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.
 
 

• October 6, 1999
• October 20, 1999

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE

MEMBERS PRESENT: FINWALL, KOTAS, MAGRANE, REIDY and SHATARA

1. 1999. 496A (PAEZ)

333 DOLORES STREET, Saint Joseph School, east side between 16th and 17th Streets. Assessor?s Block 3567, Lot 57, City Landmark No. 137. The Children?s Day School is a three-story reinforced concrete building with stucco exterior and associated playground/open space located behind the Notre Dame Plaza Senior Housing Complex which fronts on Dolores Street. The subject property is zoned RM-1 (Mixed Residential, Low Density) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Request for Architectural Review Committee review and comment on a proposal to demolish an accessory storage building, shed, incinerator and a children?s playhouse, as well as construction of a new two-story (with basement) school building containing classrooms, a library, administrative office space and a multi-purpose room. The project also includes minor exterior alterations and the seismic upgrade to the Saint Joseph?s Hall Building.

? Overall, the ARC was in support of the project.

? Questions raised were as follows:
• what happens with the south facade?
• who is the arborist?
• would any change have any impact with the building?s National Register status?
• Is there a Board of Trustees who run the school?

? Color of building should be appropriate with adjacent buildings.

? ARC will recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness to the Full Board.

9-11 BLACKSTONE COURT, Assessor?s Block 504, Lot 8, through-lot property in Blackstone Court Historic District with frontages on both Blackstone Court and Lombard Street. Property contains existing historic house fronting on Blackstone Court and non-historic storage shed and billboard sign structure near Lombard Street frontage. The subject property is zoned NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Request for Architectural Review Committee review and comment on a proposal to remove shed (which has been condemned by the Department of Building Inspection) and billboard sign structure, and construct a 3-unit residential building fronting on Lombard Street.

ARC comments and recommendations:

Request for continuance to October 20, 1999 was approved (moved by Kotas, seconded by Shatara, vote was unanimous - Finwall, Kotas, Magrane, Reidy and Shatara).

Tape No.: 1a

ADJOURNMENT

1:55 P.M. ROLL CALL

FOR FULL BOARD CONSIDERATION

MEMBERS PRESENT: DEARMAN, FINWALL, KELLEY, KOTAS, MAGRANE, REIDY and SHATARA
MEMBERS ABSENT: HO-BELLI and LEVITT

PUBLIC COMMENT

Speaker: Don Andreini re: Introduction of Heritage?s new Executive Director, Charles E. Chase.

REPORTS

1. STAFF REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
 
Niel Hart,
Preservation Coordinator:
 
•  Updated the Board on 1 Church Street, Daphne Funeral Home

•  Doggie Diner Sign Landmark Designation is scheduled before the Planning Commission October 14.

•  Responded to Board Member Finwall?s request on enforcement re: 500 Divisadero Street and Oak Street Firehouse.

•  Landmark Designations for Washington Square Park and the Madame C. J. Walker House have been forwarded to Supervisor Becerril.

•  Introduced new intern, Moses Corrette.

•  October 20 Landmarks Board hearing will start at 1:30, to allow Board Members to attend the ground breaking ceremonies at 1800 Market Street, The Carmel Fallon Building.

None.

3. MATTERS OF THE BOARD
 

Board Member
Finwall:

•  Requested a draft copy of the Preservation Element/Master Plan.

•  Requested feedback to the Preservation Survey Meeting held on September 8, 1999.

REGULAR CALENDAR ITEMS

4. APPROVAL OF THE JULY 21, AUGUST 4 AND AUGUST 18, 1999, DRAFT ACTION MINUTES

July 21, 1999:Member Kotas (seconded by Magrane) moved to approve. Vote was unanimous (Dearman, Finwall, Kelley, Kotas, Magrane, Reidy and Shatara) (Absent: Ho-Belli and Levitt).

August 4, 1999: No quorum.

July 21, 1999: Member Shatara (seconded by Dearman) moved to approve. Vote was unanimous (Dearman, Finwall, Kelley, Kotas, Magrane, Reidy and Shatara) (Absent: Ho-Belli and Levitt).

