477 9th Avenue
Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of a
Five Story Office/Residential Mixed-Use Building
(PA-2022-047)
City Council Public Hearing
February 20, 2024
Linda Ly, Associate Planner
Community Development Department
PROJECT HISTORY
2 of 14
January 2022
Pre-Application
Filed
April / May 2022
Neighborhood Meeting
and Planning Commission
Study Session
July 2022
Formal Planning
Application filed
December 2023
Planning Commission
Public Hearing
followed by
filing of Appeal on
December 21, 2023
February 2024
City Council Public
Hearing
PROJECT
BACKGROUND
Location
Project Description
3 of 14
• Site Address: 477 9th Avenue
• One Parcel
• 69,976 sq. ft. (1.6 Acre)
• General Plan: Executive Office
• E2-2 (Executive Office, 2.0 Floor Area Ratio)
4 of 14
• 29,207 sq. ft. of Office Uses
• 120 Residential Units – 15% of base density or 12 Very Low- Income units
• (24 studios, 64 one-bedroom, and 32 two-bedrooms)
• Five Stories, 53’-6” plate line height
• Total Floor Area: 209,204 sq. ft.
PROJECT
BACKGROUND
Location
Project Description
REASONS FOR
APPEAL
1. Removal of Heritage Trees
2. Consistency with General Plan
Policy
3. Environmental Review
5 6 of 14
• 19 existing heritage trees:
• 8 trees on adjacent properties
• 4 trees on-site to be preserved
• 7 trees on-site to be removed
Oak (Tree #11)
Oak (Tree #17)
REASONS FOR
APPEAL
7 of 14
1. Removal of Heritage Trees
2. Consistency with General Plan
Policies
3. Environmental Review
• The Appellant:
• The proposed tree removal “is in direct conflict to the laws San Mateo has in place around tree preservation”
under SMMC 27.71.150(e) and “the site design should
make accommodations to preserve these [heritage] trees
and all of the additional trees should be transplanted in Central Park by the builder.”
• Staff Response:
• SMMC 27.71.150(e) grants tree removal if the tree’s
health and stability is threatened
• All trees proposed for removal are in direct conflict with the proposed building or other site improvement
• The City does not have a program to receive transplanted trees
8 of 14
Acacia (Tree #16)
Oak (Tree #18)
9 of 14
Oak (Tree #19)
Chinese Elm (Tree #3)
REASONS FOR
APPEAL
10 of 14
1. Removal of Heritage Trees
2. Consistency with General
Plan Policies
3. Environmental Review
• The Appellant:
• “The removal of these trees also goes against the 2030 General Plan”
(General Plan Policy C/OS 6.1: Tree Preservation)
• Staff Response:
• Policy C/OS 6.1 for Tree Preservation: “Tree Preservation.
Preserve heritage trees in accordance with the City’s
Heritage Tree Ordinance.”
• This policy focuses on implementation of the City’s
Protected Tree Ordinance.
• Policy C/OS 6.2 for Replacement Planting, which requires significant replacement planting for trees removed.
11 of 14
• 19 replacement trees
along the project frontages
and at-grade
• Landscape Unit In Lieu
Fees of approximately
$50,325
• 18 additional trees
proposed within the
building courtyard (not
credited)
REASONS FOR
APPEAL
12 of 14
• Appellant:
• Concerns for the project’s “mitigation measures” and
“many heritage and protected trees have been removed
in the last few years and this project could represent a significant cumulative effect but the analysis needs to be completed.”
• Staff response:
• Project is conditioned to conduct tree removal outside of the nesting bird period
• Site Development Planning Application requires
significant replacement plantings and in-lieu fee
payments
• General Plan 2030 Environmental Impact Review (EIR)
determined the above measures would reduce impact to
a less than significant level.
1. Removal of Heritage Trees
2. Consistency with General Plan
Policies
3. Environmental Review
Housing Accountability Act (HAA)
• Applies to housing development projects where two-thirds of the proposed square footage is designated for residential uses
• Local agencies may not deny or reduce the density of a project when it complies with all applicable objective standards and requirements, unless the agency makes the following written findings:
• That the project would have a “specific adverse impact” on public health or safety; and,
• There is no feasible method to satisfactory mitigate or avoid the adverse impact.
13 of 14
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
14 of 14
Adopt a Resolution to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve the Special Use Permit (SUP), Site Plan and Architectural Review (SPAR) and Site Development Planning Application (SDPA) for a new five-story mixed-use building with office uses and 120 residential units at 477 9th Avenue, based on the Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval, and find that the project is Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects).