HomeMy WebLinkAbout4-16 19 Final MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DATE: April 16, 2019
TIME: 4:00 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nelson, Nilmeyer, Mateo, Vieira & Winchester
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner
Edgar Maravilla, Associate Planner
Justin Shiu, Consultant Planner
Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician
1. Adminstrative Business – Community Civic Campus – Phase 1 (Police Station)
The Board had the following comments:
1. How will Police Facility operate and what is public engagement?
2. How will customers park and access the Facility?
3. The Building could enhance messaging that says this is a Police Department ‐ could use
stronger signage and identification.
4. Think about a News location with intentional backdrop and platform for programming ‐
where does the correspondent broadcast from? It has been considered ‐ will use some
outdoor space and plan for major conferences in the training room.
5. Front Elevation ‐ very mid‐century with the horizontal panels and trim. Would heavier
elements make it feel more like a Police Station, Like Chestnut Elevation and window
openings.
6. Overall site plan, not a lot of space for the Police Officers ‐ could there be more site
amenities?
7. Tree species ‐ understand intent of security planting but California Sycamores in an
urban environment could get several diseases ‐ what would be approach?
1. Native Sycamore will be challenged by wind and disease, may mildew or
potentially die ‐ consider Platanus acerifolia 'Columbia' (Columbia London Plane
Tree)
2. American Smoke Tree is pretty but will it do well?
3. Hornbeam tends to get black city mold in Foster City not sure about SSF It does
poorly with the cool wind in SSF.
4. If Hornbeam gets wind protection, will do ok ‐ if windy, will denude and
struggle
5. Consider another columnar species that could provide filtered view from
apartment buildings
6. Black Gum ‐ usually prefers high water use and acidic soil conditions, from SE
US ‐ Armstrong Maple could be a better substitute or located in bioswale
locations, if opportunity presents itself
7. California Black Oak ‐ this is a valley tree and may only grow well in the cool
wind, and may only reach 0.67 of height potential due to cold and wind
8. Blue Elderberry ‐ not a lot of experience with this tree to no guidance
9. All trees are deciduous ‐ consider evergreen species on key corners or to
provide screening.
8. Structures for parking will have capacity for solar panels?
9. Solar canopies could be more architectural, as well
10. One story internal building is unattractive ‐ consider screening for the building from
visibility from surrounding structures
11. Planting species ‐ pulled from a South Bay campus so may not work well
1. Dendromecon rigida, comment given at DRB incorrect. Ok to use.
2. Andropogan gerardii, Little Blue Stem is native to the central prairie and may
not do well in SSF. Reconsider.
3. Achellia milifolia, Yarrow consider allergic reaction.
4. Muhlengergia rigens, Deer Grass, a native grass in the central valley, does
poorly in SSF due to cool summer. Consider Muhlenbergia capilaris, Pink Muhly
which does very well in SSF.
5. Grasses proposed for bio‐retention are small, and will be subject to pedestrian
damage, especially along the sidewalks. Consider Chondropetelum techtorum,
Small Cape Rush.
12. Roof of one story building material? Screening provided but consider an artistic panel
that softens the view from upper floors of adjacent residential.
13. Corner of building is a challenge ‐ no land marking or signifier
14. Consider green wall on corner blank concrete ‐ in direct sunlight, could help the sign
read
15. Building appears very mid‐century modern ‐ potentially rethink the roof line to floor line
design concept
16. DRB interested in the CCC Park/Library building design and relation to 988 ECR
development
17. White roofing recommended
18. Police sign may be hidden by the tree planting scheme ‐ consider a vertical element at
this corner or signage that helps signify location
19. Revisit entry grading
20. Revisit mid‐block pedestrian signal crossing
2. OWNER KW Property LLC
APPLICANT Chu Design Associates Inc.
ADDRESS 835 Baden Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P19-0022: DR19-0011
PROJECT NAME 2nd Story Addition
(Case Planner: Edgar Maravilla)
DESCRIPTION Design Review to construct a new single family dwelling at 835 Baden
Avenue in the Downtown Residential Low (DRL) Zoning District in
accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Zone
and detemination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA.
Approved as submitted
3. OWNER Edward J. Bortoli TR
APPLICANT Dong Wen Liang
ADDRESS 852 Baden Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P19-0024: DR19-0012
PROJECT NAME 2nd Story Addition
(Case Planner: Edgar Maravilla)
DESCRIPTION Design Review to construct a 2nd Story Addition at 852 Baden Avenue
in the Downtown Residential Low (DRL) Zoning District in accordance
with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Zone and
detemination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA.
The Board had the following comments:
1. The proposed project is too boxy and massive for the site.
2. The design looks like a pop-up addition.
3. Revise the design of the addition to better integrate with the existing dwelling.
4. There is no articulation to the design. Add some corner boards to the design.
5. Add a belly band to help break up the overall sliding that is being proposed or consider a
different material finish to help break up the overall massing of the dwelling.
6. Consider stepping in the 2nd floor to add some articulation to the design.
7. Consider continuing the front porch to extend the length of the front wall.
8. The window placements on the plans are off alignment; the lower windows on the front
elevation should match in size and be centered.
9. Add more windows on the east and west elevations and use energy efficient windows.
10. Provide detail information on how the windows will be trimmed. All windows should
match.
11. The proposed roof on the west elevation is going to have some water/drainage issues.
12. Consider adding some crickets to the roof plan.
13. Consider extending the roof element on the east elevation to help incorporate the design.
14. Add a street tree in the front yard, as well adding a tree in the rear yard.
15. Consider planting the Magnolia tree to the rear yard and plant the Strawberry tree in the
front yard.
16. Submit a revised set of plans for staff to review.
Resubmittal required – continue to work with staff on revisions.
4. OWNER Rachel A. Siordia TR
APPLICANT Mike Daniele
ADDRESS 717 Circle Ct
PROJECT NUMBER P19-0015: DR19-0007
PROJECT NAME 2nd Story Addition
(Case Planner: Edgar Maravilla)
DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal” - Design Review to construct a 2nd Story Addition at
717 Circle Court in the Low Density Residential (RL-8) Zoning District
in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code
and determination the project is categorically exempt from CEQA.
The Board had the following comments:
1. The Board liked the revised plans
2. Check with the Building Department on the regulations and requirements for the proper
landing on the proposed staircase.
Recommend Approval with Conditions.
5. OWNER Ho Kui Ming
APPLICANT Xie Guan
ADDRESS 32 Wilms Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P19-0004: DR19-0001
PROJECT NAME 2nd Story Addition
(Case Planner: Justin Shiu)
DESCRIPTION Design Review for a 2nd Story addition to an existing single family
dwelling at 32 Wilms Avenue 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 categorically
exempt from CEQA.
The Board had the following comments:
1. Consider modifying the roof pitch to reduce the perceived height and massing.
2. On the front elevation, there are different elements on the right side of the dwelling.
Consider simplifying the design and removing some elements, such as the bay window.
3. Consider modifying the dormers, which are small and not in scale with the building.
4. Consider removing the windows in the attic.
5. There may be too much window area in the front. Consider the glazing and heat issues.
6. Provide orderly placement and alignment of windows in relation to the whole structure.
7. Provide details on how the windows will be trimmed. All windows should match.
8. Consider relocating the bathroom away from the dining room area or switch the entry
door away.
9. Submit a landscaping plan. Identify the grass species that would be planted.
10. Add a street tree that will scale the height of the building. Consider a Ginko Biloba
'Autumn Gold' tree. The proposed tree will not work for this site.
11. Submit a revised set of plans for staff to review.
Continue to work with Staff on a redesign.
6. OWNER Carey Shaughnessy
APPLICANT Mary Dunlap
ADDRESS 485 Granada Drive
PROJECT NUMBER P19-0011: DR19-0003
PROJECT NAME 2nd Story Addition
(Case Planner: Justin Shiu)
DESCRIPTION Design Review to construct a 2nd Story Addition at 485 Granada Drive
in the Low Density Residential (RL-8) Zoning District in accordance
with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and
determination the project is categorically exempt from CEQA.
The Board had the following comments:
1. The Board liked the design concept.
2. Check whether the garage bathroom can only be a half bathroom with a toilet and sink.
3. Provide details on how the windows will be trimmed. All windows should match.
4. Add a street tree in the front yard that will scale the height of the 2nd story addition.
5. Clarify the proposal for the side yards.
Recommend Approval with Conditions.
7.
OWNER Sing Tao Newspaper SF LTD
APPLICANT Florence Tso
ADDRESS 215 Littlefield Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P18-0069: UP18-0012 & DR18-0035
PROJECT NAME Exterior Modifications / FAR Increase
(Case Planner: Justin Shiu)
DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal” - Use Permit and Design Review for exterior
modifications and to increase the maximum base floor area ratio (FAR)
to allow additional floor area for an existing Industrial Office building
at 215 Littlefield Avenue in the Mixed Industrial (MI) 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 building design.
2. Applicant needs to respond to the previous comments from Design Review Board.
3. Applicant needs to submit a topographic plan. Provided the survey from the surveyor.
4. The plans are still missing a grading plan.
5. Submit a Bio Retention Plan with a list of plant species that will work well at this site.
6. The lists of proposed trees are high in water usage. Design to meet MWELO
requirements for low water use.
7. Plants should be grouped together on site based on water usage (separate based on water
zones) and shall follow State water efficient landscape requirements.
8. Check on whether the tree can be planted in the sewer easement.
9. The landscaping plans don’t match the renderings.
10. The plantings around the accessible walkway need to be lower for pedestrians to be seen.
11. Check with the Building Department on the bathroom size requirements and the proper
door swings that lead into the corridor.
12. Start calculations on occupant loads for the rooftop garden to see if any changes may be
needed at this point.
13. Check with the Building Department if a secondary egress would be required from the
rooftop garden.
Resubmittal required; second Design Review Board meeting to be determined.
Miscellaneous - None