HomeMy WebLinkAbout5-16-23 Final MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DATE: May 16, 2023
TIME: 4:00 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Michael Nilmeyer – Chairperson
Chris Mateo – Vice Chairperson
David W. Nelson, Sean Winchester & Frank Vieira
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Adena Friedman, Principal Planner
Billy Gross, Principal Planner
Christopher Espiritu, Senior Planner
Christy Usher, Senior Planner
Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner
Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician
1. Adminstrative Business
Disussion on meeting attendance
2. OWNER South City Ventures LLC
APPLICANT South City Ventures LLC
ADDRESS 580 Dubuque Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P21-0037: SIGNS23-0014
PROJECT NAME Master Sign Program
(Case Planner: Christopher Espiritu)
DESCRIPTION Design Review for a Master Sign Program for a commercial
building at 580 Dubuque Avenue in the East Transit Core (ETC)
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 Master Sign Program.
2. The proposed “Spur” monnument sign is too tall and has multiple fonts that
makes the sign distracting to read.
3. Monument Sign colors that were intended to match the corten steel look does
not work as well as presented. Applicant should ensure materials selected work
together so that the contrasting colors do not look incompatible.
4. Confirm that the monument sign will not block the sightlines as cars are
entering/exiting the campus
Recommend Approval with Conditions and can proceed to a future Planning
Commission meeting.
3. OWNER Healthpeak
APPLICANT Lan Ly
ADDRESS 256 Grand Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P23-0058: DR23-0014
PROJECT NAME Interior & Exterior Modifications
(Case Planner: Christy Usher)
DESCRIPTION Design Review for interior & exterior modifications to an
existing commercial building at 256 East Grand Avenue in the
Business Technology Park - High (BTP-H) 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 concept.
2. The Board does not recommend using live plant species for the feature wall, as
the plants would require a lot of maintenance. The Board also did not prefer the
fake plant option.
3. The Board would prefer a mosaic title for the feature wall.
4. Review the landscaping plant list, as some of the species called out will not
survive the SSF elements. The Gleditsia may not survive the cool wind.
Consider using “Ginko” trees for the area, such as “Autumn Gold” or “
Princeton Sentry”. Many species of Manzanita shrubs and groundcovers don’t
like the cool weather, double check the species selected. You will need good
sandy, fast draining soil for the Cistus to survive and reach their potential
growth. Ficus typically does poorly in SSF, Please don’t specify Yarrow as it
causes alergic reactions.
5. The Board has no concerns using artificial turf for the proposed outdoor area.
6. Consider a redesign for the canopy over the doorway to create a more
pronounced entrance into the building.
Recommend Approval with Conditions
4. OWNER US Terminal Court Owner LLC
APPLICANT SteelWave
ADDRESS 101 Terminal Court
PROJECT NUMBER P22-0124: UP22-0012, DR22-0037 & TDM22-0008
PROJECT NAME New R&D Campus
(Case Planner: Billy Gross)
DESCRIPTION Conditional Use Permit, Design Review and Transportation
Demand Program for a new R&D campus at 101 Terminal
Court in the Business Technology Park - High (BTP-H) 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 but had concerns with the parking structure
design and blocking the view from the south of the R&D/office building. What
landscape will be used to soften the “look” of the south wall of the parking
structure?
2. Provide drawings/renderings of the south face of the parking garage to show the
appearance of the overall project as approached from northbound and
southbound US 101 and from properties to the south of the Navigable Slough.
3. Include a drainage and grading plan.
4. Review the landscaping plan, as certain landscape species may not survive the
SSF elements, including Deer Grass, Manzanita and Redwoods (if Phase 2+ of
the project is not ultimately constructed).
Resubmittal required.
