Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB) Minutes

August 2000


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.

 

                                                                             

 

 

FINAL ACTION MINUTES

OF THE

SAN FRANCISCO

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING

 

CITY HALL

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE, ROOM 400

AUGUST 16, 2000

 

12:42 P.M.  ROLL CALL

 

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE

 

MEMBERS PRESENT: FINWALL, KOTAS, MAGRANE (arr. @ 12:50 p.m.), REIDY and SHATARA

 

 1.        2000.735A                                                                                     (LIGHT: 558-6254)

1901 SCOTT STREET, The Ortman-Shumate House, west side between Pine and California Streets.  Assessor=s Block 1027, Lot 3.  The two-story Italianate house is Landmark No. 98.  The subject property is zoned RH-2 (House, Two-Family) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  Request for Architectural Review Committee review and comment on a proposal to repair/replace in-kind wood deck, wood porch and stairs, and front iron gates (not original). Removal of non-original addition to be replaced with windows and a pair of french doors; an increase in the height of perimeter fence and the removal of a yew tree.

 

Speakers:       Peter Wald

Christina Hall

Courtney Clarkston

 

ARC comments and recommendations:

 

$          There was some concern regarding the removal of trees - why? what is the width of trees? what will the existing trees be replaced with?

$          The ARC would recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness to the Full Board.

 

Tape No.: 1a

 

 2.        1999.812A                                                                                (GORDON: 558-6309)

700 7th STREET, The Baker-Hamilton Building, southwest corner of 7th and Townsend Streets, between Harrison and Bryant Streets.  Assessor=s Block 3799, Lot 1.  The three-story, unreinforced masonry warehouse building is City designated Landmark No. 193, is zoned M-1 (Light Industrial) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  Request for Architectural Review Committee review and comment on a proposal for new basement windows on the west exterior wall, deletion of proposed loading ramp on the west elevation, a new enlarged opening in the existing masonry on the west side of the building to provide entry to the new west lobby, a new guardrail for a loading dock along King Street, and new equipment on the roof.

 

Not heard by ARC, carried over to the Full Board.

 


 3.        2000.812A                                                                              (KOMETANI: 558-6478)

843-847 MONTGOMERY STREET, west side between Pacific Avenue and Jackson Street.  Assessor=s Block 176, Lots 3 and 3A.  A three-story, brick, office/retail building built in 1911 (originally two buildings, now combined).  The subject property is a ACompatible@ building in the Jackson Square Historic District, is zoned C-2 (Community Business) District and is in a 65-A Height and Bulk District.  Request for Architectural Review Committee review and comment on a proposal to replace non original ground floor storefronts and to construct a two-story rooftop addition.

 

Speakers:       Tom Hardy

Ashton Periera

 

ARC comments and recommendations:

 

$          There was some concern regarding the color of the stucco - too red.

$          It was suggested that the project sponsor downplay the color of roof top addition.

$          The ARC would recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness to the Full Board.

 

Tape No.: 1a

 

ADJOURNMENT

 

1:52 P.M. ROLL CALL

 

FOR FULL BOARD CONSIDERATION

 

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

MEMBER ABSENT:  LEVITT

 

PUBLIC COMMENT

 

Claire McGhee re: 1032 Broadway

Michael Levin re: The Emporium Site Project

 

REPORTS

 

 1.        STAFF REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Neil Hart,

Preservation Coordinator:

P          Announced that the Department received a $15,000 grant from SHPO for the Central Waterfront Survey.

 


P          Informational presentation on the Central Waterfront Cultural Resources Survey is scheduled before the Landmarks Board, 9/20/00.

P          Landmark designation of 700 Montgomery Street was heard before the Board of Supervisor Transportation and Land Use Committee.

P          Continued discussion of the Landmark Designation Work Program, 2000-2001, is scheduled for 9/20/00.

P          Landmarks Board hearing for September 6, 2000 is canceled.

P          Agenda packets are being sent to the Main Library.

 

Tape No.: 1a

 

             2.        PRESIDENT'S REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Daniel Reidy: P          Asked Staff to look into the controversial regarding the brick on Commercial Street (above Kearny).  According to the California Register of Historic Places, the brick is historic.

P          Attended Section 106 consultation on the Jewish Museum with FEMA - suggested discussion of this be scheduled for the next meeting.

P          1032 Broadway - asked Staff to research public concerns regarding work done on the property and inform him and Claire McGhee of the results.

 

 3.        MATTERS OF THE BOARD

 

Paul Finwall:              P          Receipt of an e-mail regarding a ongoing work on a building in the Jackson Square Historic District.  Asked if the building was under construction.