? Informational Presentation

5. 1998.257ERX (KOMETANI)

UNION SQUARE, a City park bounded by Post, Geary, Stockton and Powell Streets, Assessor?s Block 308, Lot. 1. The park is located atop a below garage, parking structure, an unrated building in the Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District. The subject property is zoned P (Public Use) District and is in an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District. Informational presentation on a proposal for improvements to the park, including new park structures and a new landscape plan.

Speakers:

Don Alameda
April ___
Michael Fort
Tom Harry
Patrick McGrew
Linda Magellan

Board Comments:

•  Mentioned the importance of keeping the Dewey Monument
• Light fixtures should have a strong echo to the past.
• Difficult time with there being less green scape and a lot of hard scape.
• Form of design makes Union Square more usable to people.
• It?s an urban design site that doesn?t fight with the buildings.

?  Landmark Designation
 

6. 1998.857L (PAEZ)

MARTIN LUTHER KING JUNIOR DRIVE, THE MILLWRIGHTS COTTAGE AND THE SOUTH WINDMILL, north side between John F. Kennedy Drive and the Great Highway at the west end of Golden Gate Park, a portion of Assessor?s Block 1700, Lot 1. The subject property is zoned P (Public Use) District and is in an OS (Open Space) Height and Bulk District. Consideration to initiate landmark designation and adopt a resolution initiating and recommending landmark designation of the Millwrights Cottage and the South Windmill as Landmark No. 210.


Speaker: Chris VerPlanck

BoardActions:
 

• The Board agreed to make the following changes to the Kahlman rating:

- Item #8, change Windmill and Cottage ratings from E to VG

- Item #11, change Windmill rating from G to VG

- Item #12, change Cottage rating from VG to G

•  Motion to initiate landmark designation (Moved by Member Magrane).

Ayes: Members Dearman, Finwall, Kelley, Kotas, Magrane, Reidy and Shatara
Noes: None
Absent: Ho-Belli and Levitt

•  Motion to adopt Staff Report/Resolution initiating and recommending landmark designation to the Planning Commission as Landmark No. 210, subject to revised Kahlman changes (Moved by Member Magrane).

Ayes: Members Dearman, Finwall, Kelley, Kotas, Magrane, Reidy and Shatara
Noes: None
Absent: Ho-Belli and Levitt
Tape Nos.: 1b & 2a

 
7. 1999. 496A (PAEZ)

333 DOLORES STREET, Saint Joseph School, east side between 16th and 17th Streets. Assessor?s Block 3567, Lot 57, City Landmark No. 137. The Children?s Day School is a three-story reinforced concrete building with stucco exterior and associated playground/open space located behind the Notre Dame Plaza Senior Housing Complex which fronts on Dolores Street. The subject property is zoned RM-1 (Mixed Residential, Low Density) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish an accessory storage building, shed, incinerator and a children?s playhouse, as well as construction of a new two-story (with basement) school building containing classrooms, a library, administrative office space and a multi-purpose room. The project also includes minor exterior alterations and the seismic upgrade to the Saint Joseph?s Hall Building.

Action: Moved to accept Staff?s recommendation, requesting that color of building be reviewed by Staff and ARC. (Moved by Member Shatara)
Ayes: Dearman, Finwall, Kelley, Kotas, Magrane, Reidy and Shatara
Noes: None
Absent: Ho-Belli and Levitt

8. 1999.555A (LIGHT)

9-11 BLACKSTONE COURT, Assessor?s Block 504, Lot 8, through-lot property in Blackstone Court Historic District with frontages on both Blackstone Court and Lombard Street. Property contains existing historic house fronting on Blackstone Court and non-historic storage shed and billboard sign structure near Lombard Street frontage. The subject property is zoned NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove shed (which has been condemned by the Department of Building Inspection) and billboard sign structure, and construct a 3-unit residential building fronting on Lombard Street.

 9. 1999.607A (LIGHT)

3640 BUCHANAN STREET, San Francisco Gas and Light Company, southeast corner of North Point Street. Assessor?s Block 459, Lot 3. Landmark No. 58. A two-story masonry Romanesque Victorian office building. The subject property is zoned NC-2 (Neighborhood Commercial, Small-Scale) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace deteriorated windows on south side of building in kind, install gate at North point auto entrance, build 6'-8" wall to screen mechanical equipment and garbage, install gate in garden wall in front yard.

