Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

everybody welcome to the Thursday September 3rd regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission this meeting is being held in person at the library parks and rec building council chambers to provide a comment during the meeting please fill out a speaker card and give it to the clerk you'll have three minutes to make your comments please note that all Commission time limits and rules of decorum will apply to public comments this meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission is hereby called to order will you please stand and join in the Pledge of Allegiance

Thank you. May we please have a roll call? Commissioner Shahadi.

Here.

Vice Chair Baker.

Here.

Commissioner Faria. Here. Chairperson Pamukku. Here. Commissioner Zeng.

Here.

Commissioner Evans and Commissioner Funes are absent. Thank you.

Are there any changes to the agenda?

No changes.

Any items or announcements from staff?

No. No staff announcements.

Okay. Then does any member of the public wish to address the commission on an item that is not on the agenda tonight at this time? If so, please fill out a speaker card and give it to the clerk.

We have no members of the public that would like to provide public comments. Okay.

With no speakers, then we will move on. Next on the agenda is this disclosure of ex parte communications. If any commissioner has had any communication with applicants, did site or project visits, had interactions with third parties, or has any conflicts regarding any items on the agenda, you may disclose them at this time. If you would like to recuse yourself for an item, you can also do that at this time. Hearing none, we will move on to the next item, which is the consent calendar. May we have a listing of the consent calendar items?

Yes. Item number one is consideration and approval of minutes from the July 16th, 2026 planning commission meeting. Item number two is consideration and approval of minutes from the July 16th, 2026 special planning commission meeting.

Thank you. Does any commissioner wish to pull an item from consent? Does any member of the public wish to address the commission on an item on the consent calendar at this time? If so, please fill out a speaker card and give it to the clerk.

We have no members of the public who would like to provide public comments.

Then with no speakers, can I please have a motion on the consent calendar?

I'd like to make a motion to accept the consent calendar.

I'll second that.

Thank you. Roll call, please. Commissioner Faria. Yes. Chairperson Pamukku. Yes. Commissioner Shahadi.

Yes.

Vice Chair Baker.

Yes.

Commissioner Zeng.

Yes.

Commissioners Funes and Evans are absent. Thank you.

That calendar is approved. Next on the agenda is item number three. Will the clerk please read

Item three this evening is a report regarding resolutions approving a request for a use permit, design review, and tentative map to construct the Genentech Research and Early Development Center project in the Genentech Master Plan Zoning District in accordance with Titles 19 and 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code and making a determination that the Genentech phase one redevelopment projects are fully within the scope of environmental analysis as described in the 2026 CEQA checklist and addendum, and no further environmental review is required per CEQA guidelines sections 15162, 15164, 15168, and 15183. And then items 3A and 3B are the associated resolutions.

Thank you. We are opening the public hearing and calling for staff report.

Good evening, Chair, Vice Chair, fellow commissioners.

Billy Gross, Principal Planner with the Planning Division.

I will be presenting on behalf of staff this evening. All right. So as we are all aware, 2026 is the 50th anniversary of the founding of Genentech. And this aerial view shows the growth that Genentech has achieved within their first 50 years in South San Francisco. This evening, we will discuss Genentech's first step in achieving their vision for the next 50 years in South San Francisco. As you're aware, the city and Genentech regulate what is allowed on the Genentech campus through the Genentech Campus Master Plan, which was most recently updated in 2020. The Master Plan establishes an overall development envelope, providing Genentech with flexibility in the mix of use types to be built over time if they implement transportation management throughout the campus area. One of the primary goals of the 2020 master plan is to create a strong campus centered environment with the upper campus as the heart of the campus. Genentech staff and their project team will go into more detail on the overall vision and implementation for the changes to the upper campus. But at a high level overview, Genentech has identified a redevelopment program that consists of six separate but interrelated campus developments. Each of those is identified on the slide. This evening, the Planning Commission is only considering entitlements for the first and largest portion of the phase one redevelopment projects, the Genentech Research and Early Development Center, called the G-RED Center. Each of the other five development projects will come back before the Planning Commission for a use permit and design review approval at some point in the future. The G-RED Center project is highlighted in this site plan view. The project would consist of six new rectangular-shaped R&D buildings with approximately 1.3 million square foot of total area. These are the larger buildings that take up the majority of the right-hand portion of the site. To the left or west in the drawing is a regional utility plant and electrical distribution hub that would serve the G-RED Center project and most of the rest of the Phase I redevelopment projects. As I show this overview rendering, I'm going to pause the staff presentation and allow the GENENDEC team to walk the Commission and public through the proposed project design, layout, and other important details. After the applicant's presentation, I will come back and talk the Commission through the requested entitlements. And with that introduction, I will hand off the presentation to Sophie Martin with Genentech.

thank you very much Billy good evening chair vice chair and commissioners my name is Sophie Martin I lead site planning for Genentech campus in South San Francisco I am joined this evening by Ben Dobbin with Foster and Partners our architect and Kelly Johnson with Hood Design Studio our landscape architect I'll begin by talking through a little bit about how this project fits into our overall vision for the Genentech campus and then hand it to Ben to walk through the architecture. As Billy said, we're celebrating 50 years here and very proud of that fact. Genentech and South San Francisco have grown together over the last five decades, and we're very excited to bring this project to you this evening as it represents the next major step in Genentech's ability to continue that legacy of innovation and service of patients for the decades to come anchored here in our community. As Billy mentioned, today you can see our existing campus occupies about 4.8 million square feet on approximately 225 acres on the far eastern end of Oyster Point. All told, the campus comprises about 58 buildings and with an overall FAR of just under 0.5. In the future, our proposed campus will include a portfolio of buildings that Billy mentioned that come together and work together to address our fundamental business needs, to enhance our employee experience, and to provide the necessary infrastructure that is required to support it. All of these projects together, which I'll highlight in a moment, comprise about 2 million square feet of new development on our site. The G-RED Center, which is before you tonight, represents over half of that new development. I also want to emphasize that this redevelopment of our site is fully consistent with the master plan adopted in 2020, with the goals of that creating a denser, more pedestrian-oriented environment, as Billy mentioned, and is also consistent with the city's general plan. This map highlights all of the projects that together comprise what we refer to as phase one. The G-RED Center is the largest and it's the first in line. It's the biggest, it's the most complex, it will take the longest to build, which is why it is coming before you here first. From a CEQA standpoint, all of these projects are disclosed and analyzed together because we expect to be constructing and delivering them and operating them more or less simultaneously. We're still working through the exact phasing plan of these projects, but from a CEQA standpoint, we thought it was prudent and appropriate to consider their effects cumulatively, which is why they are all shown this evening together. But tonight we are really going to focus on the G-RED Center specifically, as well as the modifications to the existing parking structure that lies just to the south, which we refer to as Parking Structure A or PSA. There will be some modifications to that structure that link it to the G-RED Center and help provide a connection across our very hilly campus for the teams that work in the southern sub-campus who collaborate with those who will be located in the G-RED Center. The other projects will come forward over the course of the next several years. As I said, we're still working through that exact phasing process, but you'll get a glimpse of some of them this evening. Finally, we're also proposing a tentative map that will consolidate parcels on our upper campus, enabling the placement of all of these new buildings, as well as the rerouting of the utilities that is necessary to serve them accordingly. So, with that, I will hand it over to Ben Dobbin to walk through the G-RED Center.