5. OWNER Gateway Center LLC DE
APPLICANT Alexandria Real Estate
ADDRESS 555 Gateway Blvd
PROJECT NUMBER P22-0123: DR22-0046, PM22-0003, ND22-0003 &
TDM22-0011
PROJECT NAME New R&D Building
(Case Planner: Adena Friedman)
DESCRIPTION Design Review, Tentative Parcel Map, Transportation Demand
Program and CEQA Determination for a new R&D building and
parking garage at 555 Gateway Blvd in the East of 101 Transit
Core (ETC) District 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.
2. The landscaping esplanade connection is a nice element feature to the campus.
3. The parking structure is simple and attractive from the Freeway.
4. Review the landscaping plan, as some of the species will not survive the SSF
elements. Westringia will die if there is a freeze. Some Manzanita species do
poorly in the cool microclimate.
5. Remove Yarrow from your plant species, as this species is a high allergen plant.
6. Verify the proposed berm is at the same elevation as the existing “snaking”
berm at the YMCA site, to maintain screening of the proposed parking.
Recommend Approval with Conditions.
6. OWNER Gabriel Gonzalez
APPLICANT Andrea Costanzo
ADDRESS 343 Aspen Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P22-0134: DR22-0040
PROJECT NAME New SFD with an attached ADU & JADU
(Case Planner: Stephanie Skangos)
DESCRIPTION Design Review to construct a new single family dwelling unit
with an attached ADU and JADU 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 proposed house design concept with the materials and
color.
2. The Board would like to see more treatment features around the windows and
garage door. Consider adding shutters around the windows to add some
articulation and/or using a darker color for the trim around the windows and
garage door.
3. The proposed driveway appears too steep and possibly would not work as an
active driveway for vehicles to enter and exit, as smaller vehicles will likely.
scrape as they enter/exit. Consider decreasing the slope of the driveway by
lowering the garage slab.
4. Provide a cross section of the driveway and garage area for review. Also, revise
the rendering so that the driveway is depicted accurately.
5. Review the proposed site and floor plans to confirm that they accurately depict
the sloping of the front yard area, as well as the difference in slab/ground-floor
height between the garage and the main dwelling entry/living area. Access stairs
from the garage into the main dwelling appear to be missing.
6. Review the landscaping plans, as it appears that some proposed plant species are
mislabeled/incorrect. Ceanothus horizontalis is not Heavenly Bamboo, which is
intended?
Resubmittal required.
7. OWNER Eddie Ruiz
APPLICANT Andrea Costanzo
ADDRESS 648 Railroad Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P23-0033: DR23-0008
PROJECT NAME New 2-story residential dwelling with two units
(Case Planner: Stephanie Skangos)
DESCRIPTION Design Review to construct a new 2-story residential dwelling
with two units at 648 Railroad Avenue in the Downtown
Residential – Medium (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.
The Board had the following comments:
1. The Board liked the proposed design concept.
2. Consider adding a landscaping treatment, such as specialty plants (columnar
hedge type such as Ilex crenata ‘Sky Pencil’, Sky Pencil Holly or similar),
and/or an elevated finish, such as stone, to help break up the blank wall facing
the lane.
3. The 2nd-story deck guardrail is too thin. Consider thickening the guardrail and/or
adding some articulation with a color tone that will match the house. Consider if
the guardrail will effectively screen items left out on the deck,
4. Redesign the proposed front column, as the column is too wide and appears to
be encroaching into the walkway to the front door. Consider reducing the width
of the front column from 6x6 to 4x4.
5. The columns for the rear porch also need some attention, as the area looks
unfinished, and the columns are too small (thin). Consider thickening the porch
columns.
6. Review the landscaping plan, as certain species on the plant list will not survive
the SSF elements, and the site will need fast draining sandy soil, to support
Cistus. Ceanothus ‘Ray Hartman’ does not grow well in the cool microclimate.
Also, consider adding a row of hedge plants, such as Ilex crenata ‘Sky Pencil’,
Sky Pencil Holly or similar, along the front blank façade.
Recommend Approval with Conditions
8. Miscellaneous - none