Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0013_2_Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Staff Report for September 17, 2020City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:20-624 Agenda Date:9/17/2020 Version:1 Item #:3. Report regarding consideration of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and application for a Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and Transportation Demand Management Plan to construct a new five-story hotel with 95 rooms and two-levels of below-grade parking at 840 El Camino Real in the El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code (SSFMC) and per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution making findings and (1) adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration with accompanying Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program; and (2) approving the entitlements request for Project P17-0108, including Conditional Use Permit UP17-0021, Design Review Permit DR17-0069, and Transportation Demand Management Program TDM17-0005, subject to the attached draft Conditions of Approval. PROJECT OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND The applicant proposes to construct a new five-story hotel with 95 rooms and two-levels of below-grade parking at 840 El Camino Real in the El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX) Zoning District. The site is located within a three-mile radius from San Francisco International Airport (SFO), and close proximity to the South San Francisco Bart Station and other public transportation systems. The approximately 20,132 sq. ft. site is developed with an existing 2,000 sq. ft. commercial building and asphalt paving for parking and is currently vacant. The immediate surrounding uses include an existing auto workshop and motel along El Camino Real and existing residential neighborhood to the rear. There is a 20-foot grade difference at the rear of the subject parcel that separates the site from the residential neighborhood. All existing improvements on the site will be demolished as part of this proposal. The applicant indicates that the proposed hotel will be branded “Fairfield by Marriott Inn & Suites.” Construction would include a five-story building, site improvements, and two levels of underground parking. The proposed hotel building is approximately 50,231 sq. ft. and 74 feet tall to the top of parapet. The two-level below-grade parking is approximately 30,640 sq. ft. with a total of 69 parking spaces; two additional parking spaces are provided at grade-level with a total of 71 vehicle spaces for the project. Nine bicycle parking spaces are also provided on-site. The proposed hotel will have 95 guestrooms in total, consisting of 36 King rooms, 19 King Suites, 27 Double Queen rooms, seven Double Queen Suites, and six accessible rooms. The four guestroom floors will have over nine-foot high ceilings. The hotel will be open 24 hours, seven days a week, and will staff 10 employees at any one time. The main floor will be primarily comprised of common usage areas, including a reception lobby, lounge, breakfast area and public restrooms. The general office and laundry facility will also be located on this floor. The proposed below-grade parking garage is connected by a ramp that is located on the northern side of the site to take advantage of the existing topography and reduce the length of the ramp. The hotel will have two elevators that will ascend from the lower parking garage levels to all levels of the building. Additionally, the building will incorporate green features for passive energy savings, including a cool roofCity of South San Francisco Printed on 9/11/2020Page 1 of 8 powered by Legistar™ Attachment 2 - Planning Commission Staff Report for September 17, 2020 File #:20-624 Agenda Date:9/17/2020 Version:1 Item #:3. Additionally,the building will incorporate green features for passive energy savings,including a cool roof topping,overhangs,dual glazed windows,solar panels on the roof top,open space and landscaping around the building,and eight electrical vehicle charging stations.Plans are included as Exhibit D to the Associated Resolution. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) An IS/MND was prepared by Rincon Consultants,Inc.for the proposed project.It was circulated in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)for 30 days to the State and other reviewing agencies/jurisdictions, and interested parties, from April 14, 2020 - May 14, 2020. The IS/MND finds that the following resources could be potentially impacted by this proposed project:Air Quality,Biological Resources,Cultural Resources,Geology and Soils,and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. However,mitigation measures are proposed that would ensure the potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. The proposed mitigation measures are typical for a modern construction project and detailed within the IS/MND, and summarized below: 1.Implementation of Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)construction best management practices to reduce air quality impacts associated with grading and new construction; 2.Biological mitigation measures designed to protect any nesting birds that may be on site; 3.Archaeological and / or paleontological evaluation in the case of accidental discovery of resources; 4.Adherence to geotechnical investigation recommendations; 5.Best management practices to control stormwater during construction and post-construction; and, 6.Best management practices to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These required mitigations will be incorporated into the Project through a Condition of Approval requiring compliance with the IS/MND mitigation measures. Comments on the IS/MND The comment period on the IS/MND document closed on May 14,2020 and comments were received from a member of the public as well as a law firm representing labor unions.A summary of the comments received and response to the comments received can be found in Exhibits B through B-4 to the Associated Resolution. The draft IS/MND was updated and finalized in response to the public comments received.The revisions are minor technical revisions and corrections to calculations.These corrections do not change the IS/MND’s conclusions of the absence of significant impacts and do not introduce new significant impacts or necessitates new mitigation measures.Under state law,If public comments to an IS/MND result in new information about the project,such as a significant effect resulting from the project and the implementation of new mitigation measures,the IS/MND must be recirculated for subsequent review by other agencies and the public (14 Cal. Code Reg.