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 Palmaku.

Here.

Commissioner Evans.

Here.

Commissioner Zhang.

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 Palmaku.

Here.

Commissioner Shahade.

Here.

Commissioner Evans.

Here.

Commissioner Zhang.

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.

Uh 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.

Um and uh for folks who are less familiar with this meeting format, such as myself.

Um, 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?

Uh if 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 public speaker or with no um 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 uh 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, uh, 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.

We have any speakers?

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

Thank you.

Then hearing no speakers, um, can I get a motion, please on consent calendar?

I'll make a motion.

Oh second.

Thank you.

Um can we get a vote, please?

Commissioner Shahade.

Yes.

Chairperson Pomiku.

Yes.

Commissioner Zing.

Yes.

Commissioner Funis.

Yes.

Commissioner Faria.

Yes.

Commissioner Evans.

Yes.

Vice Chairperson Baker is absent.

Thank you.

Uh now after consent, we have agenda item number two.

Um 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 stack report, please?

Yes.

Good evening, Vice Chair, or I'm sorry.

Chair Pomacu and Commissioner.

Vice Chair Baker is 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.

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.

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 uh 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 uh 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.

I 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.

Per SB 1425 rewilding means protection, enhancement, and expansion of open spaces to support habitat connectivity, recreation, cultural and tribal community resources, water management, and other beneficial uses.

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 for 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 approvement 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.

So I'm just going to 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 CECWA 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.

So 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 Mudson Band of the Costano and Ohlone people.

We conducted consultation with the representative of the tribe, and that means we held a meeting with the 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 engage with tribal communities to incorporate indigenous land stewardship practices 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.

Okay.

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 determine 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 and 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, um the addendum is the appropriate level of environmental documentation for the proposed general plan amendment to comply with SB 1425, and no additional SQL review is required.

And with that, I'm going to wrap up my presentation.

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 you commissioners have questions?

No, but I oh there's section leader for comments.

Just one question about the indigenous consultation.

Has that have um tribal representatives taken us up on that offer to have consultation before?

Um not in recent history.

However, um there is another project that is um going through the entitlement process for now right now, where several um tribal representatives have requested consultation and staff is conducting the consultation.

Great, thank you.

Um and then if I understand correctly, can you tell me if this is right?

This this isn't making changes necessarily to any um 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 um let's say open space acquisition or any type of um 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?

Um the the definition this definition was specifically set by the state, and there are no specific geographic areas.

This is really a high-level policy definition, um, 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.

Chair?

Please so open space can be private or government, city-owned, state-owned.

This is in the or is it general?

This is in the this is in the condext context of um 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?

Uh 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.

Uh then I will close the public hearing and turn this over to the commission for discussion.

Uh, does anyone want to make uh 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.

So like this isn't a criticism at all.

But it's it's just I really appreciate the thought and effort that you guys made for it.

Um and I loved my fellow commissioners' questions.

I think those really again help get the public's thoughts out for everyone.

Thank you.

Yeah, I'd like to echo that those comments.

I really appreciate you know the planning department for always taking the initiative, being updated, updating us.

And in light of, you know, we us reading about other cities that are not in compliance.

So South City has been one of the few cities that's always been in you know compliant and ahead of the game in my opinion.

So we appreciate the feedback you're giving us.

And you know, obviously doing your due diligence and educating us.

Thank you.

Uh I I will um echo that I really appreciate the forward thinking work um and creating opportunities uh both to be in compliance and also to continue developing um equitable access to public spaces.

I think it's also really good timing as well, um, as staff pointed out with the parks and rec master plan process coming up.

So I I appreciate that you know staff is being really thoughtful about compliance, forward thinking, and then also tying this into different parts of uh city activity.

Um and I was also really uh intrigued by the indigenous consultation and the resulting land stewardship language.

I I appreciated that, and I wonder if there are more opportunities to keep that conversation open.

Um and that seemed just very positive to me to get a response and to have that uh to have that dialogue.

Um, but I can tell staff has been busy and um appreciate the ongoing really proactive work, which um I think is gonna be a theme of this meeting.

Does anyone else have uh comments they'd like to make?

Okay.

Then uh let's see, we will do this uh as 2A and 2B.

Uh so for item 2A.

Uh can I get a motion, please?

