Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB) Minutes

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.

• May 6, 1999
• May 20, 1999

1:15 P.M. ROLL CALL
 

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
 

MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS FINWALL, CHAIR, MAGRANE, REIDY, AND SHATARA
 

• Neil Hart, Preservation Coordinator:
• Introduced new Recording Secretary, Andrea Green.
• Pointed out - tape made of the hearing is the official record for the Architectural Review Committee.
• Important that each person speaks clearly into the microphone so that comments are recorded.
• Action minutes are our guide to the tape and note where each hearing item is on the tape.
• Action minutes include: Directions and follow up information requested by Board members and significant issues raised.
• To assist the Recording Secretary, when the Board raises a significant issue that should be included in the action minutes, the Board should add some type of phrase to prompt the secretary to make a note for inclusion in the minutes.

 

356 LEXINGTON STREET, Assessor's Block 3609, Lot 56, a Contributory-Altered, two-unit residential building (proposed for conversion to a single-family dwelling) in the Liberty Hill Historic District. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness for exterior alterations, including change of facade and addition of bay windows.
 

Speakers: Steven Johnston, Architect

Mark Green, Project Sponsor

John Barbey, Opposition

ARC recommendations and actions:
 

• Members Finwall, Reidy and Shatara had concerns about the scale of the windows (bay window needed more study), the entrance, roof and garage door.
• Chair, Finwall - exterior alterations were inappropriate to the District.

• Requested copy of John Barbey's photo montage of the street facades for staff review.

2. 98.053A (LIGHT)

1133 HAYES STREET, Assessor's Block 824, Lot 2D, a five-unit residential Contributory building in the Alamo Square Historic District. Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to legalize and modify an illegal fourth floor addition.

(Continued to a later hearing date, due to the absence of the project sponsor)
 

Adjournment
 

2:05 P.M. ROLL CALL
 

MEMBERS PRESENT: BECERRIL, DEARMAN, FINWALL, HO-BELLI, KOTAS, LEVITT, MAGRANE, REIDY, AND SHATARA
 

• Neil Hart, Preservation Coordinator:

 
• Repeated comments noted above to Architectural Review Committee for Full Board.

 

PUBLIC COMMENT
 

None
 

REPORTS
 

1. DEPARTMENT REPORT
 

Paul Rosetter,

Sr. Planner: ? Reported on proposed legislation regarding Historic Sign District and Section 149 Artwork, as requested by Member Finwall at the April 15, 1998 hearing. Note: Section 149 Artwork is scheduled before the Planning Commission on May 14, 1998; Historic Sign District is scheduled before the Planning Commission on June 11, 1998.
 

Larry Badiner,

Sr. Planner: ? Reported on the history of the Yerba Buena area and the Jessie Hotel and Williams Building, as requested by Member Finwall at the April 15, 1998 hearing.

• David Madway, San Francisco Redevelopment Agency General Counsel, stated: Agency's Commission will consider approval of the basic concept design of the building sometime in June, 1998; and, Agency's Director will make a determination about the feasibility of the preservation of the Jessie Hotel.
• Board requested copies of the current plans and figures. Mr. Madway will provide materials to Staff.

 

2. STAFF REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
 

Neil Hart, Preservation

Coordinator:

• Announced staff promotions and job reassignments. Mary Gallagher, Sr. Planner and Co-Chief of Neighborhood Planning, will be out on maternity leave, approximately June 20 - November 20, 1998. To backfill her position Neil Hart and Larry Badiner have received a five-month promotion to Senior Managers, to co-share the Chief of Neighborhood Planning position at 50% time each. Neil Hart will devote his other 50% to LPAB as Preservation Coordinator. Larry Badiner will devote his other 50% to the Special Projects Team.

3. PRESIDENT'S REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENT
 

Daniel Reidy:

• Raised concern about the Action Minutes. Advised members of the Board, if there is a substantive issue being raised, they are to try to underline the issue in the meeting to have the Recording Secretary make reasonable efforts to get the issues in the minutes.