§15073.5).Recirculation is not required if any revisions to the project do not result in new impacts, or if new information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies,amplifies,or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration.Here,none of the written comments received or minor changes to update the draft IS/MND affect the adequacy of the substantive environmental analysis contained in the draft IS/MND,or result in new significant effect as outlined under section 15073.5,and thus do not result in the need to prepare an EIR, or the need to recirculate the IS/MND. City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/11/2020Page 2 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-624 Agenda Date:9/17/2020 Version:1 Item #:3. The finalized IS/MND,including a technical revision attachment,are included in the Associated Resolution as Exhibits A through A-2. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on Wednesday,February 19,2020,at the Municipal Services Building,to discuss the project and hear comments and questions from neighbors.At this meeting,several residents attended who live in the abutting neighborhood to the North or who live in the general vicinity. Several of these residents voiced concerns with:the bulk and massing of the proposed hotel,cut-through traffic from the hotel into the abutting neighborhood,as well as,guests and employees parking their vehicles in the abutting neighborhood.Another important concern raised by the immediate neighbors was separation/privacy and installation of landscaping.Other participants cited that there was too much development happening in the City. The applicant also completed additional individual outreach to the site’s immediate surrounding neighbors, including the existing business along El Camino Real,and the residential properties at the rear of the site.The existing commercial tenants were in favor of the proposal,while some of the residential residents were concerned about potential noise and vibration impacts during construction,as well as potential loss of sunlight and privacy.A summary of the applicant’s additional community outreach is included as Attachment 2 to this staff report. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY The City’s General Plan designates the parcel as El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMU),which is intended to accommodate high-intensity active uses and mixed use development in the South El Camino Real area.The frontage of a site along El Camino Real is required to be devoted to uses that are accessible to the general public and generate walk-in pedestrian clientele and contribute to a high level of pedestrian activity,including retail shops,restaurants,bars,theaters and the performing arts,commercial recreation and entertainment, personal and convenience services,hotels,banks,travel agencies,child care services,libraries,museums and galleries.The proposed hotel use is therefore consistent with the City’s general vision for orderly development and is appropriately sited. ZONING CONSISTENCY El Camino Real Mixed-Use Zoning District The site is located within the El Camino Real Mixed-Use (ECRMX)Zoning District.Hotels are allowed in this district subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.The project meets the following development regulations of the Zoning District: ·Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Permitted: 2.5, Proposed: 2.5 ·Lot Coverage Permitted: 90%, Proposed: 42.5% ·Height Permitted: 80’, Proposed: 74’ ·Building Setbacks o Front Required: 12’ with 16’ average; Proposed: 13’ with 16.3’ average o Interior Side Required 0’; Proposed: 8’-4” for right and 7’ for left o Rear Required: 15’; Proposed: 15’ City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/11/2020Page 3 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-624 Agenda Date:9/17/2020 Version:1 Item #:3. ·Landscaping Required: 10%, Proposed: 11.4% Design Review The applicant has proposed a five-story building with a contemporary mix of materials and color.The front façade offers depth and height,with a solid white background providing a consistent look.The main floor is prominent with a 15-foot height and 12-foot tall exterior glass storefront windows.The two side facades, visible from along El Camino Real,exhibit articulation and maintain a consistent look with the front façade. The bulk of the building is reduced by breaking it into smaller masses that correspond to the internal functionality of the building.The design is balanced on all sides and is consistent with the guiding design elements of the City’s Municipal Code. Parking Section 20.330.006(C)of the Municipal Code allows for parking reductions for airport-oriented hotels with approval of a Conditional Use Permit.A Conditional Use Permit may be approved for a reduced off-street parking ratio of not less than one space for each three rooms,one-half space for each 20 rooms for employee parking and one space for every 50 sq.ft.of meeting rooms and one space for each 200 sq.ft.of lobby and office area.A lower than one space per unit ratio may be approved if the applicant provides substantial justification.In this case,the applicant is proposing a 0.75 ratio of required parking,following the parking guidelines. A breakdown is provided below: ·Parking spaces per total rooms: 32 stalls (95 rooms with 