HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-09-16 e-packet@5:00Monday, September 16, 2019
5:00 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
City Hall, City Manager's Conference Room
400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA
Housing Standing Committee of the City Council and
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda
September 16, 2019Housing Standing Committee of the
City Council and Planning
Commission
Regular Meeting Agenda
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 of the Government Code of the State of
California, the City Council and the Planning Commission Housing Standing Committee of the City of South San
Francisco will hold a Regular Meeting on Monday, September 16, 2019, at 5:00 p.m., at City Hall, City
Manager's Conference Room, 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California.
Purpose of the meeting:
Call To Order.
Roll Call.
Agenda Review.
Public Comments.
MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION
Motion to approve the Minutes from the meeting on May 29, 2019.1.
Report regarding Housing Standing Committee study session of the proposed
residential development at 428 Baden Avenue. (Adena Friedman, Senior Planner)
2.
Adjournment.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 12/26/2019
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-758 Agenda Date:9/16/2019
Version:1 Item #:1.
Motion to approve the Minutes from the meeting on May 29, 2019.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/12/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:19-731 Agenda Date:9/16/2019
Version:1 Item #:2.
Report regarding Housing Standing Committee study session of the proposed residential development at 428
Baden Avenue.(Adena Friedman, Senior Planner)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Housing Standing Committee receive this staff report and provide input
regarding the proposed residential development at 428 Baden Avenue.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In March 2019,Baden Development LLC submitted an application for a residential development at 428 Baden
Avenue.The 7,000 sq.ft.site is a through lot with frontage on Baden Avenue and 3rd Lane,between Spruce
and Maple Avenues.The site contains a single-family home;there is a multi-family apartment building to the
east of the project site and a public city-owned parking lot is directly to the west.The project site is located
within the Downtown Residential Core (DRC)zoning district of the Downtown Station Area Specific Plan
(DSASP).
The proposed development is for 18 rental units,provided in a mix of studio,one-and two-bedroom units.
Parking is located in the ground-floor garage,using parking stackers.The applicant’s project plan set is
attached, outlining the design, architectural and landscape concepts (Attachment 1).
The project is applying for a State density bonus of 35%,by providing 15%of the project’s units targeting very
low-income (VLI)households.Attachment 2 contains the 428 Baden Density Bonus Program.The base
maximum density in the DRC district is 80 dwelling units/acre (du/ac),or 12.86 units on the 7,000 sq.ft.lot.
By applying a 35%density bonus to the base allowable 12.86 units,the maximum yield is 17.36 units -which
is rounded up to 18 units,in accordance with State density bonus law.The 18 units equates to a density of 113
du/ac.
The project will provide 15%of the base density of 13 units or 2 units (1.93,rounded to 2)as VLI targeted.The
applicant will be required to execute an Affordable Housing Agreement (AHA)with the City,memorializing
the terms of affordability program.
The applicant is not requesting any development incentives,concessions or parking reductions which are
permitted per the State density bonus law.The project is requesting a waiver /modification to increase the
maximum lot coverage,which is 90%in the DRC zoning district.Waivers and modifications are available
under the State density bonus law,and are applicable to development standards that physically preclude the
construction of the project that qualifies for a density bonus or incentive.South San Francisco Municipal Code
(SSFMC)Section 20.510 (Waivers and Modifications)permits up to a 10%increase in maximum lot coverage.
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2019Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:19-731 Agenda Date:9/16/2019
Version:1 Item #:2.
(SSFMC)Section 20.510 (Waivers and Modifications)permits up to a 10%increase in maximum lot coverage.
The 428 Baden project is requesting a 7%increase,for a total lot coverage of 97%.As outlined in the Density
Bonus Program,not receiving the additional lot coverage will have the effect of physically precluding the
construction of the development at the density proposed.The physical constraints of this site (50’x 140’)
requires the design to maximize the ground level footprint to achieve a viable parking layout,mechanical
systems, trash room, bike storage, usable lobby space, and open space amenities.
In August 2019,the Design Review Board (DRB)reviewed the project.The DRB recommended approval of
the design,with some minor design changes incorporated,including creating a more prominent entryway with
landscaping or architectural features,and suggested changes to the color scheme.DRB members also suggested
ideas for the mural on the western elevation of the building,to ensure that it captures the character and history
of South San Francisco. The minutes from the DRB meeting are attached to this staff report (Attachment 3).
