Item 8, Appeal No. 15-196 @ Van Ness Avenue Corridor Part Two

107 Pages·2016·22.63 MB·English

Board of Appeals Brief
Date: January 7, 2016
Hearing Date: January 13, 2016
Appeal No.: 15-196
Project Address: Van Ness Avenue, Civic Center Landmark District
Block/Lot: Various
Zoning: N/A
Staff Contact: Scott Sanchez – [phone]
[email protected]

INTRODUCTION
The Planning Department respectfully submits this brief to respond to points raised in the
Appeal Brief submitted by the Deanne Delbridge for Appeal No. 15-196 (Van Ness Bus
Rapid Transit Project).
BACKGROUND
On August 26, 2015, the San Francisco Metropolitan Transit Authority (SFMTA) filed a
Certificate of Appropriateness application for the Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)
Project with the Planning Department. The Van Ness BRT is a signature Project of the San
Francisco County Transportation Authority’s (SFCTA) Proposition K transportation sales tax
program. The Project represents the culmination of years of multi agency collaboration at
the local, state, and federal levels to develop BRT along Van Ne‐ss Avenue, which also
operates as Highway 101 through the city. The Project calls for dedicated bus lanes
separated from traffic from Lombard to Mission streets which will be used by Muni’s 49 and
47 lines and Golden Gate Transit. The dedicated lanes will flank center landscaped medians
along Van Ness Avenue. All door boarding, elimination of most left turns, transit signal
priority, and traffic signal optim‐ization will help reduce travel time on the corridor by as much
as 33 percent. In addition, pedestrian improvements, signal upgrades, new streetlights, new
landscaping, and roadway resurfacing will be implemented throughout the corridor.
www.sfplanning.org
Board of Appeals Brief
Appeal No. 15-196
Van Ness BRT Project
Hearing Date: January 13, 2016
A Certificate of Appropriateness (COA) entitlement is required for the portion of the Van
Ness Avenue BRT Project that falls within the boundaries of the Civic Center Landmark
District per the Project’s Environment Impact Statement Mitigation Program and the SF
Planning Code. Per Planning Code Section 1006.6(b), the Historic Preservation Commission
(HPC) must find that the proposed work within a landmark district is in compliance with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards), the
designating Ordinance, and the General Plan’s preservation policies.
In anticipation of the required HPC review, Planning Department Preservation staff
began consulting with the Project Team in early 2014. The following is a brief timeline of
actions related to this project:
 September 10, 2014 - The Project was reviewed by the Architectural Review
Committee (ARC) of the HPC. The ARC provided design recommendations to the
Project Team.
 October 21, 2015 - The Project was reviewed by the HPC. Based on the ARC
recommendations, the HPC recommended design improvements to ensure the
project was in compliance with the Standards.
 November 18, 2015 - The HPC split its approval of the Project by issuing a Certificate
of Appropriateness (HPC Motion No. 0268) for part of the project with the
understanding an additional Certificate of Appropriateness would be required to allow
MTA more time to resolve some outstanding design issues. The November 18, 2015
Certificate of Appropriateness (HPC Motion No. 0268) was approved with the
following Conditions:
1. The Project Sponsor shall install granite curbs both where new lengths of curb
are proposed and where historic granite curbs are currently missing so that
2
Board of Appeals Brief
Appeal No. 15-196
Van Ness BRT Project
Hearing Date: January 13, 2016
there is a consistent treatment at the street edge along the entire length of
Van Ness Avenue within the boundaries of the Civic Center Landmark District,
including at the sidewalk edge and at the station platform edge.
2. The Project Sponsor shall remove the McAllister station shelter from the
current proposal and seek a separate Certificate of Appropriateness for the
shelter installation within six months of this approval to allow the Project
Sponsor additional time to develop a more appropriate design.
3. The Project Sponsor shall retain the four historic trolley poles - two in front of
City Hall and two in front of War Memorial Court – and seek a separate
Certificate of Appropriateness within six months of this approval for their long-
term treatment.
4. The Project Sponsor shall install signage at the McAllister Station that
communicates a brief description of the landmark district and includes historic
images of the Van Ness Avenue corridor.
5. The Project Sponsor shall entirely replace the poured concrete paving at the
sidewalks along the Van Ness Avenue corridor within the boundaries of the
Civic Center Landmark District.
APPELLANT ISSUES AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT RESPONSES
On December 18, 2015, Deanne Delbridge (Appellant) appealed the issuance of the
Certificate of Appropriateness (HPC Motion No. 0268) arguing that the “certificate
inappropriately found that dozens of historic trolley poles…and a number of large, mature,
healthy Red Flowering and Silver Dollar gum trees…shall not be preserved” and that the
Appellant and the residents of San Francisco “would be adversely impacted by the loss of
these, and other important features that define the historic character of Van Ness as the
3
Board of Appeals Brief
Appeal No. 15-196
Van Ness BRT Project
Hearing Date: January 13, 2016
heritage street it is today.” The Appellant claims that the decision conflicts with Planning
Code requirements and the Secretary of the Interior’s Rehabilitation Standards. On
December 29, 2015, the Appellant submitted an Appeal Brief requesting the following:
Issue 1: The Appellant requests continuance of the appeal hearing.
Response 1: The Planning Department does not support continuation of the appeal
hearing as the staff finds that there has been adequate time to consider the issues raised by
the Appellant.
Issue 2: The Appellant requests modification of HPC Motion No. 0268 such that all 34 of
the historic trolley poles in the Civic Center Landmark District would be considered under a
separate Certificate of Appropriateness application to be filed within the next six months.
Response 2: The Planning Department finds that the history and condition of the trolley
poles have been thoroughly studied by three different preservation consultants, by the
Planning Department’s preservation staff, and the by HPC. The trolley poles are contributing
features to the Civic Center Landmark District. Most recently, contributing status for the
trolley poles was reaffirmed as part of the Civic Center Historic District Cultural Landscape
Inventory, adopted by the Commission in October 2015. The trolley poles are one of several
district features that reflect the vision of the architects and designers of the Beaux Arts era to
exert influence over all elements in the design of the district and to create a harmonious
whole between the buildings, landscape spaces, and landscape features. This type of design
influence typified the Beaux Arts era.1
The Commission, when deciding to allow for the removal of all but four of the trolley
poles, acknowledged that the poles contribute to the historical significance of the Civic
Center Landmark District but found that, despite their contribution to the district, the
4
Board of Appeals Brief
Appeal No. 15-196
Van Ness BRT Project
Hearing Date: January 13, 2016
structural requirements of the new BRT and the desire for improved lighting along the
corridor warrant the removal of most of the historic trolley poles.
While the removal of historic features is disfavored by the Secretary of the Interior
Standards for Rehabilitation, Standard number 2, the Standards do allow for consideration of
economic and technical feasibility2. It is consistent with historic preservation best practices
for the Commission to exercise its discretion to consider the economic constraints of a
project and use flexibility in the application of the Standards. As demonstrated in three
Commission hearings and reiterated in the SFMTA’s Appeal Response, retention of all of the
trolley poles would entail a great technical and economic challenge. Therefore, the Planning
Department requests that the Board uphold the Commission’s decision to allow removal of
all but four of the trolley poles and to consider the long-term treatment of the four at a future
Certificate of Appropriateness hearing.
The Commission considered several different alternatives to retain some or all of the 34
trolley poles within the district, and found that the current proposal to retain four trolley poles
in front of City Hall is the most appropriate means of retaining the overall character and
integrity of the historic district. Furthermore, the Appellant has not introduced any alternative
treatments regarding the trolley poles for consideration.
Issue 3: The Appellant requests modification of HPC Motion No. 0268 such that the
removal of the tress within the Civic Center Landmark District would be considered under a
separate Certificate of Appropriateness application to be filed within the next six months.
Response 3: The Planning Department finds that the history of the trees proposed for
replacement in the Van Ness Avenue median has also been thoroughly studied by

