Historic Preservation Commission - March 15, 2017 - Minutes

Meeting Date: 
March 15, 2017 - 11:30am
Location: 
United States

SAN FRANCISCO
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

 

Meeting Minutes

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

Wednesday, March 15, 2017
11:30 a.m.
Architectural Review Committe
Meeting

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT:   Hyland, Hasz, Pearlman

THE MEETING WAS CALLED TO ORDER BY COMMISSIONER HYLAND AT 11:32 AM

STAFF IN ATTENDANCE:  Jeff Joslin – Director of Current Planning, Marcelle Boudreaux, Shelley Caltagirone, Tim Frye – Historic Preservation Officer, Jonas 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.

Hearing Materials are available at:
Website: http://www.sfplanning.org
Planning Department, 1650 Mission Street, 4th Floor, Suite 400
Planning Information Center, 1660 Mission Street, 1st Floor
Voice recorded Agenda, only: (415) 558-6320

Commission Hearing Broadcasts:
Live stream: http://www.sfgovtv.org

Ordinances and Accessibility
Hearing Procedures

 

1. 2016-007850COA                                              (M. BOUDREAUX: (415) 575-9140)
88 BROADWAY – block bounded by Broadway, Vallejo, Davis and Front Streets; Lots 007 and 008 in Assessor's Block 0140 (District 3) – Review and Comment before the Architectural Review Committee on the proposal for new construction of two buildings ranging from four to six stories, with an open midblock passage between Broadway and Vallejo Streets, within the Northeast Waterfront Landmark District. One building, with frontages on Vallejo, Front and Broadway Streets, is proposed for Family Affordable Housing (130 dwelling units; 145,923 gross square feet), and the other, fronting Davis Street, is proposed for Senior Affordable Housing (54 dwelling units; 44,024 gross square feet). The project site is within a C-2 (Community Business) Zoning District, the Waterfront Special Use District No. 2, and 65-X Height and Bulk Districts. The project sponsor is seeking Conditional Use Authorization for a Planned Unit Development.
Preliminary Recommendation: Review and Comment

SPEAKER: = Marcelle Boudreaux – Staff report
+ Speaker – Project presentation
+ Speaker – Design presentation
= Stan Hayes – Design and massing
+ Carol Harlett – Support
+ Bill Hannan – Support
+ Lee Robins – Design
= Jim Haas – Historical facts
+ Bruno Karter – Support
ACTION: Reviewed and Commented

Overall, the ARC felt that neither the full preservation alternative nor the partial preservation alternative were adequate for incorporation in the Draft EIR.

The ARC felt that the proposed alternatives were understating the estimated number of dwelling units that could be incorporated on the site. Additionally, the ARC felt that through more articulated design, the alternatives could increase the dwelling unit count to be closer to the proposed Project's total unit count, and could come into better conformance with Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, specifically Standard No. 9. The ARC recommended that the Sponsor to explore how the existing church could still be used by a congregation, which may entail potentially reducing the sanctuary space.

In addition, the ARC felt the proposed Project, which removed the raised entry stair and porch and incorporated only the exterior façade for the first 16 feet of the existing church building, was facadism.

The ARC recommended that the Sponsor and the Department to explore modifications to the alternatives, as follows:

Full Preservation Alternative

  • In deference to interior character-defining features, incorporate a small vertical addition with a substantial setback from public rights of way;
  • Increase height of replacement structure at 474 O'Farrell to the maximum permitted in the height district; and
  • Investigate utilization of the State Density Bonus, which would allow increased height and additional units at other areas of the site, with the goal to preserve the church building (individual resource).

Partial Preservation Alternative

  • Increase height of addition at church building to the maximum permitted in the height district;
  • Reduce the size and/or relocate the interior courtyard with the goal to add more dwelling units in the area previously un-occupied by the interior courtyard space; and
  • Investigate utilization of the State Density Bonus, which would allow increased height and additional units at other areas of the site, with the goal to conserve the church building (individual resource).
LETTER: 0074

2. 2014-001204CWP                                                    (S. CALTAGIRONE: (415) 558-6625)
PUBLIC ART INSTALLATION AT MCALLISTER BRT STATIONReview and Comment of a conceptual plan for a public art installation at the proposed McAllister BRT station. Presentation by San Francisco Arts Commission staff, Justine Topfer. The Van Ness BRT Project includes a public art component that is proposed for installation at the McAllister BRT Station. The Arts Commission's Public Art Program staff is currently working with artist Jorge Pardo on the conceptual design for the installation. The installation site is located with the Civic Center Landmark District, and the work would require approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness. Staff will present the conceptual design to the Architectural Review Committee for review and comment.
Preliminary Recommendation: Review and Comment

SPEAKER: = Shelley Caltagirone – Staff report
+ Speaker – Art installation
- Jim Haas – Inappropriate public art component
ACTION: Reviewed and Commented
  • Location.  The Commissioners agreed that the proposed location is not appropriate for the art installation. Other locations along Van Ness Ave were suggested, included between Hayes and Grove, at the Market Street intersection as is called out in the EIS M-AE-6, or near the children's playground.
  • Design.  The Commissioners had varying comments regarding the design, summarized below:
    • A playful, contrasting art piece could be a good fit in the district, but in another location.
    • The artist does not appear to understand the challenges or content of the district. The art piece looks like a series of crack pipes or like a bunch of people with waving arms.
    • The art piece should be in conversation with the district. There is no context to this piece. It could be anywhere. There is no reflection of the Beaux Arts planning or the Neo-Baroque architecture.
    • The art piece detracts and distracts from the district buildings.
LETTER: 0075

ADJOURNMENT – 12:53 PM
ADOPTED MAY 3, 2017