Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRDA Minutes 1984-10-24 MINUTES THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Regular Meeting October 24, 1984 TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Community Room, Municipal Services Building CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Mark N. Addiego called the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Mark N. Addiego, Vice Chairman Richard A. Haffey, Members: Emanuele N. Damonte, Gus Nicolopulos, Roberta Cerri Teglia. AGENDA REVIEW: Executive Director Birkelo stated that there were no additions nor deletions to the evening's Agenda. APPROVAL OF Member Teglia moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Haffey, that the MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meeting of August 24, 1984, be approved. Motion, as made and seconded, was regularly carried. APPROVAL OF Member Teglia moved, seconded by Vice Chairman Haffey, that claimS BILLS: as submitted for payment in the amount of $95,382.83 for October 24, 1984, be approved. Motion, as moved and seconded, was regularly carried. REQUEST FOR Deputy City Manager, Mark Lewis, stated that staff had reviewed the SPECIFIC PLAN proposed Precise Plan for the entryway signs for the Gateway Redevelop- AND DESIGN ment Project for the Homart Development Company. After the review, APPROVAL - staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency approve the attached GATEWAY Precise Plan for entryway signs, subject to the attached conditions ENTRANCE which are contained in the Staff Report. SIGNING: Chairman Addiego requested that Deputy City Manager Lewis apprise Council of those conditions, since Council did not have an opportunity to review the Staff Report prior to the meeting. Deputy City Manager Lewis informed Council that there are four (4) conditions: #1) The applicant shall construct the entryway signs substantially as shown on the approved Precise Plan dated September 14, 1984; #2) Prior to construction of the signs, the applicant will obtain a building permit; #3) Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, the applicant shall submit a scaled sight plan showing the exact location of the signs' deminsions from existing sidewalks, curbs, utilities and/or other improvements; and #4) The applicant shall comply with all the conditions and requirements of the affected City divisions and departments contained in the IOM which is attached. REQUEST FOR l.lr. John A§uilar, Homart DeveloRment, 601 Gateway B!vd,~ Suite 900, SPECIFIC PLAN South San ?rancisco AND DESIGN APPROVAL - Mr..Aguilar informed the Board that he had with him Mr. Roger McErland GATEWAY who is the Landscape Architect retained to work on Homart's signage ENTRANCE on the entryways which is up before the Board for cOnsideration. He SIGNING stated that, several months ago we were before you regarding an (continued) increase in the landscaping plan for both the Oyster Point/Qateway- Grand Avenue/Gateway entryway$. At that time, we informed the Members of the Agency and staff that we were involved in the process of looking at additional upgraded signage to'the entryways. We felt that the original signage, that was approved as part of the Master Plan three years ago, was not sufficient nor dynamic enough to really convey the project image, and toward that goal, we entertained and hired the Pod Group to come and work with us in developing some alternatives. We have gone through several generations of alternatives with them, with our own Architectural Control Board to the Gateway Property Association, and we have come up with a plan which is before you tonight, which I would like to have Roger present to you in some detail, and then we will answer any questions. Roger McErland from the Pod Group, San Francisco, directed the Board's attention to the exhibit. Mr. McErland stated that, as Mr. Aguilar had mentioned, there were some existing conditions that needed to be thought about, there were also some ongoing landscaping improvements that were proceeding. It was important for the signs, whatever they may be, to be located in an existing environment and respect that environment in addition to do the least damage as possible to that which is being installed a month prior to this. We had to work around a number of exisitng problems. Our approach was to start from the outside of the site, Highway 101, Oyster Point and surrounding streets, and approach the Gateway project as a project to determine where the best place to sign and what the magnitude of sign needed to be to really make it work. Our conclusion is, it is not really visible, the sign nor the need for sign, from 101 or from anywhere outside the project. The buildings will be its Gateway marker, so to speak, and as more buildings are added, it will become more of a mass that will command its own attention. So the signs really became an element to mark the entry to Gateway, in our mind, "The Gateway to Gateway." We had a hard time understanding what Gateway meant, and I am not sure everybody will understand what Gateway means. So part of the sign was to help expand that concept that it is the Gateway to something, and the sign will enhance that. In addition to location, we really felt that Whatever happened at the Grand Avenue entry, should also happ6n at Oyster Point, because that will become an equal entry at some point when traffic improvements are made, so the solution had to work in two different conditions; one where we had quite a bit of landscape and open space and flexibility and view corridors, and the other where we had a very narrow condition and very poor view corridors. The two really had to work in tandem, so that they mark both ends of the Gateway project. 