The applicant is hosting a community meeting on Tuesday,September 17,to gather feedback and comments
from the neighborhood.
CONCLUSION
Staff requests that the Housing Subcommittee provide input and direction regarding the proposed residential
project at 428 Baden Avenue.
ATTACHMENTS
1.428 Baden Avenue Plan Set
2.428 Baden Density Bonus Program
3.DRB Minutes, August, 2019
City of South San Francisco Printed on 9/10/2019Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Sheet Index:Project Address:Project Location:Cover SheetA0.0PROJECT SITEProject Information:428 BadenEntitlement Set18-113August 1, 2019Attachment 1
140'-0"50'-0"
50'-0"2A3.04A3.03A3.01A3.0LobbyMech.ParkingTrash Rm.Transformer4'-6"6'-10"
19'-8"
5'-6"34'-6"10'-0"
38'-6"10'-0"Existing Parking LotBaden Avenue
3rd LaneExisting 3-Story BuildingSpace 125'-0"
Gate Existing 1-Story BuildingStair Up ToL2 PodiumStair #1Stair #2Elevation +0'2A4.06'-1"11'-7"1A4.0Mech.ParcelMailElevatorExisting 2-Story
Building
Existing 3-Story
Building Existing 1-StoryBuildingPLFence/GatePLPLBike ParkingUTIL. POLEUTIL. POLE123458'-6"15'-0"Fence29'-2"28'-0"28'-0"28'-0"9'-0"8'-0"9'-0"8'-0"Space 19Space 2 - 18(17 Space Puzzle Lift)BIKE RACKGround Level PlanA2.00482Xref ..\Xrefs\x18115_Keyplan_3.dwg
LEVEL 1 AND SITE1428 BadenEntitlement Set18-113June 24, 2019
9'-0"8'-0"
29'-2"
25'-0"26'-6"19'-1"8'-6"9'-0"8'-0"
29'-2"
25'-0"26'-6"19'-1"8'-6"Parking Circulation DiagramA2.0a0482Xref ..\Xrefs\x18115_Keyplan_3.dwg428 BadenEntitlement Set18-113June 24, 2019LEVEL 1 - SPACE 1LEVEL 1 - END SPACES12
A2CB
CBCB
CBCBCBCBCBCBCBA2S1S1A1Stair Down ToStreet LevelStair #1Stair #2Open ToBelowElevation +15'Elevation +15'2A3.04A3.03A3.01A3.0140'-0"50'-0"40'-0"10'-0"
32'-0"10'-0"
10'-10"
8'-0"
8'-10"19'-11"32'-10"38'-0"3'-6"2A4.01A4.0B1Trash ChuteElevatorFence/GateStair #1Courtyard18'-7"27'-2"CBCBCB
CBCB
CBCBCBCBCBA2A2S1S1B2Stair #1Stair #2Elevation +25'-4"2A3.04A3.03A3.01A3.0140'-0"50'-0"
32'-0"10'-0"8'-0"3'-6"14'-2"2A4.01A4.0B1Trash ChuteElevator40'-0"10'-0"Level 2 & 3 PlansA2.10482Xref ..\Xrefs\x18115_Keyplan_3.dwg
LEVEL 21LEVEL 32428 BadenEntitlement Set18-113June 24, 2019
CB
CBCBCBCBCBCBCBCB
CBA2B3S1B1B2Stair #1Stair #2Elevation +35'-8"2A3.04A3.03A3.01A3.0140'-0"50'-0"
32'-0"10'-0"8'-0"2A4.01A4.011'-9"Trash ChuteElevator2'-10"40'-0"10'-0"Roof DeckStair #12A3.04A3.03A3.01A3.0140'-0"50'-0"
32'-0"10'-0"8'-0"Roof2A4.01A4.11A4.02'-10"17'-5"ElevatorElevation +47'-0"Line of Trellis Above40'-0"10'-0"
11'-10"7'-4 1/2"11'-6"19'-7"16'-7"23'-6"6'-10"22'-0"Level 4 & Roof PlansA2.20482Xref ..\Xrefs\x18115_Keyplan_3.dwg
LEVEL 41ROOF LEVEL2428 BadenEntitlement Set18-113June 24, 2019
