Civic_Design_Committee
2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 CIVIC DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE
Monday, September 30, 2004
3:00 p.m.
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 70
Minutes
Commissioners Present: Andrea Cochran, William Meyer, Rod Freebairn Smith, Barbara Stauffacher-Solomon, Jeannene Przyblyski
Staff Present: Richard Newirth, Nancy Gonchar, Rommel Taylor
Call To Order: 3:10
- Noe Valley Branch Library Renovation-Phase 1
Commissioner Przyblyski recussed herself from the discussion of this item due to a possible conflict of interest.
Marilyn Thompson, Bond Program Manager, Branch Library Improvement Program explained that the library had established an internal design Excellence Program through which all new projects would be reviewed. The Design Excellence Program requires a peer review, engages the community, and requires review and approval by the library commission. Ms. Thompson stated that they had finished CEQA review and that the project had received a categorical exemption from the Planning Department and Landmarks Preservation Board. Ms. Thompson introduced Nancy Goldenberg, architect, Carey and Co, Inc. Architecture to present the project.
Ms. Goldenberg explained that John Mead Jr. designed the building in 1916. She stated that the primary scope of work was to seismically upgrade the structure and provide required ADA upgrades. She stated that it was their intent to restore the exterior of the building to its original state. The only modification addition to the exterior of the building would be a new elevator structure at the rear corner. This new stucco clad structure would only be visible from the rear of the building. Ms. Goldenberg stated that the design of the addition is in accordance with the Secretary of Interiors standards. Ms. Goldenberg stated that there would also be some interior remodeling to increase functionality of the building.
Commissioner Meyer opened the floor to public comment.
Commissioner Meyer closed the floor to public comment.
Commissioner Cochran asked if there was brick all the way around the base including below grade. She stated the proposal looked fine.
Ms. Goldenberg stated that she was not certain of the subsurface condition.
Commissioner Stauffacher Solomon commented that the overall proposal seemed fine. She stated that she would rather see a clearer aesthetic attitude regarding the elevator addition. Ms. Stauffacher Solomon said that it would be better if it blended with the existing architecture in a more complete way or have a much stronger contrast in materiality
Commissioner Freebairn-Smith stated that the proposal was a very sensitive intervention. He asked if other locations had been studied for the placement of the elevator, for example inside of the building. Mr. Freebairn-Smith said that he would encourage a design direction that blended more with the existing architectural language.
Ms. Goldenberg stated that the design team had studied various options for locating the elevator including on the interior of the building. The present exterior location has the least visual impact on the building. The interior square footage is too small to accommodate the elevator. Further, there are many wonderful historic details that would be drastically altered or lost if an elevator was inserted into the interior.
Commissioner Meyer stated that he would prefer that the elevator be located in a more symmetrical fashion and not in the corner. He said that facade would feel more balanced and Mr. Meyer agreed with Commissioner Stauffacher Solomon that the aesthetic of the elevator tower should be clearer. It should be either a strong replication of the existing architectural language or a strong contrast. Mr. Meyer stated that the team should come back for a combined phase 1 & 2 review with a visual response to the comments made.
Richard Newirth, Director of Cultural Affairs, Arts Commission asked for a point of clarification from Commissioner Meyer. He asked if Mr. Meyer was stating that the project did not satisfy the requirements for a Phase 1 approval.
Mr. Meyer stated that in his assessment the project did not meet the requirements for a Phase 1 approval.
v Jeannene Przyblyski asked for a point of clarification in the case of required multiple departmental reviews. She asked if there were guidelines regarding order of review? She also asked if the decision of the Civic Design Review committee could be overridden?
Nancy Gonchar, Deputy Director, Arts Commission answered that the legislation is silent on order of review, however, in terms of aesthetic review the Civic Design Review has jurisdiction as mandated by City Charter.
Commissiner Meyer recommended that the team return for a joint phase 1 and 2 review.
