Planning Commission Meeting: August 1, 2024 – Draft EIR Review for 131 Terminal Project

The South San Francisco Planning Commission held a regular meeting on August 1, 2024, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers. The primary item was a public hearing to receive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed Infinite 131 project, a 1.7 million square foot research and development (R&D) campus at 131 Terminal Court. The commission took no action on the project; the hearing was solely for gathering public and commissioner input. The consent calendar was approved unanimously.

Consent Calendar

• Item 1: Approved minutes from the June 20, 2024, Planning Commission meeting (6-0, with Commissioner Evans absent).
• Item 2: Approved Master Sign Program and Design Review applications for an existing life science campus at Veterans Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard, subject to conditions and a categorical CEQA exemption (6-0).

Public Comments & Testimony

• John Medina (Business Agent, Sprinkler Fitters Local 43; Executive Board Member, San Mateo Building and Construction Trades Council) expressed strong support for the project, citing opportunities for local union labor, apprenticeships, and middle-class jobs. He urged the commission to ask developers about community benefits.
• Tom Treyer (Sheet Metal Worker, Local 104) also expressed support, emphasizing that the project would bring good wages, healthcare, and local hiring, helping families stay on the peninsula.

Discussion Items

• Public Hearing on Draft EIR for Infinite 131 Terminal Project (45-day comment period June 20 – August 5, 2024):
  • Presenters: Billy Gross (Principal Planner) and the applicant team (Steve Dunn, Steelwave; Mark Schwetman, SOM).
  • The project would demolish the existing Golden Gate Produce Terminal and construct seven buildings for R&D uses, with a total of 1.7 million square feet. The site is adjacent to the previously approved Infinite 101 project.
  • The Draft EIR analyzed five environmental topics: air quality, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, noise and vibration, and transportation. Of these, five significant and unavoidable impacts were identified:
    • Regional air quality impacts from area sources (e.g., consumer products, landscaping, emergency generators, lab operations).
    • Localized air quality impacts on worker receptors at the adjacent Infinite 101 site due to vehicle emissions.
    • Cultural resources impacts (mitigation measures reduce to less-than-significant, but two are unavoidable).
    • Noise impacts (mitigation reduces to less-than-significant).
    • Transportation and circulation impacts due to inadequate access and increased vehicle trips, with mitigation measures subject to approval by other agencies (Caltrans, City of San Bruno).
  • Three alternatives were evaluated: No Project (no impacts, but no objectives met), Alternative B (BTP Medium – 1.0 FAR, half the size, considered environmentally superior but still has unavoidable impacts), and Alternative C (Increased office space – worsens transportation impacts).
  • The project cannot be approved unless the City adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
  • Commissioner questions focused on:
    • Commissioner Zhang: Concerned about the high number of significant unavoidable impacts, who bears the costs, and whether phasing could reduce transportation impacts. Also asked if lab use is the primary cause of air quality impacts.
    • Commissioner Shihadeh: Questioned the developer's track record (Safeway project on hold) and raised concerns about traffic congestion, flooding, and the community burden.
    • Commissioner Baker: Inquired about emergency evacuation, circulation coordination with the 101 project, and cultural resources from potential shell mounds. Noted that riparian impacts were deemed less than significant.
    • Commissioner Pamukcu: Asked about inter-agency coordination for mitigation measures and the project's role in advancing complete streets and active mobility goals.
    • Vice Chair Funes-Ozturk: Requested more detail on transportation mitigation and parking, and comparison to other projects.
    • Commissioner Tzang: Asked about the process for determining historical significance and construction traffic management.
  • Staff responded that mitigation measures must be in place before occupancy, and that CEQA thresholds have become stricter over time, making comparisons with past projects difficult.

Key Outcomes

• No action was taken on the Draft EIR. The public hearing was closed after receiving comments from the commission and public.
• The final EIR and project entitlements will return to the Planning Commission and City Council at a future date.
• The commission's comments will be incorporated into the final EIR document.