Speaker: Patrick McGrew

Note: Member Magrane was recused.
Action: Moved to accept Staff?s recommendation. (Moved by Member Finwall)
Ayes: Dearman, Finwall, Kelley, Kotas, Reidy and Shatara
Noes: None
Absent: Ho-Belli and Levitt
 

10. 1999.449A (ALVIN)

376 LEXINGTON STREET, between 20th and 21st Streets. Assessor?s Block 3609, Lot 60. The two-story, Italianate, single-family house is in the Liberty Hill Historic District. The subject property is zoned RH-2 (House, Two-Family) District and is in a 50-X Height and Bulk District. Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to construct an underground one-car (two tandem) garage in the front building wall.

Speaker: Ernie Selander

Action: Moved to accept Staff?s recommendation, suggesting the removal of planter boxes. (Moved by Member Magrane)
Ayes: Dearman, Finwall, Kelley, Kotas, Magrane, Reidy and Shatara
Noes: None
Absent: Ho-Belli and Levitt
 

? Review and Comment

11. 1998.902E (KUGLER)

FIRST AND HOWARD STREETS, all four corners of the intersection of First and Howard Streets; Assessors Block 3720, Lots 5, 6 and 7; Block 3721, Lots 10, 11, 35 and 88; Block 3736, Lots 1, 2, 3A, 4 and 116; and Block 3737, Lots 1, 1A, 1B, 2, 3, 4, 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26. The proposed project would demolish all but one of the existing structures on the four corners of the intersection of First and Howard (south of the Transbay Terminal) and construct four nine-story office buildings in the C-3-O (SD) (Downtown Office, Special Development) District in the South of Market area. The new space would be approximately 1,120,000 sq. ft. of office and about 56,000 sq. ft. of retail. About 1,233 underground valet parking spaces are proposed. The Category I historic structure at 231 First St. would be retained and converted to restaurant or retail and office use. Two other buildings, 401 Howard and 218 Fremont Streets which meet the CEQA definition of historic resources but are not on local surveys would be demolished. Request for Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board?s comments on the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

•  Project Description:

? The objectives in the description does not contain any statement of purpose regarding preservation of historic resources or sensitivity to relationship to historic resources in the vicinity.

? While there is reference to Planning Commission action under Planning Code Section 309, there should also be reference to review by the Landmarks Board as part of the Section 309 review process.

? It should be mentioned on page 45, that the Landmarks Board should review the vacation of Tenny Place and Sloan Alley, since these alleys have historic architectural significance and value.

? Again on page 45, requirements for approval of alterations to historic resources is limited to one building and should include all buildings proposed for demolition, which should have prior review and recommendations by the Landmarks Board.

? A description and graphic should the boundaries of ?Happy Valley? should be included.

• Historic Architectural Resources:

? On page 58, the DEIR lists five potentially pertinent policies without any analysis of conformance. Demolition of so many older buildings and constructing such massive bulky mid-rise buildings would be out of conformance with all of the General Plan policies. The EIR should contain a fair, but hard look at the conformance of the proposed project with the General Plan policies.

? The proposed project, with its massive bulky mid-rise buildings will visually overwhelm the old low elevation buildings nearby. The analysis on page 70 should be augmented to include this perspective.

? The EIR should be augmented by street scape photos of the alleys in the project area slated for vacation and development. The EIR should analyze the impact of the loss of these alleys as pedestrian ways and include a cumulative impacts analysis of the loss of other alley ways in the South of Market area. A fair analysis would conclude that the loss of these alleys would be considered a significant adverse effect in terms of CEQA.

? Photographs from Patrick McGrew?s September 15, 1999 inventory report should be included in the Final EIR. The McGrew analysis and photos demonstrate that more than one building (231 First Street) are valuable historic resources worthy of preservation.

? The Board agrees that the demolition of 401 Howard and 218 Fremont Streets would be considered a significant adverse effect, however, the Board recommends that the demolition of 501 Howard Street would also be considered a significant adverse impact.
 
