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
OCTOBER 4, 2000
1:07 P.M. ROLL CALL
FOR FULL BOARD CONSIDERATION
MEMBERS PRESENT: FINWALL, HO-BELLI,? KELLEY, KOTAS, REIDY and SHATARA (arr. @ 1:15 p.m.)
MEMBER ABSENT: DEARMAN and MAGRANE
PUBLIC COMMENT
Gee Gee Platt re: Moving Public Comment to the end of the hearing
REPORTS
?1.??????????? STAFF REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Neil Hart,
Preservation Coordinator:
???????????? Landmark Designation of the Jewish Community Center is scheduled before the Planning Commission, October 5, 2000.
???????????? Informed the Board and members of the public of the change in the landmark designation report format.
???????????? Commented on the Central Waterfront Survey presentation at the last hearing.
???????????? San Francisco Architectural Heritage Fall Symposium will begin October 13, 2000.
???????????? Landmarks Board Hearing for November 5, 2000 will be cancelled.
Tape No.: 1a
??????????? ?2.??????????? PRESIDENT'S REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
? 700 block of Commercial Street
??????????? ??????????? Speakers:???? Gee Gee Platt
??????????????????????? ??????????? ??????????? Jason Bley
??????????????????????? ??????????? ??????????? Charles E. Chase????? ???????????
Paul Finwall:
??????????? ??????????? ??? Stated he would like to see what have been in place in the past on dealing with such matters.
Jeremy Kotas:
??????????? ??????????? ??? Asked what is the scope of the Board?s ability to deal with this situation?
?
Daniel Reidy:
??????????? ??????????? ???????????? ?will draft letters to the Department of Public Works and? Chinatown Community Development regarding this matter and bring letters back to the Board for review, comments and adoption.
??????????? ??????????? ??? Spoke at the Victorian Alliance Neighborhood Group 9/27/00.
?3.??????????? MATTERS OF THE BOARD
Paul Finwall:??????????? ???????????? Attended workshop on the State Historic Building Code.
??????????? Tape No.:? 1a
REGULAR CALENDAR ITEMS
n??????????? Certificates of Appropriateness
4.?????????? 2000.1021A????? (LIGHT: 558-6254)
735 MONTGOMERY STREET, southwest corner of Montgomery Street at Jackson Street.? Assessor?s Block 195, Lot 1.? The four-story, stucco-clad reinforced concrete office building is 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 install two 18-inch Nextel whip antennas on existing third floor ledge on the southwest corner of the building, and to construct a seven-foot tall, 84 square foot equipment cabinet on the southeast corner of the fourth floor terrace.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
Recused:??????????? Nancy Ho-Belli
Speakers:??????????? Molly Kales
Ann Roth
Gee Gee Platt
Action:??????????? Members of the Board expressed concern regarding the location of the equipment cabinet ? asked if it could be rotated?? Board Member Shatara, moved to adopt Staff recommendation for approval (seconded by Kelley). The vote was +4-1.? MOTION DID NOT PASS.
Ayes:??????????? ??????????? Kelley, Kotas, Reidy and Shatara
Noes:???? ??????????? Finwall
Recused:??????????? Ho-Belli
Absent:??????????? Dearman and Magrane
Tape No.: 1a
5.?????????? 2000.857A??????????? (KOONTS: 558-6372)
920 SACRAMENTO STREET, Donaldina Cameron House, Landmark No. 44, north side between Stockton and Joice/Powell Streets.? Assessor?s Block 224, Lot 8.? The subject property is used as a school, is zoned RM-4 (Mixed Residential, High Density) District and is in a 65-A Height and Bulk District.? Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to add an elevator penthouse, add louvers to windows on the west and north facades, add two openings for vents on the east and north facades, add a roof mounted exhaust fan with flue on the east facade, and add a new concrete garbage platform at the north facade.
Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
Speakers:??????????? Ed Sue
Ann Roth
Action:??????????? Board Member Finwall,? moved to recommend approval based on Staff recommendation (seconded by Ho-Belli). The vote was unanimous.
