Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-20-2020 Final Minutes (2) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES  CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DATE: January 16, 2020 TIME: 4:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Nilmeyer, Mateo, Nelson, & Vieira MEMBERS ABSENT: Winchester STAFF PRESENT: Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner Adena Friedman, Senior Planner Gaspare Annibale, Associate Planner Christy Usher, Consultant Planner Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician 1. Adminstrative Business – None 2. OWNER Roderick Bovee APPLICANT Clarissa Lee ADDRESS 304 Camaritas Avenue PROJECT NUMBER P19-0100: DR19-0050 PROJECT NAME 1st and 2nd story additions to an existing single family residence (Case Planner: Christy Usher) DESCRIPTION Design Review to construct a 91 square foot first-story addition and a 397 square foot second-story addition to an existing one-story single family residence located at 304 Camaritas Avenune in the Low Residential Density (RL-8) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board commented the proposed project was nicely done and will be compatible with the existing neighborhood and streetscape. 2. The Board advised the applicant that the proposed trees will not survive and reach full growth potential; therefore, the Board recommended the applicant plant a total of two 15-gallon single trunk Coast Live Oak trees along the Camaritas and Flores street frontages. 3. The Board requested that the proposed windows be energy efficient and that the proposed windows match the existing windows in material, color, and trim. Recommend Approval with Conditions 3. OWNER LPGS Tanforan LLC APPLICANT LPGS Tanforan LLC ADDRESS 30 Tanforan Avenue PROJECT NUMBER P19-0087: UP19-0021, TDM19-0009, DR19-0045 & DA19-0003 PROJECT NAME New Commercial Buildings (Case Planner: Adena Friedman) DESCRIPTION Use Permit, Design Review, Development Agreement, Specific Plan, Parcel Map, Precise Plan, Transportation Demand Management Program, and Environmental Impact Report to construct six office / R&D buildings ranging in heights up to seven-stories and totaling approximately 2,659,000 square feet, development of a parking garage, below-grade parking, site amenities, open space and landscaping on a 26-acre site in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. 1. The Board liked the design concept of the overall campus. 2. The proposed phases of the buildings are all tied together nicely. 3. The vision glass and proposed colors are very warm and friendly feeling to the campus. 4. Brick and terracotta are nice materials, the metal panels should have a patina with a matte finish. 5. The applicant should incorporate solar panels to their design; consider installing on the top floor of parking lot structure. 6. The Board recommends integrating the patina of the older surrounding construction with the new construction in Phase 1. 7. The applicant should propose some type of sealant to the exterior material finish of the buildings, make sure that it retains a matte finish. 8. The Board would like to see a pedestrian connection that would connect to the Shops of Tanforan and San Bruno Towne Center. The connection would provide access to the local shops and restaurants. 9. The applicant should evaluate the construction during Phase 1 to determine if the underground parking structure is sufficient to meet all the parking needs for the entire campus, and perhaps the parking structure would not be needed in Phase 2 & 3, or the size could be reduced. 10. A parking study may help determine how much parking will be required in phase 2 and 3. 11. A traffic study should be conducted to see how the overall site works with traffic and the grade separation. 12. The TDM plan should incorporate shuttle service to both the SSF and San Bruno Caltrain stations. 13. Ensure measures to reduce the construction impact to the adjourning residential neighborhood. 14. Consider adding a layer of trees or shrubs around the green screens of the mechanical areas. The wall can be a green patina of copper with less volume and will use less space. 15. Green screens don’t necessary work well and does not need to be a planting solution, as the proposed vines may be unrelaible and may not work. 16. The proposed landscaping tree plans are mostly small and deciduous. Change some of the predominant deciduous trees to evergreen species for winter green. Install some clusters of larger trees that will scale with the buildings at certain focal points around the propertyk, where there is no over structure condition. Examples are redwood trees, atlas cedars, poplars and eucalyptus trees. These trees will get bigger in scale and define the campus, and the street trees will remain at a more human scale. 17. Eucalyptus citreadora is a good tree species that is light and open and grows tall in scale with the buildings. These may have to be sourced out of Southern California. 18. Most plants called out on the landscaping plan would grow well on this campus. The proposed Trumpet vine-distictus species should have a long longevity life and Star Jasmine will work as well on this site. 19. What is the landscaping plan for the Bio Retention area? 20. The plan needs to define the ADA accessibly on the campus. How will someone get from one building to another, as well to the amenities building? Make sure accessible path of travel is called out on plan documents. 21. Use as much permeable paving as possible. 22. Overall the lighting plan is well done however the lighting plan seems to be lacking certain intersection points. Review the entry zones, ensure that it matches with the landscaping plan. The lighting plan is missing lighting at entry points to Building 6 and 7. 23. The buffer space that is facing Tanforan Avenue should have an inviting area with some accessible paths and seating areas for the residential neighborhood to use. Good neighbor opportunities. 24. A Master Sign Program will be presented at a future Design Review Board meeting. Recommend Approval with Comments 4. OWNER Baden Development LLC APPLICANT Baden Development LLC ADDRESS 428 Baden Avenue PROJECT NUMBER P19-0021: UP19-0005 & DR19-0022 PROJECT NAME New Multi-Family Residential (Case Planner: Gaspare Annibale) DESCRIPTION Use Permit and Design Review to construct a new 36-unit residential development at 428 Baden Avenue in the Downtown Residential Core (DRC) in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board liked the design concept. 2. The Board would like to see a screen element on the 2nd floor side balconies, to help block noise and debris forming on the adjacent neighbor’s side. 3. Consider relocating the balconies to the east side of the building. 4. Confirm with the Engineering Department on the parking and circulation requirements on the drive aisles in the parking garage. 5. The applicant may need to round out the corners to prevent the residents from hitting the wall or adding striping to the area to prevent cars from parking in this area. 6. The site is lacking street trees. Consider adding some boxed planters or potted pots with appropriate species, along the front elevation. 7. Consider adding a parklet to incorporate a landscape feature. 8. Incorporate an accessible lobby area for the residents to occupy and utilize. 9. The 3-story residential building next to this development will be facing a long blank wall. 10. Is there consideration for the adjacent residential? 11. The proposed columns on the decks don’t match the renderings. 12. The proposed color palette is cold looking. Add some warm colors to the design with new material finishes. 13. Incorporate solar panels into the development. Recommend Approval with Conditions.