~~P ~O COU1~,T W .a~;, O.n ~z SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING...

~~P~O COU1~,T~

O.nti ~

W .a~;, zx ^~~' a~ ~

X635..• .O'Sti

SAN FRANCISCOPLANNING DEPARTMENT ~

DATE: May 31, 2017

TO: Members, Historic Preservation Commission

FROM: Tim Frye, Historic Preservation Officer 415-575-6822

RE: Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness Request for

Hearing within Bush Street Cottage Row Landmark District

The attached information include written request by member of the public for the

Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) to schedule a hearing on the proposed

project. Supplemental information attached to this memo includes a copy of the

delegation by the HPC to the Planning Department, Motion 0289, a copy of the staff-

prepared Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness, 2017-004228COA, dated May

10, 2017, and the Project Sponsor's Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness

application.

1650 Mission St.Suite 400San Francisco,CA 94103-2479

Reception:415.558.6378

Fax:415.558.6409

PlanningInformation:415.558.6377

The HPC may decide to uphold the Department's review and approval of the proposedproject pursuant to HPC Motion No. 0289; or the HPC may decide the proposed project

shall be noticed and scheduled for future HPC hearing to approve, deny, or modify the

proposed project pursuant the Standards of review under Article 10 of the Planning

Code.

1! ~ m c~

Frye, Tim (CPC)

From: [email protected]: Monday, May 29, 2017 8:55 PMTo: [email protected]; Gordon-Jonckheer, Elizabeth (CPC); Frye, Tim (CPC); Tam, Tina

(CPC); Secretary, Commissions (CPC); [email protected]: Maher, Abigail (REC); McCoy, Gary (REC)Subject: ACOA17.0290 Request for Hearing Application

This material brings together all of the information I am submitting in support of my request for aHearing with regard to this ACOA.

would appreciate it if the appropriate person will confirm back to me by the end of day May 30, 2017that I have fulfilled the requirements for submitting a Request for Hearing with the HistoricPreservation Commission.

Thank you,Marvin Lambert

Re

ACOA17.0290Case No. 2017-004228COAProject Address: Frontage of the Cottage Row Mini Park

facing Sutter St. between Fillmore and Webster Sts.

Following is a summary of the reasons I believe this ACOA was issued in error and/or there was anabuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Department and is why I am requesting a Hearing withthe Historic Preservation Commission:

(The following is keyed to the sections of the COA)

Protect Description

My initial concern was that there was just a calculation error with regard to the size of the project andsent the following in an email to planning staff:

There is an apparent calculation error reflected in this document on page 2, by the following statement:

"The garden will occupy 15 percenf or less of the total park space".

The SF online property information system indicates the sq. footage of the park to be 4,120. Since the proposed garden is a 750 sq. 1t. area (25x30), this meansthat the garden would actually occupy 18.2% of the total park space.

Please advise if this error has any impact on your conclusions and recommendations for this project.

However, when I took a look at the drawings attached to the COA it became apparent that thedocuments sent to Planning by by Rec and Parks do not accurately describe the project. I confirmedthis in a phone conversation with Ben Caldwell who answered the phone at Planning. The drawings

that were input to this process represent an area that is probably less than 100 sq ft when in realitythe project will cover 750 sq ft. The proposed garden site representation should have extended 30 ftinto the park. This is a a gross error and needs to be rectified by redoing the whole COA process.

This project should never have been allowed to fly under the radar by being granted an ACOA. This iscertainly not a minor issue to the nearby residents who were entitled to notice. Also, the project isvalued at $56K which does not seem to be a minor amount.

Item 1 Compliance

Standard 1

The project will alter the use of the Cottage Row Mini Park as discussed below:

For much of the period from before 1920 thru the 1940's the property which is now the mini park, wasowned by Chan &Chan Herbal Medicine Co. which had its offices in the adjacent building at 1942Sutter St.

All mention of "Japan Street" is based on hearsay which applies to any additional Standards in theCOA. This captioning certainly follows from the comments that architectural historian Anne Bloomfieldadded to the Historic District Nomination Form. There are a couple of unusual things about thesecomments. They are provided without any reference source and are also not contributive to havinghistoric district status granted. Most important is that the Japan Street reference is tied together withanother claim that is patently absurd which is related to whether the residents grew and soldvegetables grown from their rear yards and sold them on Cottage Row. Since there is only aboutabout three foot in the rear of the cottages and their was no area in front, this just wouldn't bepossible. In addition, the lower three units faced onto the Chineese herbal property. A brief visit to anyof the cottages will confirm that it is just not possible that any sort of commercial vegetable businesscould have flourished in their rear area.

There may be a more plausible explanation for "Japan Street" and "selling vegetables". During thereferenced period, there actually was a Japan Street in San Francisco which was located in the Southof Market area. Since it is known that early Japanese immigrants settled in this area andsince the climate is more favorable, it is very possible that Japanese lived on this streetand were able to grow and sell vegetables.

The project involves much more than just "slightly altering the front landscaping of the park". Theactual proposal is fora 750 sq ft area that encroaches 30 ft into the park from the Sutter St. side. Theproposal also includes a viewing stump within this area consistent with the way in which the originalZen gardens were experienced. Therefore, the area will no longer be passive, and may be of difficultyto impossible for individuals with disabilities to access as it can only be reached by steps from eitherthe Sutter or Bush Sts. sides.

Standard 2

Replacing the existing area with elements of a Japanese Zen garden will not be more in characterwith the history of the District. The fact that the park was owned by a Chinese herbal medicine co.has already been noted.

Bloomfield committed what was probably an unintentional error in the Nomination Form, when shestated that the entire District and not just Cottage Row was exclusively occupied by Japanese. There

are 21 occupied units in the Historic District and it is demonstrably untrue that they were ever alloccupied by Japanese. What may be true is that all of the six cottages on Cottage Row wereoccupied by Japanese in addition to one unit on Bush St. The other 14 were occupied by people ofother than Japanese heritage.

What is remarkable about the District and the rest of the block is how diverse it was even before thestart of WW I I. Data from the 1940 census indicates the following racial distribution of the 220residents of the block:

Euro American 70%African American 15%Japanese American 12%Other 4%

Standard 9

The park and its surrounding neighborhood have an extraordinary rich and diverse cultural historyand Japanese Americans are a significant part of the story. However, there are tremendouslycompelling stories involving African Americans, other Asian Americans, Gay Americans, as well asthe founding generation of Euro Americans. They should all be honored! It is not appropriate for theCity to make an exclusive dedication of the park to just one group.

Item 3 Prop M findings

sub-section b

It is not true that the project will strengthen neighborhood character by respecting the character-defining features of the landmark district.

This project as proposed is actually very divisive to the neighborhood because it was developedwithout any democratic process for neighborhood input with regard to theme and design.

