Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-21-2020 Final Minutes (3) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES  CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DATE: April 21, 2020 TIME: 4:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Nilmeyer, Mateo, Nelson, Vieira & Winchester MEMBERS ABSENT: none STAFF PRESENT: Sailesh Mehra, Planning Manager Billy Gross, Senior Planner Gaspare Annibale, Associate Planner Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician 1. Adminstrative Business – None 2. 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 Use Permit, Design Review and Transportation Demand Program to allow a new automotive car sales lot 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 liked the design concept. 2. Aesthetically the design was well presented. 3. The Board is concern with the location of a car sales lot across from a residential development. 4. The Board sees the beacon as a possible architectural feature, while others felt the beacon to be a tall monument or a billboard sign. 5. The beacon element needs additional details to include dimensions and material finish with updated renderings. 6. The Mercedes logo presented on the plans is considered signage. 7. The site is lacking the appropriate landscaping screening and is not sufficient. 8. The proposed lighting for the campus is excessive and not appropriate for nighttime. 9. The proposed lighting will glare directly into the residential development that is located across the street, as well into the surrounding area. 10. The proposed plan is lacking street trees along Gellert Blvd, as well as on-site. 11. The plan needs to incorporate trees within the development. 12. The Board needs to see larger deliberate landscape treatment along all perimeter edges and the trees closer spaced. 13. The proposed tree species selected will not grow to scale the height of the buildings or to help soften the view to the 4-story residential properties located uphill to the west. 14. The proposed Brisbane Box and Fern Pine will not reach its potential height to scale the buildings and will not survive with the SSF Wind Element. 15. The number and placement of trees and planter islands within the plan, do not meet code. 16. Consider wide finger planters that will run the length of the site with large deep soil pits that will be capable of supporting large trees. 17. The large existing trees along Gellert Blvd should be protected in place and incorporate taller evergreen species with a street tree pattern. 18. The soil on this site is poor and not deep enough to support large growth of the trees that are being proposed. 19. Consider hardy species such as Pine, Cypress, Eucalyptus, which are growing well within the surrounding area. 20. The proposed tree pit should be large enough to support mature tree size. The planting holes should be 10’ x 10’ x 3’ in depth. 21. The proposed shrubs listed are too small and will not provide any screening or visual interest along Gellert Blvd. 22. The night light levels are a big concern and any overly bright light should be avoided in both the parking lot and the signage light levels. 23. The proposed light levels are too high for the site. The typical lighting in parking lots in SSF are1 fc. 24. The photometric plan is showing 22 fc and higher along Gellert Blvd. The site is located across from residential units, which will impair their main view to the bay. 25. Consider reducing the fc levels. 26. The proposed plans are lacking an ADA accessible path to the buildings and to the public right of way. 27. The main existing sidewalk from the showroom to Gellert Blvd does not show a grading plan. 28. The main existing sidewalk from the showroom to Gellert Blvd does not clearly show the proposed grading. This appears to be an internal walkway and therefore must meet code for the slope to Gellert Blvd ROW. 29. Consider separating the sidewalk route to public ROW, from the curb, to lengthen and flatted, if you are required to meet code. 30. Consider cutting a section from the residential units west of Gellert Blvd, and through the site and Caltrans ROW to 280 to help show the relationship of the views, the trees, the open parking and lighting. 31. Show on the plans, the locations of the light poles and heights. Resubmittal required. 3. OWNER Bayside Area Develp. LLC APPLICANT Bayside Area Develp. LLC ADDRESS 328 Roebling Rd (233 East Grand Avenue) PROJECT NUMBER P07-0077: PP20-0003 & DR20-0013 PROJECT NAME Precise Plan (Case Planner: Billy Gross) DESCRIPTION Precise Plan Modification to alter the site plan and exterior appearance of a previously entitled project to construct one x-story new office/R&D building totaling xxx sf, and a x-level parking structure on a 2.97 acre site in the Business Technology Park (BTP) Zone District and determination that the project is consistent with the previously adopted EIR. The Board had the following comments: 1. Consider revising the eastern elevation to make it less monotonous. 2. Revise the proposed planting plan to include tree species that scale to the height of the buildings. 3. Consider the following additional revisions to the planting plan:  Excessive use of alders and poplars which are medium and high water use species. Honey Locust does not like the wind and Cordyline is not a tree.  The poplar, Buckeye and Adler that are being proposed at the parking and service areas are all deciduous and will provide no visual screening in the winter months.  The Samual Sommers Magnolia is a medium water use and too small in scale with the building.  There are too many species on the list that are medium water, which will not meet the WUCOLS requirements.  The proposed White Rockrose will require fast draining sandy soils to survive. Soils locally are too clayey.  The applicant has the opportunity to provide tall 75 ft. – 100 ft. species that will help scale the large buildings. Consider some clumps of taller evergreen trees such as Monterey Cypress planted in loamy sand, Canary Island Pine, Aleppo Pine, Bishops Pine, Deodar Cedar, Eucalyptus, if the existing poor soil is not changed.  Adding height with some evergreen species will help scale the tall buildings. 4. Consider how the wind from the West & Northwest will be mitigated at the main plaza. If appropriate, incorporate wind screens or other mitigating measures to make the plaza with outdoor seating useable space. 5. Consider shifting the drop off area to the south away from the parking entry and use the extra space for wind mitigation at the plaza. 6. Provide a section showing the relationship of the parking structure to the adjacent solar farm to the east, to be sure a permanent building shadow does not interfere with the solar system. 7. Consider adding solar panels to the parking structure. Recommend Approval with Conditions 4. OWNER BioMed Realty – Railroad Spur LP APPLICANT BioMed Realty – Railroad Spur LP ADDRESS APN #: 015-071-220 PROJECT NUMBER P20-0013: PP20-0002 & DR20-0014 PROJECT NAME GOP 5 / Rail Spurs (Case Planner: Billy Gross) DESCRIPTION Precise Plan and Design Review to construct site and landscape improvements and retaining walls to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections and site infrastructure for adjacent parcels within the Gateway Specific Plan Zoning District (GSPD) and Business and Technology Park Zoning District (BTP) in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and determination that the 2020 Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental document per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Board had the following comments: 1. Revise the Park Street frontage to include a sidewalk along the southern side to connect the accessible paths. 2. Provide a detail on the proposed cantilever ramp materials and finishes. 3. Revise the plans to show a consistent trail width, either 12 ft. or 14 ft. 4. Revise the landscape plans to indicate the plant species on the slopes, the planting areas and irrigation. 5. Revise the landscape plan to show the root spaces for the proposed trees in relation to the retaining wall foundations and footing widths. 6. Consider how wind will affect the design and indicate any proposed mitigation measures. 7. Provide a wind study and proposed wind mitigation measures prior to the issuance of building permits. Recommend Approval with Conditions. 5. OWNER BioMed Realty APPLICANT BioMed Realty ADDRESS 475 Eccles Avene PROJECT NUMBER P11-0101: UPM20-0001& DR20-0012 PROJECT NAME GOP 5 – R&D Campus (Case Planner: Billy Gross) DESCRIPTION Use Permit Modification and Design Review Modification to alter the site plan and exterior appearance of a previously entitled project to construct two 4-story office/R&D buildings totaling 262,287 sf, and a 5-level parking structure on a 6.1 acre site in the Business Technology Park (BTP) Zone District and determination that the project is consistent with the previously adopted EIR. The Board had the following comments: 1. Prior to the issuance of building permits, provide accessibility plans from the parking garage to the buildings and public right-of-way. 2. Provide a wind study and proposed wind mitigation measures prior to the issuance of building permits.. 3. Revise the proposed planting plan to include tree species that scale to the height of the buildings. 4. Consider the following additional revisions to the planting plan: a. The tree species in zone 2 are not sufficient to create any affective wind mitigation. b. Alder, Birch and Pear are especially subject to wind damage. c. Trees to consider: Monterey Cypress (planted in loamy sand), Canary Island Pine, Aleppo Pine, Bishops Pine, Deodar Cedar, Norfolk Island Pine, Eucalyptus – if the soil is not changed. d. Westringia fruiticosa may not survive a frost. e. Ceanothus “Yankee Point” is not a long lived species, consider Ceanothus “Anchor Bay”. f. Muhlenbergia Rigens does poorly in the cold windy SSF climate. Muhlenbergia Capillaris is very successful, as well as the other clump grasses. g. Cistus X Hibridus is often short lived and requires fast draining sandy soil to survive. 5. Provide details regarding the proposed depths of the topsoil and clean subsoil in the landscape areas? The success of proposed trees will depend on deep low clay soils, best is loamy sand with less than 10% clay. 6. Consider revising the connection between the promenade and Eccles Ave to make it more prominent and visible from Eccles.. Recommend Approval with Comments 6. OWNER BioMed Realty- Salil Payappilly APPLICANT BioMed Realty- Salil Payappilly ADDRESS 850-900 Gateway Blvd PROJECT NUMBER P08-0034: PP20-0001 & DR20-0013 PROJECT NAME Precise Plan GOP 4 (Case Planner: Billy Gross) DESCRIPTION Precise Plan and Design Review to construct Phase 4 of the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Project, including 182,000 sf of Office/R&D development, a 6-story parking structure, surface parking, and other on- and off-site improvements, at 850-900 Gateway Blvd in the Gateway Specific Plan District, and determination that the project is within the scope of environmental analysis in the 2010 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and that the 2020 Addendum to the EIR is consistent with CEQA. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Venturi effect of wind speeds at the southwest corner of GOP-4-N will likely render the adjacent seating to be un-useable. Concern for the wind in this portion of the plan may require a design for some wind attenuation. 2. Consider the following revisions to the planting plan:  The California Sycamore is subject to mildew, consider a different species.  The Groves are planted too small to medium size trees. The applicant has the opportunity to provide tall 75 ft. – 100 ft. species that will help scale the large buildings.  Consider these trees: Monterey Cypress planted in loamy sand with proper and good drainage, Canary Island Pine, Aleppo Pine, Bishops Pine, Deodar Cedar, Norfolk Island Pine, Eucalyptus – if the existing poor soil is not changed.  The large planter west of GOP-4-S should also be planted with 75 ft. – 100 ft. species.  Pinus Elderica, Afghan Pine to the northeast at the garage entry will be unsuccessful at the adjacent property. Consider an alternate species.  Brisbane Box will likely not do well in the wind and should be changed to a more wind tolerant species. The tree species in zone 2 are not sufficient to create any affective wind mitigation.  Alder, Birch and Pear are especially subject to wind damage  Westringia fruiticosa may not survive a frost.  Ceanothus “Yankee Point” is not a long lived species, consider Ceanothus “Anchor Bay”.  Muhlenbergia Rigens does poorly in the cold windy SSF climate. Muhlenbergia Capillaris is very successful, as well as the other clump grasses.  Cistus X Hibridus is often short lived and requires fast draining sandy soil to survive. 3. Prior to the issuance of building permits, provide accessibility plans from the parking garage to the buildings and public right-of-way. Consider relocating the access to the outer edges of the structure with direct access out of the building. Also consider putting accessible parking in a smaller footprint at the upper levels near the elevators, if not enough accessible space is on the ground floor. 4. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, provide a wind study and proposed wind mitigation measures. Recommend Approval with Conditions.