1 space per 3 rooms) ·0.5 space for each 20 rooms for employee parking: 2 stalls ·1 space for every 50 sq. ft. of meeting rooms (0 sq. ft.): 0 stalls ·1 space for each 200 sq. ft. of lobby and office area (479 sq. ft.): 2 stalls ·Total required parking under guidelines: 36 stalls ·Total provided parking by applicant: 71 stalls Although the applicant has provided above the minimum standard for airport-oriented hotels,the Zoning Ordinance requires that the applicant justify a parking ratio of less than one space per room.Section 20.330.006 outlines several factors that an applicant should address related to a parking reduction: 1.Distance from airport -Airport-oriented hotels are usually located no further than three miles from the San Francisco International Airport (SFO).The proposed hotel is located approximately 3.5 miles from SFO,which slightly exceeds this criterion.Staff believes this distance is still appropriate since air travel traffic and lodging demand continues to grow strongly and available space within three miles of the airport is limited, despite the current pandemic. 2.Availability of airport bus and/or limousine service -The proposed project will coordinate with an independent shuttle service to and from the airport.This service already operates airport pick up at local hotels in the area and the request will be to extend the service to this project.Additionally,there is an existing limousine service company located within a half-mile of the proposed hotel. 3.Proximity of auto rental facilities -Five facilities (Avis,Enterprise,Hertz,Payless,and SIXT)are located within approximately two miles of the proposed hotel. 4.Availability of parking facilities adjoining the site -There are no adjoining parking lots that would be City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/11/2020Page 4 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-624 Agenda Date:9/17/2020 Version:1 Item #:3. 4.Availability of parking facilities adjoining the site -There are no adjoining parking lots that would be used as part of this application and this criteria is not able to be met.However,based on the amount of parking that can be provided for the project, staff believes that overflow parking will not be an issue. 5.Documentation of actual use of parking spaces at an existing and comparable facility - A parking demand study was prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. Parking occupancy counts at other comparable hotels in the area indicate that the proposed parking would meet the projected parking demand. The average parking ratio observed at comparable hotels was found to be 0.66 spaces per room, which calculates to 63 vehicles for 95 rooms. As proposed, the project would provide eight more parking spaces than the projected peak parking demand. Therefore, the 71 parking spaces proposed is expected to be adequate to serve the site. 6.Availability of on-site meeting rooms and conference facilities -The project does not include on-site meeting rooms or conference facilities,and in-turn,would not generate the need for additional parking for outside meeting and/or conference attendees. 7.Designation of additional parking for extended parking for guests using the airport -This is not proposed and given the parking reduction request,would not be recommended for support.A Condition of Approval prohibiting long term parking for airport users is proposed for the Planning Commission’s consideration. As documented above,the project satisfies the conditions for reduced parking for airport oriented hotels.Staff believes that the proposed parking will be sufficient and can be supported,as the amount of parking to be provided is projected to be able to meet parking demand,and parking demand will be even further met with the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan discussed in the below section. Transportation Demand Management Plan The City requires that all new non-residential development that would generate more than 100 daily trips prepare a TDM Plan to achieve at least a 28%alternative mode share.As proposed,the project is anticipated to generate more than 100 daily trips,and is required to implement a TDM program.The TDM Plan,prepared by TJKM Transportation Consultants (Exhibit E to the Associated Resolution),identifies appropriate TDM measures that have the potential to achieve the required 28%alternative mode use by employees.The proposed measures include strategies and incentives to encourage employees to use alternatives other than driving alone, such as walking,bicycling,use of public transportation,or carpooling when traveling to and from work. Existing transportation services within the area such as SamTrans bus routes,BART service,and bicycle and pedestrian routes support the use of commute alternatives. TDM measures proposed include the following: ·Carpool and Vanpool Ride Matching Services and Incentive Program:this allows the employer to match potential carpoolers and vanpoolers by administering a carpool/vanpool matching application with those who work on-site or nearby. ·Guaranteed Ride Home:this provides carpool,vanpool and transit riders with guaranteed paid rides home in emergency situations. ·Subsidized Transit Passes:this encourages employees to use transit rather than drive to work by subsidizing employee costs for the use of public transportation such as BART, Caltrain or buses. The preliminary TDM plan complies with the City’s ordinance and will include free emergency rides home, transit subsidies,a shuttle program,secure bicycle storage and subsidies,employee showers and a commute City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/11/2020Page 5 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-624 Agenda Date:9/17/2020 Version:1 Item #:3. transit subsidies,a shuttle program,secure bicycle storage and subsidies,employee showers and a commute coordinator for assistance.All of the proposed measures are feasible and appropriate and reporting requirements will ensure compliance on an annual basis.The project applicant will