~~o covhr~

~~~~' ""Q~x SAN FRANCISCOY ~ ~`~'~ PLQIVNING DEPARTMENTwl~~'~ -. a~~'~

Certificate of AppropriatenessADMINISTRATIVEACOA17.0290

Date:

Case No.

May 10, 2017

2017-004228COA

1654 Mission St.Suite 4QDSan Fra~cisca,CA 9A3Q3-2479

Reception:415.558.6378

Fa~c:

415.55$.6409

Project Address: Frontage of the Cottage Row Mini Park Planningfacing Sutter Street (between Fillmore and Webster Streets) ~n#ormation:

LandmarklDistrict: Bush Street-Cottage Row Landmark District 415.558.6377

Zoning: RM-3 (Residential- Mixed, Medium Density) District40-X Height and Bulk Districts

BlocklLot: Block 0677 and Lot 012Applicant: Janice Perez, Pianner, Capital and Planning Division

San Francisco Recreation and Park Department30 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 3000

San Francisco, CA 94102Staff Contact: Elizabeth Gordon Jonckheer - (415) 575-8728

elizabeth. ~o rdon_jonckheer@sf ~ov.orgReviewed By: Tim Frye — (415) 575-6822

tim.fr~gov.org

This is to notify you that pursuant to the process and procedures adopted. by the Historic PreservationCommission ("HPC") in Motion No. 0289 and authorized by Section 1006.2 of the Planning Code, thescope of work identified in this Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness for the Zen Garden at thefrontage of the Cottage Row Mini Park facing Sutter Street (between Fillmore and Webster Streets) hasbeen delegated to the Department. The Department grants APPROVAL in conformance with thelandscape architectural planting plan and specifications dated Apri14, 2017, and labeled Exhibit A on filein the docket for Case No. 2017-004228COA.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS

The Plaiuung Department has determined that the proposed project is exempt/excluded fromenvironmental review pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15301c (Class 4 -Minor Alterations to Land)because the project is replacing existing conventional landscaping with new landscaping, and meets theSecretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The San Francisco Recreation and Park Department (SFRI'D) owns and operates the Cottage Row MiiuPark, located on Sutter Street between Webster and Fillmore Street, and proposes to replace existingplants and bushes on the front south side of the park with rocks, plants, trees that make up the featuresand landscaping of a Japanese Zen rock garden.

v~rvvv~.sfpla~~ning.~r~

Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness Case No. 2017-004228COAMay 10, 2017 Issei Garden /Cottage Row Mini Park

Installation of the proposed garden will also commemorate the 75th anniversary of the signing of the

Presidential Executive Order 9066, which sent persons of Japanese ancestry to internment camps.

Passive use of the park will remain the same. As noted above, the Issei garden will be located the edge of

the park facing Sutter Street. The garden will occupy 15 percent or less of the total park space. 'The

proposed scope of work includes:

o Replacement of existing plants and bushes with rocks, plants and trees appropriate to

convey the elements of a Japanese Zen garden, including:

■ Mondo grass■ Japanese Pine trees (Matsu)

■ Japanese Cherry Blossom trees (Sakura)

■ Fern

■ Star jasmine

■ Star Juniper■ Dwarf Nandina bush

■ Manzanita or decomposed granite ground cover

■ Wood stumps (viewing stumps)

o Addition of rock garden and dry waterfall at the far left portion of the Zen garden.

o Improvement of two existing retaining walls (one wood and one loose stone) along Sutter

Street with integrated stone walls. The stone wall closest to Sutter Street will present the

Issei (first generation of Japanese Americans) and the second wall represent the Nisei

(second generation of Japanese Americans).

o No change to structure or grade of the planted area, pathways or any other usable or

accessible park space.

ARTICLE 10 — Appendix K —Bush Street Cottage Row Landmark District

In reviewing this application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, the Historic Preservation Commission

through its delegation to Planning Department Preservation staff must consider whether the proposed

work would be compatible with the character of the Cottage Row Mini Park as described in Sections 5

and 7 of Appendix K of Article 10 of the Planning Code and the character-defining features specifically

outlined in the designating ordinance.

The proposed work conforms to the scopes of work delegated to Department Staff for Administrative

Certificate of Appropriateness review in HPC Motion No. 0289. The proposed modifications to existing

landscape features will not impact the character-defining features of the district and are consistent with

the intent of Scope No. 13, Construction and/or modification of landscape features outside of the C-3 zoning

district. All of the planting, groundcover and retaining wall modifications described above are consistent

with the architectural character of the district and the Secretan~ Standards.

FINDINGS

This work complies with the following requirements:

SP,h! rRANCISCO 2PLANNINQ D£PAFITMENT


1. Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and consistent withthe architectural character of the Bush Street-Cottage Row Landmark District as set forth inArticle 10 of the Planning Code, Appendix K:

Standard 1: A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requiresm;n;mal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

The Project would not alter the use of the Cottage Row Mini Park or the Bush Street-CottageRow Landmark District. The project would slightly alter the front landscaping of the park, butwould not change or intensify the use. The project would retain the property's character as apassive park, and retain the pathway referred to as "Japan Street" in the 1930s. Additionally,the Sutter Street corridor would be enhanced by the themed landscaping work along this portionof the street.

Standard 2: The historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The removal ofhistoric materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shallbe avoided.

The historic character of the Bush Street-Cottage Row Landmark District would be retained andpreserved. No distinctive materials, architectural elements, or spaces that characterize Districtresources would be removed. The project will replace non-historic existing plants and busheswith rocks, plants and trees appropriate to convey the elements of a Japanese Zen garden thatare more in character with history of the District.

Standard 5: Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples ofcraftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.

The proposal will not damage any distinctive features of the landmark district or the culturallandscape. No distinctive materials, features, finishes, construction techniques or examples ofcraftsmanship would be affected by the proposed landscaping design revisions. Alterations tolandscaping and retaining walls would not harm the integrity of the property or the district.

Standard 9: New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroyhistoric materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. Thenew work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historicmaterials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity ofthe property and its environment.

The Project would maintain the overall plan of the Cottage Row Mini Park and "japan Street".The proposed Zen garden will remodel the existing landscaping and enhance the significance ofthe park by highlighting Japanese Americans' contributions to the district. As discussed above,no historic features would be destroyed by the work.

Standard 10: New additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such amanner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historicproperty and its environment would be unimpaired.

The essential form and integrity of the landmark district would be unimpaired if the proposedwork was removed at a future date.

^ti ra,~r~cisro 3PL4NNINCA DEPARTMENT


2. General Plan Compliance. The proposed Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness, on balance,

is consistent with the following Objectives and Policies of the General Plan:

I. URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT

THE URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT CONCERNS THE PHYSICAL CHARACTER AND ORDER

OF THE CTI'Y, AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PEOPLE AND THEIR ENVIRONMENT.

GOALS

The Llrban Design Element is concerned both with development and with preservation. It is a concerted

effort to recognize the positive attributes of the city, to enhance and conserve those attributes, and to

improve the living environment where it is less than satisfactory. The Plan is a definition of quality, a

definition based upon human needs.

OBJECTIVE 1

EMPHASIS OF THE CHARACTERISTIC PATTERN WHICH GIVES TO THE CITY AND TTS

NEIGHBORHOODS AN IMAGE, A SENSE OF PURPOSE, AND A MEANS OF ORIENTATION.

POLICY 1.3

Recognize that buildings, when seen together, produce a total effect that characterizes the city and its

districts.

OBJECTIVE 2

CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES WHICH PROVIDE A SENSE OF NATURE, CONTINUITY

WITH THE PAST, AND FREEDOM FROM OVERCROWDING.

POLICY 2.4

Preserve notable landmarks and areas of historic, architectural or aesthetic value, and promote the

preservation of other buildings and features that provide continuity with past development.

POLICY 2.5Use care in remodeling of older buildings, in order to enhance rather than weaken the original character of

such buildings.

POLICY 2.7

Recognize and protect outstanding and unique areas that contribute in an extraordinary degree to San

Francisco's visual form and character.

The goal of a Certificate of Appropriateness is to provide additional oversight for buildings and

districts that are architecturally or culturally significant to the City in order to protect the

qualities that are associated with that significance.

The proposed project qualifies for an Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness and therefore

furthers these policies and objectives by maintaining and preserving the character-defining

features of the surrounding historic district for the future enjoyment and education of San

Francisco residents and visitors.

SAN ; RA~dGISCO 4RLANNINLi DEPARTMfiI+IT


3. Prop M Findings. The proposed project is generally consistent with the eight General Plan prioritypolicies set forth in Section 101.1 in that:

a. T'he existing neighborhood-serving retail uses will be preserved and enhanced and futureopportunities for resident employment in and ownership of such businesses will be enhanced:

The proposed project does not affect neighborhood-serving retail uses.

b. The existing housing and neighborhood character will be conserved and protected in order topreserve the cultural and economic diversity of our neighborhoods:

The proposed project will strengthen neighborhood character by respecting the character-defining featuresof fhe landmark district in conformance with the requirements set forth in HPC Motion No. 0289 and theSecretary of the Interior's Standards.

c. T'he City's supply of affordable housing will be preserved and enhanced:

The proposed project will have no effect on the Cih~'s supply of affordable housing.

d. The commuter traffic will not impede MUNI transit service or overburden our streets orneighborhood parking:

The proposed project will not result in commuter traffic impeding MUNI transit service or overburdeningthe streets or neighborhood parking.

e. A diverse economic base will be maintained by protecting our industrial and service sectorsfrom displacement due to commercial office development. And future opportunities for residentemployment and ownership in these sectors will be enhanced:

The proposed project will not affect the City's diverse economic base and will not displace any businesssectors due to commercial office development.

f. The City will achieve the greatest possible preparedness to protect against injury and loss of lifein an earthquake.

Preparedness against injun~ and loss of life in an earthquake is unaffected by the proposed alterations.Any construction or alteration would be executed in compliance with all applicable construction andsafety measures.

g. That landmark and historic buildings will be preserved.

The proposed project respects the character-defining features of the subject building and the surroundinghistoric district, and is in conformance with the requirements set forth in HPC Motion No. 0289 and theSecretary of the Interior's Standards.

SAN FRAN~I~CO 5PLANNINQt DEPARTMENT

Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness Case No. 2017-004228COAMay 10, 2017 Issei Garden I Cottage Row Mini Park

h. Parks and open space and their access to sunlight and vistas will be protected from

development:

The proposed Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness will not impact t)ze City's parks and open

space.

For these reasons, the above-cited work is consistent with the intent and requirements outlined in HPC

Motion No. 0289 and will not be detrimental to the subject building and/or the historic district.

Duration of this Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness: This Adiniiustrative Certificate of

Appropriateness is issued pursuant to Article 10 of the Planning Code and is valid for a period of three

(3) years from the effective date of approval by the Plaiuzing Department, as delegated by the Historic

Preservation Commission. The authorization and right vested by virtue of this action shall be deemed

void and canceled if, within 3 years of the date of this Motion, a site permit or building permit for the

Project has not been secured by Project Sponsor.

REQUEST FOR HEARING: If you have substantial reason to believe that there was an error in the

issuance of this Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness, or abuse of discretion on the part of the

Planning Department, you may file for a Request for Hearing with the Historic Preservation

Commission within 20 days of the date of this letter. Should you have any questions about the

contents of this letter, please contact the Planning Deparhnent at 1650 Mission Street, 4~h Floor or call

415-575-9121.

cc: Historic Preservation Commission, 1650 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103

San Francisco Architectural Heritage, 2007 Franklin Street, San Francisco, CA 94109

Nancy Shanahan, Planning &Zoning Committee, Telegraph Hill Dwellers, 224 Filbert Street, San

Francisco, CA 94133

Finance Division, Plaiuling Department, 1650 Mission Street, San Francisco, CA 94103

SF.t9 €~Re1:3CISroPLANNi1VQ DEPARTMENT

SAN fRANGISCOP~.AIMMIMG I~EPARTMIEIVT

Aerial Photo

Certificate of Appropriatenesse May 10, 2017

Case Number 2017-004228COAIssei Garden /Cottage Row Mini ParkBlock 0677 Lot 012

Landmark District Map

-~..., .~,

~.~~.~:

, ,,-j ss

SAN FRANCISCOA~'N.AINNING p~PAl~t7"IIM~~111T

Certificate of Appropriatenesse May 10, 2017

Case Number 2017-004228COAIssei Garden /Cottage Row Mini ParkBlock 0677 Lot 012

~.. ti r '~xyi~~~ ~Tt {?9r~I'c~ ;,S~'~1i€~:( P P T ~ Tom_ rtIT 13~i';' - ":.N

--~~+~ ~ Lii

i ... .r

~ i f

%C~ I ...,...z.

t

X

p~iM

~p

~i `t

ins

Y

~ !t

Ys

>a, e. .ice r~ss tea#=II:-..m.: ..

a

f3JV

i

i

~ f>77 ~y~~~ ~

.a _ : tr• i~ _(f~ L

y-~si;~~+-= 2

i i —(_~.,.~

J ~coMv. c. !t'r ~ t f'F! 8¢ ~ I~~

3 6 -R. p,

61J •SD' dD'/B.~Q ~rc~..oac -- /BtX7~ #tiflt thMRE rn,euan ~M

.. > .. A A

:o!~ / e

s•

~ ~

isse

i Cornm~morative ta~

rden

at C~

~t~g

e Rc~w Mini Fork

A~~'

acht

~ent

',A: Pra

Ject

Loc

ation

~;

,~.~

~~.' cottage F?o

~r

Mini Pa

ck

pro

ject

Location

[""'~}

Arti

cle lC

}

L~"

'~Di

stri

ct

Boundary

~F~

C!

25 Fee;

.t

a~

saw ~airc~sra

118CR~I1TiDN

S' fARR6

FAQ COUjy~.+,0

~~ '~' ~ SAN FRANCISCOW ~ ~` z PLANNING DEPARTMENTx .~N ,~

7

o~r3s . o~s~

Historic Preservation Commission 1650 Mission St.Suite 400

Motion No. ~2~9 San Francisco,CA 94103-2479

HEARING DATE: OCTOBER 5, 2016 Reception:415.558.6378

IDENTIFICATION AND DELEGATION OF SCOPES OF WORK DETERMINED TO BE MINORBY THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 10062 AND F~ ~415.558.64091111.1 OF THE PLANNING CODE FOR APPROVAL, MODIFICATION, OR DISAPPROVAL TOTHE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. Planning

Information:415.558.6377

WHEREAS, Planning Code Section 1006.2(a) provides that the Historic Preservation Commission("HPC") may, for properties designation individually or within a landmark district under Article 10 ofthe Planning Code, (1) define certain categories of work as minor alteration; and (2) delegate the reviewand approval of such work to the Planning Department ("Department') (hereinafter "AdministrativeCertificate of Appropriateness'), whose decision is appealable to the HPC pursuant to Section1006.2(b); and

WHEREAS, Planning Code Section 1111.1(a) gives the HPC the authority to (1) determine if a proposedalteration ("Permit to Alter") should be considered a Major or a Minor Alteration; (2) approve, modify,or disapprove applications for permits to alter or demolish Significant or Contributory buildings or anybuilding within a Conservation District; and, (3) delegate this function to the Planning Department("Department") for work determined to be Minor (hereinafter "Minor Permit to Alter"), whose decisionis appealable to the HPC pursuant to Section 1111.1(b); and

WHEREAS, Sections 1005 and 1110 of the Planning Code specify that a Certificate of Appropriatenessor Permit to Alter is not required when the application is for a permit to do ordinary maintenance andrepairs only, meaning any work for the sole purpose and effect to correct deterioration, decay ordamage of existing materials.

WHEREAS, the HPC, at its regular hearing of October 5, 2016, reviewed the Planning Department'sprocesses and applications under the authority previously granted to it by the HPC under MotionsNos. 0181, 0212 and 0241; and

WHEREAS, in appraising a proposal for an Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness or a MinorPermit to Alter, the Department, on behalf of the HPC, shall determine that all proposed alterations tocharacter-defining features on properties subject to Articles 10 and/or 11 of the Planning Code shall beconsistent with the character of the property and/or district, the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for theTreatment of Historic Properties, as well as any guidelines, local interpretations, bulletins, or otherpolicies, where applicable.

SO MOVED, that the Commission hereby delegates to the Department for approval, modification, ordisapproval for two years, which may be revoked at any time at the Commission's discretion, from thedate of this Motion and ADOPTS the following list of scopes of work determined to be Minor and theprocedures outlined in Exhibit A of this Motion:

www.sfplanning.org

MoXion No. 0289 Delegation of Minor Scopes of Work to the Planning DepartmentOctober 5, 2016

1. E~Ioratory and investigative work: To assess for underlying historic materials: The removal

of a limited amount of non- historic material to conduct investigation to determine the

existence of underlying historic material. This work shall be limited to no more than 5% of the

total surface area on a facade and the azea must be stabilized and protected after the

investigation is complete. Adjacent historic surfaces must be protected during exploratory and

investigative work. To assess the structure where historic fabric is extant: The removal of a

limited amount of historic fabric to conduct investigation to determine the existing conditions

of the building including ascertaining the location and condition of structural elements. This

scope of work qualifies for staff level approval provided that:

a. It is demonstrated that anon-destructive evaluation (NDE) approach has been

determined insufficient, exploratory demolition is required, and that there is no

alternative location where such investigation can be undertaken.

b. Provision of an investigation plan that includes the reason for the investigative work,

what NDE techniques have been considered, and why its use is not appropriate.

c. Provision of scaled drawings showing the area to be removed including plans,

elevations, and details including the wall assembly where the exploratory work will be

undertaken.

d. Provision that any removal will be in whole.rather than in partial to prevent damage to

historic fabric.

e. For example, for a brick wall removal should follow the mortar joints around brick

units instead of saw-cutting brick units in half.

f: Provision of a protection plan for surrounding historic fabric during exploratory and

investigative work including protection and stabilizarion assemblies with materials

called out clearly.

g. Provision of an appropriate salvage and storage plan for any historic fabric or material

proposed to be removed during exploratory and investigative work.

h. Provision of a post-investigation treatment plan including patching, repairing,

finishing historic fabric and materials to match existing where exploratory and

investigative work has been conducted.

2. Window replacement: The replacement of windows in existing openings. 'This does not apply

