HomeMy WebLinkAbout0013_0_Staff ReportCity of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-798 Agenda Date:11/9/2020
Version:1 Item #:10.
Report regarding consideration of an appeal of a Planning Commission decision on September 17,2020,
adopting an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)and approving certain entitlements to
construct a new five-story hotel at 840 El Camino Real.(Stephanie Skangos, Associate Planner)
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed draft resolution making findings,denying
the appeal and upholding the Planning Commission decision on September 17,2020,subject to the
Conditions of Approval adopted by the Planning Commission on September 17, 2020.
BACKGROUND
Project Overview and CEQA Review
On September 17,2020,the Planning Commission considered an application for a Conditional Use Permit,
Design Review Permit,and Transportation Demand Management Program to construct a new five-story
hotel with 95 rooms and two-levels of below-grade parking at 840 El Camino Real (“Project”).The
proposed hotel building is approximately 50,231 sq.ft.and 74 feet tall to the top of parapet.The two-level
below-grade parking is approximately 30,640 sq.ft.with a total of 69 parking spaces;two additional parking
spaces are provided at grade-level with a total of 71 vehicle spaces for the project.Nine bicycle parking spaces
are also provided on-site.
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),the City is required to evaluate development
projects that have the potential to result in environmental changes.If the proposed project were to be
determined to result in significant environmental impact that cannot be mitigated or avoided,then the City
would be required to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).Here,to conduct the required
environmental analysis under state law,an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)was
prepared by Rincon Consultants,Inc.for the Project.City staff conducted independent review of the draft
IS/MND document.As required by CEQA,the IS/MND was circulated to the State,other agencies and the
public for review and comment for 30 days from April 14, 2020 - May 14, 2020.
The IS/MND determined that the following resources could be potentially impacted by the Project:
·Air Quality;
·Biological Resources;
·Cultural Resources;
·Geology and Soils; and
·Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
The IS/MND,however,included mitigation measures that would ensure the potential impacts would be less
than significant with mitigation,and all mitigation measures have been incorporated as Conditions of
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/3/2020Page 1 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-798 Agenda Date:11/9/2020
Version:1 Item #:10.
Approval for the Project.
During the public review period,comments were received from a member of the public,and from Lozeau
Drury LLP,a law firm representing Laborers International Union of North America No.270 (LIUNA).
LIUNA’s comments included exhibits from Indoor Environmental Engineering (IEE),Wilson Ihrig Acoustics,
Noise &Vibration (WIC),and SWAPE Technical Consultants.The City forwarded these comments to the
Project applicant.
On June 30,2020,the applicant provided the City with responses to the public comments received.Particularly,
in response to comments from LIUNA,the applicant prepared responses in the form of a Preliminary Response
Report from Applied Remedial Technologies,Inc.(ARTI),and Response to Selected Comments by Rincon
Consultants (Rincon).The City conducted an independent evaluation of the public comments received and the
information submitted by ARTI and Rincon.
Based on the City’s independent review,City staff found that the comments raised by LIUNA do not constitute
substantial evidence of a fair argument that the proposed project will result in significant environmental impacts
under CEQA.The LIUNA comments claimed that there were several errors in the IS/MND’s calculations
regarding air quality,greenhouse gases and other impacts.City staff reviewed the LIUNA comments in detail,
along with the applicant’s responses,and determined that most of the LIUNA comments did not constitute
substantial evidence because most of the claims relied on incorrect assumptions,and applied improper
methodologies for analyzing environmental impacts.
In a few areas,the IS/MND was updated to reflect changes,where warranted,in response to the LIUNA
comments.As revised,the IS/MND did not result in the identification of new or significant impacts;rather,the
changes clarified the existing analysis of potential impacts of the project and reached the same conclusions of
no or less than significant impact as the initial draft.
Some of the City’s findings in response to the LIUNA comments are briefly summarized, as follows:
LIUNA Comment A-1 alleged that the project will have a significant health risk impact from indoor air
quality impacts because the project will expose employees of the project to emissions of the cancer-
causing chemical formaldehyde,resulting in an alleged cancer risk from formaldehyde of approximately
16.4 per million.
The City found that Comment A-1 does not constitute substantial evidence of a significant
environmental effect because LIUNA’s consultant,IEE,applied the incorrect emission factor for
residential homes,and overestimated the average worker duration to be 45 years.The applicant
provided reasonable calculations using the 2019 Title 24 California Energy Code and properly assumed
worker duration of 25 years.(See ARTI report,pp.2-11.)As a result,the project’s actual estimated
cancer risk from formaldehyde is 0.26 per million.