be responsible for ensuring that the trip reduction measures are implemented to the level necessary to achieve the trip reduction goal for the life of the project.A Condition of Approval for reporting and submittal of a Final TDM plan prior to building permit has been included.The Final TDM Plan can incorporate any additional measures that the Planning Commission feels are appropriate to reduce vehicle traffic. Transportation Impact Analysis The Transportation Impact Analysis was conducted for the purpose of identifying the potential transportation impacts related to the proposed development (Exhibit A to the Associated Resolution).The potential effects were evaluated in accordance with the standards set forth by the City,and City/County Association of Government of San Mateo County.The traffic study analyzed traffic operations for two signalized intersections and two unsignalized intersections in the immediate vicinity of the project site,which includes an analysis of vehicular,transit,bicycle,and pedestrian access and parking.Traffic conditions at the study intersections were conducted using Level of Service (LOS)to provide an estimate of operating conditions.As previously described,existing uses on the project site included a commercial use with an existing parking lot.The traffic study includes an analysis of weekday AM peak and PM peak hour traffic conditions. Trip generation rates for the proposed project were based on published trip rates presented in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE),Trip Generation Manual,10th Edition,for Hotel (Land Use Code 312). Average rates were used to determine the magnitude of trips that would be generated by the project.Taking into account the trip reduction from customers using transit,carpools,and airport shuttles,the project is estimated to generate a total of 344 daily trips with a net increase of 33 total trips occurring during the AM peak hour and net increase of 27 total trips occurring during the PM peak hour.It is important to note that while the proposed hotel use would generate new trips to and from the project site,these trips would not induce a comparable number of trips compared to former commercial use on the project site.Therefore,the expected trip generation from the proposed hotel is not expected to have a significant impact on the surrounding area as the proposed project. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD The Design Review Board (DRB)considered this project at their January 16,2018,April 17,2018 and February 18,2020 meetings.At the first meeting,the DRB had concerns about the building design and overall scale in relation to the site and surrounding smaller-scale properties,lack of articulation along the front façade, and inadequate landscaping along the frontage of the project site.The applicant revised the design significantly, and the DRB supported the redesign during their meeting in April,2018.However,the applicant made additional revisions to the proposal,and the project was reviewed once again by the DRB in February,2020. The DRB supported the design and recommended approval to the Planning Commission,with the following suggestions: 1.The trees along the street frontage and back of the property should be planted with 24 inch box sizes with excellent structural soil in 12'x12'x3'tree pits to support healthy trees to scale with the tall buildings. 2.Consider the use of Platanus acerifolia 'Columbia'-Columbia London Plane Trees along the street frontage, with some tall evergreen trees on the corners. 3.Consider the use of 24"deep aeration pipes the length of street frontage,to support tree deep rooting for trees planted at the street frontage,to improve air exchange in the soil and allow roots to root at the City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/11/2020Page 6 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-624 Agenda Date:9/17/2020 Version:1 Item #:3. trees planted at the street frontage,to improve air exchange in the soil and allow roots to root at the level of the aeration pipe and not below the sidewalk. 4.Consider the interaction between trees and bioretention areas,such as the trees’capability to accommodate wet winters in these areas.Consider the use of Acer rubrum 'Armstrong'-Armstrong Maple. 5.Consider the use of pavers instead of stamped concrete. Staff has analyzed the recommendations and included them in the draft Conditions of Approval for the Planning Commission’s consideration. CONCLUSION The project,as conditioned,is compliant with the City’s Municipal Code,General Plan,Zoning Development Standards and Design Criteria,and will implement all recommended mitigation measures as outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program,as well as the recommended strategies to achieve and maintain the target alternative mode included in the Transportation Demand Management Plan for the proposal. Therefore,staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution making findings and (1) adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration with accompanying Mitigation,Monitoring,and Reporting Program;and (2)approving the entitlements request for Project P17-0108,including Conditional Use Permit UP17-0021,Design Review Permit DR17-0069,and Transportation Demand Management Program TDM17-0005, subject to the attached draft Conditions of Approval. Attachments: 1.Summary of Community Outreach 2.Design Review Board Minutes (January 16, 2018, April 17, 2018 & February 18, 2020) Associated Documents- the following exhibits are attached to Associated Resolution #20-625: 1.840 El Camino Real CEQA and Entitlements Resolution A.Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration A-1. Associated MMRP A-2. Technical Revision to IS/MND B.IS/MND Comments Received (Comments No.1 and No. 2) B-1. Applicant Response to Comment No. 1 B-2. Rincon Response to Comment No. 2 B-3. Applicant Response to Comment No. 2 B-4. City Summary of Responses to Comment No. 2 and Findings C.Draft Conditions of Approval D.Project Plans City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/11/2020Page 7 of 8 powered by Legistar™ File #:20-624 Agenda Date:9/17/2020 Version:1 Item #:3. E.Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/11/2020Page 8 of 8 powered by Legistar™ From:Biney Sagoo To:Skangos, Stephanie; Mehra, Sailesh; Natubhai D Patel; raj patel; Darshan Patel; Apri Ghuman Date:Tuesday, July 28, 2020 5:07:32 AM Dear Stephanie:Following is the log of our outreach to the neighbors. Text in blue hasalready been shared with you = Text in purple is the new conversation that wehad with the neighbors.Please let me know, should you need any additional informationRegardsBiney 1. 112 A Street. Jorge De Leon - May 6th around 10:30 am - He was neutraland was not opposed to the project. He understands that some project or theother will have to be built on the site. 2. 116 A Street. Diane Portillo - May 6th around 10:40 am - no response lefta message on answering machine offering to meet her within this week. 3. 120 A Street. JJ LU - Do not have her number so I left her anemail offering her to meet her this week. 4. 124 A Street. Gabriel Duenas - May 6th around 10:45 am. He has concernsabout the project. He will get together with his neighbors and let us know,if they want to meet us. We have left our contact info and have offered tomeet them anytime this week. 5. Manubhai of ALL SEASONS Motel at 800 ECR (Tel: 650.589.6702): 9:45 AM: No Objection, support the proposed hotel, and looking forward to assisting as ADJOINING neighbor to the SOUTH on ECR. 6. James Griffin of WEST COAST AUTO SERVICE at 872 ECR (Tel: 650.273.2597): 10:05 AM: Left Message. They are ADJOINING neighbor to the NORTH on ECR. 7. Richard of GARLAND BODY SHOP at 890 ECR (Tel: 650.588.1764 at the office): 9:55 AM: Called him on his cell and said to call back when in the office at his office no. They are two businesses over to the NORTH on ECR. 8. Dayalbhai of DAYAL INSURANCE SERVICES at 786 ECR (Tel: 415.240.9593): 10:15 AM: No Objection and support the proposed hotel. They are one street over to the NORTH on ECR The following is the summary from her call (@10:35 AM on 5/19/20) that includes the following: 1. She has sleep apnea, panic attacks and depression with occasional migraine headaches that requires her to sleep during day time, and was concerned with noise from construction activities. 2. Any vibrations from excavation or digging activities that break her piping etc, like a sewer line, she will take legal advice and would want it replaced. She is 65+ years old w/ a disabled son, and is on fixed income & does not money for such things. 3. Potential loss of value of home. 4. Potential loss of sun in backyard and privacy. 5. Would be helpful if City can put a new stop light on ECR here close by, which she had requested several times before. This would alleviate the pain of crossing several lanes at ECR here to take northbound bus, or to long walk south on ECR sidewalk and crossover at Westborough Blvd/ECR light and then come back up on northbound ECR sidewalk to take northbound bus. Biney js Sagoo Founding Partner Director Design, Construction and Project Profiling B.Architecture MA Interior Design B Design Studio . Design Management. San Francisco Gurgaon Houston DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DATE: January 16, 2018 TIME: 4:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Nilmeyer, Nelson, Williams & Vieira MEMBERS ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner Justin Shiu, Consultant Planner Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician 1.OWNER South City Partners LLC APPLICANT Natubhai D. Patel ADDRESS 840 El Camino Real PROJECT NUMBER P17-0108: UP17-0021, DR17-0069 & TDM17-0005 PROJECT NAME New LaQuinta Hotel (Case Planner: Ryan Wassum) DESCRIPTION Use Permit, Design Review and TDM Plan to construct a new 5-story hotel with 2-levels parking at 840 El Camino Real in the El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The Board had the following comments: 1. The design and overall scale of the proposed project appears too large for the site and surrounding smaller-scale properties. 2. On the front façade, the top of the building is too horizontal and flat, and needs to incorporate additional articulation and depth in height (similar to the side elevations). 3. The Board is concerned with the rear retaining wall and how it is represented on the set of plans. On the plans, please confirm if there are any proposed encroachments onto the residential properties; depending on placement of the retaining wall, permission may need to be obtained from adjacent property owners. 4. The parking structure, as proposed, is located within the 15’ rear yard setback, as well as directly adjacent to residential properties. If the rear of the parking structure is not located fully below grade, and is instead located at or above grade, then the garage would need to meet the 15’ rear yard setback (please work with staff to identify a solution). In addition, the rear location of the parking structure and close proximity to adjacent residences may create the following negative impacts: a. High volume of noise from vehicles circulating the parking structure. b. Unsightly views from the residential properties that face directly into the parking structure. Please redesign the parking structure and circulation ramp to mitigate the above concerns. 5. Landscape Plan: a. Please address the proposed location of street trees as they should be located next to face of curb (if utilities prohibit this however, please state this reason and list the type of utility prohibiting face of curb placement). b. The frontage of the project site should include more street trees, as well as a larger tree species that will grow taller and scale with the building. Tree recommendations should be provided from the Grand Boulevard Initiative (GBI) tree list, or from the City’s Department of Parks and Recreation. c. Enlarge the planter strips on both sides of the building. In addition, some of the plant species chosen will use too much water, therefore please replace with species that are low water and drought-tolerant. d. Demonstrate how the landscaping plan will meet water treatment regulations. 