Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Historic Preservation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Historic Preservation Commission recommends landmarking Peace Pagoda and Peace Plaza amid Japantown concerns
Summary
The San Francisco Historic Preservation Commission unanimously recommended that the Board of Supervisors designate the Peace Pagoda and Peace Plaza in Japantown as an Article 10 landmark, after staff said routine plaza repairs would be exempt from certificate-of-appropriateness review and community members urged either pausing plaza designation or ensuring a community-led redesign.
Desiree Smith, planning department staff, told the Historic Preservation Commission on Dec. 20 that the department recommends the Board of Supervisors landmark both the Peace Pagoda and Peace Plaza at 1610 Gary Boulevard in Japantown, and that the draft ordinance was revised so routine maintenance of the plaza would not require a certificate of appropriateness.
The recommendation prompted a lengthy public-comment period and extensive commission debate over whether to landmark the pagoda and plaza together. Multiple Japantown leaders said the pagoda itself should be designated now while the community completes a design and remediation process for the plaza. "So I was the one that signed the letter ... to just landmark the pagoda, as it is right now, because there's a lot of work that needs to be done on the plaza," said Alice Kawahatsu, outgoing president of the Japantown Task Force, urging a staged approach.
Sandy Mori, president of the Japantown Task Force board, told commissioners the plaza remediation is complex and costly and involves several city departments. "When we started talking with city representatives ... the number now is about 24,000,000," Mori said, citing their conversations with Rec and Park, MTA and the Mayor's Office. Commissioners repeatedly asked staff to clarify what would and would not trigger a certificate of appropriateness; staff said major new construction or any work that triggers a building permit would still require COA review, whereas surface treatments, paving replacement and water remediation tied to the garage generally would not.
Commissioners expressed differing views on the trade-offs. Commissioner Pearlman and others warned that separating the two elements risks losing the experiential integrity of the site; Commissioner Hyland and others stressed that landmark designation could provide crucial design guidance. Kaylee Lloyd, a legislative aide for Supervisor Breed, said if the commission recommends both landmarks, the supervisor would consult Rec and Park, MTA and other departments as the Board of Supervisors considers the recommendation.
After debate, a commissioner moved to support the staff resolution recommending landmarking of both the Pagoda and the Plaza. The motion passed unanimously, with a 6-to-0 roll call. The commission's recommendation will go to the Board of Supervisors, which could alter the scope or timing of the designation.
Commissioners and staff emphasized that the resolution and ordinance are drafts and may be revised. Staff also noted the revised ordinance language was intended to allow routine, cost-effective repairs to proceed without additional HPC review while preserving COA review for substantial new construction. The Board of Supervisors will consider the commission's recommendation in a subsequent land-use process.
