HomeMy WebLinkAbout1-16-24 Final MinutesDESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DATE: January 16, 2024
TIME: 4:00 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Christopher Mateo– Chairperson
Sean Winchester– Vice Chairperson
David W. Nelson, Michael Nilmeyer & Frank Vieira
MEMBERS ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Adena Friedman, Chief Planner
Billy Gross, Principal Planner
Victoria Kim – Associate Planner
Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician
1. Adminstrative Business - Board Reorganization
New Chairperson / Christopher Mateo
Vice Chairperson / Sean Winchester
2. OWNER SSF Miller Cypress PRI II, LLC
APPLICANT Marissa Reilly
ADDRESS 401 Cypress Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P23-0108: DR23-0026 & SIGNS23-0027
PROJECT NAME Master Sign Program
(Case Planner: Christy Usher)
DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal” - Design Review for a Master Sign Program for
a residential campus at 401 Cypress Avenue in the Downtown
Transit Core (DTC) 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. Miller Avenue Wall Sign: The Board supported the size, location, and
appearance of the Miller Avenue Wall Sign subject to the following conditions:
a. Illumination controlled by a dimmer between dusk to 9 pm (after 9 pm,
lights are turned off for the evening)
b. Prior to final sign off the installation of the sign, perform a light test or
mock-up to determine the appropriate lumens level.
c. Consider using halo lighting (this is not a requirement).
2. Tamarack Wall Sign:
The Board did not support the proposed Tamarack Wall Sign, as the
proposed wall sign is not designed as an integrated part of the building
architecture and appears unbalanced and out of scale.
The Board recommended that a permanent sign not be allowed in this
location, but that a temporary banner be allowed in this location for a
time period of no longer than 6 months.
If a permanent sign were ultimately allowed in this location, it should be
reduced in size to allow one horizontal siding band both above and
below the sign, and the sign should not be illuminated. However, the
Board’s preference is that a permanent sign not be permitted at this
location.
3. The Board recommended approval of all other aspects of the Master Sign
Program.
Continue to work with staff on the Master Sign Program to incorporate the
DRB recommendations, and proceed to a future Planning Commission
meeting.
3 OWNER Gateway Center LLC DE
APPLICANT ARE-SF
ADDRESS 691-695 Gateway Blvd
PROJECT NUMBER P23-0048: DR23-0010 & TDM23-0004
PROJECT NAME New R&D Campus
(Case Planner: Victoria Kim)
DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal” - Design Review and Transportation Demand
Management Program for two new R&D buildings at 691 & 695
Gateway Blvd in the East Transit Core (ETC) 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 revised plan set and overall design.
2. The revised plan set was well thought out and accommodates the site.
3. The façade design and articulation create a nice project with interest and
cohesion around the buildings and provides for a nice open central plaza.
Recommend Approval with Conditions and can proceed to a future Planning
Commission meeting.
4. OWNER Southline Building 1 Owner LLC
APPLICANT Dustin Passalalpi
ADDRESS 50 Tanforan Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P23-0127: SIGNS23-0032 & DR23-0028
PROJECT NAME Master Sign Program
(Case Planner: Victoria Kim)
DESCRIPTION Master Sign Program for Phase 1 of the Southline Campus at 50
Tanforan Avenue in the Southline Campus (S-C) 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 followinc comments:
1. The Board liked the overall Master Sign Program for Phase 1 of the Southline
Campus.
2. As applicants return for the future building signs, be consistent on what is being
approved on the East and West side of the campus.
3. Implement a safety feature for the “S” monument sign (Sign Type S1) to
prevent folks from climbing and falling off.
4. Consider using internal lighting instead of uplights for the campus signs.
5. Confirm that the vehicles signs (Sign Type R2) have 80 inch clearance, so
pedestrians don’t bump into the signs.
Recommend Approval with Conditions and proceed to a future Planning
Commission meeting.
5. Miscellaneous - None