I can make the motion two part.

First of all, move to adopt a resolution recommending that the city council make the CEQA determinations.

Second.

Uh roll call, please.

Commissioner Evans.

Yes.

Commissioner Furrier.

Yes.

Commissioner Zhang.

Yes.

Commissioner Shahade.

Yeah.

Yes.

Chairperson Pomiku.

Yes.

Commissioner Funis.

Yes.

Thank you.

Vice Chairperson Baker's absent.

And the second part.

Move to adopt a resolution recommending that the city council adopt a general plan amendment.

I second.

You roll call.

Commissioner Shahade.

Yes.

Chairperson Pomiku.

Yes.

Commissioner Zhang.

Yes.

Commissioner Funes.

Yes.

Commissioner Faria.

Yes.

Commissioner Evans.

Yes.

Vice Chairperson Baker is absent.

Right.

Thank you.

Um, item number two passes uh in two parts.

Then we are on to item number three.

Uh 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 one five three seven eight 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.

Um 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.

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 time frame.

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, resubmital 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.

One 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 developer agree to.

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 of 101, for example.

And the Planning Commission probably recalls just in the past year or so, many commercial projects that were have been approved 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, whilst 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 for residential projects, a little bit of clarification as well.

Um regarding the CEQA determination.

It's also helps to support several of our housing element goals in terms of housing creation and facilitation and removing a constraint to housing development by allowing an additional year to get financing and poll building permits.

And with that, um that concludes my presentation.

Staff recommends that the planning commission adopt a resolution making findings determining that the ordinance amendment does not require further environmental review and is exempt from CEQA and recommending that the city council adopt an ordinance updating regulations pertaining to entitlement, expiration, and extension.

And I'm happy to answer any questions about this proposal.

Thank you.

Questions?

Yeah, to the Dina.

I first of all I agree with Scott and your question.

I know that it's up to the chief planner to give the extension.

When they get to the end of that to close that second year, do they have to let you know before let's say they get to the you know, two years, 10 days elapsed is there flexibility built into that or um the planning code does not offer that flexibility?

So they have to come, which I hope it does.

Yes, they come to us ahead of time, they send a letter, typically a letter and email.

There's several um findings that have to be made in order for the extension to be granted.

So long as long as it's data before the second year.

Exactly, exactly.

And I um I'll take the opportunity to mention that in a notice of action that is issued after every project is approved, it very clearly spells out the um timeline for entitlements when they when they expire, and what the code section is that details the expiration and extension.

Thank you, because it avoids a lot of confusion if not.

Yeah, through the chair.

Um for residential entitlement, does it also include like single family home entitlement?

Yes, it includes any resident any discretionary entitlement.

So anything that requires a design review permit that is reviewed by the planning division.

It does not uh apply to building permits, so it's just the entitlements.

Right.

So the reason why I'm asking is like for a single family home, like after approval.

Um probably you get the billing permit within six months or something like that.

Um but what I meant is like it's it's less of a hardship on single family homes and stuff like that, then they still enjoy the two years extension uh regardless.

Um, for if a project um, okay, let's say a single family home is approved, and then within you're correct, typically those projects are ready to go, and they can pull permits much faster.

If they pull permits, they don't need an extension, and they don't they would never apply for one.

So it's really only for projects that need that extra time would apply for the extension.

Um when it is being extended, it will be uh brought in front of the planning commissions too, or it would just be discretionary from the chief planner.

It would be chief planner approval.

Okay, thanks.

No, I think it's makes sense to have to add that one year extension.

Given the present economic climate uh challenges financially for a lot of people, you know, interest rates and fluctuations and costs of building and et cetera.

So I appreciate the effort you're putting into it.

In worst case scenario, if a if a project even went past the extension, then the whole process would have to start again.

That's correct.

If the way it is now, if a project does not obtain building permits within three years, they would have to reapply and re obtain entitlements.

Thank you.

I don't know if you have these numbers, but do you know how many folks have or how many projects have hit that deadline or have asked for an extension?

All of them.

All of the large multifamily projects that since I would say since that have been approved since 2020.

Wow, okay.

Um yes.

So we have I do have some numbers.

Let me find them.

So um that are the projects that are in the bucket of having been recently approved, but not yet issued building permits is approximately 850, including 200 affordable units.