Ayes:??????????? ??????????? Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Kotas, Reidy and Shatara
Noes:???? ??????????? None
Absent:??????????? Dearman and Magrane
Tape Nos.: 1a & b
n??????????? Review and Comment
7.???????? ?????????? (BAUMAN: 558-6287)
DRAFT PRESERVATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN.? Public hearing on the Draft Preservation Element. The Draft Preservation Element is available for review on the Department?s website: http://sfgov.org/planning.? Copies are also available by calling Catherine Bauman at 558-6287.? Comment received through this hearing will be incorporated into a draft that will be considered by the Landmarks Board at a future hearing.? No action is proposed for today.
Speakers:??????????? Charles E. Chase
Gee Gee Platt
Alan Martinez
Comments and
Action:
Catherine Bauman:
??????????? ???????????? Started by saying the purpose of the hearing was to discuss and solicit input on the Draft Preservation Element ? no action was proposed.? The Department feels that now there is come value and importance to clarifying, and articulating, and collecting in one place, a set of the City?s policies about historic preservation.? Emphasized five main changes: 1) all cultural resources should be considered and treated alike; 2) split the identification of cultural resources from the protection of them; 3) adding a sustainability section; 4) added section on disaster prevention and preparedness; 5) proposing establishing in the Preservation Element, that the methodology to be used for identifying historic preservation is the National Register Criteria.
??????????? ???????????? After today?s hearing, the next step is to create a new draft, incorporating the comments received.? The next document will be graphically produced, which will include the illustrations, maps that are just referred to in the draft.? The Department will conduct environmental review of this draft and it will be determined what actions that are not currently in the Planning Department?s Work Program are necessary to implement the proposed objectives and policies.? When all of the above is completed, the Department will go back to the Board seeking a recommendation to forward the document to the Planning Commission for adoption.? After the Planning Commission holds hearings,? makes comments, and adopts a new element, it is then transmitted to the Board of Supervisors, where the Board of Supervisors will have the final approval for a new Element of the General Plan.?
Member Finwall:
??????????? ???????????? He asked for more information regarding the implementation process and the delineation of policy and the way incentives are handled or not handles in the Plan.? How would the inclusion of the National Register criteria serve or not serve?? Knowing how many National Register districts and properties are in the City, may be a reason to try and include some reference within the policy/document that would give some footing for how to handle changes to these properties/districts.
Member Kotas:
??????????? ???????????? If a document like this document were produced which the community that it is addressing is opposed to, it seems like a sorry waste of resources and time.? How does the Department propose to incorporate the community?s concerns?
Member Kelley:
??????????? ???????????? Asked what kind of timeline is being looked at to incorporate comments from today?s hearing.
President Reidy:
??????????? ???????????? Suggested that the language be checked to be sure that there is something saying that the City is stewart of its own resources ? will preserve and protect its own historic resources.? Look over the wording that the policy that the City will vigorously enforce the standards, regulations for preserving what has already been identified as historic resources, so if there has been neglect in an identified landmark or identified important building in an historic district or if there are improper changes (sometimes members of the public just go and make changes).? If there was a strong policy, the appropriate parties could go in and insist that the building be restored (tear out/replace what you put in that shouldn?t have been put in?replace what was originally there no matter what the cost).? If an official within the City does not implement the policy, the citizenry who is concerned could go and get court support because the City wasn?t following its own policy. More could be mentioned about the history of the City, the certain obvious periods of the City that are important to architecture.
??????????? ???????????? If the City?s different entities (Redevelopment Agency, the Port, etc.) that are engaged in either demolition or doing or approval substantial changes to identified historic resources had to make findings of compatibility with the policies of the new preservation element, it could be a very powerful tool.?
(Note:? Member Shatara left @ 2:40 p.m.)
Tape Nos.: 1b & 2a
8.???????? ??????????? (HART: 558-6338)
LANDMARK DESIGNATION WORK PROGRAM, 2000-2001, continued discussion to establish the Landmark Designation Work Program for Fiscal Year 2000-2001.? A continued working session of the July 19, 2000 Landmarks Board Hearing, to update the List of Potential Landmark Designations, and to identify up to eight sites for the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board?s consideration of initiation of landmark designation.?
Speakers:??????????? Charles E. Chase
Gee Gee Platt
Winnie Siegel
Alan Martinez
Stephen Morange
Ann Roth
F. Joseph Butler
Neil Hart,
Preservation Coordinator:
Board Comments:??????????? ???????????? After listening to Staff and public comments, the Board created a priority list as follows:
1. #7 - Captain Adams House, 300 Pennsylvania Street
2. #17 ? Lick Bath?s/People Laundry, 165 10th Street
3. #33a ? Japanese Language School (Kimmon Gakuen) Golden Gate Institute, 2031 Bush Street
4. #33b ? Mainichi Hokubei Newspaper, 1746 Post Street
5. #35 ? Glen Park BART Station, Glen Park Village
6. #40 ? Price House, 1268-1270 Lombard Street
7. #41 ? Sun Dial & Gates, Entrada Court (Ingleside District)
8. #42 ? Engine Co. 33, 117 Broad Street
9. #39 ? Context Statement for Cottages (include Filbert Street Cottages)
10. #36 ? Chronicle Building, 5th and Mission Streets
11. #38 ? Children?s Hospital
12. #16 ? Juvenile Court and Detention Building, 150 Otis Street
13. Royal Bakery on Mission Street
14. Pier 38
The Board agreed to have Vice President Kelley work with Staff with regards to prioritizing the above list depending on availability of information, outside resources and Staff availability.? If owner-occupied residential houses were opposed to having landmark status on their property, the property will be eliminated from the list.
Tape Nos.: 2a, b & 3a
?
ADJOURNMENT: 5:30 P.M.
Andrea Green
Recording Secretary
N:\LPAB\MINUTES\OCT04FIN.MIN
OF THE
SAN FRANCISCO
? LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
CITY HALL
1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE, ROOM 400
OCTOBER 18, 2000
1:07 P.M. ROLL CALL
FOR FULL BOARD CONSIDERATION
MEMBERS PRESENT: FINWALL, HO-BELLI,? KELLEY, MAGRANE, REIDY, SHATARA and SKRONDAL
MEMBERS ABSENT: DEARMAN and KOTAS
PUBLIC COMMENT
Peter Lewis re: Banners on the Path of Gold Light Standards
Patricia Vaughey re:? 500 Divisadero Street; 2254 Bush Street (cottage)
REPORTS
?1.??????????? STAFF REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Neil Hart,
Preservation Coordinator:
???????????? Welcomed new Landmarks Board Member, Elizabeth Skrondal
???????????? Certificate of Appropriateness for 735 Montgomery Street was approved by the Director of Planning.
???????????? Planning Commission voted not to designate the Jewish Community Center.
???????????? Commented on the Central Waterfront tour held on 10/13/00.
???????????? Landmarks Board Hearing for November 1, 2000 will be cancelled.? (Neil will be on vacation 11/1-12/4/00 ? contacts are:? Elizabeth Gordon, Andrea Green and Michael Kometani.
????????????? Gave status report on the banners on the Path of Gold Light Standards.
Tape No.: 1a
??????????? ?2.??????????? PRESIDENT'S REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
?
Daniel Reidy:
??????????? ??????????? ???????????? Welcomed new Board Member, Elizabeth Skrondal.
??????????? ??????????? ??? Attended Central Waterfront tour ? complimented staff on a job well done.
?3.??????????? MATTERS OF THE BOARD
Paul Finwall:
??????????? ??????????? ???????????? Attended Planning Commission Hearing on the Jewish Community Center.? Asked why wasn?t the Certificate of Appropriateness for 735 Montgomery Street coming back to the Landmarks Board.