• Commented on revised programmatic agreement for the

• Request that staff report back, if in the future, there are referrals on the I-Hotel and/or Colombo building, which staff members are certified as having sufficient training to do the review and what are the Secretary of Interior's qualifications for those staff members?

4. MATTERS OF THE BOARD
 

None
 

5. TRAINING
 

PRESENTATION ON THE CEQA PROCESS (GITELMAN)

Department staff will briefly summarize the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process in San Francisco with special attention to the treatment of historic resources and the Landmark Preservation Advisory Board's role in the process.

• Hillary Gitelman, Environmental Review Officer (ER0), briefly summarized the CEQA process, as requested and suggested by the Board.
• Intent of the presentation is to focus on issues that may be of particular concern to the Landmarks Board: The Board's role and how it fits into the CEQA process?
• A handout, detailing the CEQA process and which sections of the environmental document the Board should focus on was discussed.
• Member Becerril provided the Board with a document from of the Office of Historic Preservation "Fact Sheet: CEQA and Historical Resources".
• Chair, Reidy, recommended that the Board bring their comments on the EIRs scheduled for review to the hearing for inclusion in the Board's comment letter.

 

TAPE NO.: 1
 

Review and Comment
 

6. 97.823E (GITELMAN)

299 DOLORES STREET, THE HOLY FAMILY DAY HOME. Assessor's Block 3556, Lot 25. Request for Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board's comments on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed demolition of a vacant, three-story, stucco-clad brick, educational building designed by Willis Polk & Co. Architects and constructed in 1911, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The subject building is rated a "2" on the Planning Department's 1976 Architectural Survey,

and was determined eligible for placement on the National Register of Historic Places in 1992. (Continued from the April 1, 1998 Meeting.)
 

• Hillary Gitelman, ERO - comment period closes on May 14, 1998.

 

 
 
 
 
 

? Provide additional information regarding the sponsor's reasons for rejecting alternatives to preserve existing building.

? Clarify seismic issues (p. 36).

? Provide detail of structural reviews performed and alternatives considered and rejected, including cost analyses.

? Identify if use of the State Historic Building Code was factored into costs of alternatives.

? Were the costs of demolition and archeological mitigation factored into the cost of project?

? As described in Alternative A, how does local requirement relate to Public Resources Code Section 5028, subdivision (a)?

? Please clarify if new building would be wood frame structure (pp. 1 and 15) or steel frame (p. A-2).

? The analysis on p. 27 - the proposed demolition would have no effect on Landmark buildings in the vicinity, yet also states new building would have an architectural effect at the corner of Dolores and 16th Streets. While the area is not a formal historic district, it's a critical historic zone - the EIR should consider further whether the proposed demolition and new construction would significantly affect this historic area.

? Provide information regarding site history between the period of 1849 and 1911-12, if possible.

? Implementation and monitoring of the archeological mitigation is vitally important, with regards to significant cultural resources discovered on the adjacent parcel.

? Include a mitigation measure which would retain some of the building features (exterior medallions, and some of the interior features in context as wood moldings).

? Photographs (current and historic) in addition to text and drawings should be included.

? Provide updated illustration of the proposed building. The "weight" of the existing building is its defining characteristic and to the extent possible, this quality should be reflected in the new design.

? The EIR should provide a summary of past proposals and approval actions.
 

• The Recording Secretary will fax a copy of the draft letter to the Board for review and comments and submit final letter to Ms. Gitelman by close of business on May 14, 1998.

 

Tom Mayers

John Barbey

Tim Vos
 

7. 96.281E (GITELMAN)

THIRD STREET LIGHT RAIL PROJECT. Request for Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board's comments on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Third Street Light Rail Project for transportation improvements in San Francisco's Third Street Corridor pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The DEIR is studying three alternatives for the Third Street Light Rail Project.
 

• The analysis of historic resources and impacts in the area of Potential Effect, including the Historic Property Survey Report, seemed comprehensive and adequate.

