HomeMy WebLinkAbout8-21-18 Final DRB MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DATE: August 21, 2018
TIME: 4:00 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mateo, Nelson, Nilmeyer, Vieira & Williams
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner
Ryan Wassum, Associate Planner
Justin Shiu, Consultant Planner
Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician
1. OWNER ARE-San Francisco
APPLICANT ARE-San Francisco
ADDRESS 681 Gateway Blvd
PROJECT NUMBER P18-0055: DR18-0026
PROJECT NAME New Amenity Building and Outdoor Dining Area
(Case Planner: Ryan Wassum)
DESCRIPTION Design Review for a new amenity building and outdoor dining area at 681
Gateway Blvd in the Gateway Specific Plan Zoning District (GSPD) 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, subject to the following revisions and concerns.
2. Extend the sidewalk along the property frontage for continuity and direct pedestrian access.
When adding a front sidewalk, review location of proposed street trees per City standards.
3. Incorporate sidewalks and crossings to the adjacent parking lot area to the north so
pedestrians may safely circulate to the amenity building.
4. On the streetscape level, the wall is too close to the street, which does not follow the wide
setbacks of the rest of the street. Consider moving the wall back and mitigating the impact of
the proposed wall and landscaping as it interacts with the sidewalk and public right-of-way.
5. On the renderings, adjust the location of the building so that the corner of the building is
shown more realistic in relation to the front set back and Gateway Blvd.
6. Review the selected tree species as some of the proposed trees may not survive at this
location due to the wind elements, especially on the south edge of the building.
7. Adjacent to the boardwalk, revise location of boardwalk and grading changes around the
proposed trees so that they are not compromised by the design.
8. Add a type of sealant or clad material (i.e. copper, metal, etc.) to help protect the proposed
“Timber Wood” material for the proposed building. This will help protect the building from
moisture and weather conditions.
9. Provide a detailed plant list.
10. Provide a grading plan with integration of bio-retention.
11. Per Title 24, the “Detectable Warning Pavers” need to be “Federal Yellow”.
Recommend Approval with Comments
2. OWNER Peter Beck & Totsy A TRS.
APPLICANT True North Signs & Graphic
ADDRESS 435 Forbes Blvd
PROJECT NUMBER P18-0050: Signs18-0014
PROJECT NAME Type “B” Sign Permit
(Case Planner: Justin Shiu)
DESCRIPTION Type "B" Sign Permit for an industrial building at 435 Forbes Blvd in the
Business and Technology Park (BTP) 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. Change the aluminum base to a concrete base to protect the base of the sign.
2. Change the existing spray irrigation system so it does not spray towards the sign. And design
landscaping such that mowers are kept away from the base.
Recommend Approval with Comments
3. OWNER Allan & Henry Inc.
APPLICANT Zume Pizza, Inc - Ron Storn
ADDRESS 439 Eccles Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P18-0019: DR18-0024
PROJECT NAME Exterior Modifications
(Case Planner: Justin Shiu)
DESCRIPTION Design Review for exterior modifications to an existing commercial facility
at 439 Eccles Avenue in the Business Technology Park (BTP) 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.
Applicant requested the item to be pulled from the Agenda.
4. OWNER Ivy Jerry TR
APPLICANT Ivy Jerry TR
ADDRESS 465 Cabot Road
PROJECT NUMBER P18-0038: MUP18-0006, DR18-0018 & TDM18-0007
PROJECT NAME New Commerical Building
(Case Planner: Justin Shiu)
DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal” - Minor Use Permit, Design Review and Transportation
Demand Management Plan to construct a new Business Services Building
at 465 Cabot Road in the Business and Technology Park (BTP) 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 32, Section 15332.
The Board had the following comments:
1. The Board liked the revised design concept.
2. Pick an alternative ground cover, as purple needle will not thrive at this location. Consider
Muhlinbergia capilaris, Pink Muhly Grass, as this will do well at this location.
3. Ensure listed plant species are shown correctly on the images.
4. Select another species, as Coast Rosemary well not strive in cold weather.
5. Consider installing 36 in. Raywood Ash box plant in the front plaza area for better growth.
Recommend Approval with Comments
5. OWNER San Mateo Diversified LLC
APPLICANT North East Medical Services
ADDRESS 225 Spruce Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P18-0008: UP18-0002, PE18-0001, Signs18-0002 & DR18-0004
PROJECT NAME New 3-story Medical Office
(Case Planner: Justin Shiu)
DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal” - Use Permit, Design Review and Parking Exemption to
construct a new 3-story medical office building at 225 Spruce Avenue in the
Grand Avenue Core (GAC) 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 3, Section 15303.
The Board had the following comments:
1. The Board liked the revised design concept.
2. The Board is concerned with the lack of parking for the development. The board
recommends considering the ebb and flow of parking throughout the day and being aware
of peaks.
3. Consider if parking permits may be used.
4. Approval should use methods to ensure parking does not flood the side streets. Explore
how to keep parking out of the neighborhood streets and in other areas/parking structures.
5. The plans are lacking a plant list.
6. Check with a Civil Engineer if Bio Retention will be a factor as part of this development.
7. Check with the Building Department, as the side entry door facing Spruce Avenue may
not work per code.
Recommend Approval with Comments
6. OWNER Braschi Family LTD Partnership
APPLICANT Gabe Gonzales
ADDRESS 645 Baden Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P18-0034: DR18-0017, AHA18-0001
PROJECT NAME New Residential Development
(Case Planner: Justin Shiu)
DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal” - Affordable Housing Agreement and Design Review to
construct 8 new residential units at 645 Baden Avenue in the Downtown
Medium Residential (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 32, Section 15332.
The Board had the following comments:
1. The Board is concerned that the proposed revised development is still too massive and out of
character with the existing neighborhood.
2. The design could use some more articulation.
3. Consider an alternative color for the stucco on the top floor, as the proposed color makes the
dwellings look like an industrial Building.
4. Consider reducing the height of the building; a two-story design could better fit with the
neighborhood.
5. Cut down on the massing.
6. Refine the upper story cantilever.
7. At the sides, minimize impact on neighbors by having setbacks at more than three feet.
8. The plans do not call out a trash enclosure area.
9. The site is still lacking a children’s play area, as well as an outdoor area for the residents to
utilize.
10. Review your landscaping plan, as certain species will not survive the SSF elements.
11. The landscaping plan should include some 24 inch box size tall narrow evergreen trees to
help scale the height of the building.
12. Consider three-dimensionality of plants so that plants are not too small or low to the ground,
especially in relation to a larger building.
13. Consider if the front building facing Baden can be two stories and the rear building facing the
lane can be three stories to better match heights.
14. Announce the entrances and consider entry elements.
15. Ensure C3 requirements are met.
16. The Board recommends a larger written narrative to explain why this type of development
makes sense both within the City and the neighborhood.
17. The Board recommends streetscape elevations which show what the development will look
like from both a massing and neighborhood character.
The Board forwards the project with comments to the Planning Commission, with the
determination that the development is not the right fit for the neighborhood.