City and County of San FranciscoSan Francisco Arts Commission

Civic Design Review Committee - February 10, 2014 - Meeting Minutes

Civic Design Review Committee - February 10, 2014

MEETING OF THE CIVIC DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
OF THE SAN FRANCISCO ARTS COMMISSION

Monday, February 10, 2014

3:00 p.m.
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70


Minutes
 

Committee Chair Cass Calder Smith called the meeting to order at 3:04 p.m.

  1. Roll Call
    Commissioners Present
    Cass Calder Smith
    Leo Chow
    Roberto Ordeñana
    Kimberlee Stryker

    Commissioners Absent
    Dorka Keehn

    Staff Present
    Tom DeCaigny, Director of Cultural Affairs
    Jill Manton, Director of Public Art Trust and Special Initiatives
    Sharon Page Ritchie, Commission Secretary
    Matt Pearson, Civic Design Review Extern
     

  2. Van Ness Avenue Bus Rapid Transit: Phase 1
    Peter Gabancho, Project Manager, SFMTA
    Will Kwan, Project Manager, DPW
    Paul Chasan, Project Manager, Planning Department
    Paul de Freitas, Project Architect, DPW
    Martha Ketterer, Landscape Architect, DPW

    The design team presented an overview of the Bus Rapid Transit (“BRT”) plan for Van Ness Avenue, planned to be completed in 2018. They discussed the history of the street, the goals for the BRT plan, and the requirements for this major surface street which is also part of a state highway (101). They discussed particular considerations, including the volume of traffic, the large number of trucks, the wind, precedents for BRT in other cities, parking and passenger safety.

    The team showed the design for the basic platform, and for variations to accommodate individual intersections, as well as the sidewalks, street furniture, signage, lighting and paving options. They emphasized the importance of the urban forest, explaining that they had sought and received two exceptions to Caltrans regulations to allow trees in the median; these must have a strict columnar form.

    They discussed the competing interests, showing the small zone in which they can build within the mandated thirteen-inch setback, and explained that all the options they were presenting had been vetted by MTA for building and maintenance.

    In response to a question from the Committee, the team explained that the Supervisors through whose districts the BRT passes had not yet seen these plans.

    Commissioner Stryker objected to the palm trees used as dividing elements, suggesting that trees such as fastigiate red maple would sufficiently reinforce the linearity of the stations, and the “topknot” of the palms was extraneous, or simply too busy. Ms. Ketterer pointed out the separate process for trees, involving the City arborist.

    Commissioner Stryker was concerned about the metal backdrops of the shelters, which she thought divided the street rather than unifying it, as the team intended. The design team explained that while they had done other studies, those were not approved by MTA and could not be presented here. They explained that tempered glass would not provide a sufficient barrier, and pointed out the three-inch space they had to work with. Commissioner Stryker recommended a more visually permeable barrier, and thought the red seismic wave shelter roof design cluttered the overall design rather than reinforcing it, and was not appropriate for the scale of the street.

    She also objected to the bollards and rails on the sidewalk, describing them as relentless, and asked to see a different approach.

    She praised the idea of permeable paving for the trees, and asked that it be simplified to be more integrated with the sidewalk. The team explained that the design was intended to accommodate ADA standards, and Commissioner Stryker thought the design could be made more unified and still comply with ADA requirements.

    In response to Commissioner Ordeñana’s question on community engagement, the team explained that much of the community feedback had come through the environmental review process, and they listed several groups and constituencies to whom they have reached out. In response to Commissioner Smith’s question, they explained that those groups have seen a more conceptual presentation, and that what was being presented to the Civic Design Review Committee at this meeting was newly developed and had not yet been presented elsewhere.

    Commissioner Chow explained that he was concerned with the sheer number of conditions the design created, with traffic weaving and lane changes from block to block; he thought this recreated the same problems that exist on Market Street, and urged the team to look more carefully at how cars move through the street. The team replied that the elimination of all left turns helps to eliminate traffic weaving.

    Commissioner Chow also objected to the “accent” palm trees as superfluous. He added that there seemed to be two kinds of blocks: ones in which trees were dominant, and others in which the stations were located. He thus proposed a simpler typology: there are blocks with trees and blocks with stations.

    Commissioner Chow thought that the design team should minimize the number of vertical elements, and he proposed placing the stations together rather than separating them, allowing other spaces to open up. He agreed that the station walls should be more transparent, and that while he understood the goal for the bollards, they added to clutter in the design.

