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
City Hall,
?1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, ROOM 400
January 17, 2001
12:45 P.M.? ROLL CALL
???????? 1.????? 2000.986H????? LIGHT: 558-6254)
150 POWELL STREET, southeast corner of O'Farrell Street.? A four-story reinforced wood, brick, concrete and steel frame retail and office building, built in 1907.?? The subject property is a Category IV building in the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District and is in a C-3-R (Downtown Retail) District, and a 80-130-F Height and Bulk District.? The subject building is known as The Elevated Shops.? Request for Architectural Review Committee to review and comment on a proposal for a Permit to Alter to seismically upgrade the subject building, retain and restore the facade (including repair of the existing windows), demolish three smaller adjacent Category V buildings, construct a large horizontal and vertical addition which will cover the entire project site, add three stories to the height of the existing building, and extend the building approximately 74'-6" eastward along O'Farrell Street.
ARC comments and recommendations:
Several questions were raised:
> After the window plans were modified from what is shown, why does the core of windows that comes up over the door continues in the lower part?
????? ????? >????? Does the loading dock has to be incorporated in the building?
????? ????? >????? What is the width of the loading dock?
> If DPW decided to eliminate the street loading spaces, would the proposed loading docks adequately service the building needs?
> What are the finish materials?
> It was the opinion of one Committee Member that the roof does not need to slope.
> Regarding the overhangs created on the corner, it they (overhangs) are extended a little further they would work with the lines of the addition on top.
> It was hoped that no modifications would be made to the historic portions of the exterior of the building in order to accommodate an off-street loading facility.
> In regards to the slender part of the new building?would prefer the plainer design if they put in a loading dock door.
1: 31 P.M.? ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:??????????? Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Kotas, Reidy, Shatara and Skrondal
MEMBERS ABSENT:??????????? Dearman and Magrane
PUBLIC COMMENT
??????????? ???????????
??????????? ??????????? ??????????? ??????????? ??????????? ??????????? ??????????? ??????????? ??????????? (HART: 558-6338)
1. ELECTION OF OFFICERS
It was moved by President Reidy? (seconded by Ho-Belli) to nominate Tim Kelley as President.? The vote was unanimous (Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kotas, Reidy, Shatara and Skrondal) (Absent: Dearman and Magrane)
It was moved by Member Kotas? (seconded by? Kelley ) to nominate Suheil Shatara as Vice President.? The vote was unanimous (Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Kotas, Reidy, Shatara and Skrondal) (Absent: Dearman and Magrane)
?2. STAFF REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
??????????? Neil Hart,
??????????? Preservation Coordinator:
??????????????????????????????????????????????? i??????? Thanked DPW for responding to the Board?s
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? letter regarding an information presentation by
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? DPW on alleys in Chinatown.
??????????????????????????????????????????????? i??????? Announced the State Historic Resource
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Commission quarterly meeting at City Hall on
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? February 2, 2001.
?3.??????? PRESIDENT'S REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
??????????? None.
?4.??????? MATTERS OF THE BOARD
??????????? ??????????? Member Reidy:??????????? i??????????? Designation Report for City Lights Bookstore.
REGULAR CALENDAR ITEMS
n Informational Presentation
? 5.????? DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION ON THE CHINATOWN ALLEWAY MASTER PLAN,? informational presentation on the plan to renovate thirty-one alleys within the Chinatown core area.? The core area is defined as the area bounded by Broadway, Kearny, California and Mason Streets.? Proposed general improvements include special paving, street name plaques, accessible curb ramps, pedestrian scale lighting, and metal bollards to prevent illegal parking.? The Chinatown Alleyway Master Plan was endorsed by the Planning Commission in 1999.? Also to be presented is a summary of other public works projects to be undertaken in Chinatown in the coming years.
??????????? ??????????? Speaker(s):??????????? Nelson Wong
??????????????????????? ??????????? ??????????? Rev. Norman Fong
??????????????????????? ??????????? ??????????? Jasmine Kaw
??????????????????????? ??????????? ??????????? Jason Blye
??????????????????????? ??????????? ??????????? I. Lim
??????????? ??????????? Board
??????????? ??????????? Comments
??????????? ??????????? and Action:
i It was asked if DPW would briefly go back over the criteria that DPW is concerned with ? what brings an alleyway up to the top for their work program, etc.? How were the first three chosen?? Is there a priority of? issues?
i Why wasn?t the Master Plan report brought to the Landmarks Board for review and input, when they were developing the community plan?
i Board Member commented that they were glad to see this work taking place, because it is long overdue.? Feels that the proposed informational plaques/items? are very important.? ?would revisit the idea as to what these are and how much information should be put on them.
i Thanked DPW for taking the time to come and make the informational presentation.