 

REGULAR CALENDAR ITEMS

 

 4.        APPROVAL OF THE JUNE 21, 2000 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES

 

July 19 -        Continued to September 20, 2000 Hearing.  Check notes regarding vote on priorities stated by Kelley.

 

Tape No.: 1a

 

 

 

 


O         Certificates of Appropriateness

 

 5.        2000.735A                                                                                     (LIGHT: 558-6254)

1901 SCOTT STREET, The Ortman-Shumate House, west side between Pine and California Streets.  Assessor=s Block 1027, Lot 3.  The two-story Italianate house is Landmark No. 98.  The subject property is zoned RH-2 (House, Two-Family) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to repair/replace in-kind wood deck, wood porch and stairs, and front iron gates (not original). Removal of non-original addition to be replaced with windows and a pair of french doors; an increase in the height of perimeter fence and the removal of a yew tree.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

 

Speaker:         Peter Wald

 

Action:            Chair Finwall, summarized comments made by the ARC, recommending approval.  Board Member Finwall moved to recommend approval of the Certificate of Appropriateness.

 

Ayes:               Dearman, Finwall, Kelley, Kotas, Magrane, Reidy and Shatara

Noes:              None

Absent:           Ho-Belli and Levitt

 

Tape No.: 1b

 

 6.        1999.812A                                                                                (GORDON: 558-6309)

700 7th STREET, The Baker-Hamilton Building, southwest corner of 7th and Townsend Streets, between Harrison and Bryant Streets.  Assessor=s Block 3799, Lot 1.  The three-story, unreinforced masonry warehouse building is City designated Landmark No. 193, is zoned M-1 (Light Industrial) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for new basement windows on the west exterior wall, deletion of proposed loading ramp on the west elevation, a new enlarged opening in the existing masonry on the west side of the building to provide entry to the new west lobby, a new guardrail for a loading dock along King Street, and new equipment on the roof.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

 

Speaker:         Richard Stacy

 

Action:            Board Member Dearman moved to accept Staff=s recommendation to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness.

 

Ayes:               Dearman, Finwall, Kelley, Kotas, Magrane, Reidy and Shatara

Noes:              None

Absent:           Ho-Belli and Levitt

 

Tape No.: 1b


 7.        2000.812A                                                                              (KOMETANI: 558-6478)

843-847 MONTGOMERY STREET, west side between Pacific Avenue and Jackson Street.  Assessor=s Block 176, Lots 3 and 3A.  A three-story, brick, office/retail building built in 1911 (originally two buildings, now combined).  The subject property is a ACompatible@ building in the Jackson Square Historic District, is zoned C-2 (Community Business) District and is in a 65-A Height and Bulk District.  Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to replace non original ground floor storefronts and to construct a two-story rooftop addition.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

 

Speaker:         Tom Hardy

 

Action:            Chair Finwall, summarized comments made by the ARC, recommending approval with the condition that the color of the stucco be downplayed - make the color more of a brown/red instead of a true red.

 

Board Member Kelley had concerns with the deck and made to reserve findings regarding the street line deck is in violation of the street wall and be eliminated - approve with the absence of the deck (seconded by Dearman).  The vote was 2-5 (Dearman and Kelley - Yes; Finwall, Kotas, Magrane, Reidy and Shatara - No).  The motion failed.

 

Board Member Shatara moved to accept Staff=s recommendation to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness, with the condition of making the stucco a brown/red color.

 

Ayes:               Finwall, Kotas, Magrane, Reidy and Shatara

Noes:              Dearman and Kelley

Absent:           Ho-Belli and Levitt

 

Tape Nos.: 1b & 2a

 

 8.        2000.814A                                                                              (KOMETANI: 558-6478)

30 DARRELL PLACE, east side between Greenwich and Filbert Streets.  Assessor=s Block 85, Lot 18.  A three-story plus basement, wood frame, residential  building, originally built in 1871.  The subject property is a AContributory Altered@ building in the Telegraph Hill Historic District, is zoned RH-3 (House, Three-Family) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for work to the rear of the building to replace a door at the sub-basement level, install new windows at the basement level and to modify deck.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

 

Speaker:         Paul Scott


 

Action:            Board Member Kelley moved to accept Staff=s recommendation to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness.

 

Ayes:               Dearman, Finwall, Kelley, Kotas, Magrane, Reidy and Shatara

Noes:              None

Absent:           Ho-Belli and Levitt

 

Tape No.: 2a

 

O         Informational Presentation

 

 9.                                                                                                                                           

3200 CALIFORNIA STREET, Jewish Community Center of San Francisco, north side between Presidio Avenue and Walnut Street.  Assessor=s Block 1021, Lots 5, 6, 24, 28, 29 and 31-37.  The subject property is within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) Zoning District, the Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial District, and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.

 

Speakers:       Joshua Steinhauser

Nate Levine

Kevin Hart

 

The project sponsors began by giving the background of the Jewish Community Center (JCC).

 

Board Member Magrane asked what is the square footage of the proposed project vs. the existing - how does it work out?

 

O         Review and Comment

 

10.       1999.812E                                                                           (P. DEUTSCH: 558-5965)


3200 CALIFORNIA STREET, Jewish Community Center of San Francisco, north side between Presidio Avenue and Walnut Street.  Assessor=s Block 1021, Lots 5, 6, 24, 28, 29 and 31-37.  The subject property is within an RM-1 (Residential, Mixed, Low Density) Zoning District, the Sacramento Street Neighborhood Commercial District, and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  The proposed project would demolish the existing Jewish Community Center (JCC) and the four other structures on the project site for the construction of a three-story community center building containing approximately 120,225 gross square feet, excluding parking.  The new building would range in height from 50 to 61 feet.  The new building would accommodate JCC community, recreational and educational uses, which would be generally a continuation of its current programs.  New or expanded space would include an expanded theater/auditorium, additional meeting rooms and classrooms, and a new restaurant and a retail store.  The fitness and recreation facilities would be expanded to contain a lap pool, recreational pool and new workout areas.  The project would provide up to 180 parking spaces in two below-grade parking levels in an approximately 89,000 gross-square-foot garage.  The project includes the establishment of a proposed California Street and Presidio Avenue Community Center Special Use District, and modification of the Height and Bulk District from the current 40-X to a proposed 65-X.  Request for Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board=s comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

 

Board Action

and Comments:      P          Members of the Board commented on how well the Draft Environmental Impact Report was written.  Board Member Kelley commented that the discussion of the Historical Resources Section was actually a  very good exposition of a somewhat complicated situation - he commended that section.  A comment was made that the Alternatives in this Report are very viable.  Overall, the Board felt the EIR was very thorough.  President Reidy will write comment letter to the Office of Environmental Review.

Tape No.: 2a

 

O         Landmark Designation

 

11.       1999.812L                                                                                     (LIGHT: 558-6254)

3200 CALIFORNIA STREET, Jewish Community Center, north side between Presidio and Walnut Streets.  Assessor=s Block 1021, Lot 21.  The subject property is zoned RM-1 (Mixed Residential, Low Density) District and is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District.  Consideration to initiate landmark designation and adopt a resolution initiating and recommending landmark designation of the Jewish Community Center as Landmark No. 229.  (Note: This item was not heard at the July 5, 2000 Landmarks Board Hearing, due to a lack of quorum.)

Preliminary Recommendation: Not to initiate landmark designation

 


Speakers:       Michael F. Crowe, Rabbi Doug Kahn, Howard Fine, Supervisor Barbara Kaufman,Peter Winkelstein, Ron Blatman, Alan Rothenberg, Nate Levine, Joshua Steinhauer, Kevin Hart, Arnie Lerner, Charles Chase, Alice Carey, Nancy Goldenberg, Mary Anne Miller, Nina Margolis, Jill Tregor, Rabbi David Teitelbaum, Jean Weiner, Jeffrey T. Tilman, Rebecca Lilienthal, Masha Zakheim, Eleanor L. Fried, Mel Liehtman, Claire Wahrhaftig, Jefrie Palmer, Lev Weisbach, Sandee Blechman, Zachary Nathan, Annamarie Firley, J. Moreau Brown, Linaida Rubinovich, Laurie Gordon, Don Andrieni

 

Board

Actions and

Comments:     P          After hearing public comments from those in support of the landmark designation and those opposing landmark designation, the Board made the following comments:

 

$          Board Member Kelley commented on the work of Adam Light, Department Staff, for balancing the opinions as reflected in the various reports.  He agrees that this project is something in a mid-range, architecturally, and demonstrates the inadequacy of the Kalman Methodology to deal with a project like this.  Specifically, it=s a poor instrument for dealing with non-architectural significance - not that there is not architectural significance here, but he thinks the strong suit of the building is the community and personal association built up over these years.  Being a past user of the center (including his children), dealing with this sort of significance, there=s no set of photographs, no documentation that can actually mitigate the loss of the building.  Once you have lost the ability to experience the space, you=ve lost a community treasure.  In addition to considering the needs of the institution, one would have to consider the drastic loss if the building is demolished.  He intends to support the landmark designation.

$          Board Member Finwall commented on the strong feelings about whether this program works and how it would work and about the building itself.  He thinks that the Board is compelled by their Charter to look at the building.  If the building meets the level that it should be considered for landmark status, it=s the Board=s obligation to say so.  In his opinion, after listening to testimony and looking at the information on the building, he=s prepared to support the landmark designation.


