SAN FRANCISCO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

Commission Chambers Room 400,
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102-4689

Wednesday, April 6, 2016
11:30 a.m.
Architectural Review Committe
Meeting
 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:   Pearlman, Hyland, Hasz

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY COMMISSIONER PEARLMAN AT 11:33 AM

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Marcelle Boudreaux, Rich Sucre, Tim Frye-Preservation Officer, Jonas P. Ionin – Commission Secretary

SPEAKER KEY:
+ indicates a speaker in support of an item;

• indicates a speaker in opposition to an item; and

= indicates a neutral speaker or a speaker who did not indicate support or opposition.

1. 2014.0241E                                        (M. BOUDREAUX: (415) 575-9076)
1028-1056 MARKET STREET – north side of Market Street between Taylor and Jones; Lot 002 in Assessor's Block 0350 (District 6) – Review and Comment before the Architectural Review Committee on the proposed preservation alternatives in advance of publication of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project. The project proposes to demolish one existing two-story commercial building, a contributor to the Market Street Theatre and Loft National Register District, and construct one mixed-use residential over ground-floor commercial development. The proposed 120-foot, 13-story building-plus-basement would include 186 residential units on floors 2-13, approximately 9,650 square feet retail/restaurant uses at the ground floor, and vehicle and bicycle parking in the basement. The project site is within a C-3-G (Downtown General) Zoning District, the Downtown Plan Area, and 120-X Height and Bulk Districts. The proposed project would require Downtown Project Authorization, Conditional Use Authorization and Variances from the Planning Code.
Preliminary Recommendation: Review and Comment

SPEAKERS:	= Marcelle Boudreaux – Staff presentation + (M) Speaker – Project presentation
ACTION:	Reviewed and Commented Upon review of the presentation by Staff and Project Sponsor and the materials provided, the ARC determined that: The Partial Preservation Alternative Option C should include a 7-story addition, to retain the notch, with a 10-foot setback from the Market Street front building wall, instead of the proposed 3-story addition, with notch, with a 10-foot setback from the Market Street front building wall. As Staff noted in the memo and the Committee members reiterated, the Compatible alternative (Option D) is assumed to be designed in a manner reflective of the character-defining features of the National Register District, which are outlined in the HRE. The Sponsor should work with Staff to ensure that the adjacent project at 1066 Market is represented accurately in terms of massing, scale and height. For ease of review, include the proposed project in similar graphical conceptual massing studies as the alternatives.
LETTER:	0059

2. 2013.0975ENX                                     (R. SUCRE: (415) 575-9108)
888 TENNESSEE STREET – located on the northwest corner of 20th and Tennessee Streets, Assessor's Block 4060, Lots 001 & 004 (District 9) – Request for Review and Comment by the Architectural Review Committee regarding the proposal to demolish the existing non-contributing, two-story industrial building, and construct a new, four-story-with-basement, residential building (approximately 87,100 sq ft) with 110 dwelling units, 5,472 square feet of ground floor commercial space, and 83 below-grade, off-street parking spaces. Currently, the project is undergoing environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project site is located within the Dogpatch Landmark District, which is designated in Appendix L of Article 10 of the San Francisco Planning Code, and is also located in the UMU (Urban Mixed-Use) Zoning District and 45-X Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Review and Comment

SPEAKERS:	= Rich Sucre – Staff presentation + David Baker – Project presentation = Heidi Dunkelgod – Design concerns
ACTION:	Reviewed and Commented Compatibility of New Construction with Dogpatch Landmark District The ARC finds that the new construction is largely compatible with the Dogpatch Landmark District with the incorporation of the modifications (See Below). New Construction‐Scale, Form & Proportion The ARC concurs with the staff determination that the proposed form, massing and proportion are consistent and compatible with the surrounding landmark district. The ARC encourages additional articulation at the street level along Minnesota and Tennessee Street. New Construction‐Fenestration The ARC concurs with the staff recommendation to eliminate the silver anodized aluminum windows, and to use a dark colored or non‐reflective anodized aluminum window throughout the proposed project. The ARC supports the design and intent of the window frame element, and concurs with the staff recommendation to eliminate the painted horizontal siding within the larger openings. The Project Sponsor should explore an alternate material, such as a break metal or black spandrel glass. The Project Sponsor should continue working with Department staff on this element. New Construction‐Materials, Color & Texture The ARC supports the vertical orientation of the ceramic tile as proposed by the Project Sponsor. The ARC supports the current finish and color of the proposed ceramic tile, since the sample is matte in finish with a rough textured exterior and in a variety of tones. In addition, the ARC supports the proposed horizontal siding, since it incorporates a smooth integrated color and finish, as well as joints between the pieces of siding. New Construction‐Cornice/Roofline Termination The ARC concurs with the staff recommendation to widen the cornice and providing additional detail to better fit within the context of the surrounding district. Currently, the project needs a better roofline termination due to the scale and size of the building, and the sheer plane of the street walls. The Project Sponsor may consider a different roofline articulation for the lightercolored volumes as opposed to the darker‐colored volumes.
LETTER:	0060

 

ADJOURNMENT – 12:44 PM
ADOPTED AS CORRECTED JULY 20, 2016