to the replacement of stained, leaded, curved glass, or art glass windows, or the replacement of

glass curtain wall systems.

a. Window replacement on primary and visible secondary facades: Window replacement

on primary elevations that closely match the historic (extant or not) windows in terms

of configuration, material, and all exterior profiles and dimensions. Planning

Department Preservation staff may require a site visit and review amock-up of

SAN FRANCISCO 2PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Motion No. 0289 Delegation of Minor Scopes of Work to the Planning DepartmentOctober 5, 2016

proposals for large-scale window replacement. This scope of work qualifies for stafflevel approval provided that:

i. Where historic windows are proposed to be replaced, provision of a WindowCondition Assessment report that documents the deteriorated beyond repaircondition of windows. This report shall be prepared by a qualified consultant.

ii. Where historic wood windows with true divided-lite muntins aredemonstrated to be deteriorated beyond repair, replacement shall be with newwood windows of the same type and operation with true divided-lite muntinsthat closely match the historic in all exterior profiles and dimensions. Detailedand dimensioned architectural plans will be provided to document exisringand proposed window sash.

iii. Replacing non-historic windows with new windows based on documentationthat illustrates the new windows closely match the configuration, material, andall exterior profiles and dimensions of the windows historically present.

b. Window replacement on non-visible secondary facades: Window replacement islimited to the size of the existing openings. Installation of louvers for mechanical ventsmay also be undertaken. A modest change in window area of up to 100 square feetmay be approved administratively for any building except for individually designatedArticle 10 Landmarks. For example, this scope of work qualifies for staff levelapproval by:

Replacing anon-visible historic or contemporary window with a new windowof any configuration, material, or profile within the existing opening. Whilethe scope of work qualifies for staff level approval, the applicant may berequired to demonstrate compatibility with the unique features of thelandmark building.

ii. Adding, expanding, or removing a modest amount of window area in thesediscrete locations, provided the subject building is not an individual Article 10Landmark. The applicant would be required to demonstrate compatibility withthe unique features and composition of the building.

iii. Louvers for mechanical venting that do not change the existing opening and isFinished with the same finish as the surrounding window frame.

3. Front stairways and railings: The replacement of stairs and railings with new stairways and/orrailings beyond repair and based on physical or documented evidence and determined to becompatible in terms of location, configuration, materials, and details with the character-defining features of the property and/or district. All historic features, such as newel posts andrailings, shall be retained where extant. New railings, if needed, shall match the historic railsystem in design. This does not apply to the replacement of porticos, porches, or other

SAN FRANCISCOPLANNING DEPARTMENT


architectural components of the entry. For example, this scope of work qualifies for staff level

approval by:

a. Replacement of a historic wood straight run stair with closed riser and a bullnose tread

with a new wood straight run stair with a closed riser and a bullnose tread. The new

stair is in the same location as the historic stair and the historic railing was retained,

reused, and adapted to meet current safety code requirements.

b. Replacement of anon-historic stair and railing with a new stair and railing based on

physical and documented evidence, including other similar historic properties

within the landmark district that retain historic stair and railings.

4. Rooftop equipment, elevator overrides and stair penthouses: The installation or replacement

of stair penthouses, elevator overrides, and rooftop equipment, such as mechanical systems or

wireless telecommunications equipment, provided that:

a. The stair penthouse or elevator override is determined to be not visible from the

surrounding public-rights-of-way and is no more than the minimum dimensions

necessary as permitted by the Building Code.

b. The cumulative coverage of all existing and proposed rooftop equipment does not

cover more than 75% of the total roof area; is setback from the exterior walls; and, is not

visible or is minimally visible from the surrounding public rights-of-way;

c. Rooftop equipment that can be easily removed in the future without disturbing historic

fabric and is installed in a manner that avoids harming any historic fabric of the

building; and,

d. All proposed ducts, pipes, and cables are located within the building and are not

installed or anchored to an exterior elevation visible from a public right-of-way.

e. Wireless equipment that is not visible or is minimally visible from the surrounding

public rights-of-way and that does not attach directly to any historic material.

5. Rooftop equipment outside of the C-3 zoning districts: The installation or replacement of

rooftop equipment that is not visible from the adjacent public right-of-way; that does not result

in additional of height of 8-feet; that does not cover more than 20% of the total roof area; that is

setback from the exterior walls of the building; that can be easily removed in the future without

disturbing historic fabric; that is of a color compatible with the roof and other equipment on the

roof, and is installed in a manner that avoids harming any historic fabric of the building. For

example, this scope of work qualifies for staff level approval by:

a. The installation of rooftop HVAC equipment on a flat roof that meets the above

requirements and is obscured by the existing historic parapet.

SAN FRANCISCO 4PL4NNING DLPARTMEN'f


6. Construction of anon-visible roof deck on a flat roof: The construction of pergolas or otherstructures, such as a stair or elevator penthouse for roof access, does not qualify under thisscope of work. The construction of roof decks, including associated railings, windscreens, andplanters, provided that:

a. The deck and associated features cannot be viewed over street-facing elevations;

b. Existing access to the roof in compliance with the Building Code must bedemonstrated.

7. Signs and awnings: New tenant signs and awnings or a change of copy on existing signs andawnings that meet the Department's Design Standards for Storefronts in Article 11Conservation Districts, any applicable Special Sign Districts identified within the PlanningCode, and/or is found compatible with the character-defining features as outlined in theArticle 10 designating Ordinance in terms of material, location, number, size, method ofattachment, and method of illumination with the property and/or district, provided that:

a. Applications for new signs and awning shall include the removal of any abandonedconduit, outlets, attachment structures, and associated equipment;

b. Signs and awnings shall not obscure or spread out over adjacent wall surfaces; andshall not include new attachments to terra cotta, cast iron, or other fragile historicarchitectural elements and is installed in a location that avoids damaging or obscuringcharacter-defining features.

c. Awnings and canopies shall use traditional shapes, forms, and materials, be no widerthan the width of the window openings, and will have open sides and afree-hangingvalance.

d. The awning or canopy structure is covered with canvas (Sunbrella or equivalent).

e. Signs or lettering shall be kept to a minimum size.

f. The installation of new signage that relates to the pedestrian scale of the street; isconstructed of high-quality materials; is installed in a location that avoids damaging orobscuring character-defining details; is positioned to relate to the width of the ground-floor bays; and is illuminated through indirect means of illumination, such as reversehalo-lit.

8. Replacement and/or modification of non-historic storefronts: The replacement and/ormodification of non-historic (or that have not gained significance in their own right) storefrontmaterials, including framing, glazing, doors, bulkheads, cladding, entryways, and ornament.Work shall be confined within the piers and lintels of the ground floor of the property anddetermined to meet the Department's Design Standards for Storefronts for Article 11Conservation Districts and/or is found compatible with the character-defining features asoutlined in the Article 10 designating Ordinance in terms of proportion, scale, configuration,

SAN FRANCISCO c~PLANNING DEPARTMENT


materials, and details with the character-defining features of the property and/or district. This

scope of work qualifies for staff level approval provided that:

a. The design of the new storefront system is based on physical or documented evidence

of the property and matches the historic proportion, scale, profile, and finish of a

storefront system from the period of significance of the property.

b. Contemporary cladding materials that obscure the ground floor piers, lintel, and

transom area of the building will be removed. All underlying historic material will be

cleaned, repaired, and left exposed. The transom area will be re-glazed and integrated

into the storefront system with a design based on the historic proportion, scale,

configuration, materials, and details of the property.

c. ADA-compliant entry systems meeting all Building Code requirements will be

integrated into the storefront system and will be compatible in terms of proportion,

scale, configuration, materials, and details with the character-defining features of the

property and/or district.

9. Solar panels: T'he installation of structures that support solar panels, regardless of visibility,

provided that the installation would not require alterations to the building greater than

normally required to install a solar energy system, such as an installation with minimum

spacing from the roof surface and mounted parallel with the slope of the roof (if roof is slope

greater than 1/12), not visible from adjacent street sightlines if on a flat roof, set in from the

perimeter walls of the building, including the building's primary facade. Support structures

should have apowder-coated or painted finish that matches the color of the roof material. For

example, this scope of work qualifies for staff level approval by:

a. The installation of a solar panel system on a gable roof that is set in from the street-

facing facades and is mounted flush to the slope of the roof.

b. The installation of a solar panel system on a flat roof that is set in from the street- facing

facades and is mounted on an angled structure that is within the height limit and is not

visible from adjacent streets as it's appropriately setback and/or obscured by an

existing historic parapet.

10. Skylights: The installation or replacement of skylights that are deteriorated beyond repair so

long as new skylights are minimized from view. New skylights must be limited in number and

size; mounted low to the roof with a curb as low as possible; and have a frame with a powder-

coated or painted finish that matches the color of the roof material.

11. Rear yard decks and stairways outside of the C-3 zoning districts: The repair or replacement

of decks and stairways and associated structural elements that are located in the rear yard; are

not visible from the public right-of-way; do not require the construction of a firewall; and are

determined to be compatible in terms of location, configuration, materials, and details with the

character-defining features of the property and/or district. All historic features, such as newel

posts and railings, must be retained where extant. New railings, if needed, shall match the

SAN FRANCISCO 6PLANNINQ ~EPANTMENT


historic rail system in design. This does not apply to the replacement of porticos, porches, orother architectural components at the rear of the property. For example, this scope of workqualifies for staff level approval by:

a. The replacement or construction of a contemporary rear deck or stair on abuilding located mid-block where the rear of the property is not visible from the publicright-of-way and the deck and/or stair is set in from the side property lines so as not torequire the construction of a firewall.

b. T'he replacement of railings and decking on a historic verandah that is beyond repairand is not visible from the public right-of-way. The replacement decking and railingsare based on physical or documented evidence and are replaced in- kind with likematerials and match the historic in all profiles and dimensions. All other historicveranda elements are retained, stabilized, supported, and protected duringconstruction.

12. Selective in-kind replacement of cladding outside of the C-3 zoning districts: The selectivereplacement of cladding materials at any facade may be approved administratively for anybuilding, when it has been demonstrated that the existing cladding is damaged beyond repairand when the new cladding will match the historic cladding (extant or not) in terms ofmaterial, composition, dimensions, profile, details, texture, and finish. Planning DepartmentPreservation staff may require a site visit to review amock- up of the proposed work. Forexample, this scope of work qualifies for staff level approval by:

a. The selective replacement of historic clapboard siding where it has beendemonstrated that the specific area to be replaced is beyond repair and the newclapboard siding matches the historic in material, profile, and finish.

b. The selective patch of historic stucco where is has been demonstrated that the specificarea to be replaced is beyond repair and the new stucco patch matches the historic inmaterial, composition, texture, and finish.

13. Construction and/or modification of landscape features outside of the C-3 zoning districts:The construction of new landscape features or modification of existing landscape featuresassociated with residential properties when the work will not impact character-definingfeatures of the property as listed in the designating ordinance or identified by PlanningDepartment preservation staff. For example, this scope of work qualifies for staff level approvalby:

a. The removal and replacement of a non-character-defining walkway andretaining wall within the side yard of a property where it has been demonstrated thatthe replacement materials are compatible with the property in terms of location, size,scale, materials, composition, and texture.

14. Removal of non-historic features: The removal of any features that are not historic features ofthe building and that have not gained significance in their own right Eor the purpose ofreturning the property closer to its historic appearance examples include but are not limited to

SAN FRANCISCO 7PLANNING DEPARTMENT

Motion No. 0289 Delegation of Minor Scopes of Wark to the Planning DepartmentOctober 5, 2016

fire escapes or signage and associated conduit. The replacement of such features does not

qualify under this scope of work. This scope of work qualifies for staff level approval provided

that:

a. All anchor points and gene#xations where non-historic features are removed will be

patched and repaired based on the Secretary of the Interior's Standards.

Z5. Security Measures: Installation or replacement of metal security doors, window grilles,

security gates, exterior lighting, or security cameras provided that the installation of these

measures meet all other requirements of the Planning Code and are compatible in terms of

proportion, scale, configuration, materials, details, and finish with the character-defining

features of the property and/or district; and are installed in a reversible manner that avoids

obscuring or damaging exterior character-defining features of the building. Planning

Department Preservation staff may require a site visit to review amock-up of the proposed

work. This scope of work qualifies for staff level approval provided that:

a. Retractable security gates or grilles and related housing shall be installed in a location

obscured from tl~e public right-of-way when in the open position.

b. Security measures are located in a discreet location so to minimize visibility during

daylight and/or business operating hours.

16. Work described in an approved Mills Act maintenance plan. Any work described in an

approved Mills Act Rehabilitation/Restoration/Maintenance Plan that has been reviewed and

endorsed by the Historic Preservation Commission, approved by the Board of Supervisors, and

determined to meet the Secretary of the Interior's Standards.

I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion was adopted by the Commission at its meeting on

October 5, 2016.

1

Jonas ,ionin

Commission Secretary

AYES: Hyland, Hasz, Johnck, Johns, Matsuda, Pearlman, Wolfram

NAY5: None

ABSENT: Nane

~DOP'I'ED: October 5, 2016

SAN FRANCISCOPLANNING DEPARTMENT

Edwin M. Lee, MayorPhilip A. Ginsburg, General Manager

From: Janice Lau Perez, Planner

To: Tim Frye

San Francisco Planning Department

1650 Mission Street, Suite 400

San Francisco, CA 94103

Re: Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness Submittal for Japanese Garden atCottage Row Mini Park

Date: Apri14, 2017

Dear San Francisco Planning Department:

The Japanese Cultural and Community Center of Northern California (JCCCNC), in partnership withSan Francisco Recreation and Park Department (SF RPD), requests review of the proposed update ofthe Cottage Row Mini Park. The purpose of this memo is to provide Historic Preservation with anoverview of the proposed Project.

Background

The SF RPD owns and operates the Cottage Row Mini Park, located on Sutter Street between Websterand Fillmore Street. The Bush Street-Cottage Row Historic District, which includes the mini-park,became part of the National Register of Historic Places in 1982. The park runs adjacent to a line ofVictorian houses that have stood since the 1800s, many of which were built by William Hollis duringthe late 1860s and 1870s. The park is primarily a brick walkway with 2 small green areas forrecreation. A few scattered benches and some pleasant landscaping fill out the park. The pathwayalong the back of the cottages was commonly referred to as "Japan Street" in the 1930s, in reflectionof the Japanese-Americans who resided in the neighborhood before they were displaced tointernment camps in World War II.

In 2014, after a lengthy community engagement process, SF RPD staff removed failing trees at theproposed project location and planted temporary landscaping to beautify the space until a morethoughtful design was proposed.

Project Description

In partnership with SF RPD, Japanese Cultural and Community Center of Northern California(JCCCNC) is celebrating the 110th anniversary of Japantown by proposing to update the existingCottage Row Mini Park frontage with a Japanese Zen rock garden to commemorate the Issei, the firstgeneration of Japanese in America. The proposed garden will also commemorate the 75th anniversaryof the signing of the Presidential Executive Order 9066, which sent 120,000 persons of Japaneseancestry to America's internment camps. 5,000 Japanese American man, women and children in SanFrancisco's ]apantown were forcibly removed and incarcerated.

The proposed Issei garden will be located at the edge of the park facing Sutter Street (approximately

30' x 25'), occupying less than 15 percent of the total park space. The proposed project will replace

existing plants and bushes on the front south side of the park with rocks, plants, and trees that make

up the elements and landscaping of a Japanese Zen rock garden. A dry waterfall is proposed on the

far left of the garden. The two retaining walls along Sutter St will be improved with stone; the closest

to Sutter St will represent Issei, or first generation of Japanese Americans, and the second to

represent Nisei, or second generation of Japanese Americans. The plan will not change the structure

or grade of the planted area, nor will it change any pathways or encroach upon the lawn area or any

other usable or accessible space in the park. The passive use of the park will remain the same.

Since no new structures are being proposed, no building permit will be required for the proposed

project.

Project Outreach

A total of five community meetings have been held to receive community input on the project design

and implementation. These meetings were held in 2016 on July 7, August 11, September 13, October

3, and October 18. A total of 27 supporters spoke in favor of the project at the community meetings.

JCCCNC has reached out directly to the adjacent landowners on Cottage Row. They have received 7

letters of support from the residents on Cottage Row. The Project Sponsor has also received 101

letters of support from neighborhood residents within 300ft to 3 blocks of the park, and 171etters of

support from community organizations. A petition supporting the project has received 447

signatures.

Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties

The proposed project meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic

Properties because it will retain the existing property's character-defining feature as a passive park

for a quiet, urban retreat surrounded by natural landscaping. As noted in Article 10 Appendix K in

the Bush Street -Cottage Row Historic District's Statement of Significance, the walkway of the mini

park was popularly called "Japan Street" in the 1930s because the entire district was inhabited by

Japanese-Americans until their internment during World War II. Japanese-Americans grew

vegetables in their rear yards and offered them for public sale at an informal weekly open market

held every Saturday along the Cottage Row. The proposed Japanese garden project will beautify the

existing landscaping and enhance the historic significance of the mini park by highlighting Japanese

Americans' contributions to the district.

CEQA Determination

RPD anticipates that the proposed garden would be categorically exempt under 15304c—Class 4:

Minor Alterations to Land. The proposed garden is replacing existing conventional landscape with

new landscaping. Excavation for the proposed project will not exceed 4 to 5 feet in depth.

Enclosed:

• Attachment A: Project Location Maps

• Attachment B: Project Plan

• Attachment C: Existing Photos and Proposed Drawings

• Attachment D: Plant Palette

• Attachment E: Historical Aerial Imagery

,,, ;AdministrativeCertificate of Appropriateness

Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness ApplicationSubmittal Checklist

The intent of this application is to provide the Historic Preservation Commission and Preservation Staff withsufficient informatian to understand and review the proposal. Receipt of the appflca6on and the accompanyingmaterials by the Planning Department shall only serve the purpose of establishing a Planning Department file forttte proposed projecrt. After the file is established, Preservation Staff will review the application to determine whetherthe application is complete or whether additional information is required. Applications listed below submitted tothe Plarming Department must be accompanied by this checklist and all requited materials. The checklist is to becompleted and signed by the applicant ox authorized agent

ADMMISTRATIVERE~UIREO MATERIALS (please check cor.ect column) CERTIFICATE OF

E APfROPHIATBJES

Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness Application, with all blanks Ecompleted ~ ~

Building Permit Application and related plans i ❑

s Historic photographs (tf possible), and cuReM photographs ~

Letter of authorization for agent '~ ~ ~

Otfier: Section Plan, Detail drawings die. windows, door entries, trim), -Specifications (for cleaning, repair, etc.) and/or Product cut sheets for new ~elemerns (ie. v,r~ndows, doors) PIaT15~DIa1'lt DaIe~C

NOTES:

❑ Required Material. Wrke "WA N you believe tfie item q not applicable, (e.g. letter of aiMorizalbn is not requped if appRc~on 'sa signed by property owirer.)~ Nod applicable fa all projects. DepaAmant staff may require addNonal materials.

Fa Depahrner~t Use Only

Application received by Planning Department:

By:

~ •~' J ::v~~,' 1 y a',

I~Ll~,t~~1thE ?it~~uni~'s i~ r..o

Date:

s '.?';:pi 2s• a~i;~it. TM~ :~~n~i ~s~~'as-i~~s~ ~t~~te~sr~~ €;t~~:~~r;t~a'a?

Central Reception1850 Mission Street, Suite 400San Francisco CA 94103-2479

TEL' 4f 5.558.6378FAX: 415 558-6409WEB: http:1/www.sfplanning.org

Planning Intormatlon Cer►ter (PIC)16&0 Mission Street, First FloorSan Francisco CA 94103-2479

TEL, 415.558.6377Planning staff are svarbDlB by phone and at tho PfC counterNo eppoinfinenl is neCe9sdry.

9~N FflANC18C0 FUNNING ~EPARTMENi IO.OA.2012 tj

i , ~ AdministrativeCertificate of Appropriateness

■--■

Estimated Construction Costs

~a~icnnorr. ----.___...

oocuwwcr cussiFlcana+:

~C

~.4~ -------

ue ~ioirro Trre: ------- ---- ---- -- -- ---NaTOTAL GROSS SQUARE fEET OF CANSTfiUCT10N: BY PROPOSED USES:

~

I. ~

____-----__--------_..-L----- i

--_ESTI6MTFD CONSTRUCTION COST:

$32,580 - 556,880 depending on availability of donations and volunteersi Esnnai~ r~~an~n er —~ _----. _._.__ _-----_.__-----------_._ _ _ __

-~

Project Applicant~FEEE37ABLISHED:--~---~-----~_....-----'...__—,.. ___.__._ J

Applicant's Affidavit

Under penalty of perjury the following dec]arations are made:

T'he vndeisigned is the owner or authorized agent of the owner of this property.The information presented is true and wrrect to the best of my knowledge.Other information or applications maybe required.

Signature: ~ ~{ ~Date: ~ ~ ' •., t

Print name, and indicate whethe~.Q~p(i'~r, or authorized agerrt:

Pau! Osaki ofJCCCNC, Authorized Agentown. / nua,orizea ngwn (arose ona)

8AN FW WGIBCO VIAHniMO OEPMTM[N1 iO.Op.Y01 Y

~,~~;_ :::+ :.: t_~ AdministrativeCertificate of Appropriateness

Findings of Compiiar~ce with Preservation Standards

FINDIN0.SOFCAMPLIANCEWITXPRESERVATIONSTANOAROS ~~ YES NO ~ WA

1 Is the property being used as it was histoncall~t ~ ❑ i ❑

2 Does the new use have minimal impact on distinctive materials, features,spaces, atld spatial relationship? ~

~

;~ i ~

~ ~

~3 ?

Is the historic character of the property being maintained due to minimalchanges of the above listed characteristics?

Are the design changes creating a false sense of history of historical i 4 development, possible from matures or elements taken from other historical ❑ ~ ! ❑

properties?

5 Are there elemerrts of the property that were not initially significant but haveacquired their own histwicef significance?

~ ~ i ~ {

{ 6 t Have the efemerrts retererlCed in Finding 5 been retained and preserved?

~

❑ _•---~

❑ ~

~ ~ ~ ~~ Have dlstinC[ive meterieb, features, firyshes, and construction techniques orexamptes of fine craftsmanship that characterize the property been preserved?

8 ~ Are all deteriorating historic feffiures being repaired per the Secxetary of theInterior Standards?

~I ~ ~ ! ~

9 ~ Are there historic features that have deteriorated and need to be replaced? ❑- f---~ E ❑

i~Do the replacement features match in design, color, texture, and, where

~ possible, materials?~ ~ k ~

11Are any specified chemical or physical treatments being undertaken on historic ~ ~ j ~materials using the gentlest means possible? 's `

❑ ❑ ~ ~12 Are all archeological r~aurces being protected and preserved in place?

~ 3~ Do exterior alterations or related new construction preserve historic materials,` ~

j~ ~features, and spatial relationships that are characteristic to the property

Are exterior alterations differentiated from the ofd, but still compatible with the

~ ~ ~

14 historic materials, features, size, scale, and proportion, and massing to protect (~ ❑ ❑the integrtty of the property and its environment?

~ ~ ~15 If any akerations are removed one day in the future, will the forms end integrityof the histonc property and enwronmerrt be preserved?

Please summarize how your project meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Tieatmer~t o1 HistoricProperties, in particular the Guidelines for Rehabilitation and will retain character-defining features of the buildingand/or district:

_Tbg~~45~d.~CsljQst.~tJ1 rgtaiD theexisting prope.rty's character-d~fining_feature a~a.passive park for_~c~uiet _.

_suban re rltsurrounciesiJZv .~natura~,.landsc~Pin9•-- - --. ._ __ _ _. ._. _ _ _. __._. _..._ ___ - - ---

_~.~ rnnucisco vi~NN~Hc o~vnaTucr.-r ~o.oe.zoi: 4

Ad~ninisir~3tiveCertificate of Appropriateness

1 ~i

APPLICATION FOR

AdministrativeCertificate of Appropriateness1.Owner/Applicant Information

j PROPERTY ONVNER'3 NAME:

San Francisco Recreation and ParkPROPERTY bWNEA'S ADDRESS: TELEPHOPIE

i

30 Van Ness Suite 3000(415 ) 575-5b03EMAIL•

San Francisco, CA 94102janice.perez~sfgov.org

~~

---......~_------- ~--~APPLIGWTSNAME:-----

Japanese Cultural and Community

- ._.`--------

Center of Northern California (JCCCNC) s~ ~ n~ ❑APPUCMff 9 AD~RE39: ._ -~ ------ ---------~ TELEPHONE ~ —~—j

i 1840 Sutter StreetSan Francisco, CA 94115

~..- --- .... .-

I X415 1 567-5505r-~,~

-- -- ~. POsaki@jccc~c.org

~ CONTACT FOR PRQIECr INFORMATION:

~ Janice Perez - - ---

i

ssm~ena. ~CONTACT PERSON'S ADDRESS: ~ TELEPFIONE:

~ (415 ) 575-Sb03 iEMAIL•.-._..._..~ _~"'

janice.perez~sfgov.org }

2. Location and Classification- -rSTREEfADDRES30FPRQIECT:

$uttef and FillmOfe ~

-- -----_ ---- ----------._------,...__--r—._-? ZIPCOOE

~ 94115

On Sutter between Fillmore and Webster

488ESSORS BLACK/LOT: LAT DIMENSIONS: I lAT AREA (SQ F~: ZONIN(# DISTRICT: HEIOHTlBULK DISTRICT:

0677 / 012 ~25' x 120' ' 4120 ' RM-3 40-x---------------.. _ ~ ~J_._.___.~~~~~.._ .. _ ~ _------4PTICLE•10 LANDMARK tx1M8ER I HISTORIC DIStR1CT:

.__ _----- -

Bush Street-Cottage Row Historic District

3. Project Description

The pro~osed_Issei, garden will bg located at the front of the..park facing. Sutter Street,(~30'x25~_The oro~osed _

..project will replace existing_ plants and bushes on the_front_south side_of the.park_with rocks,~lants, trees that

.make up the elements and landscaping of a Japanese Zen rock garden_Passive use of park will remain the_same.

Building Permit Application No. n/a Date Fled:

&W ~R~KCISGO PIANHiNO bEvnH~\1ENT 10.0l.t0~R 3

\}~~i~I~~~iIG'? O':3~~a'~1~~1~~fti~$a~3;~ hr~0'~~l~ll:~it' ~dSS. ~:a~'~~1C3~~~`i1Y'~L5

5. Once the Administrative Certificate ofAppropriateness is issued, there is a mandatoryRequest for Hearing' period. The AdministrativeCertificate of Appropriateness will be sent to eachHistoric Preservation Commission Commissionerand all interested parties on file with theDepartment For the majority of projects, there isa 2aday notice period, and for signs and awningsit is a 10-day period. If no'Request for Hearingis made within the designated time period, thebuilding permit application associated with theAdministrative Certificate of Appropriateness willbe approved by the Planning Department.

6. The final issuance of the Administrative Certificateof Appropriateness and Ehe building pernutapplication may be appealed to the Board ofAppeals.

WHO MAY APPLY FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVECERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS?An Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness vs anentitlement that runs with the property; therefore, theproperty owner or a party designated as the owner'sagent. may apply for a Large Project Authorization. [Aletter of agent authorization from the owner must beattached.]

All plans and other exhibits submitted with thisapplication will be retained as part of the permanentpublic remrd in this case.