• The Mitigations and Alternatives sections were sufficient. No additions or corrections were recommended.

• The Board asked to be kept informed about detailed plans for the three bridge crossings to ensure that the historic architectural character of the bridges will be retained.
• Hillary Gitelman, ERO pointed out that sometime in the future, because there will be the use of federal funds, there will be a Section 106 determination on this project requiring future LPAB review . Comments are due May 19, 1998.
• Chair, Reidy, recommended that Mr. Finwall be the designated person to finalize comment letter to Ms. Gitelman.

TAPE NO.: 1 (beginning of TAPE NO.: 2)
 
 
 

8. 97.447E (GITELMAN)

OMNI SAN FRANCISCO HOTEL, 500 CALIFORNIA STREET, THE FINANCIAL CENTER. Request for Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board's comments on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed renovation of the Financial Center building, a Category 1 Building identified in Article 11, as a hotel pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
 

• Hillary Gitelman, ERO - comment period closes on May 26, 1998.

 

? Acknowledgment of historic resource - DEIR adequately notes the historic significance of the building (a Category I building) and its relationship to San Francisco's Financial District.

? Removal of historic fabric - DEIR adequately addresses the significant adverse impact of removing the historic facade windows.

? Changes to the cornice facade - DEIR adequately addresses the significant adverse impact of the proposed alterations.

? Clarify that some of the project sponsor's proposals are actually mitigation measures to be added to the Cultural Resources Section on p. 52:

- Restoration of case stone base - include the removal of the polished granite base from the building and its replacement with rusticated cast stone.

- Restoration of cast stone detailing and ornamentation - per the Secretary of the Interior's Standards, retain and restore the cast stone ornamentation at the top of the building and the cast stone window sills on the Montgomery and California Streets elevations.

? Wooden windows - the Mitigations section should more completely analyze the factors involved in various scenarios of saving the historic facade wooden windows completely or as much as possible while achieving the sound attenuation and operational efficiency objectives of the future hotel operators. The following recommendation by Page & Turnbull should be included in the mitigation section: "We would recommend that original wooden windows be retained on principal facades. If it is necessary to alter the fenestration for purposes of sound attenuation, the addition of a secondary glazing system within the existing windows is preferable to removal of these units."

? Worker safety - concern with pp. 53-54, mitigating impacts of lead paint seems to be a boilerplate summary of Chapter 36 of the S.F. Building Code; not tailored for worker safety for this particular building or nearby buildings and the public in the vicinity. Exactly what containment barriers will be provided for removal work on the building exteriors?

? Recommend that an additional preservation alternative be analyzed, which would allow the cornice windows and expansion of the 17th floor as proposed by the project sponsor, with an alternative window repair and replacement scheme, which would allow for double hung wooden windows incorporating sound attenuation features. Suggest having the project sponsor work with San Francisco Heritage Foundation's preservation professionals to come up with technically successful solution to retain as much of the historic fabric of the windows as possible.
 

? Explanation for rejection of preservation alternative - DEIR does not contain a competent independent validation based on a professional study justifying the assertion that retention of wooden facade windows "would not achieve the level of sound attenuation required for a luxury hotel"; there is no economic analysis justifying the assertion that retention of the wooden facade windows "would be prohibitively expensive" (p. 59).
 

• Chair, Reidy, will take the lead in writing comments and submitting them before May 26, 1998.

REGULAR CALENDAR ITEMS
 

Section 106
 

9. 98.211A (PAEZ)

"LEFTY" O'DOUL THIRD STREET BRIDGE, LANDMARK NO. 194, between Assessor's Block 3803, Lot 5 and Assessor's Block 3813, Lot 1. Certified Local Government review and comment on a Federal undertaking which proposes the rehabilitation and seismic retrofit of the bridge, a property determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
 

• Mark Paez, Section 106 Coordinator, noted an error in the identification in item #10 (no demolition). Handed out a letter identified as Attachment E, a response letter to a preliminary submittal by the Lead Agency (Federal Highway Administration) from the State Historic Preservation Officer.

