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.