??????????? Tape Nos.:? 1a & b
n Certificates of Appropriateness
?????
????????????? 7. 2000.1222A (LIGHT:558-6254)
?????????????? 825 BATTERY STREET, west side between Broadway and Vallejo Street.? A five-and-one-half-story reinforced concrete office building, built in 1907.?? The subject property is a contributory building in the Northeast Waterfront Historic District, is rated in the City's 1976 survey of architecturally significant buildings, is listed as being eligible for the National Register, and is in a C-2 (Community Business) District, and a 84-E Height and Bulk District.? The subject building is formerly known as the American Biscuit Building.? Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to install ADA compliant entry on Battery Street frontage.
??????????? ??????????? Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
??????????? ??????????? Speaker(s):?? Dan Sullivan
??????????? Action: It was requested that the item be continued to the next regular meeting of the Landmarks Board.? The Board voted unanimously to continue the item (Absent:? Dearman and Magrane).
??????????? Tape Nos.:? 1b
?????????? ??????????
?? 8. 2000.1253A GORDON: 558-6309)
??????????? 35 Stanford Street, The Crane Company Warehouse, northeast side of Stanford Street between Second and Townsend Streets, in Assessor's Block 3788, on Lot 38.? The subject three-story, brick, office building has been determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and is a Contributory building to the South End Historic District.? The subject building was originally used as a plumbing supplies warehouse, and was subsequently used for warehousing and manufacturing, and is currently proposed for office use. The parcel is zoned SSO (Service/Secondary Office) District and is in a 50-X Height and Bulk District. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness to build new exterior walls, install windows, and create a new ADA compliant entrance and fill in the existing entrance with brick.
??????????????????????? Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
??????????? ??????????? Speaker(s):?? Steve Atkinson
??????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????? Daniel Robinson
??????????? Action: It was requested that the item be continued to the next regular meeting of the Landmarks Board.? The Board voted unanimously to continue the item (Absent:? Dearman and Magrane).
??????????? Tape Nos.:? 1b
?9. 2000.1180A (GORDON: 558-6309)
180 TOWNSEND STREET, The California Wine Association
Building. North side of the street at the corner of Clarence Place.? Assessor's
Block 3788, Lot 13.? A three-story, brick, office and business service building
built in 1903-1905 (third floor added in 1921).? The structure was originally
used for wine storage and warehousing, and was subsequently used as an auto
repair shop.? The site is a Contributory building within the South End Historic
District. The subject property is zoned SLI (Service/Light Industrial) and is
in a 50-X Height and Bulk District.? Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness
to construct a new cast metal letter sign.
??????????? Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
??????????? Action: It was moved by Member Kotas to accept Staff?s recommendation for the approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness.
??????????? Ayes: Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Kotas, Reidy, Shatara and Skrondal
??????????? Noes: None
??????????? Absent: Dearman and Magrane
??????????? Tape Nos.:? 1a
??????????? 10.????? 1997.433A????? (KOMETANI: 558-6478)
??????????????????????? Preliminary Recommendation: Approval
??????????? Action: It was requested that the item be continued to the next regular meeting of the Landmarks Board.? The Board voted unanimously to continue the item (Absent:? Dearman and Magrane).
??????????? Tape Nos.:? 1a
n Review and Comment
11.??????????? NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION???????????????????? ?????? ??????????? ???(LIGHT: 558-6254)
36 Fifth Street, 423-427 and 429 Stevenson Street,? an increase in the boundary of the National Register listing for 901 Market Street, the Hale Brother?s Department Store, to include 3 additional buildings that were constructed for, owned or leased by, and used by Hale Brothers Department Store. 36 Fifth Street is a ten-story steel and reinforced concrete building, 423-427 and 429 Stevenson Street are eight-story, twin reinforced concrete structures, built in 1924-26. The buildings served as warehouses, the firm?s offices, and a grocery. Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board review and comment on a nomination of this property to the National Register of Historic Places.
???????????
??????????? Speaker(s): None
??????????? Action:
??????????? i President Kelley expressed that he was unhappy with this nomination in its existing form based on the following:
1) He believes it?s a cut and paste job that does not make a case for the auxiliary buildings, it repeats the case for 901 Market Street.? If it makes a case at all, it?s pretty skimpy.? There?s a lack of information on the designers of the other buildings (only the Reed Brothers are mentioned).
