Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-17-22 Final Minutes (2) DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DATE: May 17, 2022 TIME: 4:00 PM MEMBERS PRESENT: David W. Nelson – Chairperson Michael Nilmeyer – Vice Chairperson Chris Mateo& Frank Vieira MEMBERS ABSENT: Sean Winchester STAFF PRESENT: Tony Rozzi, Chief Planner Billy Gross, Principal Planner Adena Friedman, Principal Planner Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner Christy Usher, Senior Planner Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician 1. Adminstrative Business – None 2. OWNER El Camino SSF LLC APPLICANT Skidmore Owings & Merrill LLP ADDRESS 180 El Camino PROJECT NUMBER P21-0126: UP21-0013, DR21-0045, ZA21-0002, TDM21-0012, Signs21-0039, PM21-0003, EIR21-0005 & DA21-0001 PROJECT NAME New R&D Campus (Case Planner: Billy Gross) DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal” - Use Permit, Design Review, Tentative Parcel Map, Transportation Demand Management Program and Development Agreement for a new R&D Campus and multi- family residential building at 180 El Camino Real in the El Camino Real Mixed Use (ECRMX) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, and associated environmmental documentation The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board liked the design concept with the proposed changes 2. The Board requested that more substantial trees be planted along the El Camino Real frontage. To accomplish this, they recommend working with the Fire Marshal to determine if there are feasible alternative solutionsto provide fire access to the buildings, such as revising the design of the central plaza to provide adequate emergency vehicle access. 3. Revise the landscape plan related to the following species, as some of the proposed species will not survive in the wind/cold of South San Francisco: a. The proposed Crape Myrtle trees are too small and will not reach a height in scale with the height of the proposed buildings. Consider planting London Plane, as shown on other new developments along the El Camino corridior. b. The proposed Acer rubrum, Maple trees require wind protection. c. The proposed Arctostaphylos ‘Dr. Hurd’, will not be successful in the cool windy air. d. Myrica is a large shrub, not a tree. e. The proposed Yarrow species is a high allergen plant and would not recommend using it. 4. Continue to work with staff on the proposed changes and share the new alternative design pertaining to the landscaping along the El Camino frontage and relocation of the fire lane with DRB for any additional comments. Recommend approval with conditions. 3. OWNER Prologis USLV NEWCA 2 LLC APPLICANT Amanda Snelson for Alexandria Real Estate Equities (ARE) ADDRESS 100 East Grand Avenue PROJECT NUMBER P21-0087: Signs22-0008 PROJECT NAME Master Sign Program (Case Planner: Adena Friedman) DESCRIPTION Master Sign Program for a new R&D campus with a parking structure at 100 East Grand Avenue in the Transit Office / R&D Core Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board liked the sign design concept. 2. The Board has determined that the sign on the west façade of the parking structure is too tall and out of scale with the structure. Consider reducing the size of sign. 3. Look at other building signs within the surrounding structure. 4. Provide detail information on the proposed monument sign showing the height and how the berming and landscaping works with the sign. 5. Continue to work with staff on the proposed recommendations and share with DRB with a new set of plans, showing the revised west façade of the parking structure Recommend approval with conditions. 4. OWNER Dubuque Center LP APPLICANT Dubuque Center LP / 900 Dubuque LP ADDRESS 800 Dubuque Avenue PROJECT NUMBER P21-0117: UP22-0005, DR22-0022, TDM22-0004 & ND22-0004 PROJECT NAME New R&D Campus (Case Planner: Christopher Espiritu) DESCRIPTION Use Permit, Design Review & Transportation Demand Management Plan to construct a new R&D Campus at 800 Dubuque Avenue in the Freeway Commercial (FC) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board had concerns that the proposed project is too massive and too tall for the site. The design is lacking a sense of arrival to the campus. 2. Consider reducing the building size and pulling away from the edge of the boundary line to include perimeter planters on all edges to support a row of street trees. 3. The plans are lacking articulation to the design. 4. The plans are missing information regarding the site circulation:  Access to underground parking  Location of ADA stalls and accessibility  Location of EV charging stations  Location of ride shares  Pickup and dropoff zones for Uber and Lyft 5. The plans do not show the locations of the trash enclosure and truck docks. Include truck access to and from the site. 6. Address amount of solar being incorporated into project 7. The applicant should provide an acoustic study to determine the overall noise and vibrationcoming off the 101 Highway and the trains running along the building. 8. Describe measures that the applicant will add to the design to address noise and vibration for areas near the Caltrain tracks. 9. The plan is lacking a pedestrian connection from the Caltrain station to the southwest corner of the site. Study pedestrian connects in combimation with wider perimeter landscape discussed in #2 above. There is no accessibility and it lacks a sidewalk. 10. Conduct a lighting study on the night views so that that there are not impacts to the surrounding area and address impacts of building lighting on SFO operations. 11. Review the interior courtyard landscaping, as the proposed wooden planks and rocks/boulders could create tripping hazards. 12. Consider adding seating on the upper courtyard area. 13. Conduct a Wind Stufy to address wind impacts to the courtyard, main entrance, seating areas, as current building is oriented towards the wind. 14. Review the landscaping plant list that the proposed species will tolerate the SSF elements and be cautious with Yarrow, as this species is highly allergenic.  Italian Stone Pine has invasive surface roots that will do serious damage to the adjacent hardscape.  California Bay trees grow to massive size with 5’ diameter trunks in old age. Consider a species that is tall, but with more reasonable mature size.  Rock Rose is short lived, and requires fast draining soil. 15. Consider actual availability of certain plants/trees being proposed. Some images of plants do not show species that will survive the wind. 16. The proposed vines called out on the plans may not work well in this location; look at alternative species that will survive the winds. 17. Consider a Bio Retention study, as this site may benefit from the use of Silva cells beneath the driveways rather than turning the few planters into Bio Retention and further restrict tree planting options. Conduct a Civil Engineer study. 18. Consider separating the sidewalk along Dubuque from the curb and winding it through the landscape similar to the projects to the south leading to the Caltrain Station. Connection to the sidewalk north of the entry is missing. Resubmittal required. 5. OWNER Medet Zira APPLICANT Sunny Tam ADDRESS 249 Grand Avenue PROJECT NUMBER P22-0034: DR22-0009 PROJECT NAME Ground Floor Expansion with Interior and Exterior Improvements including Outdoor Dining (Case Planner: Christy Usher) DESCRIPTION Design Review to construct a ground floor expansion with interior and exterior improvements including an outdoor dining patio at 249 Grand 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 categorically exempt from CEQA. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board liked the proposed design with the wooden façade element. 2. The architecture and modern design brings a nice feature to the downtown district. 3. TheBoard is concern with the sloping sidewalk, as there potential issues with individuals tripping as they enter and exit thru the front bi-folding doors. 4. Check with the Engineering Department for any future sidewalk improvements. 5. Consider adding solar panels. 6. Work with staff to resolve the design issues related to the bi-folding door and slope of the sidewalk. If the solution results in eliminating the bi-folding doors the project should return to DRB for review. Recommend Approval with Conditions. 6. OWNER Oyster Point Holdco, LLC APPLICANT Ensemble Real Estate Investments ADDRESS 367 Marina Blvd PROJECT NUMBER P22-0014: UP22-0001, DR22-0005 & DA22-0001 PROJECT NAME New 350 room Hotel with associated amenities (Case Planner: Christy Usher) DESCRIPTION Use Permit, Design Review & Development Agreement to construct a new 350 room hotel in the Oyster Point Specific Plan (OPSP) Zoning District in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code. The Board had the following comments: 1. The Board liked the rise, terraces, porte cochere, shape and flow of the proposed design concept, and thought the design was well articulated.The Board commented that the architecture and landscape design are both throughtful as evident in the building elevations and landscaping materials. 2. The Board also commented the design is beautiful, the lighting is wonderful and the outddoor space is well designed for the wind. The Board stated the proposed project is the best design of a hotel the City has seen in many years. 3. The development has an excellent outdoor space for individuals to utilize and is well planned for the wind conditions and SSF climate. 4. Review the landscaping plans, as some species will not survive the SSF elements due to wind and cold issues..  Holly Oak with not work well on this site  Coast Redwood will not survive the harsh wind  Arbutus unedo is more of a shrub, consider using Arbus unedo ‘Marina’, which is a successful evergreen tree in SSF.  Leyland Cypress is often a short lived tree in the area.  Myoporum laetum are attacked by thrips and many of them died or died back severely during the last big frost.  Cistus, Rockrose will need good sandy soil, and is often short lived.  Clematus armandii vine will not take wind. Take care the orientation if used.  Liriope suffers from snail infestations and requires additional maintenance. 5. Consider planting clusters of trees off-site on the adjacent vacant parcel and coordinate with the City to plant beyond the south edge, if possible for a more organic look and feel rather than a strict line of trees at the perimeter of the site and parking area. 6. Consider adding ground floor solar panels. 7. Screen service areas on the façade including but not limited to the trash enclosure. 8. Maintain the curved corners on future development and building out on site to continue the nautical look and feel. 9. BCDC will also review and comment on the proposed project including but not limited to the lighting. Recommend Approval with Conditions. 7. Miscelleanous – None.