ElevationsA3.0NORTH ELEVATION104822AFIN. FLOOR0'-0"LEVEL 215'-0"LEVEL 325'-4"LEVEL 435'-8"15'-0"10'-4"10'-4"10'-4"FIN. FLOOR0'-0"LEVEL 215'-0"LEVEL 325'-4"LEVEL 435'-8"15'-0"10'-4"10'-4"10'-4"SOUTH ELEVATION3EAST ELEVATION2WEST ELEVATION4FIN. FLOOR0'-0"LEVEL 215'-0"LEVEL 325'-4"LEVEL 435'-8"15'-0"10'-4"10'-4"10'-4"FIN. FLOOR0'-0"LEVEL 215'-0"LEVEL 325'-4"LEVEL 435'-8"10'-4"10'-4"10'-4"51'-2"62'-0"10A8-1C1B5A1B7A6A9-7A5A1B5A8-1C1A11C1D1A1C5A15'-0"428 BadenEntitlement Set18-1136A1A11C1B6A5A4-2A4-2A1B13D1C1A1B3A5A1C3A10D1C5A5A8-1C2A1B8-1A1B3-57'-0"39'-8"50'-6"62'-0"57'-0"57'-0"50'-6"62'-0"57'-0"50'-6"62'-0"49'-6"49'-6"50'-6"ROOF DECK47'-0"1'-0"ROOF DECK47'-0"1'-0"ROOF46'-0"ROOF46'-0"ROOF DECK47'-0"1'-0"ROOF46'-0"ROOF DECK47'-0"1'-0"ROOF46'-0"14-June 24, 2019
0482SECTIONSECTION
0241UNIT B32 Bedroom/2 Bath (1,303 SF)UNIT S1Studio (495 SF)UNIT A21 Bedroom/1 Bath (800 SF)UNIT B12 Bedroom/2 Bath (926 SF)UNIT A1UNIT B22 Bedroom/2 Bath (1,047 SF)2 Bedroom/2 Bath (756 SF)
ViewsA6.0VIEW FROM BADEN LOOKING NW1DETAIL VIEW FROM BADEN3VIEW FROM 3RD LANE LOOKING SW4VIEW FROM BADEN LOOKING SE2VIEW OF COURTYARD LOOKING SW7VIEW OF COURTYARD LOOKING NE5VIEW OF COURTYARD DECK LOOKING SW8AERIAL VIEW LOOKING NW6AERIAL VIEW LOOKING SW9412356789428 BadenEntitlement Set18-113June 24, 2019
Baden Development, LLC
311 9th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94401
415-297-0709
[email protected]
Page 1
Density Bonus Program
Date: 21 June 2019
Project: 428 Baden
Project Address: 428 Baden, South San Francisco, CA 94080
Legal Description: Real property in the City of South San Francisco, County of San Mateo, State of
California, described as
follows:
LOT 7 IN BLOCK 117, AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED
"SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SAN
MATEO CO. CAL. PLAT NO. 1", FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY
RECORDER OF SAN MATEO
COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ON MARCH 1, 1892 IN BOOK "B" OF
MAPS AT PAGE(S) 6, AND A
COPY ENTERED IN BOOK 2 OF MAPS AT PAGE 52.
APN: 012-321-170
Zoning: Downtown Residential Core (DRC) – no proposed change to zoning
DENSITY BONUS REQUEST
To whom it may concern,
We are applying for a state density bonus of 35% for the 428 Baden project by providing 15% of the
project’s units targeting very low income (VLI) households. The base density for the project’s 7,000 sf
(0.16 acre) lot is 80 du/acre, which translates to 12.86 units. By applying a 35% density bonus to the
base allowable 12.86 units, a yield of 18 units (rounded up). The project will provide 15% of the base
density of 13 units or 2 units (1.93, rounded to 2) as VLI targeted.
We are seeking a waiver/modification of the lot coverage development standard from 90% to 97% in
order to achieve the additional density and keep the project from increasing in height.
A detailed map is attached as Exhibit A, showing the project location and such details as the location of
the nearest commercial retail, transit stop, potential employment locations, park or recreation facilities or
other social or community service facilities.