Um we also have another 450 units in the entitlement pipeline, so we expect them to be approved within the next hopefully year or so.

And then of course, future entitlements.

Any other questions?

Yeah, it's for the public.

I mean, the numbers are awesome, but do you have a percentage of how many like all of them want the extensions?

So how much of that is arena um that will be effective for us?

So out of curiosity.

All of the project, so since so I'm gonna answer the question in two phases.

So since 20 since projects, I I think since 2020, every residential project that has been approved that's gotten up to the two-year timeline has requested an extension.

So they have the three-year timeline.

Um I don't know off the top of my head how many units that has been since 2020, but just looking at our current numbers, we're looking at 50 or you know, 1500 that are like kind of in this bucket that could benefit from this one year extension.

Great, thank you.

What one more question?

Do you do you all foresee this as like a temporary response to market conditions?

Um, or is this kind of going forward the the new timeline?

Um I think this is a response to current marketing conditions, and I think the four years, the up to four years makes sense for large complicated projects.

It's we've seen that.

I mean, just anecdotally talking with applicants and developers, it's getting more expensive and more challenging to build.

And um I think this will be the new norm going forward.

I think the chair.

I I agree that if you could make this a standard rather than an exception, um for developers, especially doing affordable housing, um, it gives them a little breathing room and one less thing that they would have to uh keep in mind timeline on.

So I I think it's an important doesn't sound important one year extension to four years, but it I think it is.

Any last questions?

Okay.

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.

Any speakers?

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

Okay, then we are closing public hearing um and turning this over to the commission for discussion.

Um would anybody uh like to make comment?

I can start off.

No, I think this is really necessary, and I'm glad we've given that to your opportunity.

If those was been on this body for all remember projects we may have approved 10 years ago, the process seems pretty normal, maybe getting billed, but seeing how the economy's been and how stuff and going a lot of projects that we approved here are finally going again.

I mean, just think this body had a project come before us that we had vetted like six years before.

But due to circumstances and financing without extensions, we'd have lose it, and also too, we wouldn't have an element here where companies want to come in and work with us when they run into these pitfalls.

Hopefully the economy loosens up down the road where getting financing is a lot more easier to attain.

But again, I'm all in for this tool to work with our builders to get projects in the city, which mainly leads to also the housing versus office space.

Comments.

Did you have not any?

I just wanted to echo what everyone said.

Um we are all very aligned in that the market is uh challenging.

And uh we want our city to have big housing projects.

Uh and we we do want um these developers to know that South San Francisco understands that.

So again, just reiterating what you all said, like I strongly believe that this is something that should be a new standard.

Thank you.

I also appreciate this as really responsive both to the kind of macroeconomic situation that we're in, um, and also you know, tailored to the scope and scale of the developers and the projects, as you pointed out, um you know, development agreements are not are not suitable for all projects, and I also really want to emphasize the 200 affordable units that can benefit from this longer timeline.

Um that is such an incredible and badly needed uh benefit for the community.

Um, and I just appreciate you know that this is something uh that we've already said yes to.

We're just really giving them a longer timeline and uh a real shot at success.

Um so appreciate the great work.

Um again, very proactive and forward thinking from staff.

Uh okay.

If there's no other comments, uh then let's take a motion, please, on um item three A.

Uh Chair, I I move that uh we uh make recommendation to the city council to adopt an ordinance amending title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to allow residential entitlements to be extended for up to years.

I second.

Thank you.

Roll call.

Commissioner Zhang.

Yes, Commissioner Funas.

Yes.

Chairperson Palmiku.

Yes, Commissioner Evans.

Yes, Commissioner Faria.

Yes, Commissioner Shahade.

Yes.

Vice Chairperson Baker is absent.

Thank you.

Uh the item passes, and next on the agenda, uh, we have item number four.

Item number four is a report regarding proposed zoning text amendments to Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code to update regulations pertaining to accessory dwelling units to comply with California state law and determination that the proposed amendments are categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

Item 4A is a resolution.

Good evening, Chair, Commissioners.

Thank you.

We're calling for staff report at opening public hearing.

I got lost in the uh in the agenda.

Thank you.

No problem.

Um, Stephanie Skingus, senior planner with the planning division.

