HomeMy WebLinkAbout8-20-19 Final Minutes (2)DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DATE: August 20, 2019
TIME: 4:00 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nilmeyer, Mateo, Vieira & Winchester
MEMBERS ABSENT: Nelson
STAFF PRESENT: Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner
Adena Friedman, Senior Planner
Alex Greenwood, ECD Director
Nell Selander, Deputy Director
Deanna Talavera, Mgmt. Analyst II
Mike Lappen, ECD Coordinator
Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician
1. Adminstrative Business – None
2. OWNER ARE-East Jamie Court LLC Lesse
APPLICANT ARE-East Jamie Court LLC
ADDRESS 400-450 East Jamie Court
PROJECT NUMBER P19-0055: DR19-0031
PROJECT NAME Landscape Plaza Renovation
(Case Planner: Adena Friedman)
DESCRIPTION Design Review to renovate the landscape plaza at 400-450 East Jamie Court in
the Business and Technology Park (BTP) 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. The Board liked the landscaping concept- nice project that creates access to the bay front. 2. Ensure that the slopes, stairs, and handrails all meet accessibility requirements. Show on building submittals. 3. Confirm the slopes within the parking lot driveway, as the slopes appeared to exceed the
requirements. Check with the Engineering Department on their requirements. 4. Show drainage plans for the Central Courtyard on building submittals. 5. Consider adding some wind protection walls and seating alcoves in lieu of broad planters.
6. The proposed Arctostaphylos will not survive the SSF elements. Consider another species that will adapt to our microclimate. 7. Consider an alternative spreading groundcover such as Ceanothus gloriosus 'Anchor Bay'.
8. The site is lacking trees. The plan should show surrounding landscaping and trees to determine if the proposed planting design fits within the surrounding campus. 9. Consider incorporating some street trees along the front courtyard.
Recommend Approval with Conditions
3. OWNER Baden Development LLC
APPLICANT Baden Development LLC
ADDRESS 428 Baden Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P19-0021: UP19-0005 & DR19-0022
PROJECT NAME New Multi-Family Residential
(Case Planner: Adena Friedman)
DESCRIPTION Use Permit and Design Review to construct a new 18-unit residential
development at 428 Baden Avenue in the Downtown Residential Core (DRC) 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 large dark walls appear to be ominous. Consider softer colors or tones, to be more
compatible with the neighborhood.
2. Consider a different color palette for the development; the current colors are matching the new
surrounding developments and may look dated.
3. The front elevation needs some articulation; consider pushing out the front windows or provide
landscaping.
4. On the East Elevation, the proposed windows are not shown on the plans.
5. On the North East Elevation, the windows are different sizes. Consider aligning the windows.
6. The site does not include play areas for children.
7. Consider using the roof top too gain some additional open space for the site.
8. The design is lacking street trees on Baden and Third Lane. Consider adding street trees on
Baden to help scale the height of the building.
9. Consider stepping the building back on the architecture facades to make room for a street tree on
Baden.
10. As a community benefit, consider replacing the trees along the adjacent City parking lot to help
soften the development and provide more landscaping.
11. Revise the lobby area to be more usable for residents and visitors
12. Coordinate trash pick-up location with SSF Scavenger, as Third Lane is a very narrow street.
13. Consider adding some SSF features to the proposed mural design on the west elevation (facing
the City parking lot)
14. Make sure the building is solar-ready (for roof panels).
Recommend Approval with Conditions.
4. OWNER Robert Simms
APPLICANT Res Park SFO LLC
ADDRESS 501 South Airport Blvd
PROJECT NUMBER P19-0053: UP19-0010 & DR19-0029
PROJECT NAME New Vehicle Sales Location
(Case Planner: Tony Rozzi)
DESCRIPTION Use Permit and Design Review for a new car sales facilty at 501 South Airport
Blvd in the Business Commercial (BC) Zoning District in accordance with Title
20 of the South San Francisco and determination that the project is categorcially
exempt from CEQA.
The Board had the following comments:
1. The Board liked the design concept.
2. Eliminate the yellow band from the building façade, keep it monochromatic.
3. Consider removing the yellow background from the sign and add a contrast color to the Hertz
logo sign.
4. The chain link fence should be replaced to match the proposed fencing along the property.
5. The design of the trees is simplistic. Create a more interesting design with varied heights, colors,
textures and patterns. Plant minimum 24 inch box size.
6. The proposed Muhlenbergia rigens shown on the plans will not grow properly as it’s a central
valley species that needs 100 plus degree summer weather.
7. Consider Muhlenbergia capillaris – Pink Muhly, which will grow well in SSF.
8. Has there been consideration of what will be planted in the Bio-Retention areas. The selection of
species should be tall to assist with screening the perimeter of the parking lot.
Recommend Approval with Conditions.
5. OWNER Abdul Hakim
APPLICANT Rafia Hakim
ADDRESS 423 Commercial Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P18-0058: DR18-0027
PROJECT NAME Four new multi-unit townhomes
(Case Planner: Tony Rozzi)
DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal” - Design Review to construct four new rental townhomes at 423
Commercial 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 liked the revised plans with the rooftop garden.
2. The Board conceptually liked the color palette.
3. Roof access is improved, safe and aesthetically pleasing.
4. Consider using the side bands so that there is more a cohesion with the two buildings.
5. Redesign the roofline where the stairway opens up to the roof so that it’s not a box popping up
and that will complement the roof.
6. On the rear elevation, you need to resolve the line back far enough so you don’t see the wall at
the rear of the two units from the Commercial Avenue side.
7. The colors on the front and rear elevations could be more muted.
8. There are two plants that are listed incorrectly on the plans; Redbud and Cotoneaster Frachetti
are swapped on the plans.
Recommend Approval with Conditions.
6. 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. Building line is still fundamentally level as shown on A30, minor changes to the roof line does not
improve this concern. A few dramatic breaks of one or two stories in height should be designed, to
provide a significant improvement.
2. The easy opportunity to address the scale of these buildings is not addressed in the plan or the
sections and elevations. The existing 80' tall Eucalyptus trees are being removed and replaced with
small patio size trees (15'-30') along the foundation of the buildings. The tree planting design shown
on the resubmittal of A30 is less effective than the previous submittal. The project demands use of
trees that reach 60'-80', and the requirement to construct wide deep plant pits (12' x12' x 3' deep
backfilled with engineered planting soil) is necessary to achieve this result. The trees are shown as
patio size trees 15’-30’ tall rather than significant height trees 50'-60’ tall and the design for much
taller species at strategic locations that will reach 70'-100' tall, are not present. The removal of the
redwoods is indicated in response to wind, however, these taller species will do quite well if on the
wind sheltered sides of the building.
3. C1 building is much more unified in this design, the massing is more complex, but the finishes are
simplified and stand as its own building. The massing studies were very beneficial, but still feel that
C1 building is still too large.
4. Image A08 does not show any attempt to improve the building roof line, or add/change trees species
to taller trees to soften this view.
5. The Board appreciates understanding the context of future buildout within the El Camino
Real/Chestnut area and the impression that this is a large-scale development that will not stand alone,
it is in the context of other developments and topography.
6. The model was very helpful and the project is benefiting from topography and it helped the Board
understand the development.
7. The Board liked the proposed lighting fixtures, applicant going in the right direction.
Landscaping and Site Planning
8. The Board liked the choice of Monterey Cypress that will help scale with the height of the buildings,
as well as the Monkey Puzzle tree.
9. The Board liked that the applicant pulled away from the all age playground to be mid-range friendly.
10. L7.0 Planting Plan shows added trees on plan, however the impact does not affect the needed
screening and scaling of these large buildings. The Corymbia ssp. does not identify type, to
determine potential height, and there are only 6 shown. This is lost potential to address building
massing with taller trees.
11. Tristania laurina along Mission road is too short of a species and out of scale with 84’ building. All
the trees along the face of these buildings should be minimum 50'-60' tall, and the use of smaller
patio sized (15'-30') should be used where the perimeter view and scaling the building is not a
concern.
12. Platanus acerifolia should be labeled as Platanus acerifolia ‘Columbia’, the cultivar that is mildew
resistant and which does quite well in the SSF microclimate.
13. Image on A05 shows trees along the face of building; however the landscape plan does not reflect
this image.
14. A12 shows fewer trees and smaller trees that the same Site Elevations from the prior submittal.
15. Response to lighting, bio-retention, play areas, etc. are much improved.
16. The Public comment about white on the building does not appear to be addressed.
17. The Public comment about parking appears to be addressed.
Public Comments – PUC AGI KASA
There were five speakers from the public:
Diane Stokes – resides in the Sunshine Gardens neighborhood. Concern is only seeing the upper
half of these buildings, so please pay close attention to the colors – there is a lot of foliage and now
see lights at Serramonte; there is too much cream and design is not industrial – make the colors
warmer and do something to discourage graffiti.
Corey David – no public discussion of heights and read comment letter
• Has anyone from staff coached the applicant on presentation?
• Has developer met with any staff member?
Bob Richardson – suggests making larger panels with colors so that they can seen by the public and
add renderings to the website – expanded color board, suggests more outreach to the community,
show the connections between these buildings and the Civic Campus Center.
Mike Soreo – just moved here a year ago – worried about losing view from home, low income
housing and one level of parking doesn’t seem like enough parking.
Laura Fanella – wanted to make some points
• Parking
• Shadow Impact Study for this project? 1256 Mission created shadows on her property since
there is a mod problem in SSF.
• Full set of plans not posted online.
• Evacuation plans – El Camino Real or Hillside from Sunshine Gardens are only options and
adding 800 units will be many more humans on the ground.
• View of this project from CCC which we are spending $210 million on – what is the
minimum that we have to do on this site to keep state off our back?
Design Review Board recommends the project to move to Planning Commission.
Miscellaneous - None