Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-19-2020 Final Minutes DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES  CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DATE: May 19, 2020 TIME: 4:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Chris Mateo, Chair Sean Winchester, Vice Chair Michael Nilmeyer David Nelson, Frank Vieira MEMBERS ABSENT: none STAFF PRESENT: Sailesh Mehra, Planning Manager Adena Friedman, Senior Planner Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner Gaspare Annibale, Associate Planner Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician 1. Adminstrative Business – Appointment of Chair and Vice Chair The Board voted in:  Chair – Christopher Mateo  Vice Chair – Sean Winchester 2. OWNER Carlos & Amanda Barba APPLICANT Andrea Costanzo ADDRESS 701 Olive Avenue PROJECT NUMBER P19-0054: DR19-0030 PROJECT NAME New Residential Duplex and SFD Remodel (Case Planner: Stephanie Skangos) DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal” - Design Review to add 1,723 square feet to an existing dwelling and construct a new duplex at 701 Olive Avenue in the Downtown Residential High (DRH) in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and determination that the project will be categorically exempt from CEQA. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board liked the revised design concept. 2. The Designer responded to the prior comments by:  Enclosing the stairwell, which helped enhance the design;  Expanding the roof lines for both structures;  Adding black trim around the windows;  Adding belly bands to the structure to help breakup the overall massing; and  Adding a gray color palette to both buildings and a brown railing treatment, which was successful to the design. 3. The revisions to the plans made a nice architectural blend to both structures. 4. The wood material is a nice element for the guardrail; consider a composite material for the guardrail. 5. The proposed trees need to be planted in 24-inch boxes. 6. Nice open space concept for the development. 7. Check with the Building Department if the new proposed duplex will require an additional exit from the 3rd floor to meet egress. Recommend Approval with Conditions 3. OWNER 150 Airport SSF LLC APPLICANT Rocky Shen ADDRESS 150-200 Airport Blvd PROJECT NUMBER P16-0021: SIGNS20-0007 PROJECT NAME Master Sign Program (Case Planner: Adena Friedman) DESCRIPTION Master Sign Program for a residential project at 150 & 200 Airport Blvd in the Downtown Transit Core (DTC) 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 liked the proposed permanment signage for the buildings. 2. The Board is concerned with the amount and size of the temporary signs and banners. 3. Consider reducing and eliminating some of the marketing signs, there are too many for the site. 4. Reduce the number of banners facing Airport Blvd. 5. The building side facing the railroad tracks is a better location for marketing / leasing signs. Consider reducing the leasing signs, too tall for the area. 6. Will there be any proposed signage indicating the new proposed Caltrain station that will be near this development? 7. The proposed “Altitude” sign on the building should have a larger band around it to create a frame around the sign. Consider increasing the width of the band by 3-5 inches, or reducing the size of the sign to allow more of the building finish to be exposed around it. Resubmittal required. 4. OWNER Thomas Murphy APPLICANT Aralon Properties ADDRESS 499 Forbes Blvd PROJECT NUMBER P19-0001: UP19-0011, DR19-0032, EIR19-0003 & TDM19-0005 PROJECT NAME New Office R&D Bldg, Parking Garage, ROW & Trail Improvements (Case Planner: Chris Espiritu) DESCRIPTION Design Review, Conditional Use Permit, Tentative Map and Transportation Demand Management Plan to construct a new 5-Story Office R&D building, 5-level parking garage, public right-of-way and trail improvements at 499 Forbes Blvd in the Business and Technology Park (BTP) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board liked the revised design concept. 2. The entrances into the building now have a sense of arrival to the campus. 3. The applicant took the prior comments from DRB and designed a nice iconic building. 4. The treatment to the pedestrian plaza and access to the Bay Trail is very inviting to the area. 5. The Board liked the shifting of the parking structure and splitting of the building is a creative change to the design. 6. Please review the attached landscaping comments:  Consider using an alternative species, as the proposed includes Acacia whichcan cause allergic reactions to individuals with hay fever.  Holly Oak is not a successful species in SSF; consider using Quercus Virginiana or Southern Live Oak.  With SSF’s typical cool weather, Tristania Laurina “Elegent”, Water Gum will not grow much taller than 20-25 feet, and it will not scale the height of the proposed buildings on the east face side.  Consider a 60 ft. tree species for the street tree and the buffer tree on the east building face.  Ceanothus “Yankee Point”. Yankee Point Ceanothus does not live long and may not be a good fit for the SSF cool climate.  Consider using Ceanothus “Anchor Bay”. Anchor Bay Ceanothus has successfully been growing well in SSF for over 27 years.  “Cistus Aibidus”, Rock Rose will require sandy fast draining soil. The proposed site most likely has heavy clayed soil, which will limit its life span to only surviving for a few years. Consider an alternative plant species.  “Helictortrican Sempervirens”, Blue Oat Grass has mixed results in SSF. Consider one of the other very successful clumpy grasses.  The “Boxer Vine” and “Potato Vine” on the list for the multi-story green screen on the west face of the parking structure will likely not reach their maximum height of 20-30 ft. The best vine for a multi-story screen element should be Wisteria or consider an alternative species. 7. Review the ADA accessible path to ensure safe travel into the buildings. 8. Review the proposed lighting plan so that it will not affect the flight pattern. Does the plan meet the FAA requirements? 9. Will the project be solar ready? 10. The applicant will return with a sign program for the campus. Recommend Approval with Conditions. 5. OWNER Gladys Ann Callan TR ET AL APPLICANT Proto Architecture LLP - Alan Cross ADDRESS 2211-2245 Gellert Blvd PROJECT NUMBER P20-0002: UP20-0001, DR20-0002, TDM20-0002 & ND20-0001 PROJECT NAME New Automotive Car Sales Lot (Case Planner: Gaspare Annibale) DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal” - Use Permit, Design Review and Transportation Demand Program to allow a new automotive/vehicle sales and services business at 2211 & 2245 Gellert Blvd in the Community Commercial (CC) Zone District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board is still concerned that the proposed use should not be located near a residential district. 2. The Board is still concerned with the proposed Beacon; it’s too large and still unresolved in terms of whether the Beacon is an architecture feature or a sign. 3. Perspectives which show the Beacon appears to make it seem shorter than it would really be. 4. The Board appreciates the site section which better shows the relationship of the overall project specifically the beacon and the existing trees to the east and neighboring multi- family housing to the west across Gellert Blvd. 5. The raised walkways in the driveways are fine; however the Board questions whether the yellow concrete with a stamping pattern makes sense for this project. 6. Consider adding solar panels within the parking lot (carports), as this may be a nice feature for the residences to view, instead of looking at cars from their windows. 7. The proposed landscaping screening is not sufficient. 8. The excessive bright lighting is inappropriate for nighttime glare that is directly in line with the night views from the residential units of the city and the bay beyond. 9. The applicant has addressed some of the comments from the prior DRB meeting, but still needs to be further reviewed. 10. The following comments are given in response that the applicant will incorporate them to mitigate the appearance of the large exposed parking lot, which does not have the typically required tree coverage and contains excessive bright lighting. 11. The tree species proposed in the prior submittal have not changed. Lophostemon Confetus “Variegata”, Brisbane Box may do poorly in the local heavy soil and cool wind. The species only grows as expected where the wind is protected. Gellert Blvd will not be wind protected. 12. Fern Pine is not widely planted in SSF and may not be a reliable species. 13. The proposed plans shows 24” box size trees in 4” square holes, which are too small to support the large trees needed to visually buffer the effect of the large expanse of a treeless parking area with excessively bright lighting. 14. Suggest initial tree size of 48” box, 14-16 ft. tall vs 10-12 ft. for 24” box, to better provide initial screening and with the slower than normal growth rate in the cool windy climate will result a better mitigation. 15. The tree planting holes should be a minimum 10’ x 10’x 3’ deep at the perimeter and 12’ x 12’ x 3’ deep for all trees in the parking lot islands and backfilled with structured soil. This treatment allows the parking lot paving over the tree root zone at the necessary compaction. 16. The heavy soil may require sub-drainage that may require tree drain holes. 17. The Muhlenbergia Rigens, “Deer Grass” is native to the central valley of California. It does not grow well in the cool microclimate of SSF. 18. Consider Muhlenbergia Capillaris, “Pink Muhly”, which grows exceedingly well in SSF. 19. The proposed light levels are too high. Typical parking lots in SSF are 1 footcandle (fc). The photometric plan is showing 22 fc and higher along Gellert Blvd, which is across from a residential dwelling units, which will impact their night views and towards the bay. 20. Suggest the approval of the project to include a stipulation that the light levels will be reviewed and any adjacent resident complaints or comments be taken into account in requiring diminishing the maximum fc levels. 21. The Board has mixed reviews of this project and ideally would like to see the proposed changes again. Resubmittal recommended