Also attached are site plans, designating the total number of units proposed on the site, including the
number of target dwelling units and density bonus dwelling units, and supporting plans per the application
submittal requirements are attached as Exhibit B.
WAIVERS/MODIFICATIONS
Lot Coverage:
Our lot coverage waiver/modification request is for a 7% increase over the 90% allowed in the DRC zone
to 97%. The maximum variation is a 10% increase per Section 20.510.002 (C4) of SSFMC. Under Table
Attachment 2
Page | 2
20.280.004-2 of the Development Standards section of the SSFMC, our property’s development
standards have a 90% lot coverage limit within the DRC zone. Our application has a design which
proposes approximately 97% lot coverage at the ground level.
Not having the additional will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the development
at the density proposed. The physical constraints of this site (50’ x 140’) requires the design to maximize
the ground level footprint to achieve a viable parking layout, mechanical systems, trash room, bike
storage and usable lobby space.
Open space provided on the second floor above the podium would also be reduced if the lot coverage
remains at 90%. This not only reduces the shared amenity space but also reduces the amount of light
available to the units arranged around this space. In addition, the current lot coverage maximum would
require the project to increase in height in order to achieve the targeted unit total. Keeping the project’s
height from increasing assists in the financial viability of the project and assists in reducing the massing
impact to the neighborhood context.
Providing parking below grade is also not feasible. With the project site dimensions being small and
narrow, providing a vehicular ramp down to a subterranean level would take up so much of the footprint it
prevents the remaining area from yielding a viable parking design. Below grade construction would also
have a greater environmental impact on the surrounding neighbors.
The additional lot coverage we are requesting would not result in a detriment to the occupants of this
project or the general public. However, not granting the waiver would require the project to be designed
at an increased height, which has a greater impact on the surrounding community and has a cost impact
which may preclude the project from being realized.
INCENTIVES/CONCESSIONS
Incentives/concessions are not being requested in our application.
PARKING
Relief from parking requirements are not being requested in our application.
Sincerely,
_______________________
Victor Lo
Baden Development, LLC
428 BADENDESIGN + ARCHITECTURE01Cafes & Shops Caltrain StationEmployment AreasOrange Memorial Park03*01020301040402Vicinity Map0102030405Commercial Retail• Downtown Commercial• Food & Beverage• Shops & ServicesTransit• Caltrain Station• Bus Station• Shuttle ServiceEmployment• Grand Avenue Core• Business Commercial• R & D CorePark & Recreation• Orange Memorial Park• Sister Cities Park• City Hall PlaylotCommunity & SocialServices• SSF Community Center• Brennan Marque Terese• Public Library• SchoolsProject Site05030305040404030102Public Library0505030505*5002501250Exhibit A
2A4.01A4.00482LEVEL 1 AND SITE
A2A2S1S12A4.01A4.0B1A2A2S1S12A4.01A4.0B10482LEVEL 2LEVEL 3
A2B3S1B12A4.01A4.0Roof DeckRoof2A4.01A4.11A4.00482LEVEL 4ROOF LEVEL
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MINUTES
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
DATE: August 20, 2019
TIME: 4:00 PM
MEMBERS PRESENT: Nilmeyer, Mateo, Vieira & Winchester
MEMBERS ABSENT: Nelson
STAFF PRESENT: Tony Rozzi, Principal Planner
Adena Friedman, Senior Planner
Alex Greenwood, ECD Director
Nell Selander, Deputy Director
Deanna Talavera, Mgmt. Analyst II
Mike Lappen, ECD Coordinator
Patricia Cotla, Planning Technician
1. Adminstrative Business – None
2. OWNER ARE-East Jamie Court LLC Lesse
APPLICANT ARE-East Jamie Court LLC
ADDRESS 400-450 East Jamie Court
PROJECT NUMBER P19-0055: DR19-0031
PROJECT NAME Landscape Plaza Renovation
(Case Planner: Adena Friedman)
DESCRIPTION Design Review to renovate the landscape plaza at 400-450 East Jamie Court in
the Business and Technology Park (BTP) Zoning District in accordance with
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 landscaping concept- nice project that creates access to the bay front.
2.Ensure that the slopes, stairs, and handrails all meet accessibility requirements. Show on building
submittals.
3. Confirm the slopes within the parking lot driveway, as the slopes appeared to exceed the
requirements. Check with the Engineering Department on their requirements.
