South San Francisco Planning Commission Approves Mercedes-Benz Dealership, July 2, 2020

The South San Francisco Planning Commission held a teleconference meeting on July 2, 2020, at 7:00 PM, to consider a proposal for a new Mercedes-Benz of San Francisco automotive sales and service facility at 2211-2245 Gellert Boulevard. The meeting was conducted remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The commission voted unanimously to approve the project, including a conditional use permit, design review, and transportation demand management plan, and to determine that the project was categorically exempt from CEQA.

Consent Calendar

• The consent calendar was not included on the agenda; all items were considered in the public hearing.

Public Comments & Testimony

• During community outreach, the applicant mailed over 700 informational flyers to residents and property owners within 500 feet. Four letters of opposition were received, expressing concerns about the appropriateness of the use in the area. Two letters of support were received, citing excitement about growth and site improvements. Two other correspondences contained general questions about the restaurant closures, construction impacts, and neighborhood noise.
• During the meeting, an email from a resident, Christine Say, was read into the record. The resident expressed sadness about the departure of affordable neighborhood restaurants, asked where they were relocating, and voiced concern about noise from mechanics servicing tires and using drills when garage doors are open for ventilation.
• No members of the public provided live oral comments during the meeting.

Discussion Items

• Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and TDM Plan: Staff (Gaspare Annibale, Associate Planner) presented the project, which would demolish the existing Gellert Square Plaza (approx. 29,000 sq ft) to build a new 30,000 sq ft service facility and repurpose the former Orchard Supply Hardware building (approx. 76,000 sq ft) into an 88,000 sq ft sales and showroom facility. The project required a conditional use permit, an alternative landscape plan, and a variation for the designated loading area. The applicant proposed 17% site landscaping (exceeding the 10% minimum) but would be deficient in trees within inventory parking areas, offset by contributions to the city's tree bank or off-site planting. The project would have a designated loading area more than 50 feet from residential districts, with deliveries occurring on average twice per day during non-peak hours.
• Traffic and Transportation: Senior Transportation Planner Christopher Espiritu reported that the project would generate 621 fewer weekday daily trips compared to the former retail uses. The analysis found no substantial impact on traffic operations. The site would maintain two driveways, including a shared driveway with the adjacent grocery store, which could accommodate all trips. Large vehicle deliveries would be accommodated on-site without blocking travel lanes.
• TDM Plan: The project required achieving a 28% alternative mode share. Challenges included limited connections to regional transit (Caltrain/BART), incomplete sidewalks and bike networks, and terrain/slope. The applicant proposed subsidized transit passes and a shuttle to the BART station to achieve the required mode share.
• Security Plan: Planning Sergeant Mike Rudis presented a comprehensive security plan, including panic/intrusion alarms, a sophisticated camera system, a key management system (KMS) with computerized vault requiring two-factor authentication, and boulders/fencing around the perimeter to prevent vehicle theft. Procedures for handling keys returned from test drives and customer service drop-offs were outlined to prevent key switching.
• Applicant Presentation: The applicant (representative Ash) explained the dealership's operation, including customer flow, service processes, and security measures. They emphasized that all service work would be conducted inside enclosed buildings with high-speed doors, minimizing noise, and that lighting would be directed away from residences and dimmed after 9 PM.
• Commissioner Questions: Commissioners asked about test drive routes (applicant confirmed routes would be directed toward the freeway), despite existing conditions requiring this. Commissioner Tzang raised security concerns; the applicant stated they had not had vehicle thefts and relied on advanced security systems. Commissioner Murphy asked about signage; staff clarified that signage was not part of this application and would require a separate master sign program application. Commissioner Evans inquired about on-site security personnel (applicant said they would rely on cameras and alarms) and construction timeline (hoping for less than a year). Chair Wong asked about the rationale for choosing South San Francisco (applicant cited the large site and highway access) and the review process (staff confirmed a 6-month and 12-month review after commencement).

Key Outcomes

• The commission unanimously approved (7-0) the motion to determine that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA under Class 2 (replacement or reconstruction) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15302(b).
• The commission unanimously approved (7-0) the motion to approve the conditional use permit (UP20-0001), design review (DR20-0002), and transportation demand management plan (TDM20-0002), subject to the draft findings and conditions of approval.
• The appeal period for this decision is 15 calendar days, ending on July 17, 2020.
• Staff announced upcoming items: a general plan land use alternatives presentation on July 16, 2020, a joint study session with City Council on August 19, 2020, and future projects including 428 Baden (36-unit development) and 840 El Camino (proposed 90-room hotel). The Hometown Bowl action was called up by City Council and would be heard on July 22, 2020.