Penney Magrane:
??????????? ??????????? ???????????? In regards to the banners on the Path of Gold Light Standards, recommended inviting Supervisor Leno to come to a Landmarks Board hearing to make a presentation.? Asked what is the reason why the banners cannot be removed.
Tim Kelley:
??????????? ??????????? ???????????? ?was contacted by the architect and project sponsor regarding the conversion of 128 King Street ? parking variance.? A draft letter in support of the parking variance was prepared.? Because of the time frame, the Board was unable to take action and send a letter.? However, Board Members could send their own individual letter to the Zoning Administrator in support of the parking variance.
??????????? Tape No.:? 1a
REGULAR CALENDAR ITEMS
4. APPROVAL OF THE SEPTEMBER 20, 2000 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
??????????? ??????????? Continued to November 15 ? no quorum.
??????????? ?5.??????????? REVIEW AND COMMENT AND THE ADOPTION OF DRAFT LETTERS FOR
??????????? ??????????? 700 BLOCK OF COMMERCIAL STREET
It was moved by Member Finwall to adopt draft letters.? The vote was unanimous.
n??????????? Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places
?6.??????? ??????????? (GORDON: 558-6309)
54 MINT STREET, The Haas Candy Factory, southwest corner of Mint and Jessie Streets, opposite the Old Mint (88 Jessie Street).? Assessor?s Block 3704, Lot 34.? The five-story reinforced concrete commercial structure, clad in brick, was built in 1907.? The building was originally used for the manufacturing of candy, chocolates and ice cream, as well as wrappings and boxing of the same for four of the George Haas & Sons retail stores.? The site is currently used for a restaurant on the ground floor and offices above.? The building is rated as a Significant Category I building? in Article 11 of the Planning Code, and is therefore included as well in the Downtown Plan of the General Plan.? In addition, the parcel is rated under the ?B? category by San Francisco Architectural Heritage, and is listed by the State Office of Historic Preservation.? The site is zoned C-3-G (Downtown Office General) District and is in a 90-X Height and Bulk District.? The State Office of Historic Preservation is seeking the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board?s comments on a proposed nomination to the National Register of Historic Places as part of the San Francisco?s role as a Certified Local Government.
Preliminary Recommendation: Nomination to the National Register of Historic Places
??????????? ??????????? Speaker:?????? Wendy Hillis
??????????? ??????????? Action: ??????????? Members of the Board expressed concern regarding the history of Haas Candy Factory ? cannot do an adequate history without adding information on the people who worked at the factory.? Asked what was the period of history.? Member Kelley suggested adding a statement of significance.? The architecture and history needs to be augmented to include the workers.? Member Kelley made a motion recommending nomination to the National Register of Historic Places incorporating the above.
Ayes:??????????? ??????????? Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Magrane, Reidy, Shatara and Skrondal
Noes:???? ??????????? None
Recused:??????????? Ho-Belli
Absent:??????????? Dearman and Magrane
Tape No.: 1a
n??????????? Certificates of Appropriateness
7. 2000.1048A (M. SYNDER: 575-6891)
3420 21ST STREET, north side between Dolores and Guerrero Streets.? Assessor?s Block 3607, Lot 17.? The Italianate house is potentially contributory to the Liberty Hill 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 to replace the facade?s existing hip roof overhang with a parapet and cornice; and to add a wood entry canopy over the front entrance.? (Note: The Landmarks Board recommended approval of a side yard addition and other facade improvements under Case No. 1999.330A.? The proposed alterations under this case would be part of the same alteration project.)
??????????? ??????????? Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
Speaker:??????????? Camela Charit
Action:??????????? Board Member Kelley moved to adopt Staff recommendation for approval (seconded by Magrane).