After your case is assigned to a planned qon will becontacted and asked to provide an electronic versionof this application including associated photos anddrawings-

• Fees: There is no set fee required. Time and materialscharges will be calculated based upon hours spentprocessing the application.

CEQA Review: The California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA) and Chapter 31 of the SanFrancisco Adriurustrative Code implementing thatact may require an Environmental Evaluation beforethe application may be considered. Please rnnsaltthe Planning Department staff to detemune if anEnvironmental Evaluation application must besubmitted with this application. A separate fee isrequired for environmental review.

INSTRUCTIONS:

The attached applicarion for a Administrative Certificateof Appropriateness includes a project description andnecessary contact information Please type or print inkand attach pages if necessary.

Please provide the following materials with thisapplication:

• Authorizaflon: If the applicant in this case is theauthorized agent of the property owner, rather thanthe owner, a letter signed by the owner and creatingor acknowledging that agency must be attached andis included in the application for a AdministrativeCertificate of Appropriateness .

Building Permit Application: The applicafionmust be accompanied by plans sufficient for properdetermination of the case. Plans must meet submittalrequirements for the Department of buildinginspection. Planning staff may require additionalinformation in order to process the AdministrariveCertificate of Appropriateness.

• Photographs: The application must be accompaniedby unmounted photographs, large enough to showthe nature of the property but not over 11 X 17 inches.

To file your AdministrativeCertificate of AppropriatenessApplicafi.on, please attach toa building permit applicationand submit at Central PermitBureau for routing to PlanningDepartment Preservation staff.

&~N FRANCI8C0 FLAtIfiING OEPMTNEnT tO.OB.EO~ 2 2'

y:. 2 t _

_~~4 <;`~~~; APPLICATION PACKET FOR

~'_:.~~ ;.~:?~~ Administrative Certificate of

Planning DepxtmMt

7650 Missbn Street

Suite 400

San Francisco, CA

841039425

L• 415.658.6376

F: 415.558.6409

WHAT IS AN AQMINESTRATIVE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS ANDWHEN IS IT NECESSARY?

Inwrporabed into the Planning Code in 1968, Article 10 outlines the process for the review andentitlement of alterations to properties locally designated as City Landmarks. An individuallandmark is a stand-alone building, site, or object that is important for its contributions to SanFrancisco. A landmark district is a group of properties or a portion of a neighborhood that isazchitecturally, historically, or culturally important Designated properties that are recognizedfor their architectural, historic, and cultural value to the City, are subject to the review andentitlement processes outlined in Article 10 of the Planning Code. The Historic PreservationCommission oversees and regulates these properties.

A Certificate of Appropriateness is the entitlement required to alter az► individual landmazkand any property' within a landmark district. A Certificate of Appropriateness is required forany rnnstruction, addition, major alteration, relocation, rnmoval, or demolition of a structure,object or feature, on a designated landmazk property; in a landmark district, or a designatedlandmark interior. The Historic Preservation Commission has identified certain categories ofwork as Minor Alterations. These Minor Alterations qualify for an Administrarive Certificate ofAppropriateness. An Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness does not require a publichearing and is approved by Planning Deparhnent Preservation staff. To dete~~nP if your projectqualifies for an Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness, please speak with a PreservationPlanner at the Planning Info~atiam Center at (415) 558-63T7 or infoC~sfplanning.org.

HOW DOES THE ADMINISTRATIVE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESSPROCESS WORK?1. Gather the information needed and fill out the attached application. If you need assistance,

contact the Planning Information Center,1b60 Mission Street, lst Floor, Telephone No. 558-6377; open Monday through Friday.

2. File a Building Permit Application and aEtach the Administrative Certificate ofAppropriateness Application. Submit both applications to Central Permit Bureau, whichwill then be routed a Preservation Planner.

3. 17epartment staff reviews the proposed project to determine if it meets the HistoricPreservation Commiaa;on's definition of a major or minor project. If determined to be amajor project, a Certificate of Appropriateness Application will be required. Please see thatapplication for additional information regarding process.

4. When the application is deternvned to be complete, the Deparhnent issues theAdministrative Certificate of Appropriateness document. Please note that the Depaztmentreserves the right to bring any proposed alteration, even if it meets the criteria for aAdministrative Certificate of Appropriateness, to the Historic Preservation Commission forreview and approval

9/~n t'P~NC Mco MANNIna o~MTM[NT to.oe.zolz

Appropriateness

Isse

i Commemorative Garden at Cottage Row Mini Park

Attachment A: Project Location

~k

R ~

e,~

-Co

ttag

eRow

Mini Pa

rk

Project

Loca

tion

Article 10

Dis

tric

t

Boundary

~~

0

25 Feet

i•~~

• Attachment F: Administrative Certificate of Appropriateness Application

Attachment E: Hi

stor

ical

Aerial Imagery

C04LCTlON NAMl:

uav::7 R~m3ey Hls

for~

[B~

Nlap

G li

c cbon

pK~ e

A11tllOf:

Ryt~r. l~~

m~rj

~.

Dip:

1976

9rort

Ttle~

C~~

~iwm

~le.

1.1M Sai

l hamazc4

nr.

~.ai

few.,.

vunYsner:

1 ~~!

'~ S l~

l 1(YK!'

VYbYM~ LOC~l/On:

Oak~and

•ypr:

Com»rte Nap

Ob) N~1pht nn:

ObJ

W Itl

M c m:

Se~N 1:

2, J40

eanm~rte image d a uc o~ t6s

spec~crlar, lupo format. etnrp,

DUCK ~Ik

! wnlR VlR

lCal

!e M'

phmu7raptr prr

t7Ni

v vv~rlaypin7

Im OSE! 4PYl MM19 SOn FrpnCISSJ ~pKl1

c~ a fir! apvruxrmecWv oKarwrt.

Merl fake a

~tl Cn'd~effn~~

erne

wsdwon ganrany oaa~+snen one

maw •w much niprw. war

n r~~

tnntru: fes

~vre

a, icr

eremp~e Vie

00

1/11 9'J

1pIn

~ O(! Y Qtl

ik1!

lOOI

~ 3i

Y~t.

R~urcww nrynn rregwnny

dic

ta rnl

bip bmaE o~ shadow cart of

ffN]~[ff iM1 STllYufN HaMv~rtT~n

tlaa on Indez •nap ind

icat

or

Dn Ot00'EMU L9k

er, fn

~uOW'S. :9i8.

OwnW b~ tPa San Fri

ncic

Lo PYdIc

llbrofY- (4.11oniNP '~M~~1 :i+101nlY

IRCOl rl

Ctly

f~felhtl ~~

Fd~

tOWn

[II1

9 Dli

t~tlo% cMet ae Mar

eeRo

n.R~

k4ar

j. Y~

menled CMrbece Sewere ~n the

mid-.920t: ahut Gov

N[Inq, hp

mar+~M E

stl+

er hiinem Nu~+n ~n

1936 Aanal PhotuSr~Mr Mar neon

day ~ct~e~ey) ay¢e~tieya-iaeti

wsi bom In di4tlale. G.. Ho

lP.

IVEC

IA IFE V.S. NrT1Y ~Or SP~t~

yoars m Gomary w~kh LM post-

Ww7d Wqr 1 aGcvp~Ua gal ~wa~, ina

~

Corn

po~i

t~: 1-:54 Sa,

F•annscc Aer a

. views - O~vd 0.umpy Hi~

Lenc

al 1A~p Coll~chon

+ L +.w

.v.c

aN.t

l•i.

~sry

. ,~M

_._

_ _ .__

~

iOi

T-ar

s~t~

naWrt~ N(~

Mee~~

Cai .cm

Ch~sn

M<a~~'

p~lr

tws~

tr lec~~ Nak K.L

LW W db

wt 4La~ Deuh-Taws

Ouc<DoctLo

SF 1936

SF I9US San

born

tlMr

..F;..

,_~~ ~E~: ~ .`~,,

~k ,~ ,~.,

DECOMPOSEGRANITE

GROUND COVER

JAPANESECHERRY BLOSSOM

TREE

Plants, Trees, Shrub and Ground Cover Photos

Cottage Row Mini Park: Existing Photos &Proposed Drawings Attachment C

Front

Side

Back

~__

\►_

.'\.

~.~

1

M ~a ka r A

1~

rY

j\•

a

r

y

e

~ ~

f ~/ ~

1 ~ eft

~ ~

~

S

a

Etta

e R

o~.~_

~.. .«

. ~,

~I

,~

'!w

ti :.~

_ ''

gip

St-Co

ttage

Row H

istori

c Dist

rict

~.~~

P~~

~.~

k~

?

Y

n

_ _

y .

,,, a

: y~

f ~

s9~

r ~

~r

'~ ''

:~.

,

~ -

r~C" L

' `Y

~

~i5

~S

_

~,

,r _.

Y }

~`~

,~

e gip.

ii

~_

r ~

. ` ~

hI

:'

^~~

,'

x~:

lJ

MONDO GRASS

STAR JUNIPER

II 1 :: \: \ 1 \:

FERN

JAPANESEPINE TREE

Plants, Trees, Shrub and Ground Cover Photos

Attachment D

~:~ ~ ~ ~ 1

` ,~.~ ~ ,~~ ~ ~ ` . ~

r ~ ,,,,j ~

~ -~ ..~~ /'~ qty • ~' , p~ a.. ~. .

'~ t'} f .- ~r .. C'J_: ..,_ a

fi ~. -. 1i ~ ~ s

$ y,~.

_ :._ ~ ~,s..

~" 9 w fi

~~ ~' ~~ ~ ~ # ~€A ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~

,~, '° ,,`~ j ~

-y ° ~ '~'" W~~a, ~ a

i q~

~ 1 ~~ `,~x,y .., a

'~ ~ 31 fi~

~

/ ,.

~ R~ ~ i

j ~ aI

~ ~ 1

~~ 1 ~.

~ { t.n

~ r ~ • ~k; a' i 9

~. • ,

~►~~ ' ~ •• ~' ~ ~ ~~ .

~ #f

,~$ y.~s t,/ ~ ,

~~ ' • t~•

. f ~_ ' ♦ ~ ~%~ ~' 4 ~ 'y ~ ..

. . _ ' ► `~,~.f ,~

,art- * ~~

• (

~8 €

~ r ~

In ~ ~

a ~ '~ •

_ ~F, •t

z -' .. ,,. . , ~.

__

~ #~~ s s'~. ~_ .~ r ~ y

~- ~ ,.f _ t~" ~ ~ ~

- ~ ::~+ — ~ ~ - I{ ~ 4 y~ « t~ ~~.

a `~ ; .. ,

~

i ~d ~yq s ..

1 ~ !f~t `` !f1~ ~.

- ~,Z

~:.

~; ~~. W.~~ .

ivio

nao grass

-.~

Cherry tree

~I DE

19

~ r t ~ ~ d i~~ ~.~;~,~», y {N •*fi t ~~ .~

a ~'e~ ~,r' - ~y, ~ ~.1'~``~~. .,~, _ ms's /y,

~ ♦ ~ . ~ ~_' _fir' { d ,'tom ~~ ~~ +r_ • °R # a' Y ~ s ~~~a. ~ ~, ~ '

~s#~ ~ y

x ,i '~ '~ - ~ ~ 'j~ .. ~ .'fit '~"? $

,- s '` , A ~

} # t .. s -r' ~ ~, 1~ ~ sl ~(.~~. J~*~.- _ r~ m,

~.3~'~ a r l mot.,~ s

-~~ ~ "i~. ~ ~

~.~,~' K a i. i

P q y~„ ~ ~ ~' a

:~.,,~~ ~.

~., ~

.~ "~

s (,~ . ~

w ~~

ty i ~

_ -~ ~ ,.

w »T a

k~ g i

~ ~ s

~- ~!. ~ s

t ~~ /' '~a '#;

i ~ ~~s.

~ xi.

3

:. ".~ _ j ,

~'~

_ ~_', _ i ~

~[

+~ ~ ,",

fE _' ~ .`~ ~ ~, ~ v~

# ~~./

,~x ~ ~ ~ ~ "t ~ n

~~ - ~ ~ .~

.' A 's, ~i ~~S'i ~

~ ~~ ~ t ~~ ~ _ ~#~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~

~~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~

ii' `•

~~

a

~,

,, ~~i ~.

~ ~~~ ~

~ }' ~ s

r /

,; ,~ ~:

'. ~ , .. , '~` ~~

.~ l -.. ~~~ ~~ @-~..V ~ ~ ~ ~, 1~.- Yom. ...~

j

,~ ~~ ' ~ , a ' .t,.

' ~ ~ i j~ :~ , ~ f♦w i "~►' 4'-

. ; i ~ ~, ~" :~ rte: ~~ ~-"~.\ ~ ~ ~''±~'..r~'" e

,: ~. ~ ,"e r '" i »

g"i t tt 'fir.' •'t '~'4 ~t ~us ~ ~

a t .~

~ ,_

~ - "➢•n

rt + ~ ~ }~

a.1 a~. -~

R .' i4 i "~.~~4 ~ f~ ~ 5

t ti t"wi . S'~~ Y J S

w

a ~ ~ +~~~ t

rt ~Y iy

L r~ ~

~ ~ ~ i

j5 N . ~ '

~~ =~~ ~ „i

vy ~~D

j ~x .5 ~ F~

r .

{~ f~ k

r M qty `' a ~ ,. :' '.:

,~ , R .t t- ~ ,- ,

~ r y c

„ ~ ~..~,A Y:

.f a

iiY ~y ~K

~. .l f :q ty ~4 ~

-:Y'"' ~ S,

I'~ ~l I s .'~6' t " ~ &.

~'i l.. p y ~j r .7

f }/ ]„,~ ,_ v'i ~. fa 'e.

F~of ,~'

y •~ .xi ~

.~ ~ 4 'r

f

I' :' ~ ; y~

~!{/~ s. ;

~ P ; ~~ r r

,~ s _ ~ R .j.; ;4°;

>^,~ l~ ~.~* ~~

~ ~ ~ E ~~y: i ~ ' ~Y S R3

\O~ .i tu'K

• R F

a

°~, ,

~, ~~ g

~: _

'3 _

z~# ~ i

+,i {~~ ~.~~

A w

~ 4 ~ t N~ ;r ~'~ ~ ~

;~... ~

~ t- 3

~ y _

.s ~..

i+ ,~ 1.:

ft +-~^. ~ .. ry

g t ~ ¢ ~ ~ _ -f .

♦ ~ 1

. .t~

l~ ~. ' ~' / ~~ ~S

~ ~ ,~. ~ A t + ~, ,fir.. ~

t '~`'~ ~ ~" ~ 1

•f• ~` 1• ~ I' ~~~ ~ '~ ' ~ ~ r

^~ t ~ /~

