OpenPublica

Accountability starts with access.

© 2026 · Filed for the public record

Use casesAboutAPIPrivacyTermsLinkedIn
Home/South San Francisco, California/Planning Commission
OPENPUBLICA · PUBLIC MEETING RECORD
Record of Proceedings

South San Francisco Planning Commission Approves PUC Site Development Recommendations (2019-10-17)

Planning Commission — Thursday, October 17, 2019
BodySouth San Francisco, California
SessionPlanning Commission
DateThursday, October 17, 2019
StatusFILED
Video Record
0:00 / 3:14:46

Original source
Transcript — VerbatimClick a timed line to jump · ⧉ to share it
0:21

Thank you.

0:22

Madam Clerk, can we have a roll call, please?

0:27

Commissioner Zhang.

0:29

Here.

0:29

Commissioner Shahade.

0:31

Here.

0:31

Commissioner Evans.

0:32

Here.

0:32

Commissioner Bernardo.

0:34

Here.

0:34

Commissioner Faria.

0:35

Here.

0:36

Vice Chair Wong.

0:37

Chair Murphy.

0:38

All are present.

0:39

Thank you.

0:41

Because of the interest in tonight's meeting.

0:43

Um, I'm gonna start things off a little bit differently and give a little bit of an overview of what the planning commission does, who we are, and how things will proceed tonight.

0:51

Um, we're really happy to see so much public interest and engagement in this in this issue.

0:56

We know that people are passionate about the community in which we live, so we're very happy to see so many faces here tonight.

1:01

Um we, the planning commission are a commission made up of resident volunteers.

1:08

I would like to just take a second and have everyone introduce themselves on the commission, describe how long you've been on the commission, and please at this time disclose if you've met with the um applicant tonight.

1:18

I'll start down at the right.

1:20

Thank you.

1:21

Um thank you.

1:23

Uh I'm Robert Bernardo, and I'm the newest uh planning commissioner on the dais.

1:29

Uh, but I have served on the planning commission before prior to that.

1:33

Um I uh worked for the county, and I have not met with the um applicant.

1:42

My name is Norm Free.

1:43

I've been on the Planet Commission six years.

1:46

I've met with the you know the plan the people who are proposing the project uh starting back in 2017 when this all started getting vetted, so uh welcome uh Chairman said, I'm glad to see the turnout.

2:00

Uh thank you.

2:00

My name's Alan Wong.

2:01

I'm the vice chair of the planning commission.

2:03

Uh I'm going on my seventh year, I think, on the Planning Commission.

2:07

I have not had the chance to meet with the developers.

2:10

Um that's all.

2:13

Commissioner Evans.

2:14

I'm Michelle Evans.

2:16

I've been on the planning commission.

2:17

This is my second year, and I have not met with the applicant.

2:22

My name is Sam Shahade.

2:24

I've been on the planning commission over two years.

2:27

I uh the applicant requested a meeting.

2:29

I did not meet with the applicant.

2:35

Speaking to the microphone.

2:40

Okay.

2:42

I'm Alex Sang.

2:43

Uh uh, this is my I think I'm here over three years already, and uh I have not met with the applicants.

2:52

Thank you.

2:52

Um I'm the chair, I'm Julianne Murphy.

2:54

I've been on the commission about two and a half years, and I've been chairing since the beginning of this year.

2:59

Um, my role tonight is to help us facilitate this meeting, move along, and hopefully um help the commissioners reach consensus if we can.

3:06

Um, and I'll also help the public comment kind of run through efficiently and effectively.

3:13

Um so the planning commission um for tonight's item, because this is a new development agreement.

3:18

We are an advisory body to the city council who will make the final decision.

3:23

Our purview is limited to evaluating the project for its land use issues.

3:27

That means we will consider the following regulatory frameworks and guiding documents to determine if the project meets land use requirements set out in those documents.

3:35

We'll be considering the California Environmental Quality Act, which you may hear tonight refer to as CEQA.

3:40

We will look at um the regulations and guidelines set out in the South San Francisco General Plan, the South San Francisco Municipal Code, municipal code, including the zoning, and the more specific El Camino Chestnut specific plan.