4. Show drainage plans for the Central Courtyard on building submittals.
5. Consider adding some wind protection walls and seating alcoves in lieu of broad planters.
6.The proposed Arctostaphylos will not survive the SSF elements. Consider another species that
will adapt to our microclimate.
7. Consider an alternative spreading groundcover such as Ceanothus gloriosus 'Anchor Bay'.
8.The site is lacking trees. The plan should show surrounding landscaping and trees to determine if
the proposed planting design fits within the surrounding campus.
9.Consider incorporating some street trees along the front courtyard.
Recommend Approval with Conditions
Attachment 3
3. OWNER Baden Development LLC
APPLICANT Baden Development LLC
ADDRESS 428 Baden Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P19-0021: UP19-0005 & DR19-0022
PROJECT NAME New Multi-Family Residential
(Case Planner: Adena Friedman)
DESCRIPTION Use Permit and Design Review to construct a new 18-unit residential
development at 428 Baden Avenue in the Downtown Residential Core (DRC) 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 large dark walls appear to be ominous. Consider softer colors or tones, to be more
compatible with the neighborhood.
2. Consider a different color palette for the development; the current colors are matching the new
surrounding developments and may look dated.
3. The front elevation needs some articulation; consider pushing out the front windows or provide
landscaping.
4. On the East Elevation, the proposed windows are not shown on the plans.
5. On the North East Elevation, the windows are different sizes. Consider aligning the windows.
6. The site does not include play areas for children.
7. Consider using the roof top too gain some additional open space for the site.
8. The design is lacking street trees on Baden and Third Lane. Consider adding street trees on
Baden to help scale the height of the building.
9. Consider stepping the building back on the architecture facades to make room for a street tree on
Baden.
10. As a community benefit, consider replacing the trees along the adjacent City parking lot to help
soften the development and provide more landscaping.
11. Revise the lobby area to be more usable for residents and visitors
12. Coordinate trash pick-up location with SSF Scavenger, as Third Lane is a very narrow street.
13. Consider adding some SSF features to the proposed mural design on the west elevation (facing
the City parking lot)
14. Make sure the building is solar-ready (for roof panels).
Recommend Approval with Conditions.
4. OWNER Robert Simms
APPLICANT Res Park SFO LLC
ADDRESS 501 South Airport Blvd
PROJECT NUMBER P19-0053: UP19-0010 & DR19-0029
PROJECT NAME New Vehicle Sales Location
(Case Planner: Tony Rozzi)
DESCRIPTION Use Permit and Design Review for a new car sales facilty at 501 South Airport
Blvd in the Business Commercial (BC) Zoning District in accordance with Title
20 of the South San Francisco and determination that the project is categorcially
exempt from CEQA.
The Board had the following comments:
1. The Board liked the design concept.
2. Eliminate the yellow band from the building façade, keep it monochromatic.
3. Consider removing the yellow background from the sign and add a contrast color to the Hertz
logo sign.
4. The chain link fence should be replaced to match the proposed fencing along the property.
5. The design of the trees is simplistic. Create a more interesting design with varied heights, colors,
textures and patterns. Plant minimum 24 inch box size.
6. The proposed Muhlenbergia rigens shown on the plans will not grow properly as it’s a central
valley species that needs 100 plus degree summer weather.
7. Consider Muhlenbergia capillaris – Pink Muhly, which will grow well in SSF.
8. Has there been consideration of what will be planted in the Bio-Retention areas. The selection of
species should be tall to assist with screening the perimeter of the parking lot.
Recommend Approval with Conditions.
5. OWNER Abdul Hakim
APPLICANT Rafia Hakim
ADDRESS 423 Commercial Avenue
PROJECT NUMBER P18-0058: DR18-0027
PROJECT NAME Four new multi-unit townhomes
(Case Planner: Tony Rozzi)
DESCRIPTION “Resubmittal” - Design Review to construct four new rental townhomes at 423
Commercial Avenue 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 revised plans with the rooftop garden.
2. The Board conceptually liked the color palette.
3. Roof access is improved, safe and aesthetically pleasing.
4. Consider using the side bands so that there is more a cohesion with the two buildings.
5. Redesign the roofline where the stairway opens up to the roof so that it’s not a box popping up
and that will complement the roof.
