HomeMy WebLinkAbout2-20-18 Final MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DATE: February 20, 2018
TIME: 4:00 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nilmeyer, Nelson, Williams, Harris & Vieira
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner
Justin Shiu, Consultant Planner
Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician
1.OWNER ARE-San Francisco No 65 LLC
APPLICANT Terezia Nemeth/ ARE-San Francisco No 65 LLC
ADDRESS 201 Haskins Way
PROJECT NUMBER P17-0096: ZA18-0001, UP18-0001. TDM18-0001, RZ18-0001,
GPA18-0002, EIR18-0002
PROJECT NAME New R&D Building
(Case Planner: Ryan Wassum)
DESCRIPTION Rezoning and General Plan Amendment for 201 Haskins Way and 400-450
East Jamie Court, Use Permit, Design Review, Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Plan, and Draft Environmental Impact Report to
construct a two-story 25,000 sq. ft. building (400-450 East Jamie Court), a
five-story 290,765 sq. ft. office/ R&D building and a five-level parking
garage on a 6.45-acre site (201 Haskins Way) in the Mixed-Industrial (MI)
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 new proposed buildings located on the 201 Haskins Way property, with
the following revisions and recommendations:
a. Add a mid-block crosswalk to connect to the 400-450 E. Jamie Court campus.
b. Prioritize pedestrian access between the sites where a drop off appears to take up all
the space. Consider making the drop off part of a plaza space rather than a roadway.
c. Reduce the size of the mechanical screening on the rooftop and choose a different
material that better integrates with the buildings.
d. The site is currently lacking active and open space areas for employee use; revise the
site plan to incorporate enjoyable areas for outdoor dining, recreational and social use.
e. Activate the area west of the parking garage by creating a central space and plaza for
employees to congregate; incorporate outdoor furniture and sitting areas into the plans.
f. Include renderings of active spaces, as well as rooftop terrace areas. The DRB would
like to visualize how these spaces are being activated.
2. The Board did not like the newly proposed 25,000 sq. ft. building located at 400-450 East
Jaime Court, and would like the following revisions:
a. The new building has an outdated appearance and does not tie into the existing 400-
450 E. Jamie Court buildings; the new building should blend the style of the existing
buildings with the new modern buildings proposed at 201 Haskins.
b. The new building should incorporate similar colors, materials, clean lines, and an
abundance of glass to help modernize the look of the building and tie it into the newly
proposed buildings across the street.
c. Street trees should be implemented along the front and sides of the property (currently
no street trees are proposed).
3. The Board liked the proposed garage, subject to the following revision:
a. Consider using marine grade stainless steel that will weather better than the alternative.
4. Landscape Plan: include an easy to read plan, calling out all proposed trees and plant species.
The landscape plan should also reflect the following:
a. Remove the following species and replace with local and drought-tolerant plants/
shrubs:
i. Pinus Pinea due to invasive surface roots
ii. Maytenus Boria susceptible to frost
iii. Cistus Salviifolius requires fast draining sandy soil/short lifespan
iv. Aroctostaphylos subject to disease/short lifespan
b. Site-wide, incorporate larger trees that scale with the buildings (at least 3-stories high),
and create additional variation of shrubs, plants, and grasses that will help improve the
visual imagery. (Please note, all renderings should be updated to reflect changes)
c. All street frontages, including Haskins and E. Jamie Court, should incorporate street
trees that are adequately spaced (not too far apart).
d. For proper tree growth, utilize a minimum of 12’x12’ structured soil pits.
e. Where feasible, use more permeable paving areas for water retention that will reduce
pressure to take up landscape space with bio-retention ponds, that can be developed as
active and outdoor space for employees.
5. In the plan set resubmittal, the applicant should also include the following:
a. Circulation for fire access and emergency vehicles.
b. Trash location/ pickup areas (to be reviewed by Scavenger).
c. Pedestrian circulation plan (including campus circulation and access to the Bay Trail).
d. Wind Study (for usability of active and open space areas).
Resubmittal required.
2 OWNER Zijun Xu
APPLICANT Ted Pratt
ADDRESS 7 Chico Court
PROJECT NAME 2nd Story Addition
DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal” - 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 liked the revised plans.
2. All the windows should match & be trimmed out to match existing dwelling.
3. In the front yard, select a tree species that will survive the SSF elements, consider an Evergreen
species
Recommend Approval with Conditions.