie Gordon, Don
Andrieni
Board
Actions and
Comments:???? P????????? After hearing public comments from
those in support of the landmark designation and those opposing landmark
designation, the Board made the following comments:
$????????? Board Member Kelley commented on the
work of Adam Light, Department Staff, for balancing the opinions as reflected
in the various reports.? He agrees that
this project is something in a mid-range, architecturally, and demonstrates the
inadequacy of the Kalman Methodology to deal with a project like this.? Specifically, it=s
a poor instrument for dealing with non-architectural significance - not that
there is not architectural significance here, but he thinks the strong suit of
the building is the community and personal association built up over these
years.? Being a past user of the center
(including his children), dealing with this sort of significance, there=s
no set of photographs, no documentation that can actually mitigate the loss of
the building.? Once you have lost the
ability to experience the space, you=ve lost a community
treasure.? In addition to considering
the needs of the institution, one would have to consider the drastic loss if
the building is demolished.? He intends
to support the landmark designation.
$????????? Board Member Finwall commented on the
strong feelings about whether this program works and how it would work and
about the building itself.? He thinks
that the Board is compelled by their Charter to look at the building.? If the building meets the level that it
should be considered for landmark status, it=s the Board=s
obligation to say so.? In his opinion,
after listening to testimony and looking at the information on the building, he=s
prepared to support the landmark designation.
$????????? President Reidy commented that while
it is a difficult decision, he supports the Staff Analysis, built on some of
the precedent that the Board has developed in some of their thinking.? He does not always go by the Kalman
Methodology and get caught up in the technicalities - you get a gut feeling if
something should be a landmark and he does not look backwards on landmarks - he
looks forward.? He mentioned a couple of
buildings that had been designated as having a future (Shriner=s
Hospital, the Carmel Fallon Building).?
This building to him is more like the New Mission Theater.? It has merit and interesting features, but
because of the strong presentation by the Community College and the community
of service, the people who were the students and staff (not just the
administration), they made a convincing case that the program of the Community
College required that the New Mission Theater not remain - keep a few elements,
but not go forward to designate the building as a landmark.? What he heard from the comments at this
hearing is that the bulk of the consensus of the community that is to be served
by the center, say that they need a new center.? It=s not like some of the other cultural designations (Madame C.J. Walker
House, Harvey Milk Camera Store, City Lights Bookstore (in progress), where the
consensus of support was all for designation of the building as a
landmark.? He respects the determination
of the Jewish Community Center, who have obviously gone through a serious study
in making their decision.? When he
thinks about the future, he does not see the future of the existing
building.? Looking at the proposal for
reuse of the building doesn=t work.? It wouldn=t be necessarily
prideful to have a conglomeration of the old with the new.? It wouldn=t be a striking,
prideful thing to have on that prominent corner of the City.? He will not support the landmark
designation.
$????????? Board Member Magrane agreed
wholeheartedly with President Reidy.?
The passion of the room and the respect that she has for the Jewish
religion and the people that make it happen is very mature today.? In the past, she used the existing building
for eight years - loved the surroundings and the people, but wondered how the
building was being sustained.? She
realized that it wasn=t the building, but
the people.? Although it may go against
the moral ??? of why she is sitting on this Board, to some degree, she would
not be able to steward this particular building, she would want to steward the
people that make that community happen.?
She could not support the landmark designation of the existing building.
$????????? Board Member Kotas stated that they
are a Board that dispenses advice, and because they are an advisory board, it
is their responsibility to say things beyond the straightforward and the common
sense.? This building, setting aside how
it was designed to be used and how it has been used by many people and how the
uses will continue to be enjoyed, he believes that the building represents
something important from the past that if this building is not with us in the
future, there will be a kind of a loss, with due respect for the new
building.? The new building will address
all issues - resolve many problems - it will be bright and sparkly, but there
will still be a measure of loss, therefore he would like to support the
continuation of the existing building in some form.
$????????? Board Member Dearman stated that she
wants and support landmark designation of the existing building.
$????????? Board Member Shatara stated that the
program requirements are major issues.?
After reviewing the plans, he felt that this is a plan that truly works
for the community=s needs and will create a very vital place for the community.? Adaptive reuse is someone=s
creative inspiration to take something and try to really make something worth
while out of it.? In looking at the
proposed building, he questions whether it has the strength of the existing
building in terms of an image.? He sees
the strength in the program, but not in the exterior envelope of the proposed
building.? He thinks that there is a
loss in removing the existing the building - feels a more creative solution can
come out of the existing building, but the program really needs to be worked
out.? He feels that the proposed project
need to resonate somehow with greater strength, greater vigor.? If one is going to create a piece of architecture,
it might as well be something that is going to sing to the heavens
somehow.? The proposed project does that
for the community in terms of its program, but not in term for image.? Image is very important, yet, history in
context is also very important.? The
existing building has a certain level of strength, certain level of contextual
history that=s important to the fabric of San Francisco.? He would reserve the building in order to look at an adaptive
reuse project that can really make it work.
P????????? Board Member Kelley moved (seconded by
Finwall) to initiate landmark designation based on the ratings provided by
Staff, which supports landmark status.?
The vote was 5-2 in favor of landmark designation (Yes votes: Dearman,
Finwall, Kelley, Kotas and Shatara; No votes: Magrane and Reidy) (Absent:
Ho-Belli and Levitt).? MOTION PASSED.
P????????? Board Member Kelley moved (seconded by
Dearman) to recommend designation to the Planning Commission based on the
ratings provided by Staff, which supports significance of the building.? The vote was 5-2 in favor of recommending
designation to the Planning Commission (Yes votes: Dearman, Finwall, Kelley,
Kotas and Shatara; No votes: Magrane and Reidy) (Absent: Ho-Belli and Levitt).? MOTION PASSED.
Tape Nos.: 2a/b
&3a
?
ADJOURNMENT: 6:40 P.M.
Andrea Green
Recording Secretary
Adopted: September 20, 2000
N:\LPAB\MINUTES\DRAFTS\AUG16DFT.MIN
Return to the Planning Department's Home Page. Click here.