Commissioner Meyer asked Ms. Thompson why the project didn't come to the Arts Commission sooner?
Ms. Thompson said that it was a challenge to bring the project sooner because of the designed requirements of their internal review. The Library Commission wants to see the proposal prior to Arts Commission review. She stated however, that she would try to bring the projects as early as possible
- San Francisco 9-11 Memorial- Phase 2& 3
Sean Huges gave a brief introduction to the project. He stated that the project had received a Phase 1 approval on April 19, 2004 and that they were seeking their final Civic Design approvals today. Mr. Huges introduced Kyri McClellan to give an update on the project.
Ms. McClellan stated that since the last review the team had solicited feedback from the local community.She said that they organized a public meeting to give individuals an opportunity to make comments on the design. This meeting was in collaboration with PUC. Barry Pearl assisted in organizing and noticing the meeting. Ms. McClellan said that the attendance was average and most comments where supportive of the design. There were no significant oppositions voiced regarding the project. Ms. McClellan introduced Marcel Wilson, designer, Haregraves Associates to present the proposal.
Mr. Wilson stated that the project was fundamentally the same as presented at the April Civic Design meeting. The details however have been developed more thoroughly. He explained that he did further research into the ADA concerns expressed at the last meeting. In terms of height the design complies with current ADA code. A new detectable foot bar has been added that shadows the form of the steel armature above. A LED is integrated into the foot bar to add another level of detectability a night.
Commissioner Meyer opened the floor to public comment.
Commissioner Meyer closed the floor to public comment.
Commissioner Cochran stated that it wasn't clear where the water was coming from to fill the steel tray. She also commented that the cooper sample seems very shiny and wanted to know if this was the final finish.
Mr. Wilson stated that the cooper will have a matte finish and won’t be as shiny as the sample. Mr. Wilson used a detail drawing to illustrate how the water flows into the steel tray.
Commissioner Freebairn- Smith expressed concern that the memorial might be used as a recreation device for rollerbladers and skate borders. He said that it is the perfect height for thrill seekers to do tricks. He also said that he was concerned that children might use it as a diving board.
Mr. Wilson stated that he would hope that the memorial would be respected, however he could not guarantee that some people would use it in an inappropriate fashion. Mr. Wilson said that the piece is incredibly rigid and could withstand extreme amounts of physical abuse.
Commissioner Stauffacher Solomon stated that the design looked fine.
Commissioner Przyblyski stated that she was concerned about the maintenance of the water element and slipping hazards if the tray over flows. She stated that if the maintenance were not consistent the power of the design idea would be lost. Ms. Przyblyski also stated that the language being used on the memorial would be more powerful if it were broken up into two sentences.
Ms. McClellan stated that they were in discussion with PUC in regards to developing a budget for ongoing maintenance.
Commissioner Cochran asked about the method for monitoring the level of water in the tray. She asked if it would be manually operated or on an automated system. She also asked about contingencies for malfunction. Ms. Cochran also inquired about the health of the cypress tree and if it was worth saving.
Mr. Wilson answered that the system would be automated. He also stated that they had consulted with an arborist from Rec & Park and they were advised that the tree was healthy enough to save. Mr. Wilson explained that the arborist stated that the tree still had several years of life left. They also discussed various other options when the time comes to replace the tree.
Commissioner Meyer stated that the designers should address the safety issue brought up by Commissioner Freebairn-Smith as well as ADA issues. He stated that overall he liked the design. He also commented that when the final shop drawings are complete that a set be sent to the Commission for our record.
San Francisco 9-11 Memorial- Phase 2 & 3: Cochran
Vote: Unanimous
- New Business
Richard Newirth reported to the Commissioners that a potentially controversial project would be coming to the Commission in the near future. The project relates to proposed changes at the Buchanan street mall at Japantown.
Ms. Gonchar stated that staff would prepare an information packet with background on the project.
- Adjournment 4:15 p.m
Revision Date: 09-30-04