 

Responded to Attachment E

Michael Levin

Joe Ovadia
 

Action: Staff would write a letter incorporating the Board's comments (Moved by Member Finwall)

Ayes: Members Becerril, Dearman, Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kotas, Levitt, Magrane and Reidy

Noes: None

Absent: Member Shatara
 

TAPE NO.: 2
 
 
 

Certificates of Appropriateness

10. 98.211A (GORDON)

"LEFTY" O'DOUL THIRD STREET BRIDGE, LANDMARK NO. 194, between Assessor's Block 3803, Lot 5 and Assessor's Block 3813, Lot 1. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness for the seismic rehabilitation of the bridge, demolition of the Watchman's Building, construction of a new Operation's building, and installation of new lane trusses/railings.
 

Speakers: Howard Wong, DPW

Michael Levin

Frank Filice, DPW
 

Action: Approve Certificate of Appropriateness (Moved by Member Kotas)

Ayes: Members Becerril, Dearman, Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kotas, Levitt, Magrane and Reidy

Noes: None

Absent: Member Shatara
 

TAPE NO.: 2
 

11. 98.053A (LIGHT)

1133 HAYES STREET, Assessor's Block 824, Lot 2D, a five-unit residential Contributory building in the Alamo Square Historic District. Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to legalize and modify an illegal fourth floor addition.
 

Action: Continued to June 17, 1998
 

12. 98.033A (LIGHT)

1125 HAYES STREET, Assessor's Block 824, Lot 1H, a Contributory three-story residential building in the Alamo Square Historic District. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness to build a rear yard deck.
 

Action: Approve Certificate of Appropriateness (Moved by Member Levitt)

Ayes: Members Becerril, Dearman, Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kotas, Levitt, Magrane and Reidy

Noes: None

Absent: Member Shatara
 

TAPE NO.: 2
 
 
 
 

13. 98.224A (LIGHT)

711 SCOTT STREET, Assessor's Block 1181, Lot 5, A Contributory single-family, two-story over-garage building in the Alamo Square Historic District. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness to replace windows and add a fire escape at the rear.
 

Speaker: Mike McComb, Architect
 
 
 

Action: Approve Certificate of Appropriateness with pole ladder design for fire escape (Moved by Member Magrane)

Ayes: Members Becerril, Dearman, Finwall, Kotas, Levitt, Magrane and Reidy

Noes: Ho-Belli (on pole ladder design)

Absent: Member Shatara
 

TAPE NO.: 2
 
 
 

14. 98.250A (LIGHT)

1255 FULTON STREET, Assessor's Block 1181, Lot 22, a Contributory two-unit, four-story building in the Alamo Square Historic District. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish and reconstruct a rear addition.
 

Speaker: Mark Topetcher, Architect

J. B. Alegiani, Owner
 

Action: Approve Certificate of Appropriateness (Moved by Member Finwall)

Ayes: Members Becerril, Dearman, Finwall, Ho-Belli, Levitt, Magrane and Reidy

Noes: None

Absent: Members Kotas and Shatara
 

TAPE NO.: 2
 
 
 

15. 98.167A (KOMETANI)

916 KEARNY STREET, THE SENTINEL BUILDING, LANDMARK NO. 33, Assessor's Block 176, Lot 13, a Contributory seven-story office building in the Jackson Square Historic District. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness for ground floor storefront remodel.
 

Speaker: John Fordice, Architect
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Action: Approve Certificate of Appropriateness (Moved by Member Levitt)
 

Ayes: Members Becerril, Dearman, Finwall, Ho-Belli, Levitt, Magrane and Reidy

Noes: None

Absent: Member Kotas
 

TAPE NO.: 2
 
 
 

ADJOURNMENT: 5:48 P.M.
 
