To view graphic version of this page, refresh this page (F5)

Skip to page body
  • go to google translator
  • contact us
September 05, 2007

FINAL ACTION MINUTES

OF THE

SAN FRANCISCO

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ADVISORY BOARD MEETING

CITY HALL

1 DR. CARLTON B. GOODLETT PLACE, ROOM 400

SEPTEMBER 5, 2007

12:35 P.M. ROLL CALL

FOR FULL LANDMARKS BOARD CONSIDERATION

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Cherny, Damkroger, Hasz, Maley, Martinez, Street

BOARD MEMBER(S) ABSENT: Chan, Dearman

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Neil Hart, Chief of Neighborhood Planning; M. Corrette; S. Dennis; D. DiBartolo; T. Frye; M. Jacinto; S. Perdue; Sonya Banks, Commission Secretary; Marlena Byrne, City Attorney

PUBLIC COMMENT

None

REPORTS

1. STAFF REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

Neil Hart, Chief of Neighborhood Planning:

i The second reading for the Landmark Designation ordinance for 55 Laguna will occur on September 11th. On August 14th, the Board of Supervisors voted to pass an ordinance designating three individual buildings on the 55 Laguna site: Woods Hall, Woods Hall Annex, and Richardson Hall.

i On September 20th, the Planning Commission will hear the landmark designation for 1601 Larkin Street.

i The Board of Supervisors is on summer Hiatus and their next hearing will be held on September 11, 2007.

i The Planning Department will be hosting an Open House on Tuesday, October 30, 2007 from 5:00-7:00 p.m.

2. PRESIDENT'S REPORT AND ANNOUNCEMENTS

She discussed a letter received by Gerald Adams regarding the project at Washington/Divisadero Streets. This building is on the Landmarks Work Program. Mr. Adams is requesting that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing about the proposed garage. She also discussed letters from Michael Levin regarding the Old Mint and the project at 1601 Larkin St.

3. MATTERS OF THE BOARD

Maley

Board Member Damkroger volunteered to be the Landmarks Board's designee at the Planning Commission hearing on September 20th regarding 1601 Larkin St.

Street

She informed the Board members that her contact information had changed. She will be working part/time with Carey & Co. and will have conflicts with Carey & Co. projects for the next 12 months. She thanked the Planning Department staff for writing the response for the building at Pacific Avenue. She asked if the Landmarks Board could appeal a categorical exemption. She questioned the clause in the city contracts for contractors;  that the contractor must remove graffiti within 48 hours . She agrees with the statement but sometimes one don't want to remove graffiti too aggressively especially if it is on brick or stone. The contract does not indicate how that clause would affect historic buildings and historic materials. She requested staff to investigate where the graffiti clause originated and how the Landmarks Board could propose wording to the contract regarding being extremely careful with unpainted surface.

Cherny

As a followup to Board Member Street's question, he asked, if an individual member of the Landmarks Board were to appeal a categorical exemption, would that individual Board member be responsible for the processing fee?

Deputy City Attorney Marlena Byrne

Responding to Board Member Street's question regarding appealing categorical exemption: The Landmarks Board members could appeal a categorical exemption as an individual. She will research to find out if the Landmarks Board could appeal as a group and she will find out who will be responsible for the processing fee.

4. LANDMARKS WORK PROGRAM 2005-2007 UPDATE

Cherny

He has a student that may be interested in working on the Sunshine School landmark designation.

Damkroger

She knows a student who is interested in working on a landmark designation. She asked if anyone (with the City or Private) that was working in the TDR program needed a graduate student who is interested in assisting in the program.

5. APPROVAL OF THE AUGUST 15, 2007 DRAFT ACTION MINUTES

Speaker(s):

None

Board Action

It was moved by Board Member Martinez (seconded by Damkroger) to adopt the draft action minutes with the following corrections: On pg. 2 change the word  I to  He – on pg. 4 change the word  incline to  to in kind and  instant to instance . The vote was unanimous.

AYES: Cherny, Damkroger, Hasz, Maley, Martinez, Street

NOES: None

ABSENT: Chan, Dearman

REVIEW AND COMMENT

6. (S. DENNIS: 558-6314)

Visitacion Valley Redevelopment Plan and Historic Resources Technical Report, Presentation of the proposed Visitacion Valley/Schlage Lock Master Plan, and the Historic Resources Technical Report for the proposed redevelopment of the vacant Schlage Lock industrial complex. Note: at a future hearing, the Landmarks Board will also review the finalized Historic Resources Technical Report as a part of the publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Redevelopment Plan.