Um before you, um, I am presenting a an ordinance, a proposed update to our ADU ordinance.

As um most of the commissioners will recall, um, at the May 21st meeting of this year.

Um the proposed ordinance update was brought before you for review and um recommendation to city council.

However, prior to proceeding to city council with review of the proposed updated ordinance, staff became aware of an updated interpretation of the state law by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, or HCD, regarding the total number of ADUs that are allowed on a single or and multiple unit lots.

This interpretation is referenced in the latest version of the HCD accessory dwelling unit handbook, and it does increase the maximum number of total ADUs that may be located on both single unit and multiple unit lots.

And so that is what we are presenting to you today.

Otherwise, the recommended update or zoning text amendment remains the same.

Exhibit A to the associated resolution does include the most up-to-date proposed ordinance with the new changes highlighted in yellow and red text just for clarity.

But all of that will be presented to city council.

Just to provide a little bit of background in terms of what state law says regarding types of ADUs, numbers of ADUs, et cetera, what and what is not allowed on different types of lots.

One they refer to as state exempt, and that's under our their government code section 663.

And that's a different code section of their ADU state law.

So what is changing is the total number of ADUs allowed on different lots.

And part of the change is in the ordinance itself, we are incorporating this table to help it be more visual and clear for people to understand the public as well as staff.

So what we see here is what was before you previously was that on a single unit lot, which is a lot that has a single family residence, there would be three ADUs or three additional units allowed, and that would be a detached newly constructed, a converted from existing space in the existing house, or an existing detached accessory structure, and then what is referenced as a junior ADU, and that is a smaller size, and those are converted from existing space as well.

The change is that now in addition to those three ADU unit types, on a single unit lot, a property owner would be allowed to have one additional accessory dwelling unit, and this ADU would fall into the non-exempt bucket.

So this ADU could be of any type attached, detached, or converted.

However, it would be subject to local development and design standards.

So essentially the total allowed number of ADUs on a single unit lot is being increased to four.

So this also applies to a lot that we refer to as a multiple unit lot, and this is a lot type that has more than one existing residential unit.

That could be two single family homes.

That could be a multi-unit apartment building.

And so again, the difference here is that that non-state exempt ADU in any form attached, detached or converted, is allowed in addition to what was previously allowed.

So for a lot with an existing multiple unit dwelling on the site, they are allowed up to eight detached ADUs or the number of existing units, whichever is less.

Also allowed conversions, so from existing um existing space.

This has to be non-livable space for these multi-unit lots.

So a basement, garages, storage, um, etc.

Um, up to 25% of existing primary units or one, whichever is greater.

So if you have an eight-unit apartment, you'd be able to have two conversions.

You had a hundred unit apartment, they could potentially have 25 converted ADUs if they have the space.

Um in addition to that, they now do get that one additional non-exempt state ADU.

Non-state exempt ADU.

Sorry, that got a little confusing.

Um for a lot with the proposed multiple unit dwelling.

So this is a vacant lot where a multiple unit dwelling is being proposed.

Um, they are allowed up to two detached ADUs.

Um, none of the exempt converted, but they do get the additional um non-exempt attached, detached, or converted.

So I apologize, it is a little confusing, but this essentially is increasing the number of allowable ADUs on all applicable lots by one.

Um again, the rest of the um proposed ordinance update remains the same except for some minor changes to references since we are now including a table, it references as listed in table and the table number.

So the modifications to um regulations per turn pertaining to ADUs are statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to section um 21080.17 of the public resources code, which states that local ordinances that are aimed at creating ADUs or JADUs are exempt from CEQA.

So therefore, no further environmental review is required for the proposed ordinance update.

Staff would like to mention that we did um receive a comment via email from the California Home Defense Fund.

Um it is similar to if the commissioners recall for the last planning commission meeting in a letter from um Cal HDF was also received.

Um their comment is in regards to our um included deed restriction language for for ADUs and GADUs and concern that it is not consistent with um state law.

Um the city attorney's office has prepared a response to the um to Cal HDF letter, which has been um printed and provided for each of you.

And essentially um the deed restriction requirement that is included in our local ordinance is just reinforcing the state law requirements.

It is not in regards to anything about how affordable housing deed restrictions or whatnot.

It's just um this it's just reiterating the requirement that ADUs and JDUs can't be used for short as short-term vacation rentals and that they can't be sold separately currently.

Um so that um has been prepared, and then based on staff's um review, uh staff recommends that the planning commission conduct a public hearing and adopt the attached resolution determining that the proposed zorning ordinance update does not require further environmental review and is exempt from CEQA and recommending that the city council adopt an ordinance updating regulations pertaining to accessory dwelling units to Title 20 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code.

That concludes staff's presentation.

I am available for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I feel like you had a tongue twister of a staff report.

Uh the commissioners have any questions.

There, Chair.

Um in the future for application for ADUs, let's say I have a single family lot and I'm submitting four ADUs, like uh that would be one application, but then I also have to indicate which one is state exempt and which one is not state exempt, is that correct?

That's a very random concept.

So and then I will have follow-up question on that one.

Yes, I believe that technically they could all be submitted under one building permit.

Um the assuming that you were proposing for instance, your combination, let's just say is um detached, converted, JADU, and attached, automatically the attached one is the non-exempt.

If you were proposing um two detached, both at the same size 800 square feet, I believe it would be then if all submitted at once, up to the applicant to identify which one they are proposing as the non-exempt.

So my follow up question about the non-exempt.

So um in the past, I noticed, for example, a detached ADU uh planning will make, for example, it's hard to do a two-story ADU.

Um, because with the roof slope and stuff like that with the 18 feet max height, probably we cannot do a two-story or the zoning code, uh, our zoning ordinance or ADU ordinance will forbid us to do a detached two-story, for example, or very, very hard to do.

But in the new proposal, there is a chance where if my main house is like one-on-one gable, and then I propose a 16 feet or 18 feet flat roof, two-story ADU and under the non-exempt, sorry, under the exempt, and you still have to approve.

Like because I cannot you you cannot superimpose the the planning code to that building.

Like I'm asking for that clarification.

So to clarify, a two-story detached ADU is currently allowed as long as it meets the 18-foot um height requirement.

Um the way that height is measured in the zoning code differs if on the based on roof type.

Um if it's a flat roof, it's to the top of the parapet, and if it's a sloped roof, there is it's taken from ridge top or top of ridge to um where the Eve meets the wall, and it's the average.

So we do see some two-story detached ADUs, but yes, that is correct.

If your two-story detached ADU complies with the four-foot setback requirements, is no more than 800 square feet in size, and complies with the 18-foot maximum height, it is considered a state exempt ADU.

So in short, even the reform doesn't echo uh doesn't isn't coherent with the main house, you still have to force to accept that.

Correct.

We're not allowed to apply any um objective design standards, including anything related to roof forms or or any standard, pretty much like any offsets, like any upper floor setback, any of those, you cannot you you're not even allowed to do that on the correct, no design design objective design guidelines or development standards.

Other questions?

Um I think my my main question, I mean kudos to you for having mastered the intricacies of this and um commissioner Zhang for going toe-to-toe on it.

And the 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 uh know what these updates are and how to navigate how uh complicated it is?

And I understand necessarily complicated because right this is part of state requirements.

Yes, thanks for the question.

Um so every time there is some sort of update, um, even if we are not bringing it formally to um the planning commission 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.

Um we are going to be updating it slightly to um include these tables, which are a little more um understandable, I believe, than um what we have currently.

Um but that ADU handout is then updated um as needed and provided on the website um as well as at the public counter.

We also have um partnered with um 21 elements and created an ADU or they've created an ADU resource center for San Mateo County that is a resource for um planning staff as uh any city staff as well as members of the public that they could reach out um to and ask any questions.

In fact, this was part of this new um change was partially clarified by working with um the ADU resource center and the city attorney's office.

Um and then we also have a an additional program, um Hello Housing or Hello ADU, Hello Housing, um, that offers assistance to members of the public.

Um yes, it is a 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 Basic mandated throughout the state, something for every county, no matter what north or south, similar to this, correct?

Correct.

So um the state ADU code essentially has the majority of it is um required or mandated.

So local jurisdictions across California will have the same ADU requirements.

There are some areas where um a local jurisdiction can have some say um for instance um in the maximum square footage, I believe that if we chose to uh or a local jurisdiction chose to, they could have their maximum square footage set to 1200 square feet, for example, instead of the thousand.