 
 

Andrea Green

Recording Secretary
 

Adopted: July 1, 1998
 
 
 
 
 

n:\lpab\minutes\may6fin.min
 
 
 

Back to top

12:35 P.M. ROLL CALL
 

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE
 

MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS FINWALL, CHAIR, REIDY, AND SHATARA

ABSENT: MEMBER MAGRANE
 

1. 97.834L (GORDON)

1800-06 MARKET STREET, at Waller and Octavia Streets, the Carmel Fallon Building, a property determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, Lot 14 in Assessor's Block 871. Review and consider exterior elevation schematic designs prior to adoption of a draft Landmark designation report, and consideration of action to initiate Landmark designation of the property. (Continued from the April 15, 1998 Hearing.)
 

Speakers: Margaret Stone, Chair, Community Center Project

Jane Cee, Jay Turnbull, Peter Pfau, Architects

David Bahlman, Heritage

Jack Laws, Structural Design Engineers

Tim Kelly, Friends of 1800 Market Street

ARC recommendations and actions:
 

• Chair Finwall questioned the research that was done on the building - was the work based on the existing conditions of the building or was research done on the history of the building - are there historic photographs of the building - research on the permit history showing alterations and changes?
• Chair Finwall would like to see the front entrance continue to be used in some productive way.

• Chair Finwall had concerns regarding taking the original storefront and putting it back in again - more concerned about cutting it back and changing the shape of the original fabric that is not appropriate for a landmark building.
• Member Reidy had concern regarding the window elements and identification signage.
• The item will be heard for landmark initiation on June 3, 1998.

Adjournment
 

2:05 P.M. ROLL CALL
 

MEMBERS PRESENT: FINWALL, HO-BELLI, KOTAS, REIDY, AND SHATARA

MEMBERS ABSENT: BECERRIL, DEARMAN, LEVITT, MAGRANE
 

FOR FULL BOARD CONSIDERATION
 

PUBLIC COMMENT
 

None
 

REPORTS
 

1. DEPARTMENT REPORT
 

None
 

TAPE NO.: 1
 

2. STAFF REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
 

Neil Hart, Preservation

Coordinator: Requested Board to complete vacation/absence schedule circulated by the Recording Secretary, so that items can be scheduled and to know if there will be a quorum for future hearings.

Reported on Section 3 of the I-Hotel Memorandum of Agreement, as requested by Chair Reidy at the May 6, 1998 hearing. Note: This item is scheduled for the June 3, 1998 hearing. Copies of the Secretary of Interior Standards were distributed to the Board.
 

TAPE NO.: 1
 

3. PRESIDENT'S REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENT
 

None
 

TAPE NO.: 1
 

4. MATTERS OF THE BOARD
 

Jeremy Kotas: Distributed summary of preliminary assessment of the impacts of the Asian Arts Museumproject on the historic resource.
 

TAPE NO.: 1
 

5. INFORMATIONAL PRESENTATION/QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 10 TO GOLDEN GATE BRIDGE
 

Kate Stacy, Deputy

City Attorney: Presented to the Board, a brief overview of the Golden Gate Bridge District, as requested by President Reidy and Member Becerril at a previous hearing. Ms. Stacy stated that the Golden Gate Bridge is for a State entity, and the State is not generally subject to local zoning and building codes. Under Article 10, once the Bridge is designated a landmark, if it were not operated by a State entity, any permits that the City issued would trigger a Certificate of Appropriateness, but because the Golden Gate Bridge District does not come to the City for any permits, and it's her understanding that they do their own work and do not get permits from any entities, Certificate of Appropriateness would not be triggered by Article 10. However, Section 1010 of Article 10, requires public agencies owning landmarks to consult with the Landmarks Board when undertaking alterations to a landmark or historic structure.

TAPE NO.: 1
 

REGULAR CALENDAR ITEMS
 

6. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 18 AND APRIL 15, 1998 ACTION MINUTES
 

No quorum to approve the March 18, 1998 action minutes.

Approval of the April 15, 1998 action minutes was passed.
 