(Continued from 8/1/07)

Speaker(s):

None

Board Comments

A Board member suggested in the EIR process having an alternative that includes preserving more of the buildings and incentives for re-use of the buildings. In the Technical Report on page 38 the period of significance is not correct. On page 11, suggested checking the date for accuracy. On page 39, buildings M and N, are the identified as contributing but on the map they are not contributing (this need correcting). A Board member requested the Technical Report link the site to the impact it had on the surrounding community. A Board member recommended incorporating oral history from the community and including the labor history into the history and EIR (significant discussion on the kind of work performed and the people who work there). A Board member recommended more creative mitigation measures and better ways to document the site. A Board member believes then should be more to the building then retail. A Board member asked if the developer was interested in obtaining landmark status on the office buildings. Board members felt that more buildings should be preserved, especially the building labeled  C . A Board member recommended that the California Historical Society should be contacted should there be historic machinery at the site. There are many good examples around the country of brownfield and contaminated building reuse for a wide variety of purposes. A Board member feel that early site planning sponsored by the Planning Department did not include information on the history of the site, thought it appeared to have a strong community component. This was a missed opportunity to educate the community about the site's historic resources and better incorporated them into the planning effort.

Board Action

It was moved by Board Member Damkroger (seconded by Hasz) to accept the recusal of Board Member Street from this item.

AYES: Cherny, Damkroger, Hasz, Maley, Martinez

NOES: None

ABSENT: Chan, Dearman

RECUSED: Street

Tape No.: 1a

7. (M. JACINTO: 575-9033)

Eastern Neighborhoods Rezoning and Area Plans Project: Public Hearing to assist the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board to prepare a comment letter on the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The subject of the proposed rezoning is an approximately 2,200-acre project area that includes four neighborhoods on the eastern side of San Francisco: East SoMa, the Mission, Showplace Square/Potrero Hill and the Central Waterfront. The proposed rezoning would introduce new use (zoning) districts, including: (1) districts that would permit at least some production, distribution and repair (PDR) uses in combination with commercial uses; (2) districts mixing residential and commercial uses; (3) residential and PDR uses; and (4) new residential-only districts. The new districts would replace existing industrial, commercial and residential single-use districts. The project would also include certain adjustments to height limits. In conjunction with the proposed rezoning, the Planning Department is also developing area plans for inclusion within the General Plan for the four neighborhoods in the project area. These plans address policy-level issues pertaining to historic resources, urban design (including building heights and urban form), transportation, open space, and community facilities.

NOTE: The Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2005032048) was published on June 30, 2007. The rezoning options analyzed in the Draft EIR could indirectly result in increased development pressure on certain sites due to potential changes in allowable uses and/or building heights. In some instances, historic districts, individual resources, potential resources and/or age-eligible properties could be threatened with demolition or substantial alteration, such that the historical significance of these properties could be  materially impaired. The Draft EIR identifies this as a significant and unavoidable environmental effect of the proposed project, and identifies mitigation measures to lessen these effects, though not to a level of insignificance.

The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to receive comments on the Draft EIR on August 9, 2007. This hearing is intended to assist the Landmarks Board such that the Board may prepare written comments on the Draft EIR to submit to the Planning Department. Written comments on the Draft EIR will be accepted at the Planning Department until 5:00 p.m. on Friday, August 31, 2007.

(Continued from 8/1/07 and 8/15/07)

Speaker(s):

None

Board Comments

A Board member is concerned whether there is an explanation in the DEIR of the differences between the Plan Alternatives A, B, and C. What are these plan alternatives trying to accomplish? A Board member inquired about the status of the historic resource surveys in the planning areas. A Board indicated that some of the historic resource surveys are complete or nearing completion. However, it does not appear that the surveys informed plan options. As a Mitigation Measure, would like to see the surveys inform the plan in terms of height limits and use designations. The results of the surveys could result in revisions to plan options. Under mitigation measure K2 a Board member mentioned that Asian Neighborhood Design is doing a study of the appropriate reuse of historic warehouses and commercial buildings in the South of Market Neighborhood, and that a set of Design Guidelines derived from this study would be an appropriate part of mitigation. A Board member feels that the relationship of potential historic districts should inform the substance of plan; it does not seem that height limits should be raised in potential historic districts, suggested lowering the height limits. A Board member suggested recognition in Mitigation Measure K-1 that demolition of individual buildings, one at a time, could result in potential impacts to potential historic districts. Suggested adding the following language: Demolition of individual buildings could possibly have a cumulative impact on potential historic districts.

Board Action

It was moved by Board Member Damkroger (seconded by Hasz) to accept the recusal of Board Member Street from this item.