$          President Reidy commented that while it is a difficult decision, he supports the Staff Analysis, built on some of the precedent that the Board has developed in some of their thinking.  He does not always go by the Kalman Methodology and get caught up in the technicalities - you get a gut feeling if something should be a landmark and he does not look backwards on landmarks - he looks forward.  He mentioned a couple of buildings that had been designated as having a future (Shriner=s Hospital, the Carmel Fallon Building).  This building to him is more like the New Mission Theater.  It has merit and interesting features, but because of the strong presentation by the Community College and the community of service, the people who were the students and staff (not just the administration), they made a convincing case that the program of the Community College required that the New Mission Theater not remain - keep a few elements, but not go forward to designate the building as a landmark.  What he heard from the comments at this hearing is that the bulk of the consensus of the community that is to be served by the center, say that they need a new center.  It=s not like some of the other cultural designations (Madame C.J. Walker House, Harvey Milk Camera Store, City Lights Bookstore (in progress), where the consensus of support was all for designation of the building as a landmark.  He respects the determination of the Jewish Community Center, who have obviously gone through a serious study in making their decision.  When he thinks about the future, he does not see the future of the existing building.  Looking at the proposal for reuse of the building doesn=t work.  It wouldn=t be necessarily prideful to have a conglomeration of the old with the new.  It wouldn=t be a striking, prideful thing to have on that prominent corner of the City.  He will not support the landmark designation.


$          Board Member Magrane agreed wholeheartedly with President Reidy.  The passion of the room and the respect that she has for the Jewish religion and the people that make it happen is very mature today.  In the past, she used the existing building for eight years - loved the surroundings and the people, but wondered how the building was being sustained.  She realized that it wasn=t the building, but the people.  Although it may go against the moral ??? of why she is sitting on this Board, to some degree, she would not be able to steward this particular building, she would want to steward the people that make that community happen.  She could not support the landmark designation of the existing building.

$          Board Member Kotas stated that they are a Board that dispenses advice, and because they are an advisory board, it is their responsibility to say things beyond the straightforward and the common sense.  This building, setting aside how it was designed to be used and how it has been used by many people and how the uses will continue to be enjoyed, he believes that the building represents something important from the past that if this building is not with us in the future, there will be a kind of a loss, with due respect for the new building.  The new building will address all issues - resolve many problems - it will be bright and sparkly, but there will still be a measure of loss, therefore he would like to support the continuation of the existing building in some form.

$          Board Member Dearman stated that she wants and support landmark designation of the existing building.


$          Board Member Shatara stated that the program requirements are major issues.  After reviewing the plans, he felt that this is a plan that truly works for the community=s needs and will create a very vital place for the community.  Adaptive reuse is someone=s creative inspiration to take something and try to really make something worth while out of it.  In looking at the proposed building, he questions whether it has the strength of the existing building in terms of an image.  He sees the strength in the program, but not in the exterior envelope of the proposed building.  He thinks that there is a loss in removing the existing the building - feels a more creative solution can come out of the existing building, but the program really needs to be worked out.  He feels that the proposed project need to resonate somehow with greater strength, greater vigor.  If one is going to create a piece of architecture, it might as well be something that is going to sing to the heavens somehow.  The proposed project does that for the community in terms of its program, but not in term for image.  Image is very important, yet, history in context is also very important.  The existing building has a certain level of strength, certain level of contextual history that=s important to the fabric of San Francisco.  He would reserve the building in order to look at an adaptive reuse project that can really make it work.

 

P          Board Member Kelley moved (seconded by Finwall) to initiate landmark designation based on the ratings provided by Staff, which supports landmark status.  The vote was 5-2 in favor of landmark designation (Yes votes: Dearman, Finwall, Kelley, Kotas and Shatara; No votes: Magrane and Reidy) (Absent: Ho-Belli and Levitt).  MOTION PASSED.

 

P          Board Member Kelley moved (seconded by Dearman) to recommend designation to the Planning Commission based on the ratings provided by Staff, which supports significance of the building.  The vote was 5-2 in favor of recommending designation to the Planning Commission (Yes votes: Dearman, Finwall, Kelley, Kotas and Shatara; No votes: Magrane and Reidy) (Absent: Ho-Belli and Levitt).  MOTION PASSED.

 

Tape Nos.: 2a/b &3a

 

ADJOURNMENT: 6:40 P.M.

 

Andrea Green

Recording Secretary

 

Adopted: September 20, 2000

 

N:\LPAB\MINUTES\DRAFTS\AUG16DFT.MIN

 

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