2) Disappointed that no one from ARG was present.? There is no consideration of the people who works in the buildings.? He would like to see the buildings listed and protected, but it?s time to change the approach to include the social and cultural history that the building represents.
??????????????????????? i There was a question as to whether this item could come back to the Landmarks Board, knowing that it was scheduled to be heard before the State Historic Resources Commission on February 2.
??????????????????????? i Board Member Reidy commented that Criteria A could fit because the warehouses are the supported connections to the larger department store, and the department store as a whole was a significant contributor among the other department stores of the period, and in addition, would have the warehouse workers moving furniture, etc..? The problem is with Criteria C ? the report itself acknowledges in the written text that buildings are unadorned and uninteresting inside and out.
??????????????????????? i The Board suggested making a recommendation that as this process goes forward, the historic significance of the workers in the building should be considered.
??????????????????????? i The Board recommends nomination of the property be listed on the National Register of Historic Places with detailed comments listed on a separate sheet.? The form would be filled out, checking the boxes marked:? architecture, history and indicating that it should be on the National Register.???
??????????? Ayes: Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Kotas, Reidy, Shatara and Skrondal
??????????? Noes: None
??????????? Absent: Dearman and Magrane
??????????? Tape Nos.:? 2a
12. ?? NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATION???????? ?? ?? (BORDEN: 558-6321)
1096 POINT LOBOS AVENUE, Camera Obscura.? Located on the lower terrace of the Cliff House, in Assessor?s Block 1313, Lot B.? The subject one-story wood frame structure was built in 1946 and altered in 1957 to resemble a giant camera.? The structure houses the components of the camera obscura ? protection table, lens, and mirror ? and is open to the public allowing panoramic views of the Pacific Ocean and the coastline from Ocean Beach to the Marin Headlands. Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board review and comment on a nomination of this property to the National Register of Historic Places.
??????????? Speaker(s): Chris Demowterry
??????????????????????? Joe Scrivo
??????????? Action: The Board will recommend this property for the National Register of Historic Places.
??????????? Ayes: Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Kotas, Reidy, Shatara and Skrondal
??????????? Noes: None
??????????? Absent: Dearman and Magrane
??????????? Tape Nos.:? 2a
13.??????????? SECTION 106?????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????? ?????? ???? ???(LIGHT: 558-6254)
FOURTH STREET BRIDGE, located over the Mission Channel Waterway.? The bridge, a city owned public right of way, has been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Caltrans Historic Bridge Inventory. The proposed project or undertaking involves the seismic retrofit and rehabilitation of the Fourth Street Bridge.? Since this project is funded in part by a federal agency, the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), it must be reviewed under section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.? Both Caltrans and the San Francisco Department of Public Works (DPW) are conducting the section 106 review.? DPW has requested the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board's (Landmarks Board) review and comment on the Historic Property Survey Report and Finding of No Adverse Effect Report.? These two documents were drafted by DPW to comply with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.? A letter containing the comments of the Landmarks Board will be sent to FHWA and DPW.
???????????
??????????? Speaker(s): Frank Filice
??????????? Action:
??????????????????????? i The Board concurred with the definition of the undertaking, the definition of the area of potential effect, the identification of historic resources, the application of the criteria of effect, the proposed finding of no adverse effect with mitigations, and the proposed mitigation measures.
??????????????????????? i The Board also supported the finding that the bridge must be altered for safety reasons, and believes that relocation of the counterweight to below grade best accomplished the alteration.
??????????????????????? i The Board believed that to replicate the historic aboveground counterweight, risks creating a false understanding of how the bridge operates and how that operation has changed over time.? Once the function of the counterweight is removed, the counterweight should also be removed.
??????????????????????? i The Board suggested that to DPW that they revisit the preferred alternative for the bascule seismic retrofit and investigate the possibility of removing and not replacing the original counterweight.? It was suggested that perhaps the counterweight could be displayed near the bridge to facilitate a fuller understanding of how the bridge originally and historically functioned.
??????????????????????? i The Board suggested that the historic granite curbs and basalt paving blocks identified in section 6.10 of the Finding of Effect Report be reused in the vicinity of the bridge.
??????????? Ayes: Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Kotas, Reidy, Shatara and Skrondal
??????????? Noes: None
??????????? Absent: Dearman and Magrane
??????????? Tape Nos.:? 2a & b
??????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????? ??????????? Patricia Gerber
??????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????????????????? ??????????? ??????????? Acting Recording Secretary
N:\lpab\minutes\jan17fin.min
Return to the Planning Department's Home Page. Click here.