Civic_Design_Committee
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 CIVIC DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
Monday, July 6, 2009
2:00 p.m.
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70
Minutes
Commissioners Present: Topher Delaney, Rene Bihan, Cass Calder Smith, Leo Chow
Staff Present: Jill Manton, Vicky Knoop
Call To Order: 2:05 p.m.
-
Explanation by Deputy City Attorneys Adine Varah and Sheryl Bregman of Civic Design Purview, Authority and Charter Mandate
Jill Manton, San Francisco Arts Commission Programs Director, introduced Adine Varah, Deputy City Attorney, and Sheryl Bregman, Deputy City Attorney.
Ms. Varah gave a general overview of the laws that relate to Civic Design Review. Three sections set up the scope of authority for the Committee. These are the San Francisco Charter Section 5.103, San Francisco Administrative Code Section 2A.150, and San Francisco Administrative Code Section 3.19A.
Ms. Varah explained that the Charter can be amended only by the voters. The Arts Commission’s authority is set forth under Charter Section 5.103 (Arts Commission), which provides, among the Arts Commission's other duties, that the Arts Commission shall "[a]pprove the designs for all public structures, any private structure which extends over or upon any public property and any yards, courts, set-backs or usable open spaces which are an integral part of any such structures.". Ms. Varah explained that the Administrative Code can be amended by the Board of Supervisors, and she read Administrative Code Section 2A.150 (Arts Commission; Functions, Powers and Duties) to the Committee. Specifically, that under Administrative Code Section 2A.150 the Arts Commission has approval powers "with respect to the design of buildings, bridges, viaducts, elevated ways, approaches, gates, fences, lamps or other structures erected or to be erected upon land belonging to the City and County, and concerning arches, bridges, structures and approaches which are the property of any corporation or private individual and which shall extend over or upon any street, avenue, highway, park or public place belonging to the City and County. Said Commission shall so act and its approval shall be required for every such structure which shall hereafter be erected or contracted for, and may advise in respect to lines, grades and platting of public ways and grounds."
Commissioner Chow asked whether structures that extend over City land are subject to review of the entire building or only of the sections over City property.
Ms. Varah said that it is only the part of the building that extends over or upon property belonging to the City.
Commissioner Bihan asked if this includes underground infrastructure.
Ms. Varah replied that the general intent of the legislation is for the Arts Commission to review the exterior of structures but noted the possibility that there may be some special facts and circumstances where review of an interior space would be appropriate.
Commissioner Chow commented that the Central Subway project is an example in which the public realm is in the interior of the space. Ms. Varah noted that in the case of the Central Subway, because MTA and the Arts Commission had mutually agreed as a business and policy matter that the Civic Design Committee would review the interior of the subway stations, the City did not need to reach the legal issue of whether the Charter required Civic Design Review of such stations.
Ms. Varah read to the Committee San Francisco Administrative Code Section 3.19A (Arts Commission Civic Design Review Fees), the section related to fees. She explained that neither the Charter nor the Administrative Code imposes any financial or legal penalty on City departments who complete a project without following the Civic Design Review procedure. But Ms. Varah reiterated that the Charter requires Civic Design review for all public structures, any private structure which extends over or upon any public property and any yards, courts, set-backs or usable open spaces which are an integral part of any such structures.
Ms. Bregman gave a brief overview of the San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 6 : (Public Works Contracting Policies and Procedures), which governs contracting and professional services for Public Works. She explained that only a small number departments in the City are allowed to engage in public work contracts under Chapter 6. Article 2 provides the basic requirements for competitively bid construction contracts. Article 3 outlines professional services contracting. In Article 4, exemptions including design-build, emergency, as-needed, and limited contracting authority are explained.
Ms. Bregman clarified that it is not the contractor’s duty to comply with Section 3.19A, but it is the contracting department’s responsibility.
She also explained that Chapter 6.40 says that the Department of Public Works (“DPW”) may use either an outside architect or the Bureau of Architecture (“BOA”). Many factors drive the selection, but ultimately it is a decision for the Director of Public Works.
Commissioner Delaney asked how that decision is informed.
Ms. Bregman replied that the administrative process is best explained by the Director of Public Works or the City Architect.
Gary Hoy, City Architect, DPW BOA, said that the BOA has been in business for over 100 years and was created because of concerns of nepotism. In the past 15 to 20 years, the BOA has worked on many bond projects dealing with repair and replacement of structures. The teams assigned to bond projects, such as fire stations or libraries, gain expertise in those areas. On the other hand, he said, because they do not build a hospital each year, for example, it is more appropriate to contract out these specialized projects. He said that the BOA has the same desire as the Committee, to have excellence in public architecture. Mr. Hoy offered to make a longer presentation about policy and decision-making at a later meeting.
Commissioner Delaney thanked Mr. Hoy and requested that the Bureau of Engineering (“BOE”) also be involved in the discussion. She expressed concern that the BOA is receiving projects too late in their engineering development to be able to truly design the structure. She added that the Committee and the BOA are all interested in being stewards of architecture in the City, and would like to begin the design process sooner with all client agencies.
Ms. Bregman explained that for certain types of contracts, such as design-build contracts, current three-phase review process of Civic Design might not always coordinate as effectively with the timing of those particular types of projects. She explained that in a design-build project, the client department should include the required approvals and reviews in the contract. The Arts Commission and the client department may need to discuss how the review process could work to help yield stronger design.
-
Questions from Commissioners
Commissioner Bihan asked about penalties for agencies ignoring the Civic Design Review process.
Ms. Bregman explained that approvals are required for the project to proceed. When a project is not following City procedures, departments are often able to resolve issues through cooperative administrative efforts . She added that Civic Design Review is part of the building process and is required by the Charter. Commissioner Chow asked if a structure could receive a building permit without Civic Design approval.
Ms. Bregman responded that it is a required review process and that administrative actions to ensure compliance could take place under existing legislation.
Commissioner Bihan opened the floor to public comment. Seeing none, Commissioner Bihan closed the floor to public comment.
Commissioner Chow commented that alternative delivery methods of design and construction are becoming more and more common, and that the Committee is willing to work with each project to create a review process that will most benefit to the architecture of the specific projects.
Commissioner Bihan agreed and added that this would allow for greater transparency on timelines and process.
Commissioner Chow asked Mr. Hoy about the planning process for bond projects.
Mr. Hoy explained that there is strategic planning that happens before the bond goes to the voters.
Ms. Manton commented that staff will be involved in the Capital Improvements Plan and will have a calendar of upcoming projects.
-
New Business
There was no new business.
-
Reports and Announcements
There were no reports or announcements.
-
Public Comment
Commissioner Bihan opened the floor to public comment. There was none.
-
Adjournment: 6:15 p.m.
vmk 7/17/09