6. On the plans, please show (and dimension) any proposed building encroachments over property lines, including the proposed canopies on the front of the build. If requesting any encroachments, please also note the following: a. Encroachments into the public right-of-way will need to be reviewed by the Engineering and Building division. b. For any encroachments near El Camino Real, please coordinate with Caltrans on their review and approval process. 7. The trash enclosure area may need additional area for circulation and pick up. Please coordinate with South San Francisco Scavenger on proposed location and pickup plan. 8. In your next submittal, please also include the following missing sheets and analysis for review: a. Topographic Survey (including adjacent properties and all property lines) b. Grading and Drainage plan (including interaction with adjacent properties) Show wall sections and footings where currently very close to property lines. Define grade changes around rear corners. Resubmitted required. 2.OWNER Xu Zijun APPLICANT Millard Theodore Pratt ADDRESS 7 Chico Court PROJECT NUMBER P17-0099: DR17-0065 PROJECT NAME 2nd Story Addition (Case Planner: Justin Shiu) DESCRIPTION Design Review to construct a 2nd story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 7 Chico Court in the Low Density Residential (RL-8) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is exempt from CEQA, per Class 1, Section 15301. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board recommends lowering the front tower element to align with the height of the roof. 2. Provide details on how the windows will be trimmed. All the windows should match on all the elevations. 3. Consider a 2-car tandem parking garage and eliminate the open parking spaces in the front yard or screen the front yard to enclose the open parking spaces with a 3ft. evergreen hedge or solid fence, to screen from adjacent properties and ROW. 4. Consider a tree in the front yard. Resubmitted required. 3.OWNER Tammy Maker APPLICANT Hector Estipona ADDRESS 756 Grand Avenue PROJECT NUMBER P18-0001: DR18-0001 PROJECT NAME New SFD and Addition to Existing Dwelling (Case Planner: Justin Shiu) DESCRIPTION Design Review construct a new Single Family Dwelling and add a second story addition to the existing Single Family Dwelling at 756 Grand Avenue in the Downtown Residential Low (DRL) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA, per Class 1, Section 15301. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board liked the design 2. Consider alternative band color to compliment the color of the house. 3. All the windows should match on all the elevations. 4. Contact the Park Department to determine the Parks In-Lieu fees. Recommend Approval with Conditions. DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DATE: April 17, 2018 TIME: 4:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Nilmeyer, Nelson, Williams & Vieira MEMBERS ABSENT: Harris STAFF PRESENT: Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner Billy Gross, Senior Planner Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner Justin Shiu, Consultant Planner Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician 1. OWNER SSF Miller Cypress LLC APPLICANT Devcon Construction ADDRESS 398-400 Cypress Avenue PROJECT NUMBER P18-0014: Signs18-0004 & DR18-0007 PROJECT NAME Master Sign Program (Case Planner: Tony Rozzi) DESCRIPTION Master Sign Program and Design Review for a residential campus at 398- 400 Cypress Avenue 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, per Class 11, Section 15311. The Board had the following comments: 1. The proposed signage is too massive for the site. 2. The wall signs look like Billboards. 3. Revise the plans to incorporate the colors of the buildings, so the sign color and building color show together. 4. The proposed Blade signs are too tall for the site. 5. The proposed fasteners are not complementary to the building and will create a potential hazard to the site. The area will be a central hub for birds to nest. 6. Work with staff to determine “Temporary” timeline verse Permanent status. Resubmittal required. 2. OWNER Shamaim, Inc. APPLICANT Roberto Davidsohn ADDRESS 180 El Camino Real PROJECT NUMBER P18-0020: DR18-0011, SA18-0001 & TDM18-0004 PROJECT NAME Centennial Village – New Commercial Buildings (Case Planner: Billy Gross) DESCRIPTION Design Review, Tentative Subdivision Map and Transportation Demand Plan to construct 4 new commercial buildings at 180 El Camino Real in the El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA, per Class 3, 15303. The Board had the following comments: 1. Redesign the parking lot bio-retention planters to include trees within the center spine. An example of a successful implementation is at the existing Safeway store in Novato, at Hamilton Pkwy and Nave Drive. 2. Revise the landscaping plan to remove Westringia fruiticosa (subject to frost kill), Nasella tennuissima (highly invasive species of grass), consider replacing with one of the many attractive, non-invasive clumping grasses, Drosanthemum floribundum (does not survive well in ssf), and Muhlenbergia rigens ( a central valley native that requires heat for successful growth), consider replacing with Muhlenbergia capillaris, Pink Muhly grass, which grows very well in SSF. Recommend Approval with Conditions. 3. OWNER Britannia Biotech Gateway, LP APPLICANT HCP Life Science ADDRESS 201-225 Gateway Blvd & 1 & 2 Corporate Drive PROJECT NUMBER P18-0018: UPM18-0003 & DR18-0010 PROJECT NAME R&D Campus (Case Planner: Billy Gross ) DESCRIPTION Use Permit Modification, Design Review and Transportation Demand Management Plan for a parking reduction, exterior modifications of four office buildings, and campus improvements at 201-225 Gateway Blvd and 1 & 2 Corporate Drive in the Gateway Specific Plan District (GSPD) 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. Revise the Landscape Plan to indicate proposed tree and plant species. Consider the impacts of wind in the selection of landscaping. 