    The design team replied that the great challenge is that the stations are so narrow, with lots of people occupying the space, onboarding and offboarding, in the midst of high-speed and high-intensity vehicle traffic. While the Caltrans engineering standards make people literally safe, the team also wants to make them feel safe. They added that the bollards shown were for blocking and massing, and not the final design, and that Caltrans required some kind of barrier.

    Commissioner Smith thought that the project merits more community outreach. He concurred with his colleagues about the inappropriateness of the Clear Channel transit shelter for the Van Ness BRT, and thought it unfortunate for a project of this magnitude that the Committee could not see the other options that had been created by the design team. He thought there must be a way to make this a win-win for everyone.

    He supported the design team’s decision to pursue a modernist direction, and he agreed with his colleagues’ comments about the bollards. He hoped that the experience of traveling on Van Ness after the redesign would be more like Dolores Street than the “bumpy” experience of Market Street, and he asked the team to keep in mind the experience of drivers as well as transit riders.

    He suggested that the presentation jumped from analysis to the detailed level of landscaping and pedestrian screens without expressing a strong vision.

    He asked the team to determine whether the “wiggle roofs” (the seismic wave of the Clear Channel shelters) are required, whether perhaps the screens come up and over to make the shelter roof with no need for the wiggle. He added that the bollards and railings were not well-integrated into the design.

    Commissioner Stryker noted that the design called for trees blocking the visual corridor on Fulton Street to City Hall, and asked that they be eliminated. Commissioner Chow added that the proposed station in front of City Hall creates an obstacle, and suggested moving it to the other side of the intersection.

    Commissioner Smith agreed with the comments on simplifying the typology to blocks with trees and blocks with stations. He asked the team to take a larger overview, saying that this project is about motion, about starting and stopping, and not just about history.

    Mr. DeCaigny asked about the maintenance plan for the panels, and how that related to whether the stations used the seismic wave design. The MTA representative said there was no maintenance plan, and the Muni communications staff is using the seismic wave roof as a branding tool for Muni; they are considering a color change for “rapid lines,” though this has not been decided.

    Commissioner Chow asked about traffic light timing to modify speed to 25 miles per hour, and he argued that now traffic is racing to beat the lights. The team replied that traffic studies are planned.

    In response to a concern from the team about eliminating trees along the corridor, Commissioner Chow explained that he was calling for the trees to be eliminated only along the small nodes at the ends of the stations.

    Public Comment:

    Jim Haas was generally in favor of the BRT, but didn’t believe that a single design works for the whole corridor. He said that in the historic Civic Center district, there should be a unique design, as simple as possible in order to show off the civic buildings. He added that he never liked the red shelter roofs, and was not sure they were required in the historic district, but didn’t think maintenance funding should be the determining factor.

    There was no further public comment.

    The design team pointed out that they have involved the Planning Department’s Historic Preservation Commission for their approval. They don’t want to see a mock-historic design, but want something light and uncluttered.

    The Committee was unable to approve the design; they took no action and asked for Phase 1 presentation again, to address the following items: (1) express a large vision for this important street that ties the project together as urban design; (2) develop an acceptable architectural and functional solution for the boarding areas on the car lane sides, taking into account both visual design and safety requirements; (3) resolve the question of whether Clear Channel shelters will be used for this project or whether there are any Clear Channel requirements, and if so, how to design for them; (4) better integrate the sidewalk design; and (5) develop a more integrated landscape design and tree selection.
     

  3. West Sunset Playground Renovation: Phase 1
    Dan Mauer, Project Manager, DPW
    Will Kwan, Project Architect, DPW
    Jasmine Kaw, Landscape Architect, DPW

    The team presented the project, giving some history and context, along with the scope.

    The Committee praised the work done on the project, and made some suggestions, including minimizing or hiding fencing with vegetation, such as hedgerows, and more emphatically marking the entrance, with something like a torii gate. The Committee discussed ideas for better managing vehicle traffic and parking at the site, and pointed out the hazard inherent in bringing cars across a sidewalk where hundreds of kids are walking. The design team countered that ADA requirements sharply limit their options.

    In response to questions about community input and public meetings, the design team reported that the community was eager to see the project completed.

    There was no public comment, and the motion was unanimously approved as follows.