TAPE NO.: 1

Review and Comment
 

7. (GALLAGHER)

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS PROCEDURES. Request for Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board's comments on draft written procedures for the Certificate of Appropriateness process.
 

Speaker: Gee Gee Platt
 

Mary Gallagher,

Senior Planner: Referenced the Department's Principal Procedures Manual which explains and delineates all the steps taken by staff and Planning Commission when reviewing the different types of applications that comes to the Department (building permits, conditional uses, rezonings, etc.). She mentioned that Gerald Green noted some time ago, that this manual lacked preservation procedures and he made a commitment to the Board to begin to develop those procedures to make sure that:
 

1. We would be following the regulations of the Planning Code and other land use and environmental regulations;
 

2. Applying these rules thoroughly and consistently; and,
 

3. So that we would all be on the same page - Members of the Landmarks Board, the staff, and the public. We would all share the same set of expectations and understanding of what comes before the Landmarks Board, what does not come before the Landmarks Board, why something comes before the Landmarks Board, what action we are to take, what action the Planning staff is to take, what action the Planning Commission is to take.
 

Daniel Reidy: Commented that procedures were not clear as to where final decision is made, especially to an applicant.

If applicant doesn't like certain conditions, what happens?
 

What is notification process if recommendation is modified?

Conditions should be listed/specified on the Certificate of Appropriateness.

Continue this item to the June 3, 1998 hearing and keep public comments opened.
 

TAPE NO.: 1
 

8. 96.771E (DEUTSCH)

MISSION BAY, 303 acres generally south of Townsend Street, east of Seventh Street and I-280 freeway, and north of Mariposa Street. Request for Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board's comments on the Subsequent Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed development of the Mission Bay Project Area pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The project would include two redevelopment areas and provide for a mix of development north and south of China Basin Channel.
 

Speaker: Gee Gee Platt

Paul Deutsch,

Senior Planner: Stated that Board should note that nothing that transpired at this hearing will be part of the EIR record. Public hearings on the Draft EIR under City law are held by the Planning Commission. Any letter of comments that the Board sends would, of course, be a part of the EIR record and would be responded to in writing.

Mr. Deutsch mentioned that this is a very big project with actually a relatively small number of historic resource issues. The discussion of historic resources in this Draft EIR, which is a Subsequent EIR, mostly reiterates the discussion in the previous EIR which was prepared in 1990, on a previous proposal covering substantially the same area. There is nothing substantially new on the subject in this EIR beyond the 1990 EIR discussion, which can be found primarily in the Visual Quality section. The only historic resource identified in the area is Fire Station No. 30, on Third Street near Mission Rock Street. At this time, it is not known whether the Fire Station will be preserved or not. In the absence of such a decision, the EIR identifies a possible significant impact if the Station is demolished or if it is inappropriately altered. A mitigation is suggested in the EIR, which identifies a process of establishing eligibility for National Register listing and eligibility requiring preservation, rehabilitation and reuse of the building consistent with the Secretary of Interior guidelines. If the building is not preserved, there would be a significant effect on the historic resource, partial mitigation is suggested at doing a HABS survey.

The previous EIR identified some old pasalt paving blocks along parts of King Street as being of possible local historic interest, but not being eligible for the National Register. Since then, that paving has been removed in connection with the Muni Metro Light Rail extension along King Street and partly due to the new on/off ramps for I-280, as described in the initial study for the Subsequent EIR, whereas, you will not find any information about those in the EIR.

The two bridges across China Basin Channel are significant, historical, architectural resources. They are not in the project area, they are not proposed to be changed as a part of the project. Both have been determined to be eligible for the National Register. The Third Street Bridge is a City Landmark. The Draft Subsequent EIR did examine the possible effects of the project on the visual context of these resources and did not find that changes due of the project would be substantially adverse.

The comment period for this document has been extended to 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, June 9, 1998. The Draft Subsequent EIR was heard before the Planning Commission on May 14, 1998.
 

Daniel Reidy: Asked if any questions dealing with either historic resources or architectural issues were raised at the hearing before the Planning Commission? Response: Do not recall any.

