Monday, January 27, 2003


3:00 p.m.

Suite 70, Conference Room

25 Van Ness Ave.

San Francisco 94102

Explanatory documents are available for public inspection and copying at the Arts Commission office, 25 Van Ness Ave, Ste 240, during regular business hours.


The meeting commenced at 3:15 p.m.

  1. Role Call:

    Commissioners present: Rod Freebairn-Smith, Barbara Stauffacher-Solomon, Andrea Cochran

    Staff present: Richard Newirth, Nancy Gonchar, Jill Manton, Kristen Zaremba, Rommel Taylor

    PHASE 2 &3

    Mike Pierron, Architect, PUC, explained that the project was an addition to the Sunol Valley Chlorination Facility. The Fluoridation facility would be a simple shed structure to cover two chemical storage tanks. The structure would be enclosed with a painted chain link fence.

    Motion to approve phase 2 & 3: Barbara Stauffacher-Solomon

    PHASE 1

    Myles Stevens, Principal of Stevens & Associates Architects introduced the project team: Tyroan Hardy, Project Manager, Powerlight Corporation and Deirdre Appel, Project Manager, PUC.

    Commissioner Freebairn-Smith informed the committee and presenters that he was recusing himself from the voting process due to a potential conflict of interest with the Powerlight corporation.

    Mr. Newirth explained that any motion and vote on the project would take place at the full commission hearing on February 3, 2003.

    Mr. Stevens explained that the project was a result of a bond measure authored by Supervisor Leno to retrofit large public buildings with renewable power generating systems. The retrofit to the Moscone Center would add a new photovoltaic panel system to supplement power generation for the center. The new system would cover the entire roof area of the center. Mr. Stevens explained that an informational kiosk would be installed in the lobby of the center that would display performance data for the system.

    Commissioner Freebairn-Smith opened the floor to public comment

    Commissioner Freebairn-Smith closed the floor to public comment

    Commissioner Cochran asked if any of the support equipment would be visible from the street.

    Mr. Stevens replied that the equipment would be concealed by a metal screen painted to match the existing mechanical equipment on the roof.

    Commissioner Cochran asked why two different types of PV panels were being used.

    Mr. Hardy answered that the roofs were two different installations. He explained that each roof has a slightly different configuration. The two systems selected respond to these differences and offer maximum power generation

    Commissioner Freebairn-Smith asked if there was a system designed for washing the panel or any provisions for cleaning the panels.

    Mr. Hardy responded that the panels required little cleaning other that what is provided by the seasonal rains. He explained that in the event that cleaning was necessary, access walks are designed into the system and the panels can be crawled on by authorized technicians. The panels can be wiped down with a basic non abrasive cleaner.

    Mr. Stevens commented that he was in conversation with Jill Manton, Public Art Program Director, SFAC regarding the art enrichment requirement for this project. He stated that the informational kiosk might be a potential site for art work.

    Mr. Newirth clarified that the 2% for the Arts Ordinance is structured to commission original pieces of art for public architecture projects.

    Ms. Manton commented that she is still waiting for clarification on the eligibility of this project for art enrichment. She stated that this project may be exempt due to the scope of the proposed work.

    PHASE 1 & 2

    Tony Leung, Project Director, DPW introduced the basic scope of the project. Mr. Leung then introduced Toby Levy, Principal, Levy Design Associates to present the design.

    Ms. Levy explained that the existing pool structure was a dilapidated building in the Visitacion Valley Neighborhood. She commented that the exterior cladding and overall wood structure was in extreme disrepair. Ms. Levy commented that the condition of the building was primarily due to its age and not lack of maintenance.

    Ms. Levy stated that the initial survey of the cost of retrofit versus the cost of construction of a new building was almost equal. The decision was made to demolish the building. The pool structure and shell however, is in good condition and will be reused in the new building. Ms. Levy stated that there are several trees in front of the building that are diseased and are encroaching onto the existing building. Per the recommendation of an arborist, the trees should be removed.

    Ms. Levy explained that one of the primary goals of the new design was to create a building that had a presence similar to McLaren Lodge. She commented that the new building should have a strong public character that the community could be proud of. The overall building would be larger than the previous to comply with new building code and ADA requirements. The exterior of the service portion of the building will be clad in limestone and sandstone or in porcelain tiles. The exterior of the natatorium will be clad in integral color stucco panels of various sizes and configurations. Ms. Levy explained that the community was very interested in bring the park into the pool building. The facades of the pool building will feature large window openings between the structural elements and the stucco panels.

    Ms. Levy commented that the design team had looked at incorporating sustainable technologies into the design of the new building however the budget may prevent this strategy. The design team is still seeking economically viable options to incorporate sustainable technologies.

    Commissioner Freebairn-Smith opened the floor to public comment

    Commissioner Freebairn-Smith closed the floor to public comment

    Commissioner Stauffacher-Solomon asked why two different materials were being used for the service building. She also asked why not just use wood shingles.

    Ms. Levy responded that she wanted to visually break up the volumes of the buildings by using different materials.

    Mr. Leung explained that the use of shingles was very high maintenance material. Park and Rec was very interested in the use of attractive low maintenance materials. He explained that the Department used a standard set of colors to repaint buildings. The stucco proposed by the architects responded to this standard.

    Commissioner Cochran asked if the stone was less resistant to vandalism that the porcelain tiles.

    Ms. Levy replied that it would be much easier to clean the tiles. The porosity of the stone material would require significant scrubbing to clean while the tile can be wiped down with a simple liquid cleaning material.

    Commissioner Cochran commented that she would like to see a more harmonious material pattern on the pool building.

    Motion to approve Phase 1: Andrea Cochran

    PHASE 1 &2

    Geoff Adams, associate partner, Gordon H. Chong & Partners, explained that the proposed parking garage is one piece of a large project happening in the park which includes a renovation the Concourse, a new building for the M. H.deYoung Museum and a new building for the Academy of Sciences. Mr. Adams commented that the garage project would provide 800 spaces of parking. Subsequently he stated that 800 spaces would be removed from the concourse and the park. This would effectively give back approximately 3 acres of green space. He explained that the scope of their work that requires Arts Commission review are the new automobile and pedestrian entrances to the garage.

    Joseph Marshall, project designer, Gordon H. Chong & Partners, stated that there would be two automobile entrances, one at 10th avenue and the other off of Music Concourse Drive. There would be two primary pedestrian entrances to the garage and four emergency exits as required by code. The materiality of the automobile entrances and the primary pedestrian entrances would be concrete either board formed or broom textured, bronze painted steel, glass mosaic tile and creeping fig.

    Mr. Marshall explained that the garage would require mechanical ventilation. He stated that they were working with acoustical engineers to minimize the ambient noise around the concourse. The vent shaft penetrations are also located away from the concourse to minimize the visual and acoustic impact.

    Commissioner Freebairn-Smith opened the floor to public comment

    Commissioner Freebairn-Smith closed the floor to public comment

    Commissioner Stauffacher-Solomon asked if there was coordination between the various design teams to ensure a visually cohesive design.

    Commissioner Freebairn-Smith commented that he was concerned that there wasn't an individual or group that was in charge of looking at the big picture in terms of aesthetics and execution of the project. He stated that it was important for all of the designers to be in regular conversation with each other to realize a harmonious design.

    Commissioner Cochran stated that it is difficult for her to vote only on a piece of the project without understanding the overall design for the adjacent sites. She asked if there was a plan drawing that showed all of the building and landscape designs in their most current state.

    Mr. Newirth commented that it would be appropriate to arrange a meeting with the primary stakeholders to discuss the issue of coordinating review efforts to help ensure a harmoniously executed project. He suggested that Commissioner Cochran participate in the meeting as well.

    Commissioner Cochran agreed to participate.

  6. Adjournment

    Meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m.