HomeMy WebLinkAbout7-16-19 Final MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DATE: July 16, 2019
TIME: 4:00 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nelson, Nilmeyer, Mateo, Vieira & Winchester
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Sailesh Mehra, Planning Manager
Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner
Billy Gross, Senior Planner
Mike Futrell, City Manager
Alex Greenwood, ECD Director
Nell Selander, Deputy Director
Mike Lappen, EDC Coordinator
Deanna Talavera, Mgmt Analyst II
Sharon Randals, Park & Rec. Director
Sgt. Mike Rudis, Police
Christy Usher, Consultant Planner
Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician
1. Adminstrative Business – None
2. OWNER David Lai
APPLICANT Aris Ruiz & Associate
ADDRESS 220 South Linden Ave
PROJECT NUMBER P19-0039: DR19-0019
PROJECT NAME Expansion of a Commercial Bldg
(Case Planner: Christy Usher)
DESCRIPTION Design Review for an expansion of a commercial building at 220 South
Linden Avenue in the Business and Technology Park (BPO) Zoning
District in accordance with South San Francisco Municipal Code and
determination that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA.
The Board had the following comments:
1. Paint the addition to match the existing building.
2. Review egress and accessibility requirements with the Building Division. Consider
reconfiguring parking stalls 40-47 to create an accessible path of travel in front of the
stalls to the building.
3. Plant a 24 inch box street tree, along Tanforan Avenue in the general location between
the proposed 369 sf addition and the street view from Tanforan Avenue, consider the
Arbutus Marina species or another species on the City’s approved tree planting list.
Recommend Approval with Conditions
3. OWNER Sing Tao Newspaper SF LTD
APPLICANT Florence Tso
ADDRESS 215 Littlefield Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P18-0069: UP18-0012 & DR18-00345
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. Contact the Building and Fire Departments to determine if exiting from the rooftop
garden area is adequate.
2. Review accessible parking requirements with the Building Division.
3. Revise the proposed landscape plan to include species within bio retention areas that are
allowed per the San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program Plant List
(C.3 Technical Guidance, Appendix A). Wood mulch should not be used, replace with
cobble mulch or similar. Remove
Juniperus horizontalis ‘Wiltoni’ from bio-retention areas, and consider planting
clumping grasses. Consider planting trees adjacent to but outside of the bio retention
areas.
4. Revise the landscape plan to replace with crepe myrtle species trees with another species
that is appropriate for the South San Francisco climate, refer to the City’s approved tree
planting list.
Recommend Approval with Conditions.
4. OWNER Sieger Property Development LLC
APPLICANT Tim Raduenz
ADDRESS 458 Railroad Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P19-0027: DR19-0014
PROJECT NAME Two New Residential Dwelling Units
(Case Planner: Billy Gross)
DESCRIPTION Design Review to construct two additional dwelling units to an existing
parcel with two residential units, for a total of four units, at 458
Railroad Avenue in the Downtown Residential High (DRH) 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 is concern with the lack of open space.
2. The overall design of the new building is well integrated with the existing houses on the
site, but the East elevation should be revised to provide more articulation. Also
incorporate corbels and the larger window trim detail throughout.
3. Revise the existing front stair on the Railroad Avenue elevation to meet existing building
code requirements.
4. Contact the Building Division to determine if a third window can be added to the existing
bay window on the front elevation, adjacent to the west property line.
5. Revise the landscape plans to replace the Magnolia grandiflora ‘Little Gem’ species with
the Magnolia grandiflora ‘Samuel Sommer’ species. Consider replacing turf between the
pavers with a less water intensive ground cover.
6. Determine who controls the existing wall on the property. If possible, replace the existing
building with a deck or similar structure that will make the open space area seem larger.
7. Consider underlying the roof crickets with a roof shield or similar items.
Recommend Approval with Conditions.
5. OWNER The City of South San Francisco
APPLICANT SSF Housing Partners LLC
ADDRESS PUC Site
PROJECT NUMBER P18-0081: UP19-0008, DR19-0028, TDM19-0004 & EIR19-0002
PROJECT NAME AGI Kasa PUC Development
(Case Planner: Tony Rozzi)
DESCRIPTION Proposal to redevelop 5.9 acres of vacant land to construct 800
residential units, a 8,300 SF childcare facility, 13,000 SF commercial
retail space, approximately 1 acre of public open space, and related
infrastructure at 1051 Mission Road and surrounding parcels.
The Board had the following comments:
Overall Architecture
1. Conduct a massing study to incorporate the adjacent buildings and show how the proposed
development fits into the greater neighborhood context, including the Kaiser Building and the
new residential development at 988 El Camino Real, SM County future medical center and
potential development (Pacific Market) along the El Camino Real corridor under current
zoning regulations.
2. The massing study should include dimensions of all the structures or include a key.
3. Views of the massing study should be provided from multiple angles and directions and
consider views at 3000’ to show view from distance.
4. Articulation – design effort was successful along Mission Road but buildings will be seen
from many directions and need to ensure that the rest of the building is well articulated
5. Buildings are too uniformly flat - horizontal roof line along the buildings is a little
overwhelming and needs more differentiation. Show details that emphasize existing or
proposed articulation on the elevations.
6. Appreciate the way you stepped back mass, elevation is well rendered but doesn’t show step
back all that well so consider different angles. More renderings and perhaps an animation or
a fly through might be helpful.
7. Design Guidelines require a strong base, middle and top, and should be well articulated by
vertical planes. Refer to design guidelines in the ECR/C Area Plan.
8. The proposed materials make the buildings look somewhat industrial - consider opportunity
to soften the exterior materials. Consider a two-dimensional mock-up of an elevation to show
materials and finishes.
9. The revised plans should include a foundation plan.
Building B Specific Comments:
10. Show in plans how building B would be accessed and interact with the site if Phase 2 of the
Oak Avenue extension is built along the Market Hall building.
11. Building B is a successful design but consider some roof height variation.
Building C1 Specific Comments:
12. Many ideas incorporated into the C1 elevation but doesn’t have a cohesive design - cohesion
could help and it might be ok to look like one building and not many within its single facade
13. Focus on C1 roof height variation
Landscaping and Site Planning
14. Include a street light design and detail sheet for each fixture on private property or public
right-of-way.
15. Be sure to balance bio-retention and verify locations since it can’t be used by people once
built and designed
16. Most of the proposed landscaping will work for site, except for certain locations of the
campus – For Dave and Chris specific comments.
Change Platanus acerifolia to Platanus acerifolia 'Columbia', which is mildew
resistant.
Sequoia sempervirens will not thrive in the wind in SSF. Placement should be
carefully considered at wind protected faces of buildings. Coordinate with wind
study.
Fremontodendron californicum, California Flannelbush, shown in the presentation is
likely to fail due to fast root growth in the pot at the nursery, resulting in encircling
roots and destabilized plants. Suggest alternate species such as Toyon.
17. Applicant should conduct a wind study to determine what species will survive at this campus.
18. Applicant needs to select tree species that will scale the height of the buildings and
incorporate some landscaping in between the trees to create a pattern that will help soften the
area. The plant list is mostly small patio size trees 25'-35' tall. The buildings are uniformly
84' tall. The design does not utilize a very good buffering tool of design with tall trees which
reach heights up to 100' such as Lombardy Poplar, Western Cottonwood, several Eucalyptus
species, Canary Island Pine, Valley Oak, Red Oak, and careful placement of Redwood. The
best groups of tall trees in the design are where the future extension of Oak Ave. will
necessitate their removal.
19. Applicant should consider age appropriate design of the children's play area. Design for all
ages does not work and Toddlers ages 2-5 should be in a signed and fenced area, while ages
6-12 should be separate. The play area should be signed no teens or adults over age 12
allowed, and only adults with children allowed. This area needs to be a safe zone and have
proper visibility into the area and provide caretaker seating.
20. Demonstrate how the private and public space will work for the site and include a plan sheet
indicating total open space (public and private).
21. Provide landscape material examples to go along with the building material examples
22. Comments on the Mission Road street experience of the project:
Consider adding additional mid-block crossings through Mission Road;
Traffic calming on Mission Road recommended.
23. Vision for Colma Creek is unclear in plan submittal – provide clear plan sheets of existing
and proposed improvements. Show any improvements proposed for fencing along the Colma
Creek to help screen the area.
24. The Board would like more information or a walk through explanation of how the parking
stackers will work for the site.
25. Show how the site will comply with a pickup & drop off plan for childcare, for residents
utilizing Lyft, Uber, delivery services, and guests visiting the site.
26. Indicate where the trash enclosures are located on the campus and a plan from South San
Scavenger for a pickup and drop off area. Show any drop chute for the residents to discard
their trash or recycle.
27. As a potential safety measure, site planning should incorporate more crosswalks with traffic
lights (as possible) on Mission Road.
Public Comments
There were two speakers from the public:
28. Katie Stokes – resides in the Sunshine Gardens neighborhood. Concern with one of the
buildings standing out and being very visible from her neighborhood. Would like the
applicant to change the color of the building from white to another color. The white color
may provide glare.
29. Francine Andrade – Concern with overflow traffic when there are events at the campus.
Where will everyone park at the site?
Continue to work with Staff on a resubmittal for further Design Review.
Miscellaneous - None