LIUNA Comment A-2 alleged that the cancer risk posed by project indoor air emissions will be
exacerbated by additional cancer risk resulting from the project’s location near roadways with moderate
to high traffic.
The City found that Comment A-2 does not constitute substantial evidence of a significant
environmental effect because the actual cancer risk of 0.26 per million does not result in a fair argument
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/3/2020Page 2 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-798 Agenda Date:11/9/2020
Version:1 Item #:10.
that the project will exacerbate the existing cancer risk beyond the CEQA threshold.
LIUNA Comment B-1a alleged that the IS/MND relied on average noise levels,rather than maximum
noise levels, which is inconsistent with the City’s noise ordinance.
The City found that Comment B-1a does not constitute substantial evidence or a fair argument of a
significant environmental effect because LIUNA incorrectly used 15 feet as the measurement distance.
The City also found that the IS/MND used an incorrect distance of 20 feet,whereas the correct distance
is 25 feet.(SSFMC §8.32.050(d)(1).)The IS/MND was therefore revised to incorporate the correct
distance of 25 feet, which did not result in a new significant impact.
LIUNA Comment B-1b alleged that in evaluating noise impacts,the IS/MND erroneously calculated
distance to relevant building facades rather than the relevant property planes,despite language in the
ordinance code that requires assessment to any point outside of the property plane of the project.As a
result, the maximum noise level will be exceeded for all but the last phase of construction.
The City found that Comment B-1b does not constitute substantial evidence or a fair argument of a
significant environmental effect because,when applying the correct standard under SSFMC §8.32.050
(d)(1),maximum noise levels will be below 90 DbA at 25 feet,therefore compliance with SSFMC §
8.32.050(d)(2) is not required.
LIUNA Comment B-2 alleged that the IS/MND failed to analyze whether the project will generate a
substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity due to construction noise.
The City found that Comment B-2 does not constitute substantial evidence or a fair argument of a
significant environmental effect because LIUNA’s comments reflect a standard that is not contained in
the City’s general plan or noise ordinance and,therefore,is not applicable.Nevertheless,the City found
that even if such analysis were required,construction-related impacts over ambient noise will not be
significant if the correct factors for calculating such are used. (See ARTI report, pp. 13-18.)
LIUNA Comment C alleged that the IS/MND improperly concluded that the project is less than the
BAAQMD screening level size and that,as a result,the IS/MND failed to properly analyze operational
air quality impacts of criteria pollutants such as CO, PM 2.5, PM 10 or SOx.
The City found that LIUNA incorrectly interpreted the BAAQMD screening guidelines.and that the
Project will not have significant operational air quality impacts from criteria pollutant emissions (See
Rincon report, pp. 1-3.)
LIUNA Comment D-1 alleged that the IS/MND did not use the correct inputs in the air emissions
modeling program (CalEEMod), and therefore underestimated project emissions.
The City found that the CalEEMOD inputs for PCE are backed by substantial evidence.
LIUNA Comment D-2 alleged that the IS/MND improperly extended the construction duration,in order
to reduce potential air quality impacts.
The City found that applicant clearly demonstrated that the manual inputs for construction timing were
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/3/2020Page 3 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-798 Agenda Date:11/9/2020
Version:1 Item #:10.
backed by substantial evidence. (See Rincon report, pp. 5-6.)
The full summary of City findings in response to LIUNA comments can be found in Exhibit B-4 to the
accompanying resolution.In summary,the City’s independent analysis and judgement concluded that the
LIUNA comments did not result in the need to prepare an EIR, or the need to recirculate the IS/MND.
Planning Commission Approval
On September 17,2020,the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the application via teleconference
and in compliance with notice procedures outlined in the South San Francisco Zoning Code.The teleconference
meeting was open to the public and broadcasted on the City website.Four emails commenting on the proposal,
two in opposition to the project and two in support,were received prior to the hearing and read into the record
by the Planning Commission Clerk during the hearing.Lozeau Drury,LLP on behalf of LIUNA also submitted
public comments to the Commission and was present during the public hearing.Lozeau/LIUNA’s comments
were read into the record by Planning Division staff;those comments were comprised of identical excerpts
from LIUNA’s May 14,2020 public comment letter which the City previously considered at length,as
described above.
By a 7-0-0 vote,the Planning Commission adopted a resolution making findings and adopting an IS/MND
under the provisions of CEQA and approved the entitlements for a new hotel at 840 El Camino Real.The
Commission made certain Findings of Approval and imposed certain Conditions of Approval for the Project
(attached as Exhibit C to the accompanying resolution).Documents supporting the Planning Commission’s
decision are included as Attachments 1-4, as well as Exhibits A through B-4 in the accompanying resolution.