2. Provide an accessibility plan that indicates ADA accessible routes from the campus to the public right away. 3. Contact the Fire Marshall to determine requirements for circulation for fire access and emergency vehicles, where existing driveways have been closed off. Recommend Approval with Conditions. 4. OWNER South City Partners LLC APPLICANT Natubhai D. Patel ADDRESS 840 El Camino Real PROJECT NUMBER P17-0108: UP17-0021, DR17-0069 & TDM17-0005 PROJECT NAME New Hotel (Case Planner: Ryan Wassum) DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal”- Use Permit, Design Review and TDM Plan to construct a new 5-story hotel with 2-levels of underground parking at 840 El Camino Real in the El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX) 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 plan concept. 2. The Board is concerned that some of the rear parking ramp and basement parking stalls (with portions above and below grade) are within the required 15’ rear yard setback and may need to be relocated. The plans should include clear sections, from all sides, which identify what portions of the driveway ramp and subsequent structured parking are above vs. below grade. a. Planning to analyze this issue as it pertains to the ECRMX development standards, below grade development, and parking regulations. 3. The proposed street tree species, Catalina Ironwood, may not grow well at this location; select a tree species that will grow more mature and survive the local weather and soil elements on the El Camino Real corridor. 4. The proposed plant species in the bio-retention areas are low-water use species and may not survive; replace with different plant species that can thrive in moist bio-retention areas. 5. Identify on the Landscape plan, or another sheet, how the project is meeting C3 Regulations. 6. Check with South San Francisco Scavenger Co. on the proper trash enclosure location with a pickup and drop off plan. 7. Check with the Engineering Department on the requirements for the front curb cut with the sloped driveway approach. Recommend / Resubmitted 5. OWNER Miguel Gonzales TR. APPLICANT Sandra Jimenez ADDRESS 853 Hawthorne Place PROJECT NUMBER P18-0015: DR18-0008 PROJECT NAME 2nd Story Addition (Case Planner: Justin Shiu) DESCRIPTION Design Review for a 2nd story addition to an existing single family dwelling at 853 Hawthorne Place in the Downtown Residential Medium (DRM) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA, per Class 1, Section 15301. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board liked the design concept. 2. The Brugmansia, Angel Trumpet shown on the plan as a tree, is not a tree in scale with the new addition. Add an Evergreen street tree in the front yard; an example may be Arbutus ‘Marina’, Marina Strawberry Tree. 3. All the windows should be matched and trimmed the same. Use vinyl wood clad. Recommend Approval with Conditions. 6. OWNER Kaiser Foundation Hospital APPLICANT Dita Shandilya ADDRESS 1200 El Camino Real PROJECT NUMBER P18-0017: DR18-0009 PROJECT NAME New Bloom Energy Cell Facility (Case Planner: Justin Shiu) DESCRIPTION Design Review to install four Bloom Energy Fuel Cells at 1200 El Camino Real in the El Camino Real/Chestnut Mixed Use Zoning District (ERC/C- MXM) in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA, per Class 3, Section 15303. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board liked the design. 2. Consider painting the bollards green. 3. Add some Evergreen Broad Leaf plant species and California Gold Class 2 ground cover around the structure. The plant screen may include Arbutus unedo ‘Compacta’, Dwarf Strawberry Tree, low water and very successful in SSF. Recommend Approval with Conditions DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES  CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DATE: February 18, 2020 TIME: 4:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Nilmeyer, Mateo, Nelson, Vieira & Winchester MEMBERS ABSENT: none STAFF PRESENT: Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner Justin Shiu, Consultant Planner Christy Usher, Consultant Planner Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician 1. Adminstrative Business – None 2. OWNER Frank J. Adasiewicz TR APPLICANT Frank J. Adasiewicz TR ADDRESS 360/364 Alta Vista Drive PROJECT NUMBER P19-0028: UP19-0016 & DR19-0040 PROJECT NAME New Residential Development (Case Planner: Christy Usher) DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal” – Preliminary feedback is requested by the applicant in response to project revisions since the October 15, 2019 DRB meeting regarding Use Permit and Design Review applications to construct a Planned Developent of 13 residential units each with an accessory dwelling unit at 360 and 364 Alta Vista Drive 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 and thought the imagery was attractive. The revised project included but was not limited to reducing the density by one unit from 14 to 13 dwelling units (and 13 ADUs), and increasing open space areas throughout the development. The introduction of upper floor balconies was also well received by the Board. The Board also liked the proposed double hung windows. 2. The Board stated there were too many different style columns proposed on the dwellings and that they prefer tapered columns on all of the elevations for a more cohesive, homogenous Craftsman design. 3. The elevations of the units on the Alta Vista street frontage should be more welcoming to the existing and proposed neighborhoods and provide more of a sense of arrival for these end units. If possible, provide entries and/or porches along both street elevations (Alta Vista and the proposed driveway), as well as, enhance the elevations and materials proposed. Introduce shingles with the proposed stucco to soften the elevations along Alta Vista. Consider rotating the entry and/or porches for the units on Alta Vista to face the street frontage. 