SAN FRANCISCO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

Meeting Minutes

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

Wednesday, August 17, 2016
1:30 p.m.
Architectural Review Committe
Meeting
 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:   Pearlman, Hyland, Hasz

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY COMMISSIONER PEARLMAN AT 2:17 PM

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:  Marcelle Boudreaux, Eiliesh Tuffy, 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. 2015-000878PTA                                         (M. BOUDREAUX: (415) 575-9140)
300 GRANT STREET – northeast corner of Grant Avenue and Sutter Streets; Lots 013 and 014 in Assessor's Block 0287 – Review and Comment before the Architectural Review Committee on the proposal to demolish two Category V – Unrated buildings within Kearny-Market-Mason-Sutter Conservation District, and construct one new six-story, 83-foot tall retail and office building. The project site is within the C-3-R (Downtown Retail) Zoning District, the Downtown Plan Area, and the 80-130-F Height and Bulk Districts. The proposed project would require Downtown Project Authorization, Conditional Use Authorization, Office Allocation, and Variance from the Planning Code.
Preliminary Recommendation: Review and Comment

SPEAKERS:

= Marcelle Boudreaux – Staff report + David De La Santos – Design presentation

ACTION:

Review and Comment 1. Massing and Composition. Vertical Composition: The Commissioners recognized the base and shaft delineation of the vertical composition, and the defined bay modules. All three Commissioners felt that the termination of the building was incomplete and needed additional design study to incorporate a definitive cap; they referenced the prominence of strong, projecting cornices in the historic district. There was discussion about the enhancement of the sunshade awning at the sixth floor, if it is to remain in the revised version, as it appears wafer-thin and too timid. Harlan Place Elevation: All three Commissioners were generally supportive of the design intent of the north elevation on Harlan Place (alley). As part of the discussion, the Commissioners recommended continuing the exterior ceramic scrim around to clad the first bay (westernmost bay) of the north elevation. In addition, it was recommended that the sixth floor, which stops in the middle of the center bay, continue west to complete the center bay. The Commissioners recommended removing the metal panel/ frieze element at the sixth floor as this broke the planar and otherwise well-executed façade. 2. Scale. The ARC opened the review with a statement that the corner property could hold more height, and asked the Sponsor to investigate a project that maximized the allowable height through Planning Code, as well as investigate a project that included a housing option. In relation to the current proposal, the Commissioners agreed the sixth floor, with minimal setback of five feet, should either be further setback to not be visible from the street or be brought forward to the streetwall, becoming a full sixth floor of the project. 3. Materials and Colors. Ceramic Scrim: The Commissioners generally agreed on the design approach on the south and west elevations, highly defined by an exterior screen composed of horizontal ceramic tubes attached to vertical metal piers. The design of the ceramic scrim was noted to represent metal security screens and felt incompatible with the historic district, however, it was also felt that a well-designed scrim felt like a compatible approach due to the balance with verticality of piers. Overall, the use of a ceramic scrim was generally compatible and further design approaches by the Commissioners included the inclusion of the scrim. Metal Panel: The Commissioners generally agreed that the metal paneling at the storefront level was adding a darkness to the project and additionally felt it was an added on feature. They suggested that the panels at the storefront be removed. Color: While the proposed color palette did reference colors found in the historic district, the Commissioners stated that the earth tones need to be lighter in order to be compatible. They noted that a materials sample would be key to assess the final design options for color and materials. This would include colors, finishes and textures of all proposed materials. 4. Detailing and Ornamentation. Retail Entry: The Commissioners agreed that the proposed retail entry was weakly defined and needed to be strengthened. It was noted that the stone portal read like additional columns and recommended defining the corner with a retail entry in each bay, thus adding an additional entry in the southernmost bay of the west façade. Sign Armature: The Commissioners agreed that the proposed sinuous sign armature read as a tacked on element. Although the actual signage is not reviewed at this stage, the Commissioners noted that the signage rendered was in excess of requirements. The general direction for the sign armature was that it be focused at the retail entries, and situated between the proposed piers, which were suggested to be focused at the main corner at Grant Avenue and Sutter Street - south façade (westernmost bay) and west façade (southernmost bay), respectively. Storefront. The spacing of storefront glazing around the ovoid columns was noted as a maintenance issue and it was recommended that the gap between the column and glazing be removed. Avoid Columns at Corner. The Commissioners agreed that the details of the building corner specifically at Sutter Street and Grant Avenue, as expressed through the ovoid columns, were unresolved. Specifically, the overlapping corner ovals, which create a visual corner, was incompatible with the historic district full of buildings that generally do not emphasize corner details. In addition, the column's vertical terminus with the boxed cap felt incomplete. Ceramic Scrim. A suggestion was made to open up the transparency of the ceramic scrim through increasing the spacing of the tubes, and to continue the scrim up in place of the metal frieze.

2. 2014.0482CVAR                                          (M. BOUDREAUX: (415) 575-9140)
651 GEARY STREET – south side of Geary Street between Leavenworth and Jones; Lot 020 in Assessor's Block 0318 – Review and Comment before the Architectural Review Committee on design recommendations for new construction on a vacant lot within the Uptown Tenderloin National Register Historic District. The project proposes a new 13-story, 130-foot tall building that would include approximately 52 residential units, ground floor retail, and vehicle and bicycle parking in a three level basement. The project site is within the RC-4 (Residential-Commercial, High Density) Zoning District, North of Market Residential Special Use District Subarea No. 1, and the 80-T-130-T Height and Bulk Districts. On July 7, 2016, the Planning Commission approved the Conditional Use Authorization request with a Condition of Approval requiring design consultation with the Architectural Review Committee of the HPC. In addition, at the hearing the Zoning Administrator noted intent to grant a dwelling unit exposure Variance from the Planning Code.
Preliminary Recommendation: Review and Comment

SPEAKERS:

= Marcelle Boudreaux – Staff report + Frank Fung – Project presentation

ACTION:

Review and Comment 1. Bay Window Projections. Retention of Angled Bay Window: The Commissioners recommended reducing the overall horizontal dimension of the bay windows, specifically by offsetting the bay 3 feet from the side building wall.   It was recommended that the fenestration pattern on the bay window read as a punched window into a solid wall (not read as a wall of glazing). The window system should further be recessed from the face of the wall, and a two-sash window frame system was recommended to be introduced. Modern Bay Window option: The Commissioners also suggested exploring a boxy, rectilinear bay window design as a contemporary expression. For a modern bay approach, the Commissioners noted that all sides should be proposed with glazing. 2. Cladding. The Commissioners noted that the design details should minimize the visibility of horizontality. 3. Design Details. Projecting Cornice: The Commissioners generally agreed that a cornice that projected from the face of the building could adequately cap the building at the streetface. Base/Storefront Level: The Commissioners noted that the base (ground floor) level should include more solidity. A design detail recommended by the Commissioners included the incorporation of a more traditional storefront design with bulkhead, transom, and large panes of storefront glazing.

3. 2016-007806COA                                                   (E. TUFFY: (415) 575-9191)
GOLDEN TRIANGLE LIGHT STANDARDS – located curbside on various public right-of-ways generally bounded by Mason, Sutter and Market streets (District 3) - Request for Review and Comment by the Architectural Review Committee regarding the proposal to replace the existing cast iron cladding and light globes on approximately 189 historic light fixtures with cast fiberglass replacement fixtures, created from molds of the original design. The light standards are leased by the city to the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, who operate and maintain the fixtures as public utilities. Originally installed in 1918, the ornamental metal fixtures lined the streets of the historic downtown shopping district surrounding Union Square. The Golden Triangle Light Standards are designated as city Landmark #233 under Article 10 of the San Francisco Planning Code. The sites are located in the downtown commercial C-3-G (Downtown - General) and C-3-R (Downtown-Retail) Zoning Districts and an 80-130-F Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Review and Comment

SPEAKERS:	None
ACTION:	Continued to September 21, 2016
AYES:	Pearlman, Hyland, Hasz

ADJOURNMENT – 3:40 PM
ADOPTED NOVEMBER 2, 2016