Civic Design Review Committee - January 13, 2020 - Minutes

Meeting Date: 
January 13, 2020 - 2:30pm
401 Van Ness Ave
San Francisco, CA 94102



Monday, January 13, 2020
2:30 p.m.
401 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 125

Draft Minutes

Commissioner Stryker called the meeting to order at 2:34 p.m.

  1. Roll Call
    Commissioners Present
    Kimberlee Stryker, Chair
    Abby Sadin Schnair
    Barbara Sklar
    Paul Woolford

    Commissioners Absent
    Dorka Keehn
    Linda Parker Pennington

    Staff Present
    Joanne Lee, Deputy Director of Programs
    Luna Izpisua Rodriguez, Program Associate, Civic Design & Special Initiatives
  2. Public Comment
    There was no public comment.
  3. SFO Terminal 3 West Modernization Project: Phase 2
    Brad White, Project Designer, Gensler & TEF, a Joint Venture
    Alejandro Pimentel and Tania Gharechedaghy, Project Managers, SFO
    Brad White, Architect, Gensler & TEF, a Joint Venture

    The project team discussed their project goals as well as the improvements they have made to address the contingencies that the Committee outlined in Phase 1. The project entails expanding Terminal 3 West in order to provide seismic retrofit to Terminal 3 West and the F-Connector, upgrade building systems, increase international operational flexibility, and improve passenger experience and revenue generation. The project will start construction by mid-July and hopes to reach completion by 2023. The team noted their design considerations based on the intense solar exposure the site receives throughout the year. They will use an electrochromic glass on the façade that darkens in response to higher amounts of light to provide a more comfortable experience for passengers walking through the terminal. This electrochromic glass will replace and provide a higher efficiency than the preexisting frit from Boarding Area E. They also expressed the importance of design continuity within each of the terminals; Terminal 3 West will incorporate the architectural language, color and materiality of Terminal 3 West and Boarding Area E while adapting to reflect its distinct programmatic functions. Other updates include an increased height for the building at the departures level, larger and more distinct gatehouses, and new continuous mechanical penthouses on the roof of the terminal. Although the team investigated the possibility of removing the seam that divides the glass of the facade, they concluded that it would not be within the budget cost to do so.

    The Committee expressed concerns regarding the proximity of the new mechanical penthouse to the edge of the roof of the building as well its lack of linear continuity with the other two penthouses. The Committee also asked the team to address the stark contrast between the electrochromic glass and the dark surrounding frame of the façade’s exterior.

    Motion to approve Phase 2 of the SFO Terminal 3 West Modernization Project contingent upon
    1) studying the penthouse mechanical cover to see if it could be minimized in its appearance or to rationalize it into the overall design and, 2) exploring the design possibilities of making the two story escalator/stair vertical circulation space more pronounced on the facade, and more interesting on the Interior.
  4. Van Ness BRT, McAllister Station Shelters: Phase 1 and 2
    Konstantin Zlatev, Project Designer, Public Works
    Peter Gabancho, Project Manager, SFMTA
    Will Kwan, Architect, Public Works

    The project lead began by describing the importance of the project site, given that it is in the Civic Center Historic District. As such, the bus shelters will adapt to their unique historic context by taking cues from the related horizontal and vertical elements of City Hall, while retaining visual consistency with the rest of the Van Ness BRT Line. The project designer noted the team’s intent for a more modernized and minimal bus shelter so that it can complement, rather than clash with, the ornate backdrop of City Hall. The team will use the same glass panels and seats, as well as the spacing of four feet between supporting elements, of the typical BRT shelter configuration. Zlatev also noted the planned slight elevation of the northbound and southbound shelters. The team will install mounted lights on the canopy of the bus shelters to illuminate the shelters at night.

    The Committee expressed their concern regarding the mismatched vertical support of the railing with the vertical support of the glass panels on the bus shelter. The Committee would also like the designer to soften the bars in front of the shelter.

    Motion to approve Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Van Ness BRT, McAllister Station Shelters contingent upon 1) the study of a more harmonious balance between the approved railing and the cadence of the glass panels and their vertical support and, 2) a softening of the corners of the upper brackets where the overhead canopy meets the support.
  5. Treasure Island Wastewater Treatment Plant: Conceptual Review
    Calvin Huey, Project Designer, SF Water
    Tom Birmingham, Project Manager, SF Water
    Michelle Hollenbaugh, Architect, Carollo
    Chris Guillard, Landscape Architect, CMG Landscape Architecture

    The project team first described the background and history of Treasure Island as a former US Navy base, the Naval Station of Treasure Island (NSTI), located in the City and County of San Francisco. The Treasure Island Development Authority has been made responsible for the reuse and development of NSTI and operation and maintenance of all utilities on Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission provides contracted services to TIDA for these services. This project entails creating a new Treasure Island water resource and recovery facility. It hopes to address aging infrastructure, ensure regulatory compliance, and meet the wastewater and recycled water needs of the future Treasure Island and Yerba Buena Island development. The team’s long term vision includes transforming two acres of their campus into wetlands through which treated water would flow before draining into the San Francisco Bay. The team’s vision also encourages future residents to use recycled water. Anticipated recycled water uses include open space irrigation, urban farm irrigation, commercial building plumbing, and dry season green infrastructure plant maintenance. The facility structure of the campus consists of an influent pump station, an odor control system, a thickening building, waste storage, an MBR basin, headworks, disinfection and ancillary equipment, and a recycled water pump station. Important features of the Wastewater Treatment Plant will be the perimeter enclosure, the berm and tree screening, and the wetland barrier fence. The perimeter enclosure will be a maximum of ten feet in height, have a ten foot clear zone, be non-climbable and non-cuttable, have anti-tunneling continuous concrete foundation, have an anti-graffiti coating, and be durable in a marine environment. After showing several design iterations of the perimeter enclosure, the team showed their proposed fence that consists of alternating opaque metal and see-through barred sections. They noted that there is a potential for public art along this enclosure.

    The Committee expressed their concerns regarding the campus’s overall lack of continuity with the rest of the proposed Treasure Island master plan, both in layout and materiality. Other Treasure Island structures lie along the diagonal urban blueprint of the Island, while this treatment plant would disrupt the diagonal. The Committee insisted that the team revisit the campus’s point of view, and that they ask themselves, given the early-staged nature of Treasure Island’s development, “What will make this Treasure Island?” They also asked the project team to consider small creatures when building fencing around the structures. The Committee was very content with the progressive environmental aspects as well as the aesthetics and possibility for community engagement of the proposed wetlands.

    Commissioner Sklar left the meeting at 4:28 p.m.
  6. Visual Arts Committee Report
    In the absence of Commissioner Keehn, there was no report.
  7. Staff Report
  8. New Business and Announcements
  9. Adjournment 
    There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:53 p.m.

    posted 1/22/20, 10:00a.m., LIR
    revised 1/27/20, 2:30p.m., LIR

Language Accessibility

Translated written materials and interpretation services are available to you at no cost. For assistance, please notify Special Projects and Civic Design Review Program Associate Luna Izpisua Rodriguez, 415-252-2252,

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,Special Projects and Civic Design Review Program Associate Luna Izpisua Rodriguez, 415-252-2252,

Materiales traducidos y servicios de interpretación están disponibles para usted de manera gratuita. Para asistencia, notifique a Special Projects and Civic Design Review Program Associate Luna Izpisua Rodriguez, 415-252-2252,

Ang mga materyales na nakasalin sa ibang wika at ang mga serbisyong tagapagsalin sa wika ay walang bayad. Para sa tulong, maaring i-contact si Special Projects and Civic Design Review Program Associate Luna Izpisua Rodriguez, 415-252-2252,