~~~yti ~,' it a'1`~i"~ ~ ~'` ~ ,' f

Y ~ ., c ~ ,~~~;, ~,

f ~' we~ 4 ,. , ' i ' ,~ ~.~ . ..

.i `t I ~

„► - ,1 / sI~;

r w, /~

~ t' e ~~/ ~ 't~~ ~ .~ `ti~`5 ` _a ~.

rev ,~A ~ ° ~ .fit ' ~7< ~ ~~' ~ w~ ~ A~~. / ~5

'. J 'R ~ A

~ F :f ~ ~ s

`~~ a ~ `+F'' . ~ ~ ~•

.~~' ~ ~ ~

Y4 t ,e

" -~ - y ~'

V+.4~•

~J ~, ~,~_ -,g ~ Y;x►,~~

j~ Q

~ '. h ~ .S ''" lei. ~ 'L..,

~. . - ,~~~

~+

O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~w ~~~,,~~~

f1.

''F ~' ,~'' -,• y '1 . . ,~ a #jam^. r~~

. . L+;y L

~i~/`..~ „~y^,~ '~ 1~'~ `~.~ _ ,~ ^~ "~ ~. ~l '+i~,i~ pair. .

~ ~~ ~ ~ I~ Y ~,~,~t

~~~ ,. .z' ; ~ '" '" ~ - ''

~ - ".

r, ~ -' r t

;.~ , ~ rti

4 s _¢ 1

1 - ~ ~ ~ ~,

' '~ ~y ' ~

' .. t ~._ . y y ~ i , t

!~

~~~ • A:', ~~

_ y /~ .r .~

i ~'~ ~ ~

• ~~ t ~

{ .` ~ ~

•~l r

z 4

1T

•'

m~ • t ~

.' ,°

~ ;~. ~'. •

.' •t

~i" `.

~ i _ <+~~ r

~: ~ ~

~.y4/ ~,~ .~

a~

M.~

d= ,' ~ ~. • ,~.~

t ~~~ r ~` ~ ~

4~L~ ~ .I r •.. R . x.'~► -~ s ~ ~ !~'

„r

M

S

i ~' y ~ ~

... ~ P. T .- ,o µ; ~ i. + a ~ ~r. > _

f

..

~ ~ fit. w r ~ Y~,. ,, r .;, ;f ~~ ~ ~~

,_. - r

~~h g

~~ 1

-, F . 4iy

~ ~..ems, ~.~ ~- ~, • q- ~ '~3 ~,y

,~~ r J ~ "„ <,

~~j'•p ' .g 4-

~~ f

,: .~~~,

~, ,,, r ,~, ,~;

0

~A ~ ~, ti:~~~5 ~ ~ 7g '~' ~' icy ' ~' ~'`,, .,

.~,~. +fir ,~ ~ ^~. ~ ~ `~.; ~. ~., ..

j

.,~{'~if c

? A~ "' j

~ ' X

,. ~ t~, ~~,:

. ~ _:

,..

4-+~ h~~ 1 f ~ ~ S

i • _ ~r ;~~ ~ ~, ,

.. ,apt; ~. a ~~`~.

i~ t~i~

i~t ~ ~~ ~.f

Ott, ~ ~ i ~~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~

-• ; e n , _.,, .~ ~ _ ,,:

~~~ a ~. s

~.~

~~ ~~~' ~~' ;''

~ 1~~ ~ ;. ..}

d ..

~~ '•~

; ~-

;:.~:

~~~sMN~

~i •li7 .r

~~.

~'

....'`~

.~ '~~

• ~ ~~~•~

r

,~ _

. ~

i

~r

~~~

~~

. ,

1 I

,, ,

• • ~1~ . r . 1

f

' / ~

. ~b

,~`

~. '

,y

L ~

1

i

~1

:~

~ Fh• ~ ~

~~ E¢ r,

r ~`

~E I t f r k ff ~t~

,~~' ~ fr.t+d ~ ~ ~~~~.

i,

r s

~ , . f }~ .

i `~,~ ~ ~~

~' .

,%';

_ . ~-

. , .;.r

.~ •~

~ ~.

• .i. + 9

• r

►.•~

i .

- .'~~~ ►

6

~~

ti~

i~~~

1

c~'

~t

,~,~ 'h

~

c

~-.

1

,- .

'_`

~ ~~

~

~ ...

~

~~

~ '

~,

/i

1 •. ~~s

~~

f k'

~~

b

'r^

1 ~1.

~

F+~w

~ ~

4 ~ ,

''•

1 ,~`

1e~'~

`~„

~: ~ ~ :

e \ . ~ `

/ /

~~~

_ 'sue! ~

~J

~

~~K~~~'r

- ~'

. ' 1

..

y

_ '1ML...._..

S

r L~

P

~

j ~~

~

~

-

r

~~~

{~

• ~..

~ ~

~~

~ ,

,.. ~►

~r

__- -

~i

♦~, .

r

~ 4f .~, i E /

j ~~ ~ . ~ ~;

~~J 1 1.t • y ~ ~

~~ ~ ~.,

o~~ ~~

t ~-~~~ ~~ ~,

r .. ~ ~ ~r„ g~.~_~~

~,~{ tf l ~ ~ t~~ [~ Q

~ ~ , ' ,G - ? , it~F ~ f4' ~i ~-~~

~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~r l ~~~ ~ ~

* -4 q f ~ x

E •~ ` ~~ ~ l~ \ ~ ~ `"

~€ ~ ~'' 3 ~yi. YF" 'S

.~ l

~. Y . . ~ i,- .~ ..J t ~°,,`' ~ ff ~~ `

~z ---^~'t_" ,,...-...s.::.. Fig k ~ ~ r '~' ~` _

~~, ~

~ E ~~ `+~ ~

tfs

~~

...— ~ ~~

L~"~ p ~-

~' .~~~~ ',~ ~:

~, + tS~ rt •4 V

~~ ~,~~~- ~

A.1 k

0

~ ~ hF ~t

v ~

~j~, 'P`~ '

' ~ !'~ .r4j~ y• ' ~ v~ ~.y'~. g~ r i ; ~G~ ~ 1

/ ~ N / ~ I S~

~ ~

~ ~~s ~~ ~~~

iL +'s C+~~ ~ :,~

~` . t .' e~ '~

f

4

~ ~ r i ~i ~ \r~0.r M

~ ~ t •1 y~r

•~ ,• iy ~^ ~ 1 ,•,'• ~ 1~

.t ..~ .~ ~

_

~ ,

~"' ~

f r~ F~ si

w~. . ~

~

r. 1 .~~.

'~

ti

`~J a

~~

'~~~ r

`

r

~~(/

~!

a

~~

~~

FRONT

~~~.,........yam'.

~ ~

_, 1

~ =t t,+'

~ }~ '

''t '

a'` ~ ~i 1

:"~ 3 ~ f

~' /: C I

~^ ~ ~ ~_ — ~

G.B.

1~. ~~•. ~~

i a

~' ~ M

~~ ~ ~'~ ~ ~~~~ ~~ ,~i

r=r •1— --_

i~ ~ •~ '—~

{ ~

i ~r ~

r~~

l

~ ~~~~T ; G• 4~ ~

'-' ^..~Wj ~ .. ~ti'~ ~• ~Y,f.-r

i =,,~~ ~

~ l1' '~ ~ ~ ~.

~ ~' ~"~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~'

} Proposed Garden Site__. — ~.-- — - • — J

u_ .- __ — — - — -- ~--

T'_ ~

e_~

~~

~~ ° ~ ~~ 10~ BUTTER Sr R~ET~'J tfC~i~'~

ISSEI GARDEN PROJE

T '

Lawn Area

at Ca

ttc~

ge Row Mini-Park

i Existing ~in

ko Tree

-----

-~~

~~—~"

Exis

ting

Stone Planter

j I

~ _

- Ground Cover

a~ ~

_ ;

i_

, ~

- _

t

U

---..

_ -

~ ~.

,-

'

Existing

~ f

~ ~ .

~ !

~ Cottage Row

Maple Tre

e _

~ ~

Walkway

Front of House

-- -J , — J ~

_ ~

~ Stairs to

Set-Back

,~~

~`'

~ Nowhere

_ ~.___

- --

Sakura Trees

~ '

- ~ -~ -~

-~ _ _

—

;- -

Existing

a ~

_

_

~~

- — - - --

- , {

Stump

- ,.

_.

~:~

~ _

~ ~

~ _

4 ft

.J_

;?Matsu Trees

~ ` ~'

`~

_...

- ~

."

,~►.

r'-~~

~....~

I, .,~

;{.-

~+ ~

~ ~.'~

~. ;

~~~_

•`x`~

~`'- ~

Ex

istin

gr

,i,.,,.~

, "~

.. . ,fi

r ~.,

~.,

~

r~ .

r~

Ston

e "D

ry"

- ~

.. , .

~ ~

~

~ Sto

new

all

Waf

ierfa

il ~

- '~

.~

- 4

ft..1

. _

~,,,,

. _

.-.

_.

- --

---

---

----

-,~

e~.,,, .~

--:

~._.

- ---

,. -

_' .

. -_

%

_ _

Ston

ewal

l Ove

r Exi

stin

g W

oodw

ali

Sut

er S

treet

NC~T

TO

SC

ALE

~~P ~O COU1~,T W .a~;, O.n ~z SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING...

Documents

Transcript of ~~P ~O COU1~,T W .a~;, O.n ~z SAN FRANCISCO PLANNING...