Ayes:??????????? ??????????? Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Magrane, Reidy, Shatara and Skrondal
Noes:???? ??????????? None
Absent:??????????? Dearman and Kotas
Tape No.: 1a
?8. 2000.1056A (KOMETANI: 558-6478)
1050 SANSOME STREET, east side between Green and Vallejo Streets.? Assessor?s Block 135, Lot 8.? A six-story, concrete, industrial building, built in 1906, now in office use.? The subject property is a contributory building in the Northeast Waterfront Historic District, is zoned C-2 (Community Business) District and is in a 65-X Height and Bulk District.? Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install a Verizon Wireless rooftop antenna and screening.
??????????? Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
Speaker:??????????? Peter Maushardt
Action:??????????? Board Member Finwall moved to adopt Staff recommendation for approval (seconded by Magrane).
Ayes:??????????? ??????????? Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Magrane, Reidy, Shatara and Skrondal
Noes:???? ??????????? None
Absent:??????????? Dearman and Kotas
Tape No.: 1a
?9. 2000.1057A (KOMETANI: 558-6478)
14-16 NAPIER LANE, east side between Filbert and Greenwich Streets.? Assessor?s Block 85, Lot 8.? A three-story plus basement, wood-frame, two-unit residential building built in 1990.? The subject property is a noncontributing 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 two new decks and a new balcony at the rear.
??????????? Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
Speaker:??????????? Rod Freebarim-Smith
Action:??????????? Board Member Finwall moved to adopt Staff recommendation for approval (seconded by Kelley).
Ayes:??????????? ??????????? Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Magrane, Reidy, Shatara and Skrondal
Noes:???? ??????????? None
Absent:??????????? Dearman and Kotas
Tape No.: 1a
10. 1997.433A (KOMETANI: 558-6478)
22 ALTA STREET, north side between Montgomery and Sansome Streets in Assessor?s Block 106, Lot 34A.? A vacant site in the Telegraph Hill Historic District, formerly occupied by a contributory building.? 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, June 21, 2000.? At that time, a motion recommending denial of the Certificate of Appropriateness was passed 8-0 (with one member absent).
Project Sponsors requested a continuance.? Board Member Magrane moved (seconded by Finwall) to grant the continuance to November 15, 2000.? The vote was unanimous.
Ayes:??????????? ??????????? Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Magrane, Reidy, Shatara and Skrondal
Noes:???? ??????????? None
Absent:??????????? Dearman and Kotas
Tape No.: 1a & b
11. 2000.1055A (KOMETANI: 558-6478)
405-445 JACKSON STREET, south side between Montgomery and Sansome Streets.? Assessor?s Block 196, Lots 20, 21 and 22.? Four adjacent two- and three-story commercial buildings, built 1853-1860.? The subject properties are compatible buildings in the Jackson Square Historic District, are individually designated as Landmark Nos.? 13, 14, 15 and 16, are zoned C-2 (Community Business) District and are in a 65-A Height and Bulk District.? Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for storefront alterations, elevator penthouse, new decorative balconies at rear and new window openings at rear and east elevations.? New second story infill addition at rear of 415 Jackson.
??????????? Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
??????????? ??????????? Recused:?????? Nancy Ho-Belli
Speakers:??????????? Charles Chase
Gee Gee Platt
Tom Monahan
Clark Manus
Action:??????????? The Board wanted to acknowledge the fact that they were not approving windows that had been installed without a Certificate of Appropriateness.? They had concern with door #2 as shown on the drawings; cleaning of masonry; style of painting; color of paint. Board Member Shatara moved to adopt Staff recommendation for approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness with the condition that the project sponsor will come back before the Landmarks Board to review the paint color and door #2 (seconded by Magrane).
Ayes:??????????? ??????????? Finwall, Kelley, Magrane, Reidy, Shatara and Skrondal
Noes:???? ??????????? None
Recused:??????????? Ho-Belli
Absent:??????????? Dearman and Kotas
Tape Nos.: 1b & 2a
ADJOURNMENT: 4:10 P.M.
Andrea Green
Recording Secretary
N:\LPAB\MINUTES\OCT18FIN.MIN
Return to the Planning Department's Home Page. Click here.