Ben Dobbin Thank you, Sophie. Good evening. So perhaps to reiterate the point that's just been made before, the area which we're going to be looking at is the area highlighted within that green boundary with a larger hatched area referring to the rest of phase one to come in subsequent applications. So you can see there the seven or so structures plus the parking structure. And here you can actually see the sort of a more rendered site plan which shows everything in context of the master plan of the rest of phase one. highlighting the RUP to the west, which is actually enabling an all-electric campus, the removal of fossil fuels as part of the project, and then these science and lab buildings. Access to the site will remain via DNA Way for primary vehicle access, and also on East Grand Avenue will provide continuing access into the parking structure from the south campus there. And then there's a number of fire and service roads, which are highlighted in orange, which circulate around the phase one buildings, providing servicing and ability to maintain safe operation of the buildings themselves. And then at the campus plaza in the center is a kind of pedestrian core. The idea behind the campus master plan and our vision plan is really thinking about what is the future and the future is how do we transform these buildings which are aging out and how do we serve the needs of science in the future. There's a number of processes which are drawn out across a very difficult terrain which is also compounded by quite difficult weather as we have this evening as well. So the big idea is really bringing everyone together closer on the upper campus, on that upper terrain, and bringing groups of scientists together to work better and collaborate. And core of that is creating a flexible planning chassis, a building block as well, which is universal and flexible and will stand the test of time. And by combining these together to create these collaborative clusters, we create a diagram which overcomes the scale of what would be a very large building at 1.2 million square feet. If it was just one singular building, it would be massive. This actually brings the scale down, embeds it into the landscape, opens up for views, landscape, sorry, views, daylight, and access at different points, and gives it something more of a terrain of a campus feel than actual sort of consolidated building. So the building itself consists of largely a combination of workplace and lab space and collaboration space between those which rises up from a service level at the level one through to lab and workplace all the way up and then there's mechanical spaces both in the service level and at the rooftops as well. The expression of the building is really something we spent a long time to think about. What is the integrity of the site? And the integrity of expression here is really based around scale, the human scale, the scale of the structure, the expression of a concrete frame, and the expression of passive shading elements to reduce the solar gain on the facade. to reduce the overheating and create an incredibly high performing facade which maximizes the views and daylight of this location. In material terms, we're looking at a combination of precast or GFRC concrete in light tones, a spandrel, which is sort of the area, the balustrade of the floor plate, and perhaps sort of a rippled glass, which picks up the light of the site, vision glass, and then aluminum panels for the shading. And you can see here, the building uses the terrain of the site to modulate the scale. So as this terrain is sloping in different directions across the site, at some point we're digging in and we're concealing the scale of the building so it achieves, it can appear as a four-story building or at other points it appears as a five-story building. So we're playing with that scale. And here, for instance, in the east-west section, you can see how we're using that to reduce the scale of, for instance, the regional utility plant by bringing that down, sinking the loading dock out of public line of sight to really enhance the environment. Here you can see again through these cross sections the red line representing the existing topography and how we're working with that topography and sometimes digging in and sometimes filling in to actually conceal the mass of the building and work to bring the scale of the buildings down. And here you can see the overall composition of how they come together and the mechanical penthouses, which are all screened on all four sides. We've taken a lot of effort to screen all of the mechanical systems, also on the regional utility plant, which also consists of a thermal storage tank, which is a highly efficient and sustainable way to store heat and cooling for the building, so we don't need fossil fuel consuming boilers. This is a view where you see it from its four story sort of viewpoint. This is from the northwest looking towards the southeast. This is a view which you can see, this is really the view looking down towards the bay. This is in our central plaza between both this building and the next part of phase one, which will be a really rich employee experience, pedestrianized there. The bridge is connecting the buildings at different levels. And then here, very important for G-RED is to create a space where the scientists can come together and feel at one with nature, be stimulated by nature, be sheltered from the wind, which as we all know is very strong at different times of the day. And this very human-scale courtyard is something which is very important. We call it the heart of G-RED. And then lastly, this is the connection back. If you're coming from the parking structure, coming into work, this is your connection from the south coming into the G-RED center. You can see the way that the blades, the shading blades, the materiality of those has the opportunity to pick up colors of the landscape around it. And then this is the view from the southeast looking northwest. There's a garden space with a ramp, and we're really into celebrating the ecology of the site and enriching the ecology of the site here. Here you can see the buildings are five stories high as that service level kind of daylights, and we're able to get light into those spaces so that people can also work in them. It's very important to us. And lastly, just to touch on the other component of this, which is the PSA or parking structure on East Grand. This is largely being kept as it is, as intact. But the key feature of the enhancement is an enhancement to the vertical circulation to enhance connections between the south campus portion of Genentech using express elevators to take them up to that bridge level. So what you see here, this kind of lantern is a kind of signifier and is representative of that vertical circulation with the bridge which passes over the top of the parking structure. So that'll be a new bridge which goes on there and allows that pedestrian access from people who are working in this lower campus, south campus on the left-hand side, up to the new G-RED Centre to facilitate greater connections and collaborations in the future. And lastly, this is a view around that central core, central plaza, pretty comfortable place for employees to sit out in safety and shelter from the wind. Thank you, Ben.

Moving to the landscape of the project, the overall landscape concept is inspired by the geology and native plant communities of Genentech's Point San Bruno setting. The concept is adapted to each open space, responding to the specific building context and the anticipated user experience. As this diagram denotes, the landscape is organized into six distinct gardens named for their predominant landscape move. We have the Seed Garden, the Soil Garden, the Bedrock Garden, the Water Garden, the Tree Garden, and then the Hart Courtyard as Ben mentioned. The material and planting palettes draw from the site's geology and the site's native plant communities. The planting is also informed by Genentech's prior experience of the campus. The species of plants selected are well-suited for the dry, windy conditions of Point San Bruno. The hardscape materials also used texture and color to further evoke the site's natural geology while incorporating selected salvage materials from the existing campus. Looking at the overall landscape plan, the surrounding landscape outside of the buildings, kind of to the southwest, is restored as naturalized chaparral and grassland using native planting and reinforcing the site's natural character where the active program is not needed. The six gardens within the building create distinct amenities while sharing a common language with the outer naturalized landscape and the broader campus. Zooming in, this plan gives us a closer view of the six landscape areas and the relationships to the buildings. As Ben denoted, a lot of the circulation comes from the south. So as people come from the garage we were just looking at, they come through the PSA connector labeled seven here with trees along the side directly to the heart labeled number one. And when people enter at grade, there's the grand stair and the elevated pedestrian walk labeled number four in the diagram, which further connects the site to the rest of campus. Going down to that southern area with the existing parking garage, this area also has restored naturalized planting with a few additional trees that provide shade along the adjacent sidewalks. Lastly, there's a small zigzagging stair integrated into the hillside, which directly connects back to the elevated pedestrian walk. Thank you.