•  Mitigation Measures:
? Referencing Mitigation Measure No. 16, which requires historic documentation of 401 Howard and 218 Fremont Streets ?prior to demolition?, the DEIR shows a lack of sufficient research and evaluation up front as part of the EIR process; if the City does not yet fully understand the value of these historic resources, the EIR should not be finalized without including such analysis. Also, 501 Howard Street should be included in the mitigation measure.
 
•  Alternatives:

 

 
 
 

? The Board concluded that Alternative C (Preservation Alternative) involves minimal preservation. There should be consideration of another more authentic preservation alternative or alternatives which would keep more of the alleys in place, locate open space in the middle of building complexes rather than out at the four corners of a busy intersection, preserve 501 Howard Street and cut down on the bulk and massiveness of the buildings. The EIR should be able to assemble a true preservation alternative that this is the ?environmentally superior? alternative to the proposed project.

ADJOURNMENT: 5:45 P.M.

Andrea Green
Recording Secretary

Adopted: November 17, 1999
n:\lpab\minutes\drafts\oct6fin.min
 

Back to top

1:36 P.M. ROLL CALL

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE

MEMBERS PRESENT: FINWALL, MAGRANE, REIDY and SHATARA
MEMBER ABSENT: KOTAS
 

1. 1999.555A (LIGHT)

9-11 BLACKSTONE COURT, Assessor?s Block 504, Lot 8, through-lot property in Blackstone Court Historic District with frontages on both Blackstone Court and Lombard Street. Property contains existing historic house fronting on Blackstone Court and non-historic storage shed and billboard sign structure near Lombard Street frontage. The subject property is zoned NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Request for Architectural Review Committee review and comment on a proposal to remove shed (which has been condemned by the Department of Building Inspection) and billboard sign structure, and construct a 3-unit residential building fronting on Lombard Street, and to install a security gate at the end of Blackstone Court.

Speakers: Ed Hardin

Al Gianini
ARC comments and recommendations:
 
? Window details needs to be more compatible.

? Question was raised as to what was the treatment on rear roof finish (should be compatible to character of District).

? Rear roof should be treated as a frontage.

? Preference was given to horizontal siding as opposed to stucco.

? Pay close attention to details on gate.

ADJOURNMENT2:06 P.M.

ROLL CALL

FOR FULL BOARD CONSIDERATION

MEMBERS PRESENT: DEARMAN, FINWALL, HO-BELLI (arr. @ 2:29 p.m.), KELLEY, MAGRANE, REIDY and SHATARA
MEMBERS ABSENT: KOTAS and LEVITT

 PUBLIC COMMENT

None.

REPORTS

1. STAFF REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

None.

2. PRESIDENT'S REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

President Reidy:
 
•  Coordination Meeting with Larry Badiner, Planning Staff re: Surveys.

•  Planning Commission Hearing re: Doggie Diner Sign Landmark Designation.

•  Article on Board Member Dearman in the Bar Journal.


3. MATTERS OF THE BOARD

None.

Tape No.: 1a

4. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 4, 1999 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES

Continued to next hearing.

?Certificates of Appropriateness
 

5. 1999.555A (LIGHT)

9-11 BLACKSTONE COURT, Assessor?s Block 504, Lot 8, through-lot property in Blackstone Court Historic District with frontages on both Blackstone Court and Lombard Street. Property contains existing historic house fronting on Blackstone Court and non-historic storage shed and billboard sign structure near Lombard Street frontage. The subject property is zoned NC-3 (Moderate-Scale Neighborhood Commercial) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District. Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to remove shed (which has been condemned by the Department of Building Inspection) and billboard sign structure, and construct a 3-unit residential building fronting on Lombard Street, and to install a security gate at the end of Blackstone Court.

Speaker: Ed Hardin

 
Action: Moved to accept Staff?s recommendation with the following conditions:

? The back of the new building should be more sympathetic and have horizontal, wood siding.

? The security gate would be simple and elegant and design would be brought back to Staff for review and incorporate an indentification sign added to findings in final motion (mitigate impact of security gate closing off the public from the Historic District).

? The applicant would make best efforts to restore the carpenter gothic detailing on the veranda on the facade of 911 Blackstone Court facing Blackstone Court and consult with Heritage and search for historic photographs for guidance (Moved by Member Kelley)

Ayes: Dearman, Finwall, Ho-Belli, Kelley, Magrane, Reidy and Shatara
Noes: None
Absent: Kotas and Levitt

6. 1998.369A (KOMETANI)

435 PACIFIC AVENUE, south side between Montgomery and Sansome Streets, Assessor?s Block 175, Lot 28. A one-story garage building. The subject property is a ?Potentially Compatible? building in the Jackson Square Historic District, is zoned C-2 (Community Business) District and is in a 65-A Height and Bulk District. Request for Certificate of Appropriateness to demolish the existing building and construct a new office building.

Speakers: Charles E. Chase

Mrs. Bland Platt
Tom Hardy
Aaron Peskin
Andrew Junius

Recused: Member Ho-Belli
Comments: ? The Board acknowledged the good faith efforts proposed by the applicant.

? Board Member Shatara stated that he had no problems with the height of the building or demolition of the existing building.

? Board Member Kelley had concerns with the public comment about responding to the argument that a potentially compatible structure is therefore insignificant or does not trigger CEQA, etc.. Another concern is that in the Negative Declaration, there is no analyses of cumulative effects - as if, no matter what you do to one asset, that one asset has no great impact on a large district. He has no problem with the demolition or the proposed new building, but he?s not okay with the aforementioned arguments. He did not accept the argument that a potentially compatible building is therefore insignificant if its only potentially compatible.

? Board Member Finwall stated that the essence of this project is that there isn?t just a single issue, there are actually two issues: 1) is it up to the Board to say it?s okay to demolish the existing building and construct the proposed building (gave applauds to the design of the proposed building)? 2) should go back to Staff with a recommendation that the Planning Commission look at the Board?s recommendation that the existing building is a ?potentially compatible? building and that it should be the Planning Commission?s call as to whether this building is demolished. The ordinance, as it is written and being interrupted, the Board should be respecting a ?potentially compatible? building. It?s not the Board?s call to take it down.

? President Reidy stated that there should have been an EIR prepared instead of a Neg Dec, which would have allowed over-riding conditions. The Neg Dec has a very inadequate study regarding historic resources that doesn?t mention the period of time in the late 1920s when this area was the ?speak-easy? strip of the City. The existing building could have fit into this period, which could have been used for parking or as a warehouse.

? Had concern with the massing and height, commenting that the vantage point is not only standing on the sidewalk across the street, but the vantage point can be other buildings (i.e., looking down from Telegraph Hill). The analysis as presented by the applicant is wrongheaded. The analysis states that the existing building is incompatible with the District we have now and that the proposed building is compatible with the District, while it is almost self-evident that the proposed building is a compromise. But of itself, it?s not compatible, but something they have to take simply because someone wants to build a big building. It?s not compatible with any of the characteristics of the District, except for a few added elements on the facade. The proposed building itself is not compatible with the District because of its size and its bulk.

? Uncomfortable with making a finding that the existing building is incompatible with the District in order to justify its demolition.

? Although they recognized and tried to work with the guidance of the Board?s Architectural Review Committee, and brought the facade down so that it wouldn?t overwhelm the fire station next door, pulling it back 17½ feet, the plan still shows that it?s a tall building.

? Board Member Magrane stated that the building is compatible and the architecture for the building, for the circumstance is appropriate. However, they are not comfortable with how they arrived at the loss and the demolition the Board would now have to vote for.

Action: Moved not to accept Staff?s recommendation for approval of demolition or proposed project due to:

? The building has been identified as potentially compatible, and, therefore would like to see an analysis of the steps and expenses required to restore the potentially compatible building to its full compatiblity.

? Lack of an adequate analysis of the existing historic building.

? Recommended not demolishing existing building.

? Acknowledged that the applicant revised the project several times in the response to recommendations and requests made by the Architectural Review Committee, the ultimate project before the Board is not compatible with District because of height. (Moved by Member Kelley)

Ayes: Dearman, Finwall, Kelley, Magrane and Reidy
Noes: Shatara
Absent: Kotas and Levitt
Tape Nos.: 1b & 2a
ADJOURNMENT: 4:04 P.M.

Andrea Green
Recording Secretary

Adopted: December 1, 1999
n:\lpab\minutes\oct20fin.min

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