South San Francisco Planning Commission Regular Meeting – August 7, 2025

The Planning Commission met on August 7, 2025, at 7:00 PM in the Council Chambers. The meeting covered approval of minutes, a public hearing for a conditional use permit for an indoor sports facility (Bay Area Sport House), and an administrative design review for a four-unit multifamily project. All votes were unanimous among the commissioners present.

Consent Calendar

• The Commission unanimously approved the minutes from the July 17, 2025 Planning Commission meeting (motion by [Commissioner], seconded; roll call: 6-0, with Vice Chair Pamukcu absent). No items were pulled from consent.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Non-Agenda Public Comment: No members of the public spoke on non-agenda items.
• Public Hearing (Item 2): No public comment was received for the Bay Area Sport House conditional use permit.
• Administrative Business (Item 3): A written public comment was received via email from the Housing Defense Fund of California in support of the four-unit housing project. Additionally, a neighbor who owns property at 231 Armour Avenue spoke in person, expressing concerns about the proposed building’s overhang and setback relative to his property, but acknowledged the project design was overall acceptable. The neighbor also referenced an earlier email with comments, though it had not been formally received by the commission.

Public Hearing: Conditional Use Permit – Bay Area Sport House (147 Beacon Street)

• Staff Report: Associate Planner Victoria Kim presented the proposal to convert an existing one-story warehouse (approx. 22,000 sq ft) into an indoor volleyball and pickleball facility with two volleyball courts and two pickleball courts. The site is in the Business Technology Park-High (BTP-H) Zoning District. Business hours would be 3–10 PM Monday–Friday and 8 AM–10 PM weekends, with a maximum of 36 players and three employees. Parking would be provided by 16 on-site spaces plus 22 spaces in a shared parking lot under a parking agreement (total 38 spaces). A parking study indicated possible peak demand of 44 spaces, but the project would utilize drop-off/pickup zones and street parking to mitigate. Staff recommended approval subject to findings and conditions.
• Applicant/Representative Presentation: Bill Guan, project architect, and the applicant (owner of a healthcare business) presented. They described the facility as a training center for youth and adults, with potential future use of upstairs offices for physical therapy or related health services, though that is not part of the current permit. The applicant stated they have not operated a sports complex before but are relying on business experience.
• Commission Questions & Discussion:
  • Commissioner Baker asked about changing rooms (locker rooms provided) and the planned use of upper-floor offices (physical therapy, chiropractic for youth athletes).
  • Commissioner Zhang clarified that the conditional use permit is limited to indoor sports and recreation; physical therapy would require separate review. He also questioned whether spectator seating might be needed; the applicant confirmed the facility is not large enough for tournaments and will operate as a training center with no spectator events.
  • Commissioner Faria raised concerns about the shared parking if the adjacent building (currently vacant) leases to a tenant with overlapping hours. Staff noted that the parking agreement provides 22 spaces, but if the adjacent building becomes occupied, the applicant would need to address parking. Commissioner Faria acknowledged the risk but supported the project.
  • Commissioner Shihadeh inquired about the business model, revenue streams (court rentals, especially volleyball), and the applicant’s experience. The applicant cited “many restless nights” and reliance on pickleball and volleyball court fees as primary income.
• Commissioner Closing Comments: All commissioners expressed support, noting the community’s need for indoor recreational facilities and wishing the applicant success. Commissioner Evans highlighted the benefit of indoor activities in the area’s climate.
• Votes:
  • Motion to determine the project categorically exempt from CEQA under Class 1, Section 15301 (Existing Facilities): passed 6-0.
  • Motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to findings and conditions: passed 6-0.

Administrative Business: Design Review – 227 Armour Avenue (4-Unit Multifamily)

• Recusal: Commissioner Shihadeh recused himself due to a conflict of interest (he owns a business nearby).
• Staff Report: Senior Planner Stephanie Skangos presented the project. The site is a through lot with frontages on Armour Avenue and 9th Lane, currently containing two existing residential buildings (total three units). The applicant proposes a new three-story building (approx. 4,600 sq ft) attached to the existing one-story unit, adding four new units for a site total of seven. The ground floor will include a two-car garage, bicycle parking, and trash storage. No off-street parking is required under state law (transit station area), but the project provides two garage spaces and space for two additional driveway spaces. The project is categorically exempt under CEQA Class 3, Section 15303 (New Construction of Small Structures). Staff recommended approval.
• Applicant/Designer Presentation: Andrea Costanzo, the project designer, confirmed the structural design may use cantilevered balconies or posts, and that all setback requirements are met.
• Commission Questions & Discussion:
  • Commissioner Zhang asked about the balcony design (cantilever vs. posts). The designer noted they are working with a structural engineer; either option would comply with setback requirements.
  • Commissioner Evans commented on the existing parking challenges in Old Town, but acknowledged the applicant is voluntarily providing parking beyond requirements.
  • The owner of the neighboring property (231 Armour) raised concerns about the building’s roof overhang extending close to his property line and fire rating requirements. Staff responded that all building and fire codes will be reviewed during the building permit stage.
• No other public comments or opposition. Commissioner Evans noted that the project’s parking provision is a positive given the area’s parking constraints.
• Votes:
  • Motion to determine the project categorically exempt from CEQA under Class 3, Section 15303: passed 5-0 (Commissioner Shihadeh recused, Vice Chair Pamukcu absent).
  • Motion to approve Design Review subject to findings and conditions: passed 5-0.

Key Outcomes

• Consent Calendar: Minutes of July 17, 2025, approved (6-0).
• Bay Area Sport House (147 Beacon Street): Conditional Use Permit approved (6-0 for both CEQA exemption and permit approval). The facility may operate as an indoor volleyball and pickleball training center with specified hours, a maximum of 36 participants, and a parking plan relying on 38 spaces (16 on-site + 22 shared). Future changes to the adjacent building’s occupancy may require reassessment.
• 227 Armour Avenue: Design Review approved (5-0; Commissioner Shihadeh recused). The project will add four new residential units (total seven) in a three-story building with a two-car garage and no required off-street parking. The applicant must comply with all building, fire, and planning conditions during permitting.