So Genentech did provide a model, as you see down here. If the Commission would like to take a couple minutes to take a look at that before we get back into the staff presentation, we can, or we can wait till after my presentation. Whichever the Commission would prefer. Keep going. So getting into the entitlements that are required to approve the proposed G-RED center project. In the Genentech master plan, all projects that come through require conditional use permit design review. Genentech's also asking for tentative map approval, and then we're also looking at CEQA analysis. The use permit and design review entitlements both require that the project show consistency with the applicable general plan, master plan, and zoning. So I'll start with the zoning consistency discussion. At a high level, the proposed E-RED Center is consistent with all of the development standards, including the floor area ratio and building height. Zoning ordinance section 20.260 of the Genentech Master Plan District includes a subsection related to transportation system management. This is typically specific to transportation demand management and the trip cap, but I've also included the off-street parking discussion in this section as these three interrelate with one another. As you're all aware, Genentech comes before the Planning Commission on an annual basis to discuss their compliance with the transportation requirements. And they most recently came before you in the spring of this year. That's where, for instance, the TDM, where their October 2025 analysis found a 60% mode share split. inclusive of remote work options. And with the trip cap, there are about a third of what the trip cap would allow on site. The totality of the phase one redevelopment projects would decrease campus-wide parking, which is in keeping with their TDM and trip cap goals. The total amount of parking for the entire campus would be reduced to just over 6,000 parking spaces. The proposed project is in compliance with the zoning ordinance requirements. In terms of consistency with the Genentech Master Plan, these slides show how the project meets the four main objectives. This one deals with land use objectives and urban design objectives, and then how it's consistent with the transportation infrastructure and sustainability objectives. As part of the Genentech master plan consistency discussion, staff also wanted to highlight how vehicular access and circulation will be handled with the eventual closure of DNA way. Portions of DNA way, not the entirety of it. In 2025, Genentech acquired the roadways that are highlighted in this image. Genentech has the ability to close portions of these streets through traffic if public access to the wind harp is maintained and if service and fire access is maintained throughout the campus. The G-RED Center project itself includes construction on the portion of DNA Way that is colored orange in the image. This site circulation image shows how the proposed project will comply with the requirements of their acquisition. Public vehicular circulation would continue on all the roadways indicated in blue. And then service and emergency vehicular access will be accommodated by the internal road network indicated in orange. Genentech's project team has worked closely with the city, including public works, fire, and police, to ensure that site circulation will meet all of our emergency access infrastructure needs. The application does include a tentative map. The engineering division has reviewed the tentative map and finds that it meets all necessary municipal code requirements and included relevant conditions of approval as part of the overall project conditions of approval. From a general plan consistency standpoint, the general plan land use designation for the overall Genentech campus is Business Technology Park, which allows for campus-like environments for corporate headquarters, research and development facilities, and offices. The general plan also includes overarching goals related to South San Francisco remaining a hub of life science development and improving the East of 101 subarea to improve connectivity for R&D workforces and to increase alternative travel modes. The Genentech G-RED Center project is consistent with and will be a focal project in meeting the general plan's long-term vision. This slide shows the estimated development fees for the G-RED Center project, which total approximately 54 million based on 2026 fee calculations. Actual building permit fees will be determined when foundation permits are issued. Moving to an environmental review, while the GRED Center is the only portion of the phase one redevelopment projects that is before the Planning Commission for entitlements tonight, the California Environmental Quality Act requires analysis of the whole of the action, which means all the individual parts of an activity. Based on this, the CEQA consistency analysis evaluated each of the phase one redevelopment projects individually and collectively under one CEQA document. And so that includes all of the buildings or parts of the project that are identified and agreed on this slide. In 2020, the City Council certified an Environmental Impact Report, or EIR, for the Genentech Master Plan. The 2020 Master Plan EIR evaluated the potential impacts of the proposed growth and additional employees identified in the 2020 Master Plan for Genentech. Subsequently, in 2022, the City Council certified an EIR for the 2040 general plan update, zoning code amendments, and climate action plan. The 2040 general plan EIR evaluated potential impacts and additional growth envisioned in the general plan update. Together, we refer to those two EIRs as the prior EIRs. CEQA guidelines allow cities to consider whether a project's potential environmental effects have already been evaluated and disclosed in the prior EIRs, and whether additional environmental review is necessary. To determine this, a CEQA consistency checklist and addendum to the prior EIRs was prepared. The CEQA consistency checklist and addendum assessed each of the phase one redevelopment projects individually and collectively and came to the following primary conclusions. The phase one redevelopment projects do not trigger any of the conditions under section 15162 that would require a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Under section 15168, the project's environmental effects fall within the scope of and are consistent with what was already evaluated in the prior EIRs. Under section 15183, the projects match the density and land use assumptions in the general plan and the Genentech campus master plan, and there are no new significant onsite, offsites, or cumulative impacts beyond what the prior EIRs already examined. And then for the new PG&E electrical transmission line that will connect to the electrical substation, the proposed changes are minor enough that an addendum rather than a subsequent EIR is appropriate under section 15164. Based on these findings, staff concludes that the 2026 CEQA checklist and addendum to the prior EIRs is the appropriate CEQA documentation for the Genentech phase one redevelopment projects. So coming to the last portion, Genentech's reimagining of their overall campus is a significant investment that allows them to continue as a primary hub for the life science industry within South San Francisco, and furthers the city's goals related to connectivity, innovation, and sustainability. So based on the findings and conditions of approval contained in the associated resolutions, staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following two actions. First, that you move to adopt the resolution making a CEQA determination that the project is within the scope of the phase one redevelopment projects, CEQA checklist and addendum. And second, move to adopt the resolution approving the entitlements request and including the errata, which you have a copy of in front of you, which changes the conditions of approval specifically engineering condition of approval number 47 so the last sentence reads the city will be responsible for implementing the construction of the city capital improvements of the sanitary sewer mains identified in condition of approval 45 the original conditions incorrectly stated condition of approval 44 The last thing I will state is that the Planning Commission also received comment letters from the following groups, SAMHSA, the San Mateo Labor Council, the Building and Construction Trades Council of San Mateo County, Bay Area Council, Congressman Kevin Mullen, California Life Sciences, Chamber of San Mateo County, North Coast States Carpenters Union, and the South San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, all of those comments in support of the proposed project. With that, that ends the staff presentation. Both staff and the Genentech team are happy to answer any questions Commission might have. I'll turn it over to the Commission.

Do any of the commissioners want to take a moment to see the model or should we jump in? Okay. All right. Do commissioners have questions for staff or applicants?

I've got two major questions, the first of which can probably be disposed of pretty promptly. We did see a circulation map. We did see that besides the main vehicle corridors, there were fire and service roads. My question is we have some five story buildings going in that are away from main roads and when there is an incident, the fire department will need to bring in a, may need to bring in a large ladder truck. I was just wondering if those roads can accommodate a larger ladder truck I mean the service roads can accommodate

Yes, I do know that the Genentech team met directly with the fire marshal to discuss how all of the service roads would work throughout the site. I actually should look to see. Okay, yeah, the fire marshal is not here. And yes, all of the service roads are designed to meet the fire department's needs for access to those buildings. If the Genentech team wants to talk any more about that, But generally, yes, it would meet fire department requirements.

I really just needed for the record that it was checked. The second story is we saw some slides that outlined some significant leveling of the campus. And that brings basically three interrelated questions here. One confirming that this amount of leveling does not trigger anything additionally environmentally in terms of CEQA or similar that's not already accounted for that were in these resolutions to what is going to be done with the removed material and three is with many things in Oyster Point you know we have a history of shipyard stockyards potentially sometimes you may find some older materials that may be contaminated are we anticipating any environmental hazards from or concerns and rather than hazards from the removed materials

I will start an answer and then I will turn it over to the project team. I do know that the CEQA analysis did not find that there was anything significant from the preliminary analysis that was completed. We do have Scott Gregory with Landfare Gregory who prepared the CEQA document, might be able to talk a little bit more. And then I'll pass over the material questions to the Genentech.

My name is Scott Gregory, Lamphere Gregory. I'm an environmental consultant. I prepared the CEQA checklist and the master plan AIR back in 2020. To address your questions about environmental implications of the extent of grading on the site, I do think that the CEQA document, which is called a checklist and it's supposed to be abbreviated, but it's quite a thick document, has done a very thorough documentation of the extent of grading that would occur on the site. the geotechnical constraints and how those constraints are overcome through the retaining wall systems, how those systems are designed to protect geotechnical issues, landslides and slope stabilities, et cetera. So I think that the full extent of environmental implications, both hydrological, geological, biological, of the extent of grading that would occur on the site have been fully addressed and not found to be a new significant effect. In terms of where the soil would go, The checklist has identified a couple different options. One of those options is to create a soil storage location within the campus where soil, over time there's gonna be a lot of soil movement. Some needs to get cut, some needs to get filled. So one option is to store a component of that soil Temporarily so that it can be cut from one location stored for a while and move back to a new location as fill So that's one option. We also studied one option where all of that soil would be essentially exported from the site We've looked at the air quality emissions from all the trucks that would occur from that process Found that those that trucking process would not result in new or more severe significant environmental air quality effects. I

then your other concern was about I mean I don't expect many there wasn't a lot of pre-industrial work up on the hillside part of it but just wondering if there is if there are any or is a potential concerns from prior uses in the areas that will be excavated

So within the location that we've looked at today, the G-RED Center, and within the adjacent properties to where two of the other projects are located, there have been detailed geotechnical and environmental site-specific studies that have done borings and identified the soils within those locations. Didn't find necessarily remnants of historic building, but did find things like serpentine soils. So there will be a process to, you know, essentially as those cuts are taken, to determine the capabilities of those soils to be reused as fill versus those soils that might need to be disposed of. And a certain amount of that is assumed to need to be disposed of, including those serpentine soils.

Thank you.

Any questions from commissioners?

Just more of a question on population. I know you're...

demolishing existing buildings will the population pick up any or will all these people who are an existing building just got to merge over to new ones because it is a beautiful facility and how much impact would that be but your TDM is very good though by the way that's correct these buildings are anticipated to be staffed by workers who are already present on the site this is not intended to accommodate some surge in employee growth is merely to relieve pressure on existing labs that many of which date back to the early 90s have been retrofitted as many times as they possibly can but are really at the limit of their capacity both in terms of the number of people scientists that they can support as well as the infrastructure that they support to do science in the way it's done now so in short It is really to allow a more generous workspace allocation to the existing population rather than to accommodate growth in campus employees.

Yeah, through the chair. Sophie, can you please educate us and educate the community? There's a lot of talk about AI and taking over, replacing jobs in the city, especially in the research. Can you educate us on the layout of the new buildings, the insides, how it's going to enhance the workforce and it's not replacing scientists and employees on campus?

Absolutely. It's a pretty exciting application of artificial intelligence, actually. And it's really been fascinating for me to learn how that is manifest in the workplace and in the design lab buildings. It's been an interesting exercise because the science and technology is changing so quickly that we anticipate that by the time this building delivers in six plus years, that science and way of working may have changed yet again. So one of the challenges that we and Ben's team have taken on trying to design the building to be as flexible as possible to imagine and allow those futures but fundamentally the building is designed to accommodate those changes in two major ways number one it's to allow a much greater degree of automation in the labs than occurs today and this is not so much about taking people out of the picture, it's allowing the building and the labs to be continually working even at a time when the scientists may not even be there themselves. The scientists are there, they're part of the process, they're thinking of the experiments, they're designing it, they're working directly with their colleagues who may not be at a wet biology bench, right, but who are, you know, at the computer screen working on these models, helping inform what the next experiment might be and then designing within much more flexible and highly instrumented labs experiments to be able to be run for data to be processed for then the machine learning to help analyze that data and in real time be helping the scientist design and choose and plan out the next experiment. so what it does rather than replacing people is just function as an augmented employee essentially allowing the work to happen much faster um and uh and in a much more flexible way so not only are the buildings designed to be able to accommodate that flexibility to allow for that change in technology that i think we have an idea about but continue to change in the future and so from an infrastructure standpoint from a building layout standpoint much more open utilities that can be connected to and reconnected as labs need to change and then also a much closer integration of the bench scientists with those who are working more directly on computers rather than have right now we have those in entirely different parts of campus this brings those data scientists closer to the actual bench scientists so that collaboration happens more closely and in real time.

Thank you.

Thank you. Can you just sort of clarify for the record, we are doing sequoia determination for the whole of this project that is laid out in the model and looking at entitlements specifically for the GRAD Center, but can you clarify what if things were to change after we do the sequoia determinations for the whole thing?

Yeah, so We, if you adopt the or approve the CEQA checklist and addendum that looks at the project as it's designed currently, if Genentech, when they bring forward the Arrival Center or the Pharma Tech or the logistics center, if they make changes to the way those buildings are designed or the way they're situated, then there would be another kind of consistency checklist just to look, do any of those changes result in new impacts or effects. And so every time they bring new entitlements back before the Planning Commission, we'll be answering the question of, is this in keeping with the environmental analysis we've already done, or do we need to make some small tweaks to it? But it definitely, again, we're looking at the whole of the action at the beginning, and if there's little tweaks that are necessary as we move forward, we would be able to do that at each of the subsequent entitlement hearings.

And I know folks in South City see a lot of construction. Some of it's moving at different paces or stalled for various reasons. Could you talk about what the timing is of this, or if that would not be known, just why it wouldn't be known?

will pass that on to the project team for the G Red Center specifically we anticipate the project will take approximately four years to construct so that will deliver we hope around the end of 2032 The rest of the projects, as I mentioned, the GRAT Center is the largest. It's going to take the longest to build. And so that's why we're starting so early, and that's why you're seeing it first. The other projects are smaller. At least some of them are slightly less complex. And our hope and intention is that the majority of them would ultimately deliver around the same time as the G-RED Center. There may be some variation in there. We need to work through that internally. But, you know, within a few years, the idea would be that these all come together because, as you can see in the model and then in the plans, The G-RED Center is a main component of this reimagining of the site, but it really works in concert with the other buildings around it. And so in order to really achieve that desired campus vision, that pedestrianized core, we really do need it all kind of to come together around the same time. So the idea is that while there may be some delay, some might move faster, some might move slightly slower, ideally they will all come together more or less simultaneously.

thank you and do you foresee any issues there's a lot of moving parts here a lot of things that are in the city's control that some of the things like FAA approvals that are outside the city's control do you foresee any issues with some of those elements that involve other jurisdictions or bodies

I hope not. We, of course, will engage with other agencies as required. None of the projects that are part of this proposal encroach into the BCDC control jurisdiction. That is usually the one that can cause more unpredictability, longer delays in terms of permitting. Obviously, everything here is high up on the hill, so that doesn't apply. we are below the FAA height restrictions by a wide margin these buildings are not as tall as the tallest buildings that we have on the site right now on the top of the hill so we don't anticipate any issues there but of course we will now proceed with the part 77 regulations as expeditiously as possible and respond any concerns they may have Other than that, the project will be subject to all of the standard mitigation measures identified in the EIR. There are some instances in which engagement with other agencies might be appropriate. For instance, if we do stumble upon any toxic materials, then we would have to work those proper channels, but haven't identified anything else that would hold us up.

Thank you. And the last thing I was curious about is, so what this does, of course, with closing off ENA ways, it consolidates Genentech's property in a way that I think makes sense, given the vision that's described here. But can you talk about what is the public's experience kind of on the outskirts of this area? Like, for example, I'm not seeing walls or fences, right, or sort of enclosures. But can you help me understand what the public might experience as they're moving around this large campus area?

Sure. The public's experience of the Genentech campus in general is not likely to change all that much. What we are talking about with these projects here is really restricted to the heart of the campus, the top of the hill. That's not really where we see the most public engagement with our site in general because it is quite internal to the campus. The remaining portions of the campus that this project does not address will remain more or less unchanged for the foreseeable future. That includes all of the current access points to the Bay Trail along our campus shoreline. There are four of them. Those will remain in place. Similarly, as You may recall from the purchase and sale agreement that we have regarding the roadways, the portion of DNA Way that extends from East Grand up to the top of the hill will remain open to the public in perpetuity. So that includes access to the wind harp, and it will include access to the new entryway or arrival building that we hope to move forward with as part of this portfolio. What we're hoping there is that the public experience of coming to Genentech will actually be improved. Part of the challenge that we experience on the site right now is that it is so big and so spread out that you don't actually really know when you've arrived. And it can be hard to understand where, as a visitor, you are expected to go and where, you know, where you're welcome and intended. So by really consolidating the arrivals experience and making a much more pronounced and legible entryway to the campus, we hope that that will actually improve the public's experience of those who come onto the heart of the site and those who are enjoying the Bayfront and the more peripheral areas, that will be largely unchanged.

Thank you. Any other questions from commissioners? All right. Does any member of the public wish to address the commission on this item at this time? Please fill out a speaker card and give it to the clerk.

We have no members of the public wanting to provide public comments.

Thank you. Then I will close the public hearing and turn this over to the commission for discussion. Would like to make a comment?

Please. First of all, like you said, it's a beautiful project. One comment, I'm glad that in your design, you took into account, I like the idea with the four buildings, size and height versus, let's say, one larger building. The one thing I will say on behalf of Genentech, being kind of the senior member, I remember how the park has evolved. I was out there on a personal note working since 1980 and seeing how it's grown, expanded, and the whole bit due to the efforts being the major landowner out there, per se. you've always had beautiful buildings and I see no different with this so I think it's just adding more to the jewel it's already out there and you will have my support then I'll just add I appreciate the thoughtfulness and the phased approach that's going into this

in particular seeing a number of ways that this plan exceeds what is required for example the idea the vision of going completely zero carbon, I think there's a number of ways that this project is really looking for win-win scenarios for Genentech and the community and the environment, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness to that, and I also appreciate the ongoing and continued investment in South City and being a good neighbor in South City. With that, can I get a motion for 3A?

I can make a motion. Move to adopt the resolution making secret determination that the project is within the scope of phase one redevelopment project, secret checklist and addendum.

Second.

Roll call, please. Commissioner Shahadi.

Yes.

Chairperson Pamukku. Yes. Commissioner Zeng.

Yes.

Vice Chair Baker.

Yes.

Commissioner Feria.

Yes.

Commissioner Evans and Commissioner Foon, as are absent.

Thank you. And the second one.

Yes.

Move to adopt the resolution approving the entitlements requested.

I'll second again.

Can we?

And that 45 too.

And ask with the included errata.

Yeah. Thank you.

Second.

Great. Thank you. Roll call, please. Commissioner Zeng.

Yes.

Chairperson Pamukku. Yes. Commissioner Faria? Yes. Vice Chair Baker?

Yes.

Commissioner Shahade?

Yes.

Commissioners Evans and Commissioner Funes are absent.

Great. Then item 3 passes on 3A and 3B. Congratulations. On to administrative business. Do we have anything? We do not have any administrative business. Okay. Does any commissioner have items or announcements tonight? Nope. All right. Well, then I adjourn this meeting. I think my main question, I mean, kudos to you for having mastered the intricacies of this, and Commissioner Zhang for going toe-to-toe on it. the chart that you showed I think already is really helpful in terms of simplifying this and helping the public understand right because if people are actually going to take advantage of this expanded capacity that is now you know in line with state law they have to first sort of understand exactly what it is could you say more about ways that you all are working to help people know what these updates are and how to navigate how complicated it is, and I understand necessarily complicated because this is part of state requirements.

Yes, thanks for the question. So every time there is some sort of update, even if we are not bringing it formally to the Planning Commission and City Council for official ordinance update, we are required to abide by the state law. So what we do is annually, or as these updates happen, we have an ADU handout that we provide on our website as well as at the counter. that kind of, it breaks down the ordinance into much more simple language. It is in a table format. We are going to be updating it slightly to include these tables, which are a little more understandable, I believe, than what we have currently. But that ADU handout is then updated as needed and provided on the website as well as at the public counter. We also have partnered with 21 Elements and they've created an ADU Resource Center for San Mateo County that is a resource for planning staff, any city staff, as well as members of the public, that they could reach out to and ask any questions. In fact, part of this new change was partially clarified by working with the ADU Resource Center and the City Attorney's Office. And then we also have an additional program, Hello Housing, or Hello ADU, Hello Housing, that offers assistance to members of the public. Yes, it is difficult to understand. And as staff members, we still have trouble with it. So we do try to break it down, not just for the members of the public, but for ourselves. So I think inclusion now of this state exempt status column, Does simplify it a little more for staff and members of the public in terms of what we can and cannot do when we review these types of applications?

Just a quick question. I know that every municipality has a different, but these are basically mandated throughout the state, something for every county, no matter what, north or south, similar to this, correct? Yes.

Correct, so the state ADU code essentially has, the majority of it is, So local jurisdictions across California will have the same ADU requirements. There are some areas where a local jurisdiction can have some say. For instance, in the maximum square footage, I believe that if we chose to, or a local jurisdiction chose to, they could have their maximum square footage set to 1,200 square feet, for example, instead of the 1,000. So they set, you have to get to at least this number, but you could go to this number. So there may be slight variations, but I will say that our ordinance is very much what the state requires. And so, Other jurisdictions should have these same requirements.

I would think that's true, too, because you had certain municipalities where lot sizes are three times larger than what our lots average here or even in San Francisco proper. So I could see the variances that could occur.

Yeah, definitely. I think also like what we're seeing here where you could have on a single unit lot up to four additional units likely won't be seen here as much as any different jurisdiction, but it has to be included, yeah. Thank you.

Please. Is your mic on?

regarding lot size. It's more for the public to understand that my little lot is not gonna be able to accommodate four additional units. So if you could explain for the public what the minimum and maximum lot size is, it would be helpful.

So technically there are no minimum or maximum lot sizes. the state code basically states that any lot within existing single unit dwelling or proposed or any lot with an existing or proposed multiple unit dwelling can have up to this many ADUs. Realistically, given the, different sizes and then the requirements where you have to meet certain setbacks from property lines. We don't see it happening for a lot of our lots, but if somebody figures out a way to make it work, we would have to allow it.

As long as you make it clear to the public that this is not something that we would necessarily want, but that the state is requiring us to allow.

Yes, that is correct. This is included in our local ordinance because it's state mandated. And I should have mentioned... In the previous presentation on May, I had mentioned that part of the requirements from the state are that when a local jurisdiction does adopt a local ADU ordinance, we are required to send it to HCD for review. And I say quote unquote approval because it's more of they make findings and they either find that your local ordinance is consistent with state law, and you're good to go, or they find that it's not consistent and the local ordinance becomes obsolete. So if we were to say, oh, we don't agree with this, we don't wanna do it, we're not including it in our local ordinance, after we go through city council and we move it forward to HCD for review, we would find, get a letter of noncompliance or non-consistency from the state.

Through you, Chair. Again, thank you, Stephanie. It's amazing. One more question. The square footage is measured for only interior square footage also?

Correct. That was one of the changes that I had presented in May. The state law now requires that the maximum square footage for an ADU be the interior square footage. So it's taken from interior walls.

And then my last question for the new added non-exempt ADU. So let's say if I create an 800 square feet detached ADU at the back and call the lower floor the non-exempt and then I put another floor on top which is 800 square feet and make it a flat roof. Sorry, I have to test you on this before it comes in. How are you gonna deal with that? Because that would be the next thing someone might try.

Yes, so I will say that I will probably... Defer to the city attorney, but we have interpreted, for instance, for multiple unit lots, the up to two or up to eight detached ADUs. Each of those ADUs does not have to be detached from each other. So you could have the two detached ADUs in like a duplex. Duplex, yeah. So as long as they're each detached from the primary dwelling, I do not know how we would approach if you have a detached exempt and then a detached not exempt, would we allow them to be attached to one another?

I think we'd have to... I think we'd have to look at it when it comes in at that point and make the assessment. I just, I don't feel confident giving a straight answer right now just because it's such a complex area of law and this is a complex question. But I do concur with what Stephanie just laid out as far as if it was two separate detached APUs. But if it's like one stacked on top of the other, like you're asking about,

They're using the exempt one to go on the top to exempt from the reform conformance just to make it work. Literally, I'm spilling.

Yeah, if it's too detached exempt, they could be stacked is my understanding. We would have to do a little more research as to how it would be approached for the two different types being combined.

To the Chair, I think it's obvious you need time for this, and I don't think it's related to the matter. I think we're overextending the discussion regarding this, to be fair to you. And I think it's appropriate to end it. If there's anything, that discussion can be had outside the realm of the Planning Commission.

Sure.

would for some of the more detailed questions would you all be able to follow up on some of these scenarios at a later point I we'd be happy to we can provide perhaps a memo to Planning Commission with some scenarios I do think that this is very new and I do think this we For the typical ADUs that we see, and we see them very regularly, we approve up to over 50 of these a year or more, and the typical project is very straightforward. And very occasionally, we do have questions come in that are out of the ordinary, and our process is to review those on a case-by-case basis always with the city attorney if we need to that's very typical and also with guidance from the county ADU Resource Center so I don't know that we would be able to provide a lot of scenarios because we really see them on a case-by-case basis I think a much more typical scenario we see is somebody doing one detached adu and perhaps a converted perhaps a jadu that's like a very very typical um scenario we see and that's you know fits right into kind of like our ordinance as it previously was obviously this is a change um but i think we won't we we don't know what we don't know thank you that's helpful and there is a informational um

page on the city's website, is that correct, Stephanie? Kind of like a fact sheet. Yeah, we do have a handout for those kind of more typical applications.

Can I just check my understanding for what I'm hearing here, which really helps me. So we're updating this to be in conformity with state law, and it does, because it's in conformity with state law and not necessarily based on the conditions in South San Francisco, it might present some fringe conditions. hypothetical cases that what I hear you saying it practically speaking it's really unlikely that we'll see some very unusual cases here but you know this does reflect what's required by the state is that yeah the right understanding that's absolutely right this is a one-size-fits-all solution this is a one-size-fits-all state law and every jurisdiction is different and

Just to picture, Madera County, a rural county in the Central Valley, has the same ADU ordinance, has the same requirements that we have. There could be, you know, folks with a 40-acre lot can easily build four ADUs, and somebody with a 5,000-acre, sorry, 5,000-square-foot lot, which is a typical lot size here in South San Francisco, cannot.

I got you. Thank you. Oh yes, okay. Then, question? So let's see, we have done questions and now we're closing public hearing to turn this over to the Commission for discussion. I think we had a comment queued up over here.

Yes, so again, hats off to all of you lovely humans who have to do a lot of this, like, research and then trying to synthesize. And then Stephanie always does such a great job of presenting. And that really was a tongue twister. I don't think I'm gonna even pretend to do that. What I would recommend for everybody watching and for our lovely planning department to do is, cut the part of the video today of Stephanie explaining this beautiful presentation and putting it on the planning commission website. I don't know if anyone knows this. I did a whole series on every single department of the city of South San Francisco on TikTok, actually. And I went through the entire webpage of every single department and talked about what every department did, because this is a suburb. in the Bay Area and it's, pretty similar to other local areas as well. Like I was not gonna try San Francisco, that was a little bit too much. But this just leads me to think that that section of today's or tonight's video would be really helpful for people who have like direct questions like how, and I love the exchange between Commissioner Zeng and the planning department and the city attorney's office, because it really demonstrates like there are some fringe, like interesting scenarios and it's just helpful for people who don't have a lot of time or really love listening to well-researched, trained professional staff to thoroughly go through it over and over and over. Because I don't know about y'all, but I'm like going to my YouTube after this, saving this meeting so that I always have access to it and writing in my notes this meeting date, because I think it's really important because something that seems initially on paper to be so straight forward, where clearly learning isn't. So I just wanted to thank all of you and just put that as a little highlight.

I agree with Sarah actually. Definitely, if I were to choose to believe a city attorney or a finding or a determination of this rule, I would go to our city. I've always believed in what your interpretation is, and I could assure... people who's listening to this know definitely what we just are about to discuss for approval tonight is not across the Simitelle County at all. So that's why I was like fringing, I was like, really? But I also have like 100% confidence that what you're, determining here is what state is saying. So there will be some learning curve, and there will be some fights across the industries, across construction or different designers about stuff. So I will gladly back you guys up on this one. I know it sounds surreal for our 5,000 typical lots on things like these, and people will try to be creative. But the reason why I drill and drill and drill, I just want to hear that you're very, very confident that this is aligned with HCD and SML. In fact, if anyone that is not aligning with HCD, that ordinance that they pass, whatever they pass is obsolete immediately. So that give me a full understanding of the power of what state mandates are and I appreciate the clarification, thanks.

I want to thank Stephanie for the presentation. I'm sure those looking at this at home listening are probably saying, do I really want to have an ADU? You know, I would recommend, there's a lot of information that came forward. It's confusing, and I've heard it many a times, and I'm just as confused as it started. Go to the sources you recommended, go to the website, and make it each individual what to be, because I think it's been clarified there. every lot unique every design might be unique even though it's an ADU so thank you Stephanie for trying to dial in the confusion appreciating also the difficulty and as you said

applying a one size fits all policy to South San Francisco. I do wonder if there's any opportunity to clarify in some of the outreach materials that you all have developed and are modifying that some of this, practically speaking, will likely not apply to South City, right? Like the four units added to a single family, Not very likely, but without just cutting off things that are legally permissible, I wonder if there's some way to contextualize for people what is actually doable. Because as you pointed out, what you are seeing are pretty straightforward ADUs, practically speaking. So I think there's still some daylight between what the ordinance reads as, and then what people practically will want to do, and then what they even can do given some of the specific conditions in South San Francisco. So wherever that can be clarified for people, so they're not thinking about hypotheticals that may not even be applicable, I think that would be really beneficial. And, you know, just generally am supportive of of ADUs as a practical option to fulfill an important city goal of more types of housing, intergenerational options, affordability options. So I think the more we make it practical and easy to understand what applies to people and what doesn't, all the better. So thank you again for the great work and also noting that we just heard this item and you already had to update it again. So appreciating the tremendous amount of work and diligence that it takes to just keep up. Any other comments from commissioners?

Yeah, I mean, thank you again, Stephanie. I think it's clear Stephanie stated all the resources. I think it's time we stop repeating ourselves. I don't think we're doing any justice to the community or to anybody listening to us. The city is the source, the planning commission, planning department are doing their due diligence. So I think we're talking too much in different scenarios that don't really apply. We don't have any solutions. It's not one size fits all. Each case is different. Each lot is different, different sizes, different house configurations, different units. We appreciate you just pointing out what the resources are that are available. Element 21, the state also, mandates. So thank you.

Thank you. Then I think we are ready for a motion on item 4A, please.

Through the chair.

I'd like to make a motion to adopt the resolution determining the proposed update to ADU regulations are exempt from CEQA and recommending that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending the Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.

Second. Thank you. Roll call please. Commissioner Zeng. Yes. Chairperson Pamukku. Yes. Commissioner Evans.

Yes.

Commissioner Funes?

Yes.

Commissioner Freya? Yes. Commissioner Shahade?

Yes.

Vice Chairperson Baker is absent.

Thank you. Motion passes. And that takes us to administrative business for our regular meeting. Do we have any administrative business? We do not. Okay, then do commissioners have any items or announcements for the regular meeting? No? Then I will adjourn the regular meeting. uh officially and now we are transitioning uh back to the special meeting uh we're going to reconvene the july 16 2026 special meeting of the planning commission and we are transitioning into that agenda And then for special meeting, I'm looking to staff here, do we go straight to consent calendar or do we tick through the full meeting items?

I think we could stand to skip the Pledge of Allegiance since we've already done that. But if any, but I'm fine just going through the, if there's any announcements from staff, public comment and picking up from there.

Okay. So let's then start the special meeting with disclosure of ex parte communications. If any commissioner has had any communication with applicants, did any site or project visits, had interactions with third parties, or has any conflicts regarding items on the agenda, you may disclose them at this time. If you'd like to recuse yourself for an item, you can also do that at this time. Hearing none, we will move on to the next item, and that is the entirety of our agenda, the consent calendar. May we have a listing of the consent calendar, please?

Yes, we have one item on the consent calendar. Number one is report regarding a resolution making findings and determining that the acquisition of 1229 Crestwood Drive by the City of South San Francisco is in conformance with the South San Francisco adopted general plan in accordance with Government Code section 65402 and 1A is the resolution.

Thank you. Does any Commissioner wish to pull this item from consent? No. Does any member of the public wish to address the Commission on this item on the consent calendar? If so please fill out a speaker card and give it to the clerk. Do we have any speakers?

We have no members of the public wanting to provide comment.

With no speakers, then I will take a motion, please, on the consent calendar item.

I take a motion. We approve the item on the consent calendar.

I second. Thank you. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Faria.

Yes.

Commissioner Shahadi. Commissioner Evans.

Yes.

Chairperson Pamukku.

Yes.

Commissioner Zeng. Yes. Commissioner Funes.

Yes.

Vice Chairperson Baker is absent.

Okay, consent calendar is approved. That is the entirety of the items for the special meeting agenda. I don't think there's any administrative business for the special meeting. Then if that's the case, we will go ahead and adjourn the special meeting. All right. Thanks, everyone. Made it through regular and special meeting.

We're done.

Great, everyone. Have a good night.

Thank you. all right welcome to the Thursday July 16th regular meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission this meeting is being held in person at the library parks and rec building council chambers to provide comment during the meeting please fill out a speaker card and give it to the clerk then you'll have three minutes to make your comments please note that all Commission time limits and rules of decorum will apply to public comments This meeting of the South San Francisco Planning Commission is hereby called to order. Will you please stand and join in the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you, now may we please have a roll call for the regular meeting.

Commissioner Shahade. Here. Commissioner Funes.

Here.

Commissioner Faria. Here. Chairperson Pamukku. Here. Commissioner Evans. Here. Commissioner Zeng.

Here.

Vice Chair Baker is absent.

Thank you. And now that we've done roll call for the regular meeting, we are now going to recess the July 16, 2026 regular meeting of the Planning Commission. And now we're going to call the July 16, 2026 special meeting of the Planning Commission to order. So a meeting within a meeting. Roll call, please.

Commissioner Faria. Here. Chairperson Pamukku? Here. Commissioner Shahade? Here. Commissioner Evans?

Here.

Commissioner Zeng?

Here.

Commissioner Funes?

Here.

Vice Chairperson Baker is absent.

Thank you. And then I believe we recess special meeting. Yes? Okay, I see a nod. Fantastic. We will now recess the July 16, 2026 special meeting of the Planning Commission and we will now reconvene our regular meeting of the Planning Commission. So we will now return to our agenda and for folks who are less familiar with this meeting format such as myself, we'll be going through the regular meeting agenda and then returning to the special meeting. So, regular meeting agenda, do we have any changes? No changes to the agenda. Do we have any items or announcements from staff?

No announcements from staff tonight.

Okay, does any member of the public wish to address the commission on an item that is not on the agenda at this time? So please fill out a speaker card and give it to the clerk. We have no members of the public wishing to provide comments. Okay, thank you. With no speakers, we'll move on. Then we have disclosure of ex parte communications. If any commissioner has had any communication with applicants, did any site visits or project visits, had interactions with third parties, or has any conflicts regarding any items on the agenda, you may disclose them at this time. If you'd like to recuse yourself for an item, you can also do that at this time. Okay, hearing none, we will move on to the next item, which is the consent calendar. May we have a listing of the consent calendar items, please?

Yes, we have one item on the consent calendar, which is consideration and approval of minutes from the June 18th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.

Thank you. Does any commissioner wish to pull the item from consent? Does any member of the public wish to address the commission on the item on consent calendar at this time? If so, please fill out a speaker card and give it to the clerk. Do we have any speakers? We have no members of the public wishing to provide comments. Thank you. Then hearing no speakers, can I get a motion please on consent calendar?

I'll make a motion.

I'll second. Thank you.

Can we get a vote please? Commissioner Shahade.

Yes.

Chairperson Pamukku. Yes. Commissioner Zeng.

Yes.

Commissioner Funes.

Yes.

Commissioner Faria. Yes. Commissioner Evans.

Yes.

Vice Chairperson Baker is absent.

Thank you. Now after consent we have agenda item number two. Will the clerk please read the item and then we will open the public hearing and call for staff report.

Item number two is a report regarding consideration of a recommendation to the City Council for a general plan amendment to comply with Senate Bill 1425 to create a new general plan policy and actions that address equitable access to open space, climate resilience, and rewilding opportunities, and determination that an addendum to the 2040 General Plan Environmental Impact Report is the appropriate CEQA document per CEQA guidelines 15162 and 15164, and items 2A and 2B are the resolutions.

Okay, thank you. Can we have the staff report, please?

Yes. Good evening, Vice, or I'm sorry, Chair Pamukku and Commissioners. Did I get demoted? Vice Chair Baker's not here tonight. I'm Adina Friedman, I'm the Chief Planner, and I'll be giving the staff report for this item. Tonight's first item is a general plan amendment regarding open space policies, and it is intended to comply with state law. The state law is Senate Bill 1425 and SB 1425 is a state law requiring all jurisdictions to update general plans to incorporate policies and actions that address equitable access to open space, climate resilience, and rewilding opportunities. The city is updating our general plan as a best practice to be consistent with the state law. There is no penalty for not being consistent with this law. However, the city is more competitive for grants and applications regarding open space management, conservation planning, that type of thing. And typically it is just best practice to be consistent with state law. So Senate Bill 1425, the general plan amendment provides policy level guidance regarding open space. It does not modify land use designations or allowable land uses, increase development intensity, density, or capacity, authorize the construction of any type of structure, or directly result in any changes to the physical environment. So it is policy direction for future planning, future projects, both public and private. I also do want to mention that our Parks and Recreation Department is embarking on a Parks and Recreation Master Plan update. They issued the request for proposals this summer, so they'll be kicking that off soon. The planning effort will be taking place over the next one to two years. So there will be more opportunities to plan for open space and resilience. And of course, the Planning Commission will have the opportunity to review and weigh in on that document as well. So I'm going to get into the specific policy requirements that are set out in SB 1425. The general plan must address, there's three specific requirements. access to open space for all residents in a manner that considers social, economic, and racial equity correlated with the environmental justice element of the general plan, climate resilience and other co-benefits of open space correlated with the safety element of the general plan. And our safety element is actually called the community resilience element. So we have a little bit of different words for some of the required elements. And then rewilding opportunities correlated with the land use element. And In our general plan, we have actually many elements that address open space and climate resiliency, as shown on this slide here, as well as the land use element, kind of the big one. So our recommended policy changes include many cross-references, so to make sure that the document is internally consistent. just wanted to take a moment to define rewilding it might be a new term so I wanted to include the definition per state law I will say it was a new term for me so I've learned a lot about it her SB 1425 rewilding means protection enhancement and expansion of open spaces to support habitat connectivity and recreation, cultural and tribal community resources, water management, and other beneficial uses. So for the next few slides, I'm going to go through the policy recommendations. So in order to determine if South San Francisco needed to make any amendments to comply with this law, we conducted an analysis of the requirements and compared the requirements to our existing policies and actions. and then determined if we already meet the requirements or if we have to make some changes. So requirement number one focuses on access to open space, and our analysis determined that our general plan already meets this requirement through our parks and recreation element and our community health and environmental justice element, and no amendments are needed to address this requirement. The next requirement focuses on climate resilience and other benefits of open space. And we did find that our general plan does include policies that meet this requirement with some room for improvement. So with that, we are recommending adding several policies, actions, and references to better connect the subject areas of climate resilience with open space planning. Requirement number three is the rewilding opportunities requirement. We found that our general plan includes many goals to create open space, parks and trails, and policies that support the importance of open space for conservation purposes. However, the general plan does not include the term rewilding. So we are proposing to include a specific action to address rewilding opportunities and then include cross references as needed. The next few slides just go through the text of all the proposed amendments. I'm not going to go through each of these, but I have them in the presentation and can go back to them if commissioners have any specific questions. Just gonna go through these quickly so we have them up on the screen. So we did conduct tribal consultation as part of this general plan amendment process, and we typically conduct tribal consultation in the context of CEQA documents. There's several state laws that require tribal consultation when creating a CEQA document that's going to be published for public review. However, there is a law, SB 18, that requires tribal consultation for any general plan amendment that may have an effect on California Native American tribes in the jurisdiction. We did conduct tribal consultation for this project. We followed the Native American Heritage Commission's regulations for tribal consultation, and we conducted outreach to seven tribes, and one of them requested consultation, the Indian Canyon Mutsun Band of the Costanoan Ohlone people. We conducted consultation with the representative of the tribe, that means we held a meeting with with the tribal representative and we got great input focusing on training capacity building and access to open space as a result of tribal consultation we are proposing the inclusion of a policy in the abundant parks and recreation chapter and the text reads engaged with tribal communities to incorporate indigenous land stewardship practices and into climate resilience and rewilding strategies. And I do want to mention that there are additional opportunities for tribal consultation through the Parks and Recreation Master Plan process. Planning Division staff, with the assistance of an environmental consultant, created an addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report to determine if subsequent CEQA review is required. The addendum findings determined that there were no substantial changes to the general plan that have been proposed, so the amendments are not substantial that would require major revisions to the previously certified EIR. No substantial changes in circumstances have occurred, and no new information of substantial importance has become available that would result in new or more severe significant impacts than were already studied under the previous EIR. And with that, the addendum is the appropriate level of environmental documentation for the proposed general plan amendment to comply with SB 1425, and no additional CEQA review is required. And with that, I'm going to wrap up my presentation. The proposed policies and actions serve to further implement several of the existing general plan goals and policies regarding open space, conservation, and climate resiliency, while ensuring consistency with state law. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt resolutions making findings, recommending that the City Council find that the addendum is an appropriate CEQA document, and recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution amending the general plan to comply with SB 1425. That concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions that the commissioners might have.

