Meeting Information

CIVIC DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
Monday, December 18,  2006
3:00 p.m.
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70

Minutes

Commissioners Present: Leonard Hunter, Beverly Prior, John Kriken
 
Commissioners Absent:  Andrea Cochran, Jeannene Przyblyski

Staff Present: Richard Newirth, Rommel Taylor

Call To Order: 3:10 p.m.

1. Pipeline Repair and Readiness Improvements—Phase B at Sunol Yard—Phase 2
   
   Ernesto Ramilo, architect, DPW BOA, introduced Roger Tam, project engineer, SFPUC Utility Management Bureau, to discuss the purpose for the facility.
   
   Mr. Tam stated that this project was part of a larger capital improvement project to upgrade the emergency readiness and response of our water delivery infrastructure. The main function of the site would be to store material for emergency pipe construction in the event of a major disaster. Mr. Tam said that Mr. Ramilo would discuss any design issue related to the project.
   
   Mr. Ramilo addressed the comments made by Commissioner Prior at the September 18, 2006 Civic Design meeting. Commissioner Prior had expressed concerns about the dark color selected for the roof as a potential source of excessive heat gain in the interior spaces. Mr. Ramilo presented alternative lighter color selections for consideration. Mr. Ramilo also presented changes to the access ramp for the building. These modifications eliminated the need for a handrail and did not affect the overall look of the previously approved design.
   
   Commissioner Prior opened the floor to public comment.
   
   Commissioner Prior closed the floor to public comment.
   
   Commissioner Kriken asked about the rationale for increasing the width of the access road.
   
   Mr. Ramilo said that the width was determined by recommendations from the operational division that would be using the facility. The wider access road was more efficient for the type of vehicles entering the site.
   
   Motion to approve Pipeline Repair and Readiness Improvements-Phase B at Sunol Yard—Phase 2: Hunter
   Vote: Unanimously approved
   
   
2. Vehicle/Material Storage Building at UMN Pipe Yard—Phase 1
   
   Bryan Carlomagno, project manager, DPW BOE, stated that this facility was part of a larger capital improvement project for the City’s water delivery system. Mr. Carlomagno said that the SFPUC held a community meeting for the SoutheastNeighborhood Committee. He stated that there was general support for the project. Mr. Carlomagno introduced Ernesto Ramilo, architect, DPW BOA, to present the architectural design.
   
   Mr. Ramilo explained that the proposed structure was a pre-engineered insulated steel frame structure on concrete slab. The exterior would be clad in painted corrugated metal siding.
   
   Commissioner Prior opened the floor to public comment.
   
   Commissioner Prior closed the floor to public comment.
   
   Commissioner Hunter asked if the building would be heated.
   
   Mr. Ramilo stated that the building would not be heated because it would not be occupied.
   
   Commissioner Kriken asked whether the immediately adjacent neighbors would see a significant portion of the building.
   
   Mr. Ramilo said that the building is located on the top of a sloped site and set back from the street. The neighbors would have a minimal view of the building from the street level.
   
   Commissioner Hunter asked if there were minutes and a sign-in sheet from the community meeting the SFPUC held.
   
   Mr. Carlomagno said that he would forward meeting notes to the Civic Design staff.
   
   Commissioner Hunter asked if alternative sites had been considered.
   
   Mr. Carlomagno said that the operational division that would be using this facility chose this site because it offers efficient access by other facilities that would use vehicles and materials stored at the UMN Pipe Yard.
   
   Robert Lopez, communication officer, SFPUC, commented that a mailing about the proposed project was sent to members of the Portola and the Bayview/Hunter's Point neighborhoods. Mr. Lopez said that only about 10 community members attended the outreach meeting.
   
   Commissioner Kriken asked if there was any proposed landscape to screen the view of the building along the long axis of the site.
   
   Mr. Carlomagno said that no landscaping was proposed at this time. The intent for the site was to leave it as open and flexible as possible in order to maximize potential uses.
   
   Commissioner Hunter commented that the addition of tall trees would be a major improvement. Mr. Hunter stated that he would like to see landscape studies that address the screening of the proposed industrial building from the surrounding residential development. Commissioner Hunter also said that he would like to see evidence of the community meeting held where this project was presented.
   
   Commissioner Kriken stated that he needed to see more accurate photos explaining the context, a principal view from the site towards the residences and a view from the existing buildings toward the proposed new structure.
   
   Barry Pearl, project manager, SFPUC, stated that the department has adopted a policy to restrict additional landscape planting that would create a higher demand for water on SFPUC property.
   
   Commissioner Prior stated that the project should be functional and be aesthetically pleasing. Ms. Prior summarized the points that the design team needed to address before coming back to the committee:
   
   1.Present clear photos showing views from the proposed site out to the surrounding neighborhood, views form the street towards the proposed site and a larger overall context aerial view. The views should be clearly marked.
   2. Provide studies for low-maintenance landscaping that would help screen the facility from the adjacent residences.
   3. Provide a site plan of the entire compound showing existing and proposed buildings.
   4. Provide site sections.
   5. Provide evidence of community meetings in the form of meeting notes and sign-in sheets.
   
   Commissioner Prior recommended that the team come back for a combined Phase 1 and 2 reviews.
   
   
   
3. Eureka Valley/Harvey Milk Memorial Branch Library—Phase 1
   
   Miguel Tello, architect, DPW BOA, presented the design proposal for the library renovation. He stated that the project goals included improving ADA access, improving the mechanical and electrical infrastructure, and improving the overall library services.
   
   Mr. Tello stated that the addition to the building would mimic the scale and materials of the existing building.
   
   Commissioner Prior opened the floor to public comment.
   
   Commissioner Prior closed the floor to public comment.
   
   Commissioner Prior asked if there were plans to improve the landscape.
   
   Mr. Tello stated that the only landscape improvement would be to the irrigation system.
   
   Motion to approve Eureka Valley/Harvey Milk Memorial Branch Library—Phase 1: Hunter
   Vote: Unanimously approved
   
   
4. Bernal Heights Branch Library—Phase 1
   
   Andrew Maloney, architect, DPW BOA, walked the committee through the interior plans of the project. Mr. Maloney stated that the only exterior modification would be the addition of a new ADA ramp that would incorporate public seating. He also pointed out that a new window would be cut on the rear façade to bring in natural light to the proposed new interior staircase. Mr. Maloney commented that the status of the exterior mural was still being discussed and that he did not know at this time if the mural would remain or be painted over.
   
   Commissioner Prior opened the floor to public comment.
   
   Commissioner Prior closed the floor to public comment.
   
   Commissioner Kriken commented that the mural does not necessarily work well within the context of this neighborhood or with the existing architecture.
   
   Motion to approve Bernal Heights Branch Library—Phase 1: Kriken
   Vote: Unanimously approved
   
   
5. Portrero Hill Health Center Addition— Phase 1
   
   Tony Leung, project manager, DPW BOA, commented that the scope of work for this renovation provided for new offices and examination rooms. He explained that this health center served the southeastern portion of San Francisco. Mr. Leung introduced Alejandro Pimentel, architect, DPW BOA, to present the architectural design.
   
   Mr. Pimentel explained that the existing building had a dilapidated exterior of vertical wood siding. He said that the addition would be composed of a more durable and low-maintenance material. Mr. Pimentel said that the addition would sit atop a frame system that would create parking for the employees.
   
   Commissioner Prior opened the floor to public comment.
   
   Commissioner Prior closed the floor to public comment.
   
   Commissioner Prior asked if there had been any community outreach.
   
   Mr. Leung stated that the proposed design would be presented at an upcoming open house at the Health Center.
   
   Commissioner Prior expressed concern that the under-building parking area might provide an opportunity for crime and vandalism.
   
   Commissioner Kriken agreed with Commissioner Prior regarding the safety concern about the parking area. He stated that the idea of setting the project back from the property line was a good idea. Mr. Kriken stated that he would support the use of more contemporary exterior finishes for the addition.
   
   Commissioner Prior summarized the comments:
   
   1. The design team should study options to make the parking area more secure.
   2. The committee supports the use of materials other than vertical wood siding for the addition.
   
   Motion to approve Portrero Hill Health Center Addition—Phase 1: Kriken
   Vote: Unanimously approved
   
   
6. New Business
   
   Commissioner Prior commented that she would like to set as an agenda item discussion of the proposed new design guidelines.
   
   Commissioner Prior also expressed concern about the proposed utility box mural project.
   
   Richard Newirth, Director of Cultural Affairs, stated that the project was only a pilot program and would be limited to utility boxes in the Mission District.
   
   Commissioner Prior expressed a desire to set up a presentation from the major City departments that come before the committee to discuss their unique design requirements and restrictions. Ms. Prior felt that it was important that the Civic Design Committee have a clear understanding of the policies set by other agencies for their particular design projects.
   
   
7. Adjournment: 5:15 p.m.
   

Revision Date 12/22/06