City Council Appeal
On October 2,2020,the City Clerk received an application to file an appeal,with applicable fees,from Lozeau
|Drury LLP (“Appellant”).Thus,a public hearing was scheduled at the next available meeting for November 9,
2020,to accommodate a public hearing on the Council agenda and to allow sufficient time for providing public
hearing notices.
DISCUSSION
Chapter 20.570 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code provides the ability for members of the public to
appeal,and the City Council to call for review,final decisions by the Planning Commission.The appeal/call for
review period is 15 days from the date of the Planning Commission decision.Pursuant to Chapter 20.570,
appeals may be filed by the applicant,by the owner of property,or by any other person aggrieved by a decision
by the Planning Commission by submitting a notice in writing to the City Clerk and paying the applicable
appeal fees within the 15-day appeal period.If an appeal is filed,then the City Clerk will set a public hearing
for the City Council to review that Planning Commission decision.The public hearing will require mailing,
posting and publication of hearing notices at least 10 days before the hearing.
In this case, Lozeau Drury LLP filed an appeal on behalf of LIUNA within the appeal timeframe.
The appeal challenges the Planning Commission’s adoption of a resolution to adopt the IS/MND prepared by
Rincon Consultants,Inc.,which found that the proposed mitigation measures would ensure that the
potential environmental impacts of the project would be less than significant with mitigation.The
Planning Commission resolution also found that the requested entitlements were consistent with the
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/3/2020Page 4 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-798 Agenda Date:11/9/2020
Version:1 Item #:10.
Planning Commission resolution also found that the requested entitlements were consistent with the
City’s General Plan and in compliance with applicable Zoning Code provisions;those findings,however,were
not challenged by the appeal as Appellant made no arguments with respect to any of the approved entitlements.
Instead,the Appellant only raised CEQA issues on appeal,stating that the IS/MND prepared for the project
fails to analyze all environmental impacts and to implement all necessary mitigation measures,and calling for
the preparation of an EIR (see Attachment 5).The supplemental documentation submitted with the appeal
application is the same documentation previously submitted by the Appellant during the IS/MND circulation
period.As such,all comments raised in the appeal were previously and addressed by the revisions to the
IS/MND,and the additional reports and other information provided by the applicant,the environmental
consultants,and the City.Those responses are included in Exhibit B-1 to B-4 in the accompanying resolution.
The Planning Commission,in considering these same concerns,ultimately concluded that all CEQA issues had
been appropriately addressed in the IS/MND.
Pursuant to the City’s Municipal Code (Chapter 20.570),the Council should use the same standards of review
as that of the Planning Commission when it reviewed the original application.The Council may deny the
appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision,which would include approving the IS/MND and the
proposed project.The City Council could also take that action while also adding new conditions of approval.
Finally,the Council could grant the appeal and deny the project.The Planning Commission Resolution dated
September 17,2020 is included as Attachment 4 to this staff report.The Conditions of Approval,as adopted by
the Planning Commission on September 17, 2020, are included as Exhibit C to the accompanying resolution.
CONCLUSION
Based on staff recommendation and documents and testimony submitted for and during the public hearing,the
Planning Commission adopted a resolution making findings and adopting an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND)and approving a Conditional Use Permit,Design Review,and Transportation
Demand Management Plan to construct a new five-story hotel with 95 rooms and two-levels of below-
grade parking at 840 El Camino Real.
Therefore,staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission
decision based on the findings in the draft resolution and subject to the conditions of approval dated September
17, 2020.
Attachments:
1.Draft Planning Commission Minutes for September 17, 2020
2.Planning Commission Staff Report for September 17, 2020
A.Summary of Community Outreach
B.Design Review Board Minutes (January 16, 2018, April 17, 2018 & February 18,
2020)
3.Planning Commission Presentation for September 17, 2020
4.Resolution No. 2865-2020, as adopted by the Planning Commission on September 17, 2020
5.Application for Appeal, dated September 30, 2020
Associated Documents-the following exhibits are attached to Associated Resolution #20-805:
1.840 El Camino Real CEQA and Entitlements Resolution
A. Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/3/2020Page 5 of 6
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-798 Agenda Date:11/9/2020
Version:1 Item #:10.
A-1. Associated MMRP
A-2. Technical Revision to IS/MND
B. IS/MND Comments Received (Comments No.1 and No. 2)
B-1. Applicant Response to Comment No. 1
B-2. Rincon Response to Comment No. 2
B-3. Applicant Response to Comment No. 2
B-4. City Summary of Responses to Comment No. 2 and Findings
C. Conditions of Approval
D. Project Plans
E. Approved Preliminary Transportation Demand Management Plan
City of South San Francisco Printed on 11/3/2020Page 6 of 6
powered by Legistar™