Thank you so much. Do commissioners have questions?

No, but I, oh, there's a question later. Oh, hold on. Thank you.

Just one question about the indigenous consultation. Have tribal representatives taken us up on that offer to have consultation before?

Not in recent history. However, there is another project that is going through the entitlement process right now where several tribal representatives have requested consultation and staff is conducting the consultation.

Great, thank you. And then if I understand correctly, can you tell me if this is right, this isn't making changes necessarily to any, this doesn't change any actions that the city is taking currently, but it provides opportunities to take actions or have more detailed policies, right, like identify rewilding opportunities or open space considerations.

That's exactly right. It's not changing anything we're doing currently. However, if future projects come up, if future, let's say, open space acquisition or any type of resilience projects come up, there will be opportunities to study them and see if they're, you know, if it's appropriate to incorporate rewilding opportunities.

Thank you. Do folks have any other questions?

Please. In this rewilding definition, who oversees it and are there geographic areas specific for this?

The definition this definition was specifically set by the state and there are no G specific geographic areas This is really a high-level policy definition and really the focus is on open space areas So anything that's defined as open space within the city we could look for opportunities for rewilding Please

So open space can be private or government, city-owned, state-owned, county, or is it general?

This is in the context of public open space.

Thank you.

then with questions concluded does any member of the public wish to address the Commission on this item at this time please fill out a speaker card and give it to the clerk do we have any comments we have no members of the public wishing to provide public comment all right then I will close the public hearing and turn this over to the Commission for discussion does anyone want to make a comment

To the chair, I just wanted to say that I really appreciated staff's work on really educating both us and the public. I think this is a really important piece of legislation and policy change and the general plan. It all seems like a lot to all of us. And I would love more of it in general. Because I think it helps the public understand where things are happening in the general plan, which you guys already do. So this isn't a criticism at all. but it's just, I really appreciate the thought and effort that you guys made for it. And I loved my fellow commissioner's questions. I think those really, again, help get the public's thoughts out for everyone. Thank you.

Yeah. I'd like to echo those comments. I really appreciate the planning department for always taking the initiative, being updated, updating us. And in light of us reading about other cities that are not in compliance. So South City's been one of the few cities that's always been compliant. and ahead of the game in my opinion. So we appreciate the feedback you've given us. And you're obviously doing your due diligence in educating us. Thank you.

I will echo that I really appreciate the forward-thinking work and creating opportunities both to be in compliance and also to continue developing equitable access to public spaces. I think it's also really good timing as well, as staff pointed out, with the Parks and Rec master plan process coming up. So I appreciate that staff is being really thoughtful about compliance, forward thinking, and then also tying this into different parts of city activity. And I was also really intrigued by the indigenous consultation and the resulting land stewardship language. I appreciated that and I wonder if there are more opportunities to keep that conversation open. And that seems just very positive to me to get a response and to have that dialogue. But I can tell staff has been busy and appreciate the ongoing really proactive work, which I think is gonna be a theme of this meeting. Does anyone else have comments they'd like to make? then let's see we will do this as 2a and 2b so for item 2a can I get a motion please I can make the motion to part first of all move to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council make the CEQA determinations second roll call please Commissioner Evans yes

Commissioner Faria. Yes. Commissioner Zeng.

Yes.

Commissioner Shahade. Yes. Chairperson Pamukku. Yes. Commissioner Funes. Yes. Thank you. Vice Chairperson Baker is absent.

And the second part. Move to adopt a resolution recommending that the City Council adopt a general plan amendment. I second.

Do roll call. Commissioner Shahade.

Yes.

Chairperson Pamukku yes Commissioner Zeng yes Commissioner Funes yes Commissioner Faria yes Commissioner Evans yes Vice Chairperson Baker is absent all right thank you item number two passes in two parts then we are on to item number three will the clerk please read that item

Item number three is a report regarding consideration of a recommendation to the City Council to adopt an ordinance to amend Title 20 zoning of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to allow for residential entitlements to be extended by up to two years and determination that the proposed amendments are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act per section 15378 of the CEQA guidelines. And item 3A is the resolution.

Thank you.

I'll now open the public hearing and call for staff report. Great. Thank you. I'm Adina Friedman, Chief Planner, and I will also be giving this staff report. And the item in front of you tonight is a zoning text amendment. And this item is very focused on the time frame that planning entitlements are valid after planning, after project approval. So... South San Francisco Municipal Code Section 20.450.001 Common Procedures Expiration and Extension regulates how long planning entitlements are valid for after a project has been approved. So I'm going to go through the way it is currently. Planning entitlements, which means discretionary approval, are valid for two years after project approval. So meaning after Planning Commission approves a project or City Council or after Design Review Board makes a recommendation and Chief Planner approves a project. That means they expire if the project applicant has not obtained building permits within two years. A one year extension is permitted with Chief Planner approval. So there is essentially a total of three years to obtain building permits. So three years can sound like a long time, but there are some challenges with this timeframe. The first, which is that applicants must obtain financing, prepare construction plans, and secure building permits within three years. This is often very doable for a project such as an addition to a single family home, or perhaps a commercial facade improvement. However, it's very challenging to achieve this, particularly for larger complex multi-phase projects and affordable housing projects, which often have to go through many years of financing. to see their project to fruition. And then after a project expires, resubmittal of permits is very expensive and time consuming. This does not benefit the city, the applicants, or the community to have projects drag out and potentially have to resubmit. So there are several solutions. 1 is a development agreement, which is an agreement that an applicant enters into with the city that can extend the term of development. Typically, 10 to 15 years is what we've seen in South San Francisco. There are terms business terms that both the city and the. a developer agree to. There can be items that are benefits for both the city, such as a community benefits agreement, which can include prepayment of fees or some other type of contribution. And then of course there are benefits for the developer because they have longer to figure out you know how to build this project and that's appropriate for large-scale commercial development commercial development often has the means and the resources to enter into a development agreement and often large commercial developments are phased over time We've seen many of those projects, East 101, for example. And the Planning Commission probably recalls just in the past year or so, many commercial projects that have been improved over the past several years have come back in and requested development agreements because the market has been so challenging to develop. within the past few years. So we've really seen quite a few commercial projects take advantage of this. However, residential projects, as I said, just do not have the funding and flexibility to enter into an agreement like that with the city. Another option is that state law has provided several extensions for residential development. This started during the pandemic when it was really just impossible for many reasons for developers to build housing. So the state provided, I think, two sets of extensions that provided up to 18 months for residential development. And that was absolutely by right. They didn't have to do anything for that to be granted. However, those have all run out and none are currently available. And what we've heard and what we've seen from the development community is that residential development often needs more time and flexibility to obtain financing and building permits. So with all of that in mind, the proposed amendment in front of the Commission tonight would be to allow an additional year for the entitlement extension for residential projects. The base two years would stay the same, so two years from project approval, plus an additional up to two years, while right now it's up to one year, with chief planner approval, and that would get residential projects a total of four years, so one extra year. This would apply to recently approved residential projects with active entitlements that have not yet been issued building permits. We have quite a few large projects in that bucket. Residential projects currently in the entitlement pipeline, so projects that are being reviewed by staff but have not yet been approved, and all residential entitlements going forward. The next slide here shows the proposed text changes to include the two years