10/24/84 Page 2 REQUEST FOR In addition, Mr, McErl~nd stated, the sign should have something in SPECIFIC PLAN common with other s.igns so that what we build here is not entirely -- AND DESIGN different from what has happened at a lower address marker or what APPROVAL - happens at a lower entry marker to buildings, so that there is some GATEWAY continuity and harmony in all of the signs that add up to what we ENTRANCE call stoop furniture or urban design, After going through several SIGNING alternatives, we come to the conclusion that what we are proposing (continued) is the most appropriate. In the Staff Report, there is a sketch that shows, basically, the existing conditions. We are competing with street lights, signal lights, traffic controller vaults, utility vaults, a lot of things that are really there that the sign needs to overcome or be itself in spite of them. So far that reason, the sign took a vertical form approximately 36 feet high to the top of the pylon, and also for that reason, the color for the sign was chosen to be the exact value of the sky, but a different color. The materials are called lucabond, it is an aluminum sandwich which has a foam core in between a very highly refined material, it is very contemporary, but yet you can control the color to any degree you want, and it is durable. Durability is another issue that we feel is very important. Because of the size, windload and the structural problems, we felt that the fairly lightweight element is important, it could be structurally designed without disrupting the whole landscape area around it. I also think the contrast of this value, power blue or dusty rose value, contract with the landscaping behind it, because if you have a dark value, for instance dark green with dark green trees behind it, we are losing the combination which we are trying to go after. In summary, I think we are talking about a vertical sign with a high finish and a high quality finish'on both ends of Grand and Oyster Point. The model on your left is a scaled model of the Grand Avenue entrance. We have taken this model to the sight and actually photographed it in contrast to the sight, and would like to present it to you as part of convincing direction of why the color, we think, works and is appropriate. The scale of these pylons is 36 feet at the pylon and about an 18 inch concrete base, so it is actually about 37½ to 38 feet total. We feel that is a very appropriate size. We have had a mock up of the sonotube on the sight to convince ourselves of how big and how wide and what the volume is, so we have done quite a bit of research to convince the Homart people that it is appropriate. The signpost, at this level, is the same shape as Homart's logo because we think the sign should not be a complete departure from that; and the fluting on the back carriers are to add quality and a certain detail which is present in their existing project. Building this kind of thing out of marble, we felt, is very cost prohibitive and also structurally not desirable; that is why it is a lightweight metal, and the durability of the metal comes close to what marble does for you, so we think we are solving several problems. Member Nicolopolos asked if the shape was cylindrical? .... Mr. McErland replied that it is pi-shaped with a round face facing the entrance, and a triangular face facing the exit so you will see the relief and detail when you leave, and you see the sign when you come in. 10/24/84 Page 3 REQUEST FOR Member Nico!opulos inquired further if it is going to be painted, or SPECIFIC PLAN does it come with material of that color? AND DESIGN APPROVAL - Mr. McErland stated that the material is like an enamel metal, GATEWAY it is applied paint but it is electrically fixed to the metal, ENTRANCE SIGNING Member Nicolopulos stated that he was sure that the weather conditions (continued) here were taken into consideration, and how long should that last without refurbishing it? Mr, McErland replied that lucabond should last about 20 to 40 years without anything and you can also polish it to'improve it, it will last as long as the building will last, The lucabond is a durable metal; we are also painting it with a clear seal that will prevent any graffiti or spray painting or marking, so they can be washed off very easily. Member Nicolopulos stated that he noticed that the Deputy City Mana§er/ City Engineer had made some recommendations because of the. utilities, and inquired if they were agreeable. Mr. McErland said that they were coordinating with the Civil Engineers as far as all the utilities in both these locations, Grand Avenue and Oyster Point.. He stated that the only location where there is aproblem of distance is Oyster Point. On one corner there is a 12 to 15 foot distance and they are asking for 24 feet. In all cases we exceed that except for that one location. The problem there is vaults, utilities, and sidewalks. We either have to realign the sidewalk, or miss that dimension. Vice Chairman Haffey complimented Homart on its simplistic design which addresses the need for entrance, but his concerns are: first, the color, he suggested that maybe the color should be a little more of an earthtone and should not be so striking; and secondly, if we are to agree to the Size of these entrance monuments, the type of the material used should be a little more durable. The height is essentially three stories. If it is going to last beyond this Board into the next decade, I feel that we would want something that is durable. If the material was stone or some other type of material, othen than aluminum, I would feel more confident about the design and about the durability of what you are presenting. Mr. McErland stated that, one thing we all should think about is twenty years from now that sign may want to be a whole different thing, the Project may be a different ingredient, the City may want to have more control of it. Vice Mayor Haffey invited Mr. Aguilar to speak to the above comments. I had not realized that we were heading in that direction. Mr. Aguilar advised the Board that it is going to be a permanent, fixed sign; indefinite. This is something that we have put a lot of thought into and I do not want to diminish its importance as a permanent fixture to the project and to the whole area east of the freeway. I think we understand the concerns about the color and about 10/24/84 Page 4 REQUEST FOR the material, and. going to a stone such as a marble or a granite is SPECIFIC PLAN ~omethi.ng that we have looked at, and to try to achieYe 'the ~ranite AND DESIGN quality of the material and the height, and to deal with the problems APPROVAL - and constraints of the visual elements at those intersections, is just GATEWAY not economically feasible for us to do so, The second generation of ENTRANCE the walls that we are looking at is a Black African granite that will SIGNING cost somewhere in the area of $800,000, and the initial budget in the (continued) Assessment District, the line item for this particular item for land- scaping and the walls themselves were only $250,000. We came to the Board several months ago and agreed to pick~up anything above that. Vice Chairman Haffey commented that he was concerned with the last comment in which twenty years from now we may want to have something different; you tell me that you are looking at something that is indefinite, He asked for a definition of indefinite as opposed to 20 years. Mr. Aguilar commented that indefinite, as far as he is conceded as the owner of the project, is permanent and for all time; however, I cannot warrant that it is not going to change forth years down the road, but if the developer is going to expend thousands of dollars for a fixture, it is going to be permanent. Vice Chariman Haffey inquired if Homart was flexible on the color, Mr. Aguilar replied that they were. Member Teglia stated that she has similar concerns with color. She remarked to Mr. Aguilar that, you indicated that in your process you had already placed structures of this size in place to get a feeling of what the impact was going to be and whether or not that was desired results. It would have been nice, Mr. Aguilar, if you had called us and had us look at it too, since we have to vote on it. I would like to stand, for example, where the new Gateway extension is going to end. I would like to see what these two story structures are going to look like from a distance. It is a little difficult to look at it right there, at that location, flat on a board. There is an environment around there, and I understand what you are trying to do, but it would have helped me, just as you needed to see that, that would certainly have helped me. I am not asking you to do anything extraordinary, apparently you felt it important enough for your own consideration. Additionally, apparently you have photographs or some graphic material that are part of your convincing package but we do not have the benefit- of that. Some of the concerns have been voiced here about the material; you have, for example in your lobby, granite or veneer, and I had originally heard that you were going in that direction, and I really thought it was very exciting. This is quite a departure from that and I am willing to be convinced, but I am not there at the moment. Member Nicolopulos remarked that, I think each of us have a right to express our viewpoints and I respect each of our rights to say it, but I feel that ~omeone with the pocketbook and is making an expenditure of that much money should have the privilege of saying what color they want, as long as it is not offensive or detrimental to the City. 10/24/84 Page 5 REQUEST FOR Vice Chairman Haffey admonished staff that, in the future, developers SPECIFIC PLAN are to be advised to give the Board Presentations that §ive a more AND DESIGN realistic viewpoint of the way these types of things look and not an APPROVAL - attempt to deceive the ;Board. You are to give proper direction when GATEWAY developers want to take the time and go to the trouble of making these ENTRANCE type of presentations. SIGNING (continued) Chairman Addiego stated that he would have to challenge the whole concept of building monuments on roadways. I am not willing to go that far from what have been the City norm, and when you look at what we allow in other areas of the City, in commercial areas, industrial areas and residential areas, it does not fit into the image we are trying to project as a City, and I do not see any merit in that kind of expenditure. I do not think it necessary to run around the perimeter and delineate the entrance to your boundary with something along those lines. Member Damonte stated that there are other industrial parks in the City that delineate their boundary by some sort of identifying sign, so in that respect, I do not see anything wrong with Gateway doing the same thing, If Gateway is paying the cost on its owns that is something else again. As far as color, I am no authority, but I think that is as close to earth color as you are going go get. As for the size, I think the beauty is in the simplicity. This has been researched enough by people that we call expert in the field and the Board is voicing personal opinions. Mr. Aguilar informed the Board that the City is not participating in the price. He also stated that because concerns have been registered by the Board, they would be more than willing to go back, look at and address, particularly, the color tone issue and come back to the Board, if that would be appropriate. He added that the other conditions that were in the Staff Report, in terms of structural conditions and permits, were acceptable and no problem, but we will be willing to rework this and bring it back to you in a couple of weeks to get your feeling at, that point. -~ Member Teglia asked Mr. Aguilar where is the substitute that your people put in place so that we could get an idea of what this would look like, what happened to that? Mr. Aguilar responded that they could arrange to do that again without much problem if that would be helpful. We actually arranged that through the contractor who is on the jobsite now, and he could certainly schedule that again. Member Teglia said that it sounds like an extraordinary request, but Homart needed the same kind of information and look-see in order to come to this conclusion, and she would like to see it also. Chairman Addiego asked if that would answer enough of the questions of the majority of the Council, it sounds as if it would. Member Teglia stated that she was not sold on the material. 10/24/84 Page 6 REQUEST FOR Mr..Aguilar stated that what was approved before~ is not acceptable SPECIFIC PLAN any longer, it does not do the job. At that time the proper attention AND DESIGN was paid to its impact on the whole area, Our concern is that we APPROVAL - have a building-which we are attempting to lease, and we could not GATEWAY go with the signage until the landscaping was completed, and we are ENTRANCE very anxious to get some identification up there and we can not do it, SIGNING (continued) It was the consensus of the Board that this item would be discussed further at'a later date. GOOD AND Vice Chairman Haffey inquired why the Agenda packets for the Board WELFARE: we'Me delayed, Executive Director Birkelo stated that it was not the intention to deny the Board the material, and ! take responsibility for that and I have no excuse for that, Chairman Addiego invited anyone in the audience to speak on Redevelop~ ment matters. No one spoke. ADJOURNMENT: Member Teglia moved, seconded by Member Damonte, that the meeting be adjourned. Motion, as moved and seconded, was unanimously approved. Time of adjournment; 7:41 p.m. APPROVED Richard~/k.' H~ffejT, Chi' la ,a~n The Redevelopment Age /of the City of South San Fral ;co Respectful ly submitted, C. Walter Birkelo Executive Di rector/Secretary The entries of this Redevelopment Agency meeting show the action taken by the Board to dispose of the item. Oral presentations, arguments, and comments are recorded on tape. The tape and documents related to the items are on file in the Office of the City Manager and available for inspection, review, and copying. 10/24/84 Page 7