6. On the rear elevation, you need to resolve the line back far enough so you don’t see the wall at
the rear of the two units from the Commercial Avenue side.
7. The colors on the front and rear elevations could be more muted.
8. There are two plants that are listed incorrectly on the plans; Redbud and Cotoneaster Frachetti
are swapped on the plans.
Recommend Approval with Conditions.
6. OWNER The City of South San Francisco
APPLICANT SSF Housing Partners LLC
ADDRESS PUC Site
PROJECT NUMBER P18-0081: UP19-0008, DR19-0028, TDM19-0004 & EIR19-0002
PROJECT NAME AGI Kasa PUC Development
(Case Planner: Tony Rozzi)
DESCRIPTION Proposal to redevelop 5.9 acres of vacant land to construct 800 residential units,
a 8,300 SF childcare facility, 13,000 SF commercial retail space, approximately
1 acre of public open space, and related infrastructure at 1051 Mission Road
and surrounding parcels.
The Board had the following comments:
Overall Architecture
1. Building line is still fundamentally level as shown on A30, minor changes to the roof line does not
improve this concern. A few dramatic breaks of one or two stories in height should be designed, to
provide a significant improvement.
2. The easy opportunity to address the scale of these buildings is not addressed in the plan or the
sections and elevations. The existing 80' tall Eucalyptus trees are being removed and replaced with
small patio size trees (15'-30') along the foundation of the buildings. The tree planting design shown
on the resubmittal of A30 is less effective than the previous submittal. The project demands use of
trees that reach 60'-80', and the requirement to construct wide deep plant pits (12' x12' x 3' deep
backfilled with engineered planting soil) is necessary to achieve this result. The trees are shown as
patio size trees 15’-30’ tall rather than significant height trees 50'-60’ tall and the design for much
taller species at strategic locations that will reach 70'-100' tall, are not present. The removal of the
redwoods is indicated in response to wind, however, these taller species will do quite well if on the
wind sheltered sides of the building.
3. C1 building is much more unified in this design, the massing is more complex, but the finishes are
simplified and stand as its own building. The massing studies were very beneficial, but still feel that
C1 building is still too large.
4. Image A08 does not show any attempt to improve the building roof line, or add/change trees species
to taller trees to soften this view.
5. The Board appreciates understanding the context of future buildout within the El Camino
Real/Chestnut area and the impression that this is a large-scale development that will not stand alone,
it is in the context of other developments and topography.
6. The model was very helpful and the project is benefiting from topography and it helped the Board
understand the development.
7. The Board liked the proposed lighting fixtures, applicant going in the right direction.
Landscaping and Site Planning
8. The Board liked the choice of Monterey Cypress that will help scale with the height of the buildings,
as well as the Monkey Puzzle tree.
9. The Board liked that the applicant pulled away from the all age playground to be mid-range friendly.
10. L7.0 Planting Plan shows added trees on plan, however the impact does not affect the needed
screening and scaling of these large buildings. The Corymbia ssp. does not identify type, to
determine potential height, and there are only 6 shown. This is lost potential to address building
massing with taller trees.
11. Tristania laurina along Mission road is too short of a species and out of scale with 84’ building. All
the trees along the face of these buildings should be minimum 50'-60' tall, and the use of smaller
patio sized (15'-30') should be used where the perimeter view and scaling the building is not a
concern.
12. Platanus acerifolia should be labeled as Platanus acerifolia ‘Columbia’, the cultivar that is mildew
resistant and which does quite well in the SSF microclimate.
13. Image on A05 shows trees along the face of building; however the landscape plan does not reflect
this image.
14. A12 shows fewer trees and smaller trees that the same Site Elevations from the prior submittal.
15. Response to lighting, bio-retention, play areas, etc. are much improved.
16. The Public comment about white on the building does not appear to be addressed.
17. The Public comment about parking appears to be addressed.
Public Comments – PUC AGI KASA
There were five speakers from the public:
Diane Stokes – resides in the Sunshine Gardens neighborhood. Concern is only seeing the upper
half of these buildings, so please pay close attention to the colors – there is a lot of foliage and now
see lights at Serramonte; there is too much cream and design is not industrial – make the colors
warmer and do something to discourage graffiti.
Corey David – no public discussion of heights and read comment letter
• Has anyone from staff coached the applicant on presentation?
• Has developer met with any staff member?
Bob Richardson – suggests making larger panels with colors so that they can seen by the public and
add renderings to the website – expanded color board, suggests more outreach to the community,
show the connections between these buildings and the Civic Campus Center.
Mike Soreo – just moved here a year ago – worried about losing view from home, low income
housing and one level of parking doesn’t seem like enough parking.
Laura Fanella – wanted to make some points
• Parking
• Shadow Impact Study for this project? 1256 Mission created shadows on her property since
there is a mod problem in SSF.
• Full set of plans not posted online.
• Evacuation plans – El Camino Real or Hillside from Sunshine Gardens are only options and
adding 800 units will be many more humans on the ground.
• View of this project from CCC which we are spending $210 million on – what is the
minimum that we have to do on this site to keep state off our back?
Design Review Board recommends the project to move to Planning Commission.
Miscellaneous - None
DESIGN + ARCHITECTURE
428 BADEN
RESIDENCES | SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
01
S.T.E.P.S.
DESIGN + ARCHITECTURE 428 BADEN RESIDENCES 2
03
*01
04
02
01
02
03
04
05
Shops
• Downtown Commercial
• Food & Beverage
• Shops & Services
Transit
• Caltrain Station
• Bus Station
• Shuttle Service
Employment
• Grand Avenue Core
• Business Commercial
• R & D Core
Park & Recreation
• Orange Memorial Park
• Sister Cities Park
• City Hall Playlot
Services & Community
• SSF Community Center
• Brennan Marque Terese
• Public Library
• Schools
Project Site
05
03
03
05
04
04
04
03
0102
05
03
05
05
*
Vicinity Map
Cafes & Shops Caltrain Station Employment Areas Orange Memorial Park Public Library
01 02 03 04 05
5002501250
CONTEXT
Neighborhood
& Amenities
DESIGN + ARCHITECTURE 428 BADEN RESIDENCES 3
•Downtown Commercial Area
•Caltrain Station
•Grand Avenue Core
•Orange Memorial Park
•Public Library
SITE
Neighborhood
& Amenities
DESIGN + ARCHITECTURE 428 BADEN RESIDENCES 4
•Residential Neighborhood
•Alley backs up to
Commercial Area
•Near Downtown Core
COMMUNITY
& GATHERING
DESIGN + ARCHITECTURE 428 BADEN RESIDENCES 5
•Roof Deck Gathering Space
•Courtyard Open Space
•Neighborhood Amenities
•Bike and Pedestrian
Accessibility
DESIGN + ARCHITECTURE 428 BADEN RESIDENCES 6
Site Overview
• Axonometric View
• 18 Residential Units
• 19 Onsite Parking Spaces
• Total Open Space Area 1,924 SF
Open Space
Landscape & Planting
Open Space - Hardscape & Softscape
DESIGN + ARCHITECTURE 428 BADEN RESIDENCES 7
DESIGN + ARCHITECTURE 428 BADEN RESIDENCES 8
Circulation
Bicycle Circulation
Pedestrian Circulation
Vehicular Circulation
Ground Floor
DESIGN + ARCHITECTURE 428 BADEN RESIDENCES 9
Floor Plans
DESIGN + ARCHITECTURE 428 BADEN RESIDENCES 10
Floor Plans
Level 2
Level 3
DESIGN + ARCHITECTURE 428 BADEN RESIDENCES 11
Floor Plans
Level 4
Roof Plan
PLANTER 1:
Anigozanthos Spp. w/
Dinella revoluta,
Limonium Perezii, and
Senecio mandraliscae, Typ.
PLANTER 1 & 2:Lightweight Concrete PlanterPlanter 1: 24”W x 60”L x 30” HPlanter 2: 30”W x 48”L x 36” H
PLANTER 2:
Sarcococca ruscifolia w/
Liriope muscari, Typ.
Lounge Chair
Seating, Typ.
Integral Color
Concrete w/ Sawcut
Joints. (Color T.B.D.)
PLANTER 3:
Olea europaea ‘Montra’ w/
Senecio mandraliscae Typ.
24” High Concrete Planter w/
Agave ‘Blue Glow’ and
Anigozanthos spp., Typ.