1 Civic Center Historic District Cultural Landscape Inventory, prepared by MIG, Inc., page 89.
5
Board of Appeals Brief
Appeal No. 15-196
Van Ness BRT Project
Hearing Date: January 13, 2016
preservation consultants, by the Planning Department’s preservation staff, and by the HPC.
In 1950, the existing Silver Dollar and Red Flowering Gum trees replaced the H Trolley Line
in the Van Ness Avenue median. Therefore, the trees were planted within the 1896-1951
period of significance established for the Civic Center Landmark District in the recent
inventory and are considered contributing features of the district. As depicted in the
rendering shown on page 7 of the SFMTA’s plan set (Attachment D of the Certificate of
Appropriateness Case Report), the proposed replacement trees will be of similar species,
size, and form to the existing trees, thereby retaining the historic character of the median.
The Secretary of Interior provides Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes,
on which the Commission also relies for review of resources such as the Civic Center
Landmark District. The Guidelines explain that change and continuity are special factors to
consider when working with a cultural landscape, and they state that change is inherent in
cultural landscapes; it results from both natural processes and human activities. The
dynamic quality of all cultural landscapes is balanced by the continuity of distinctive
characteristics retained over time; a cultural landscape can still exhibit continuity of form,
order, use, features, or materials as it changes over time. Preservation and rehabilitation
treatments seek to secure and emphasize continuity while acknowledging change.3
The Commission found that replacement of the median trees is an appropriate treatment
that allows for the use of Van Ness Avenue as a BRT route while maintaining the character
of the historic planted median. Underlying the Commission’s decision is an understanding
that vegetation in a cultural landscape is expected to change, either through its life-cycle or
through the continued and changed use of the space. For these reasons, the Planning

2 Section 68.3 - The Standards, Preface, revised in 1992, codified as 36 CFR Part 68 in the July 12,
1995 Federal Register (Vol. 60, No. 133).
6
Board of Appeals Brief
Appeal No. 15-196
Van Ness BRT Project
Hearing Date: January 13, 2016
Department requests that the Board uphold the Commission’s decision to allow replacement
of the trees planted in the median as the most appropriate means of retaining the overall
character and integrity of the historic district. Furthermore, the Appellant has not introduced
any alternative treatments regarding the trees for consideration.
CONCLUSION
The Planning Department respectfully requests that the Board of Appeals deny the
appeal and uphold the Certificate of Appropriateness approval with conditions as stated in
HPC Motion No. 0268.
Cc:
Deanne Delbridge, Appellant
Peter Gabancho, SFMTA

Attachments:
• Renderings of City Hall with Trees and Trolley Poles
• Certificate of Appropriateness Case Report, November 18, 2015
• HPC Motion No. 0268

3 http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/four-treatments/landscape-guidelines/factors.htm
7
NEW BRT MEDIAN
RAILING AND GATE EXISTING LIGHTPOLE
TRANSIT ZONE NEW LIGHTPOLE, TYP.
NEW MEDIAN TREES EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN
VAN NESS CORRIDOR TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
6
Building Design & Construction Historic Preservation Commission | 09.2015
NEW LIGHTPOLE, TYP.
NEW MEDIAN TREES
NEW BRT MEDIAN
RAILING AND GATE
EXISTING TREES TRANSIT ZONE
TO REMAIN
VAN NESS CORRIDOR TRANSIT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
7
Building Design & Construction Historic Preservation Commission | 09.2015
Certificate of Appropriateness Case Report
HEARING DATE: NOVEMBER 18, 2015

Filing Date:  August 26, 2015 
Case No.:  2009.0634COA 
Project Address:  Van Ness Avenue Corridor 
Historic Landmark:  Civic Center Landmark District 
Zoning:  N/A 
Block/Lot:  Various 
Applicant:   Peter Gabancho, Project Manager, SFMTA 
Capital Programs and Construction 
One South van Ness Avenue, 3rd Floor 
San Francisco, CA 94103 
Staff Contact:  Shelley Caltagirone ‐ (415) 558‐6625 
[email protected] 
Reviewed By:  Tim Frye – (415) 575‐6822 
tim.frye @sfgov.org 

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The Civic Center Landmark District comprises a roughly 58‐acre and 15‐block part of San Francisco that 
has multiple historic designations. It was designated locally as a San Francisco Landmark District in 
December 1994 (1994 SFLD), which followed a listing in the National Register of Historic Places on 
October 10, 1978 (1978 NR) for state and national levels of significance and a designation as a National 
Historic Landmark on February 27, 1987 (1987 NHL), which is the highest designation for a historic 
property in the United States. 
The historic district is located just north of Market Street between Franklin Street and 7th Street. It 
extends north to McAllister Street and Golden Gate Avenue. It is surrounded by several neighborhoods 
including South of Market, Western Addition, Tenderloin, Nob Hill and the Financial District. Properties 
in the Civic Center are primarily public in nature, but owned and managed by several different city, state 
and federal agencies.  
Most of the city’s major government and cultural institutions are located in the Civic Center Landmark 
District  including  City  Hall,  San  Francisco  Public  Library,  War  Memorial  Complex  including  the 
Veterans Building and Opera House, Exposition (Civic) Auditorium, United Nations Plaza, Asian Art 
Museum, Civic Center Plaza, San Francisco Superior Court, Supreme Court of California, Louise M. 
Davies Symphony Hall, Federal Building at United Nations Plaza, Edmund G. Brown State Office 
Building, Hiram W. Johnson State Office Building and several educational institutions, including the 
University of California, Hastings College of the Law. Multi‐modal transportation networks that run 
through Civic Center are overseen by the City of San Francisco, State of California, Bay Area Rapid 
Transit, and San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency. 
www.sfplanning.org