Document would be strengthen by documenting that there had been an historic survey.

Why wasn't there an evaluation performed for Fire Station No. 30, if historically significant? What is the current use?

President Reidy will draft comment letter to Ms. Gitelman.
 

TAPE NO.: 1(b), 2 (a)

9. 97.470E (DEUTSCH)

475 BRANNAN STREET, between Third and Fourth Streets, Assessor's Block 3787, Lot 31. Request for Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board's comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the proposed renovation and expansion of an existing office building (former warehouse) with addition of parking.
 

Speakers: Peter Pfau

Gerry Market

Jane Winslow

David Colleen

Gee Gee Platt

David Bahlman
 

Paul Deutsch

Senior Planner: Stated that the existing building is rated "B" by Heritage; rated "1" in the 1976 Planning Department Architectural Survey; and, is designated a significant structure in the South of Market Plan, which is an area plan part of the San Francisco General Plan.

The proposed physical changes to the building have been characterized in the Draft EIR as potentially, substantial and adverse and therefore, significant. Two preservation alternatives that would avoid the significant effect are analyzed in the Draft EIR.

The comment period closes on June 4, 1998, and there is a Planning Commission hearing on the Draft EIR scheduled for June 4, 1998, at which time, public comment on the Draft EIR can be taken.
 

LPAB The building is a historic resource.

Members: The scale of the building is slightly large and should be setback.

What is the height of the parapet?

Alternative C is the preferred alternative.

There will be a perceived change in the neighborhood by having one of the largest building go from two stories to four stories, so there is the possibility of impact on the historic neighborhoods that are nearby.

Include some of the analytic points and additional mitigation measures from the historic study done by Page & Turnbull, that are not incorporated in the Draft EIR.

Comment letter will be drafted by Members Kotas and Finwall. President Reidy will give his input.

TAPE NO.: 2
 

10. (HART)

CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO CHINATOWN/NORTH BEACH CAMPUS, 1-21 COLUMBUS AVENUE, 49-55 COLUMBUS AVENUE, AND 610-622 WASHINGTON AVENUE. Request for Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board's comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the proposed acquisition of a site for future development of an educational facility. NOTE: This Draft EIR was prepared by the Community College District, a separate lead agency. As a responsible agency, the City of San Francisco may submit comments. Written comments should be addressed to the Environmental Review Officer for transmittal to the College District along with comments of other City departments and staff.
 

Member Ho-Belli had to recuse herself. This item was not heard due to lack of quorum. Individual comments can be addressed to the Community College District.

TAPE NO.: 2
 

Certificates of Appropriateness

11. 98.276A (KOMETANI)

900 NORTHPOINT STREET, GHIRARDELLI SQUARE, LANDMARK NO. 30, Assessor's Block 452, Lot 1, an industrial five-story complex. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness for new storefronts, awnings, and signage.
 

Speaker: Nick Dragon, Architect
 

Action: Approve Certificate of Appropriateness (Moved by Member Kotas)

Ayes: Members Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kotas, Shatara and Reidy

Noes: None

Absent: Member Becerril, Dearman, Levitt, and Magrane
 

TAPE NO.: 2
 

12. 98.249A (KOMETANI)

574 PACIFIC AVENUE, Assessor's Block 163, Lot 9, a contributory three-story hotel in the Jackson Square Historic District. Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove non-original storefront and fence and install new storefront.
 

Speaker: William Pearson, Architect
 

Action: Approve Certificate of Appropriateness (Moved by Member Shatara)

Ayes: Members Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kotas, Shatara and Reidy

Noes: None

Absent: Member Becerril, Dearman, Levitt, and Magrane
 

TAPE NO.: 2
 

ADJOURNMENT: 4:30 P.M.
 

Andrea Green

Recording Secretary
 
 
 

Adopted: August 19, 1998
 
 
 

n:\lpab\minutes\may20.min

Back to top

Return to the Planning Department's Home Page. Click here.