HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-15-19 Final MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DATE: October 15, 2019
TIME: 4:00 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Mateo, Nilmeyer, Vieira & Winchester
MEMBERS ABSENT: Nelson
STAFF PRESENT: Adena Friedman, Senior Planner
Christy Usher, Consultant Planner
Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician
1. Adminstrative Business – None
2. OWNER ARE-SF No 40 LLC
APPLICANT ARE-SF No 40 LLC
ADDRESS 751 Gateway Blvd
PROJECT NUMBER P18-0064: UP19-0013, TDM19-0006, DR19-0035 & EIR19-0005
PROJCT NAME New 7-story Office/R&D Building
(Case Planner: Adena Friedman)
DESCRIPTION Use Permit, Transportation Demand Management Plan, and Design Review to
construct a new 7-story Office/ R&D building consisting of 215,000 gross
square feet at 751 Gateway Blvd in the Gateway Specific Plan District (GSPD)
Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the Municipal Code and per the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The Board had the following comments:
1. The Board liked the design concept, the architecture features, landscape design and window
design.
2. The Board liked the connection between the new and existing buildings, as this unites the
campus together, as well as the interaction with Gateway Blvd.
3. Ensure the building is solar-ready.
4. The Metal Walls along Gateway and the corner seem foreign to the site.
5. Consider using materials such as concrete or material/finish which works better with the larger
landscape palette.
6. The wall at the service enclosure should remain metal wall to match and work with the building
panels.
7. Overall, the landscaping plan works for this site.
8. Plantanus racemosa is a great native choice for informal planting, but should not be used for
formal planting (bosque, parking lot planting, etc) since they are susceptible to pests. Usage here
seems appropriate.
9. Centranthus species, Pennisetum orientale, and Stipa species are typically invasive species. The
DRB recommends using different species. Landscape Architect to confirm the final species will
not populate volunteers in adjacent landscape areas.
10. Design Review Board does recommend Muhlenbergia rigens in SSF.
11. The proposed Cedar trees will work well in this location.
12. Acer rubrum is a good choice.
13. The proposed stormwater flow through planters along the street and sidewalk compliments the
campus.
14. The screen wall should extend and continue around the mechanical equipment.
15. Will the bus stop be open to the public, as well as to the employees?
It is for a commute.org shuttle (public transit), as well as potential private shuttles
16. Show ride share parking pick up/ drop off location on the site plan
17. Show delivery truck parking (FedEx, UPS etc) parking location on the site plan
Recommend Approval with Conditions
3. OWNER SFF Realty Fund III LP
APPLICANT GNU Group
ADDRESS 800-890 Dubuque Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P19-0063: Signs19-0028 & DR19-0036
PROJECT NAME Master Sign Program
(Case Planner: Adena Friedman)
DESCRIPTION Master Sign Program for a commerial building at 800-890 Dubuque Avenue in
the Freeway Commercial (FC) Zone District in accordance with Title 20 of the
South San Francisco Municipal Code and determination that the project is
exempt from CEQA.
The Board had the following comments:
1. The Board liked the proposed sign concept; it adds a nice architectural element to the campus.
2. Consider reducing the height of the freestanding signs along the frontage road, make sure it is in
scale with the buildings.
3. Applicant stated intent to re-use the existing 6” concrete base. If this is not feasible, height to
match existing (6”). Submit for building permits if needed.
4. The signs may need to be on a flat surface, check with the building department on the
requirements.
Recommend approval with conditions.
4. OWNER William Adasiewicz
APPLICANT Ryan Morris, Morris Architecture
ADDRESS 360/364 Alta Vista Drive
PROJECT NUMBER P19-0028: UP19-0016 & DR19-0040
PROJECT NAME New Planned Development consisting of 14 Single Family Dwellings and 14
Accessory Dwelling Units.
(Case Planner: Christy Usher)
DESCRIPTION Preliminary comments from the City's Design Review Board are requested by
the owner/applicant of an incomplete application for a Planned Unit
Development to merge 4 parcels and construct 14 Single Family Dwellings with
14 Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) at 360 and 364 Alta Vista Drive in
accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.
The Board had the following comments:
1. The Board had many pedestrian circulation concerns with the project.
2. Citing safety and liability, the Board voiced concern over the roadway design which incorporates
a pedestrian path into the roadway. A sidewalk, with a grade change, separate of the roadway,
was recommended and preferred by the Board.
3. Pedestrian circulation was unclear and unsafe to the Board.
4. The Board wondered and questioned how residents will get from their houses to bus routes in the
existing surrounding neighborhood. The Board suggested providing a sidewalk to Alta Vista.
5. The crosswalk as designed is not ideal being proposed at the widest part of the roadway and
terminating into a private driveway. Consider relocating the cross walk to a narrow point in the
roadway. Consider pedestrian signage at crosswalk.
6. Pedestrian safety and pedestrian access to the park needs to be addressed.
7. Consider bike/pedestrian pathways east/west to the open space.
8. Not clear how residents walk/bike to the park.
9. Access to the park is not resolved.
10. Paths to the open space from the guest parking spaces should also be provided.
11. The park needs sidewalk access from Alta Vista Drive.
12. Vehicle parking is a concern and will be an issue. As proposed vehicle parking is too limited and
will be difficult at best.
13. The Board was concerned residents will end up parking down Alta Vista Drive.
14. The Board expressed concern with the density, stating the project is 28 units rather than 14 SFDs
each with an ADU.
15. Concern there is too much being squeezed on the site and too much is being shoe horned into the
project.
16. Side elevations are underwhelming and require more visual interest and architectural detail.
17. For the Craftsman architectural style units, consider a tighter lap siding (6 inch or less) rather
than 8-10 inch.
18. Consider a landscape pocket to buffer to the wall proposed along the East property line.
19. Avoid Crape Myrtle in the proposed landscaping plan because they mildew in SSF.
20. Prefer to see more of a landscape buffer along Alta Vista Drive.
21. Concern that as proposed there is no place for anyone to play on the project site.
22. The grade change in park itself is problematic from an accessibility stand point. There is only one
concrete pad is accessible which is not acceptable. The project needs to provide an accessible
path to get up to main features in park not just one pad that is wheel chair accessible.
23. The pocket park has stairs but should be available to everyone. It should be wheelchair
accessible. It should be ADA compliant.
In conclusion, the Board stated there are large site planning challenges that haven’t been remedied.
These issues are all described in detail above by the Board.
The applicant will revise and resubmit plans for review.
Miscellaneous - None