4. The Hardy Board and Shingles should be the same size and add a water table over the brick veneers. 5. Note the proximity of the stairs to the adjacent bedroom. Proper stair detailing and installation at the party wall will be needed to prevent stair noise from interfering with bedroom use. 6. Continue to work with the Fire Department on the fire access requirements for the site. 7. It is important that pedestrian and automotive uses are separated from each other by a grade change. The Board liked the rolling curb solution as proposed and feels even a low +4” grade change would be acceptable by the Fire Department. 8. The Board would like to see a landscaped buffer and separation of at least 18 inches with a 6 inch curb between the eastern property line fence and the driveway to provide a buffer and prevent the residents from backing into and hitting the property line fence. 9. Work with the Building Department to determine the ADA requirements for the site. 10. Consider reducing the amount of brick veneer on the front porch columns (to just a brick base) on Sheet A3.2, as the current design is too top heavy. 11. Eliminate the brick proposed on the columns of the second floor balcony Sheet A3.1 Plan A Figure 1. The Board felt the second story brick elements were very heavy. 12. Consider incorporating windows on the garage doors to add some natural light. 13. Incorporate a play structure in one of the open spaces. 14. On the northwest corner of the parcel, add a nice landscaping feature for the residents to view. 15. The landscape plan should pay close attention to water usage and include a mixture of evergreen and deciduous trees as well as flowering accent plants. 16. Design a landscaping plan for the central spine to create a sense of arrival to the units. 17. Check with the South San Francisco Scavenger Company on the requirements for trash location and pickup. 18. The Board requested the applicant provide turning radius movements along the proposed loop roadway. 19. The Board requested the applicant resubmit with additional plan details for further consideration. Resubmittal required. 3. OWNER South City Partners LLC APPLICANT Natubhai Patel ADDRESS 840 El Camino Real PROJECT NUMBER P17-0108: UP17-0021, DR17-0069 & TDM17-0005 PROJECT NAME New Proposed Hotel (Case Planner: Justin Shiu) DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal” - Use Permit, Design Review and TDM Plan to construct a new 5-story hotel with 2-levels of underground parking at 840 El Camino Real in the El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX) 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 trees along the street frontage and back of the property need to be planted with 24 inch box sizes with excellent structural soil in 12'x12'x3' tree pits to support healthy trees to scale with the tall buildings. 3. Consider using Platanus acerifolia 'Columbia' - Columbia London Plane Trees along the street frontage, with some tall evergreen trees on the corners. 4. Consider using 24" deep aeration pipes the length of street frontage, to support tree deep rooting for trees planted at the street frontage, to improve air exchange in the soil and allow roots to root at the level of the earation pipe and not below the sidewalk. 5. The Board liked the parapets that are flush with the wall. Note: Check with Staff on whether entitlement requests are required for this feature. 6. Check with the Building Department on the ADA parking stall requirements, as there may an issue with the columns in the parking garage. 7. Submit a storm water treatment plan. 8. Consider the interaction between trees and bioretention areas, such as the trees’ capability to accommodate wet winters in these areas. Consider using Acer rubrum 'Armstrong' - Armstrong Maple. 9. Consider using pavers instead of stamped concrete. Recommend Approval with Comments 4 . OWNER The City of SSF APPLICANT SmithGroup ADDRESS 1010 El Camino Real PROJECT NUMBER P19-0042: DR19-0021 PROJECT NAME Community Civic Center - Phase 2 (Case Planner: Tony Rozzi) DESCRIPTION Design Review request for the Community Civic Campus Park and Recreation Joint Facility design at APNs 011-326-030 and 011-326-080 subject to Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is consistent with an adopted Supplemental Environmental Impact Report per CEQA. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board liked the design concept, including the proposed technology park for the play area. 2. The Board felt the green screen wall at the parking structure, though attractive, is a little incongruous with the rest of the building. More consideration into how the feature integrates with the rest of the building would be warranted. 3. The green wall should not be the focus point to the development. 4. The Board preferred a walkway <5%, to allow removal of the ramp railing from the ramp coming of the El Camino Real door entrance and remove the stairs and add a landscaping feature to the area. 5. Consider removing the railing from the ramp or introducing an intermittent rail coming off the El Camino Real door entrance. 6. The original ramp design without the rail was much more elegant. 7. The Board felt that the moments of rest and pause in the original ramp/entry design were important. Their exclusion from the new design constitutes a loss of an important public amenity, especially on the long inclined walk along that side of El Camino Real. 8. The Board understands they were eliminated due to City feedback, but they feel the loss of these amenities reduces the overall quality of the design. 9. Consider adding an architecture feature to match the same element on the Phase 1 development. 10. The Landscaping plan should include good 18 inch of loamy sand topsoil to help with the growth of the trees 11. The Board wants to see what the proposed signage will look like at this development and compare what was approved for Phase 1 of the Civic Campus for compatibility. Recommend Approval with Conditions.