Discussion Breakdown — Share of Meeting
Affordable Housing████████████████████████████28%
Land Use Planning███████████████████████23%
Public Hearing████████8%
Transportation Demand Management██████6%
Public Engagement█████5%
Community Engagement████4%
Traffic Safety████4%
Parks and Recreation███3%
Planning Commission██2%
Summary of Proceedings

South San Francisco Planning Commission Meeting Summary: PUC Site Development (2019-10-17)

On October 17, 2019, the South San Francisco Planning Commission held a regular meeting at the Municipal Services Building (Council Chambers, 33 Arroyo Drive) to consider a major mixed-use development proposal on the 5.9-acre Former San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (PUC) site at 1051 Mission Road. The commission acted as an advisory body to the City Council, focusing on land use, environmental, and zoning consistency. After a lengthy public hearing with substantial community input, the commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project's entitlements, including a Use Permit, Design Review, and Development Agreement.

Consent Calendar

  • No consent calendar items were listed on the agenda.

Public Comments & Testimony

Public comment was extensive and deeply divided. Numerous residents, advocacy groups, and community members spoke for and against the project.

Supporters included:

  • Jordan Grimes (Peninsula for Everyone) expressed strong support, citing the critical need for housing near jobs and transit.
  • Karen Tuzman (Peninsula Young Democrats) urged approval, arguing the project addresses climate, housing, and traffic crises by enabling transit-oriented living.
  • Ken Chui (local business owner) calculated the affordable housing benefit at over $80 million, urging approval for its economic value.
  • Nicholas Nagel (Bay Area Housing Advocacy Coalition) stressed urgency, noting the Bay Area's housing shortage and the project's high affordable housing percentage.
  • Vince Rocha (Silicon Valley Leadership Group) supported the project for its transit orientation, community benefits, and role in addressing the housing shortage.
  • Alex Melendrez (Housing Leadership Council) spoke emotionally about housing insecurity and the need for more homes at all income levels.
  • Ziomara Omer (Bay Area Council, former SSF resident) highlighted regional housing need and personal displacement story.
  • David Crabbe (environmental group) supported the project for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and addressing jobs-housing imbalance.
  • Pat Murray (SSFUSD School Board VP, speaking personally) urged approval to retain teachers and staff who cannot afford housing.
  • Jeff Chaser, Katie DeLau, Melanie Olson, and others supported the project for its housing supply and community benefits.
  • Several speakers, including Edith Arias and Jan Stokely (Housing Choices), specifically requested that at least 10% of affordable units be set aside for adults with intellectual/developmental disabilities.

Opponents and concerned residents included:

  • Katie Stokes, Diane Stokes, and other Sunshine Gardens residents opposed the project's scale, citing traffic, parking, and overcrowding concerns.
  • Margaret Baxter stated she collected over 800 signatures opposing more than five stories, referencing a 2018 City Council discussion.
  • Corey David, Mike Sarrail, and Gustavo Gomez criticized the project's height (up to 8 stories) and density, alleging misleading public outreach.
  • Kathy Rosiaiya raised specific concerns about daycare drop-off capacity and intersection congestion.
  • Heidi Sarrail (Sunshine Gardens homeowner) asked to stick to original 3-story design.
  • Meredith Vetter and others highlighted parking overflow potential.
  • Wendy Sinclair-Smith urged that the Oak Avenue extension (full roadway) be built in phase one.
  • Noelle Langmack supported the project, noting Genentech's planned 11,000 new jobs vs. zero new housing units permitted in 2019.

Discussion Items

Staff presented the project background, including the site's history, zoning, and CEQA compliance. The applicant (AGI Casa, with partners including BAR Architects, GLS Landscape Architecture, and Bridge Housing) detailed the design, community benefits, affordable housing, and traffic demand management (TDM). Key discussion points included:

  • Density, Height, and Massing: The project proposes 800 residential units on 5.9 acres (135.6 units/acre, within the allowed 120-180 range with TDM and design merits). Heights step from 3 stories along Mission Road to a maximum of 8 stories, below the Kaiser roof line (91 ft). The applicant reduced from an initial 85-ft proposal and emphasized the sculpted massing.
  • Affordable Housing: 158 units (20%) will be affordable, with income targets ranging from 25% to 80% of Area Median Income (AMI), with most at 50% AMI. This exceeds the city's inclusionary housing ordinance (currently 10%, rising to 15% on Nov 1, 2019).
  • Community Benefits: Includes on-site childcare (8,307 SF, 70-100 children, with 25-33% tuition subsidy), a market hall (12,992 SF), a one-acre public park, off-site improvements (Centennial Way, Oak Avenue extension phase one), and $19 million in impact fees.
  • Parking and TDM: 879 parking spaces are provided (all in garages), with a TDM plan aimed at reducing commute-hour auto trips by 35%. Measures include transit passes, bicycle storage, and a parking management plan. Unbundling of parking costs will be considered if impacts arise.
  • Oak Avenue Extension: The developer explained that a full roadway over the BART tunnel was infeasible and costly, so phase one provides a shared street/plaza, pedestrian/bike connections, and parking for the civic campus. Phase two can be implemented later if needed.
  • Height Discussion: Commissioners asked staff to clarify the 2018 City Council discussion about height limits. Staff stated there was no formal legislative action, only a discussion, and that the project meets current zoning.

Key Outcomes

The commission took three unanimous votes (all 7-0) on a single motion set:

  1. CEQA Determination: Adopted the resolution making a CEQA determination that the project is consistent with the adopted Program EIR and SEIR, with no subsequent environmental document required (per CEQA Guidelines §15162).
  2. General Plan Consistency: Adopted the resolution making a General Plan consistency determination per Government Code §65402.
  3. Recommendation to City Council: Voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Use Permit, Design Review, TDM Plan, Density Bonus, Waivers and Modifications, Parking Management and Monitoring Plan, Vesting Tentative Tract Map, and Development Agreement for the project.

All votes were 7-0 in favor. The item will now proceed to the City Council for final decision.

Additional Notes

  • The meeting began with roll call; all seven commissioners were present: Chair JulieAnn Murphy, Vice Chair Alan Wong, Commissioners Norm Faria, Michele Evans, Alex Tzang, Sam Shihadeh, and Robert Bernardo.
  • Commissioners disclosed ex parte contacts: Commissioner Faria had met with applicant representatives starting in 2017; others had not.
  • The commission acknowledged public interest and thanked speakers for their civility.
  • No conflicting information was noted between agenda and transcript; minutes were unavailable.

Meeting Transcript

Thank you. Madam Clerk, can we have a roll call, please? Commissioner Zhang. Here. Commissioner Shahade. Here. Commissioner Evans. Here. Commissioner Bernardo. Here. Commissioner Faria. Here. Vice Chair Wong. Chair Murphy. All are present. Thank you. Because of the interest in tonight's meeting. Um, I'm gonna start things off a little bit differently and give a little bit of an overview of what the planning commission does, who we are, and how things will proceed tonight. Um, we're really happy to see so much public interest and engagement in this in this issue. We know that people are passionate about the community in which we live, so we're very happy to see so many faces here tonight. Um we, the planning commission are a commission made up of resident volunteers. I would like to just take a second and have everyone introduce themselves on the commission, describe how long you've been on the commission, and please at this time disclose if you've met with the um applicant tonight. I'll start down at the right. Thank you. Um thank you. Uh I'm Robert Bernardo, and I'm the newest uh planning commissioner on the dais. Uh, but I have served on the planning commission before prior to that. Um I uh worked for the county, and I have not met with the um applicant. My name is Norm Free. I've been on the Planet Commission six years. I've met with the you know the plan the people who are proposing the project uh starting back in 2017 when this all started getting vetted, so uh welcome uh Chairman said, I'm glad to see the turnout. Uh thank you. My name's Alan Wong. I'm the vice chair of the planning commission. Uh I'm going on my seventh year, I think, on the Planning Commission. I have not had the chance to meet with the developers. Um that's all. Commissioner Evans. I'm Michelle Evans. I've been on the planning commission. This is my second year, and I have not met with the applicant. My name is Sam Shahade. I've been on the planning commission over two years. I uh the applicant requested a meeting. I did not meet with the applicant. Speaking to the microphone. Okay. I'm Alex Sang. Uh uh, this is my I think I'm here over three years already, and uh I have not met with the applicants. Thank you.

SUMMARIZED BY OPENPUBLICA AI
TRANSCRIPT VIA PUBLIC VIDEO
openpublica.com