18” High Railing on 24” High
Concrete Wall, Typ.
24” High Concrete Planter w/
Olea Europaea ‘Montra’,
Echium candicans, Agave
attenuata, and Pennisetum
spathiolatum
Outdoor Lounge Furniture,
Typ.
Architectural Canopy Above
Wood Deck Paving on
Pedestal Supports, Typ.
Communal
Dining Table
Outdoor
T.V.
PLANTER 3:
Painted Ceramic Planter
Planter 3: 36” Dia x 42” H
DESIGN + ARCHITECTURE 428 BADEN RESIDENCES 12
Open Space / Deck Plans
Elevations
A3.0
NORTH ELEVATION1
0 4 82
2
A
FIN. FLOOR0'-0"
LEVEL 215'-0"
LEVEL 325'-4"
LEVEL 435'-8"15'-0"10'-4"10'-4"10'-4"FIN. FLOOR0'-0"
LEVEL 215'-0"
LEVEL 325'-4"
LEVEL 435'-8"15'-0"10'-4"10'-4"10'-4"SOUTH ELEVATION3
EAST ELEVATION2
WEST ELEVATION4
FIN. FLOOR
0'-0"
LEVEL 215'-0"
LEVEL 3
25'-4"
LEVEL 4
35'-8"15'-0"10'-4"10'-4"10'-4"FIN. FLOOR
0'-0"
LEVEL 215'-0"
LEVEL 3
25'-4"
LEVEL 4
35'-8"10'-4"10'-4"10'-4"51'-2"
62'-0"10
A
8
-
1
C
1
B
5
A
1
B
7
A
6
A
9
-
7
A
5
A
1
B
5
A
8
-
1
C
1
A
11
C
1
D
1
A
1
C
5
A 15'-0"428 Baden Entitlement Set 18-113
6
A
1
A
11
C
1
B
6
A
5
A
4
-
2
A
4
-
2
A
1
B
13
D
1
C
1
A
1
B
3
A
5
A
1
C
3
A
10
D
1
C
5
A
5
A
8
-
1
C
2
A
1
B
8
-
1
A
1
B
3
-
57'-0"
39'-8"
50'-6"
62'-0"
57'-0"
57'-0"
50'-6"
62'-0"
57'-0"
50'-6"
62'-0"
49'-6"
49'-6"50'-6"
ROOF DECK47'-0"1'-0"ROOF DECK47'-0"1'-0"ROOF
46'-0"
ROOF
46'-0"
ROOF DECK47'-0"1'-0"ROOF46'-0"
ROOF DECK47'-0"1'-0"ROOF46'-0"
14
-
June 24, 2019
DESIGN + ARCHITECTURE 428 BADEN RESIDENCES 13
Elevations
DESIGN + ARCHITECTURE 428 BADEN RESIDENCES 14
Building Sections
02
01
01
02
Section 2
Section 1
DESIGN + ARCHITECTURE 428 BADEN RESIDENCES 14
Building Sections
02
01
01
02
Section 2
Section 1
Views
A6.0
VIEW FROM BADEN LOOKING NW1DETAIL VIEW FROM BADEN3
VIEW FROM 3RD LANE LOOKING SW4
VIEW FROM BADEN LOOKING SE2
VIEW OF COURTYARD LOOKING SW7
VIEW OF COURTYARD LOOKING NE5
VIEW OF COURTYARD DECK LOOKING SW8
AERIAL VIEW LOOKING NW6
AERIAL VIEW LOOKING SW9
4
123
5
6
7
8
9
428 Baden Entitlement Set 18-113
June 24, 2019
DESIGN + ARCHITECTURE 428 BADEN RESIDENCES 15
Perspective Views
Materials & Color Palette
-A7.0
428 Baden Entitlement Set 18-113
May 21, 2019
DESIGN + ARCHITECTURE 428 BADEN RESIDENCES 16
Materials & Color Palette
DESIGN + ARCHITECTURE 428 BADEN RESIDENCES 17
Project Rendering
DESIGN + ARCHITECTURE 428 BADEN RESIDENCES 18
Project Rendering
DESIGN + ARCHITECTURE 428 BADEN RESIDENCES 19
Project Rendering
THANK YOU
428 BADEN | RESIDENCES | SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO