SAN FRANCISCO

HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

 

Meeting Minutes

 

Commission Chambers, Room 400

City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place

San Francisco, CA 94102-4689

 

 

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

1:00 p.m.

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE

Meeting

 

 

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:   Wolfram, Hyland, Pearlman
                                               
THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY PRESIDENT WOLFRAM AT 1:39 PM

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE: Pilar LaValley, Tim Frye - Preservation Coordinator, 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. 2015-008484PTA                                                               (P. LAVALLEY: (415) 575-9084)
856 MARKET STREET – north side of Market Street between Hallidie Plaza and Ellis Street; Assessor’s Block 0329, Lots 004. Request for Review and Comment before the Architectural Review Committee for the proposed exterior alterations including installation of new cladding material and fenestration on the Market Street façade and installation of a new projecting sign. Constructed in 1915, with substantial alterations to the façade in 2000, the subject building is a Category V (Unrated) Building within the Kearny-Market-Mason Conservation District, the C-3-R (Downtown Retail) Zoning District, and 80-130-F Height and Bulk District.
Preliminary Recommendation: Review and Comment

SPEAKERS:    + Mr. Bloszies – Design presentation
ACTION:         Reviewed and Commented
COMMENT:    1. Composition and Massing: The Commissioners concurred with staff that the configuration of the new fenestration and cladding would introduce a two‐part vertical composition of the façade that appears compatible with the surrounding District and in conformance with Article 11. However, the Commissioners also noted that the façade design was too flat and recommended increasing the setback of the windows to a minimum of 6 inches with the solid horizontal band remaining in plane with the solid wall.
                        2. Material and Color: All three Commissioners felt that no storefront base (bulkhead) was necessary and that the proposed storefront framing provided an adequate curb that was in proportion to the size of the storefront. They also felt that the storefront design was consistent with the storefronts on surrounding buildings, including the Flood Building and Westfield Shopping Center. There were no comments regarding the storefront and window systems or metal frame at entry, which staff felt were appropriate and compatible with the District. The Commissioners were comfortable with use of the proposed Swiss Pearl cement board panels but noted that the following modifications to the design were necessary for the material to be installed and detailed in a manner that appropriately references cladding materials typical of the District:
- The cement board panel cladding system should be installed on concealed fasteners.
- The project sponsor should provide staff with examples of the Swiss Pearl installed in
various locations and information about the material’s overall performance in the field.
- The cement board panel cladding system should not return at the storefront or window
insets as it is important to have a solid corner. Instead there should be a projecting steel
(or similar) frame around the openings that the cement panel system relates to in order to
create a sense of weight and mass. The Commissioners were concerned that the cladding
materials not look too thin.
- The Commissioners recommended introducing a bevel, or similar slightly projecting
footing element, at the transition between the textured and smooth panels at the lower
portion of the building piers. This would add to the sense of weight and permanence at
the building base as well as provide an additional change in plane on the façade.
                       3. Detailing and Ornamentation: The Commissioners concurred with staff that the simple and contemporary design of the façade appears compatible with the District. Commissioner Pearlman noted, and Commissioner Wolfram agreed that the change in color/texture at the top of the façade was too wide and made the building seem top‐heavy; the proportions of the façade should be balanced.
                      4. Sign: No comment as staff recommended revisions were made prior to the ARC review.
LETTER:        052

2. 2014-000362ENV                                                                  (P. LAVALLEY: (415) 575-9084)
1500-1580 MISSION STREET – northwest corner of Mission and 11th Streets; Lots 002 and 003 in Assessor’s Block 3506 – 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 building and a portion of another building on the project site, at 1500 and 1580 Mission Street, and construct a mixed-use development with two components. The residential and retail development component would include a 39-story, 396-foot-tall tower (up to 416 feet to top of the parapet enclosing mechanical equipment) with mid-rise podium elements at the corner of Mission Street and South Van Ness Avenue. The office and permit center development component would be occupied by several City and County of San Francisco (“City”) departments, and include an 18-story, 264-foot-tall tower (up to 284 feet to top of the parapet enclosing mechanical equipment) on 11th Street between Market and Mission Streets with mid-rise podium elements extending west and south from the tower. A portion of the existing former Coca-Cola bottling plant at 1500 Mission Street, including its clock tower, would be retained and converted to retail use. The project site is within the C-3-G (Downtown General) Zoning District, the Van Ness & Market Residential Special Use District, and the 85-R-2 and 85/250-R-2 Height and Bulk Districts. The proposed project would require amendments to the Market & Octavia Area Plan, Zoning Map Height and Bulk redesignations, Text Amendments to the Planning Code, and Downtown Project Authorization. 
Preliminary Recommendation: Review and Comment

SPEAKERS:    + John Updike – One stop permitting center
                        + SOM Architect – Design presentation
ACTION:          Reviewed and Commented
COMMENT:     - Permit Center – Both Commissioners asked why the existing building could not house the permit center. The ARC indicated that they wanted the preservation alternatives, as well as the project, to study reuse of the building for the permit center. If the issue was the floor levels, then the ARC indicated that a partial second story addition on the existing building might be appropriate if it was required to meet the permit center objectives. They also encouraged the study of adding a floor within the tall warehouse space of the former bottling plant to accommodate the Permit Center program.
                        - Project design – Both Commissioners felt that the proposed project severely diminished the existing building. Commissioner Pearlman stated that the project appeared to be pasting a remnant of the existing building onto a new complex. Both Commissioners were particularly concerned about the reduced length of the Mission Street façade.   
                       - Project design – Commissioner Wolfram noted that he felt that the bulk of the proposed tower could be increased and brought closer to the existing Mission Street façade if more of the existing building were being retained in the project.
                       - Project design – Both Commissioners noted that the linear, asymmetry of the Mission Street façade was a key character‐defining feature of the existing building that should be retained. Commissioner Pearlman also noted that the 11st Street façade should be retained.
                       - Alternatives – Both Commissioners indicated that they would be willing to lose more of the warehouse portion of the existing building in both proposed alternatives – to meet more of the programmatic objectives – so long as the existing length of the Mission Street façade was retained.
                       - Partial Preservation Alternatives – Both Commissioners indicated that the footprint of the new construction could increase to accommodate more of the project objectives so long as the Mission Street façade was retained and more of the existing building was incorporated into the proposal.
                       - Project – ARC would like to see additional means of preserving the existing building incorporated into the project and addressed in the project objectives.
LETTER:        053

ADJOURNMENT – 2:54 PM
ADOPTED AS CORRECTED ON JANUARY 6, 2016