AYES: Cherny, Damkroger, Hasz, Maley, Martinez

NOES: None

ABSENT: Chan, Dearman

RECUSED: Street

Tape No.: 1a and b

8. (M. CORRETTE: 558-6295)

DRAFT HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT FOR MARKET AND OCTAVIA NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN AREA. For the purposes of this context statement, the area covered is coterminous with the Market and Octavia Neighborhood Plan Area. Request the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, Review and Comment and consider endorsement of the draft historic context statement. Note, the context may be downloaded from the Department's website at: http://sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/projects_reports/MO_Context_Final_071701pdf

Speaker(s):

Peter Lewis

Cynthia Servetnick

Board Comments

A Board member expressed concerns over excluding the UCB Laguna site from the Historic Context Statement. In the Historic Context Statement it is considered a  donut hole. Requested adding information on San Francisco State Teacher's College into context statement under the education section, and by adding Dr. Carol Roland's report as a footnote, and adding a separate listing for the report in the bibliography. A Board member was confused regarding Section VI, and suggested that it would be easier to separate the survey findings from the context statement. A Board member questioned if there was a separate document that would have the survey findings in terms of a summary of what was found. A Board member finds it confusing viewing the appendices by block/lot numbers, and suggested sorting by addresses. A Board member was concerned with the properties that are not listed, and suggested listing those properties as a footnote.

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS

9. 2007.0849A (T. FRYE: 575-6822)

1100 TENNESSEE STREET, Assessor's Block 4171; Lots 001. The subject property is a contributing structure to the Dogpatch Historic District and is located within an NC-2 (Neighborhood/Commercial) District with a 50-X Height and Bulk limit. The proposal is a Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to comply with a notice of violation for work executed without the benefit of permit. Work included for consideration is to install new entry doors and signage for a nail salon.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approve with Conditions.

Speaker(s):

Edward Elhauge

Board Action

It was moved by Board Member Martinez (seconded by Hasz) to approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness based on staff recommendations. Motion passed 5-0.

AYES: Damkroger, Hasz, Maley, Martinez, Street

NOES:

ABSENT: Chan, Dearman

ABSTAIN: Cherny

10. 2007.0304A (D. DiBARTOLO: 558-6291)

1020-28 KEARNY STREET, east side between Broadway and Pacific Avenue. Assessor's Block 163, Lot 13. Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness to restore and rehabilitate the facade to approximate the early appearance of the building based on historic plan documents. The two-story, wood frame, commercial building, with brick bearing walls at the Nottingham Place elevation, was built in 1907. The subject property is a potentially compatible building (Contributory Altered) within the Jackson Square Historic District and is located within a C-2 (Community Business) District and is in a 65-A Height and Bulk District.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval with Conditions

Speaker(s):

Ron Wallace

Board Action

It was moved by Board Member Martinez (seconded by Hasz) to approve the Certificate of Appropriateness with the following conditions to work with staff to: move the floor back to the setting, use smaller tile, and to refine the design of the cornice. The vote was unanimous.

AYES: Cherny, Damkroger, Hasz, Maley, Martinez, Street

NOES:

ABSENT: Chan, Dearman

Tape No.: 1b and 2a

11. 2007.0680A (S. PERDUE: 558-6625)

851 BEACH STREET(aka 900 North Point), Ghirardelli Square, south side between Larkin and Polk Streets. Assessor's Block 0452, Lot 001 - Request for a Certificate of Appropriateness for alteration of a door and stair at the Apartment Building. The Ghiradelli Square is designated San Francisco Landmark No. 30 and is listed on the National and California Registers of Historic Places; it is zoned C-2 (Commercial) District, is in a 40-X Height and Bulk District, and is also within the Northern Waterfront Special Use District No. 2.

Preliminary Recommendation: Approval

Speaker(s):

Board Action

It was moved by Board Member Street (seconded by Martinez) to accept the recusal of Board Member Damkroger from this item. The vote was unanimous.

It was moved by Board Member Cherny (seconded by Hasz) to approve the request for a Certificate of Appropriateness. The vote was unanimous.

AYES: Cherny, Hasz, Maley, Martinez, Street

NOES: None

ABSENT: Chan, Dearman

RECUSED: Damkroger

LANDMARKS BOARD COMMUNICATIONS

12. The Landmarks Boardwill draft a letter to the Board of Supervisors regarding the Planning Department's Citywide Survey Program.

(Continued from 8/1/07 and 8/15/07)

The Landmarks Board members agreed to finalize their letter to the Board of Supervisors regarding the Planning Department's Citywide Survey Program.

Tape No. 2a

ADJOURNMENT: 3:45 P.M.

Respectfully Submitted,

Sonya Banks,

Recording Secretary

ADOPTED: 10/3/07

N:\LPAB\MINUTES\m9.5.07.doc

Last updated: 11/17/2009 9:59:43 PM