    Motion to approve Phase 1 of the West Sunset Playground Renovation Project, contingent upon (1) further developing the landscaping, including hedgerows or other vegetation around fencing; (2) minimizing both the amount and height of fencing, (3) lightening and opening up the back, to make the restrooms more welcoming, possibly with glass block; (4) rethinking the parking to prevent cars crossing pedestrian traffic on the sidewalk; (5) marking the entrances more clearly with a gate or overhead element tall enough to permit large trucks to enter.

    Commissioner Ordeñana left the meeting at 5:20 p.m.
     

  4. Burrows Streetscape Furniture Design: Phases 1and 2
    Garrett Jacobs, Project Manager, Architecture for Humanity
    Frederika Zipp, Project Designer, Architecture for Humanity
    Elizabeth Marley, Project Designer, Rebar Group

    The design team presented the project, noting changes in materials. The Committee made comments about appropriate choices of wood and metal finishes to protect against moisture. The Committee also discussed the design of the ribbon and how it relates to architectural features of the building, including window and door openings.

    There was no public comment.

    The motion to approve Phase 3 was continued to the full Commission meeting, and the Committee requested submission before that date of a sketch incorporating the following contingencies.

    Motion to approve Phases 1 and 2 of the Burrows Streetscape Furniture Design Project, contingent upon (1) determining the appropriate type and finish of steel; (2) using a single radius of five inches or less throughout; (3) eliminating the wood underneath the steel ribbon; (4) simplifying the form over the window and maintaining a single continuous steel ribbon; (5) submission of a final sketch with these changes.

    Commissioner Smith left the meeting at 5:37 p.m., and the quorum was lost. The remaining Commissioners heard the following presentations but did not discuss them.
     

  5. DuPont Courts Restroom: Phase 3
    Marvin Yee, Project Manager, SFRPD
    Tony Leung, Project Architect, DPW
    Edward Chin, Landscape Architect, DPW
    Alejandro Pimental, Project Architect, DPW

    The design team presented the project, explaining that the Committee had previously approved two prototype designs for park restrooms, and the team chose the contemporary design for this park. They reported on the appeal filed on the basis that the existing restroom is a WPA structure, which did not come up in the team’s original research. They described the work to date, and hazardous material abatement work done. They discussed the architectural context in the neighborhood.

    Public Comment:

    Jeff Kelly thanked the design team for mentioning the WPA, and said that it was a priority of the neighbors to preserve the structure, which he said was visible from the street. He said that 80% of the surrounding houses were built within twenty years of this WPA project, and that this is one of the few remaining WPA buildings, which could have been saved if not for destruction of the façade. He said that he would request that it be put back as it was, because there were no structural problems. He also said that the design would allow views of people in the restroom from the tennis courts, and that the metal doors at the States Street site, with the same design, are already showing rust.

    There was no other public comment, and the item was continued to the full Commission meeting.
     

  6. Office of the Chief Medical Examiner (“OCME”): Informational Presentation
    Magdalena Ryor, Project Manager, DPW
    Charles Higueras, Program Manager, DPW BDC
    Jim Mueller, Principal, KMD Architects
    Jack Dybas, Project Manager, KMD Architects

    The design team presented the project, explaining that it was originally presented some fifteen months ago, and there is now a different project team and they wanted to introduce themselves.

    They explained the background and scope of the project and its goals, including Gold LEED status. They reviewed the budget and schedule, and explained that they will be requesting Phase 1 and 2 review combined. Ms. Manton agreed to work with them to set up informal work sessions, and reviewed the process and timing, and asked them about the status of art enrichment.

    There was no public comment, and no action was taken.
     

  7. Staff Report
    There was no staff report.
     
  8. Public Comment
    There was no further public comment.
     
  9. New Business and Announcements
    There was no new business or announcements.
     
  10. Adjournment
    There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
     

    spr 5/9/14


    Language Accessibility

    Translated written materials and interpretation services are available to you at no cost. For assistance, please notify Director of Special Projects and Civic Design Review Program Manager Jill Manton, 415-252-2585, jill.manton@sfgov.org.

    我們將為閣下提供免費的書面翻譯資料和口譯服務。如需協助,Director of Special Projects and Civic Design Review Program Manager Jill Manton, 415-252-2585, jill.manton@sfgov.org.

    Materiales traducidos y servicios de interpretación están disponibles para usted de manera gratuita. Para asistencia, notifique a Director of Special Projects and Civic Design Review Program Manager Jill Manton, 415-252-2585, jill.manton@sfgov.org.