So they set like 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 um our ordinance is very much what the state requ requires.

Um and so other jurisdictions should have this same 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.

Um 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 in a different jurisdiction, but it has to be included, yeah.

Thank you.

Is your mic on?

Regarding lot size.

It's more for the public to understand that like 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.

Um the state code um 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, um given the different sizes and then the requirements where um you have to meet um certain setbacks from property lines.

Um we don't see it happening for a lot of our lots.

Um 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 it.

Yes, that is correct.

This is included in our local ordinance because um it's state mandated.

And I had I should have mentioned um in the previous presentation on May, um, I had mentioned that part of the requirements from the state are that when a local jurisdiction does adopt a uh a local ADU ordinance, we are required to send it to HCD for review, and I say quote unquote improval because it's more of um they make findings and they either find that your local ordinance is consistent with state law, and you're good to go.

Um, or they find that it's not consistent and the local ordinance becomes obsolete.

So if we were to say, oh, you know, we don't agree with this, we don't want to do it, we're not including it in our local ordinance.

After we go through, you know, city council and we s move it forward to HCD for review, we would find get a letter of um noncompliance or non-consistency from the state through a chair again.

Uh thank thank you, uh Stephanie.

It's uh amazing.

One more question.

The square footage is measured for only interior square footage, also.

Correct.

That was one of the um changes that I had presented in May.

Um the state law um 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 uh uh ADU.

So let's say if I create an 800 strep feet eight 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, yeah, 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.

Um, 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 and like a two plex, uh duplex, two plex duplex.

Um so as long as they're each detached from the primary dwelling.

I do not know how we would approach um 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 um, but I do concur with what Stephanie just laid out as far as if it was two separate detached APUs.

Um, but if it's like one stacked on top of the other, like you're asking about um they they're using the exempt one to go onto top to exempt from the reform conformance just to make good work, like literally I'm like spell spilling.

Yeah, If it's too detached exempt, they could be stacked, is my understanding.

Yeah, we would have to do a little more research as to how it would be approached for the two different types being combined.

Through 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 uh follow up on some of these uh scenarios?

Uh at a later point.

I we'd be happy to.

We can provide um 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 you know approve up to you know over 50 of these a year or more, and they're they're the typical project is is very straightforward.

And um very occasionally we do have questions come in that are out of the ordinary, and our process is to um review those on a case-by-case basis, always with the city attorney if we need to.

Um that's very typical, and also with guidance from the county ADU resource center.

Um, 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, uh perhaps a J ADU.

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 an in for informational um page on the city's website.

Is that correct, Stephanie?

Like about um kind of like a fact sheet on the hand up.

Yeah, or we we do have a handout for those um kind of more typical uh applications.

Can I just check my understanding for what I I'm hearing here, which is which really helps me.

So we're updating this to be in conformity with state law, and it does because it's in conformity state law and not necessarily based on the conditions in South San Francisco, it might present some fringe uh hypothetical cases that I what I hear you saying is practically speaking, it's really unlikely that we'll see some like a 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.

Uh, this is a one-size-fits-all solution.

This is a one-size-fits-all state law, and every jurisdiction is different.

Um, 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 or four ADUs, and somebody with a 5,000 acre, I'm sorry, 5,000 square foot lot, which is a typical lot size here in South San Francisco cannot.

So I gotcha.

Thank you.

Oh, yes.

Okay.

Then question uh 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 and that really was a tongue twister I don't think I'm going to even pretend to do that.

What I would recommend um for everybody watching and for our lovely planning department to do is um cut the part of the video today of Stephanie explaining this beautiful presentation and putting it on the planning commission website.

I 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 web page 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 could I was not going to 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 Zing 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 um 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 straightforward where clearly learning isn't so I just wanted to uh thank all of you and um just put that as a little highlight uh I agree with Sarah actually um definitely if I were to choose to believe the city council or sorry a city attorney or a a finding or determination of this rule I'll go to our city like I've I've always believed in what your interpretation is and I could assure people who's listening to this uh know definitely what we just are about to discuss for approval tonight is not across the Cematel County at all.

So that's why I was like fringing I was like really um but I also have like a hundred percent confidence that what you're determining here is the is what state is saying so uh there will be some learning curve and there will be some fights across the industries uh across like construction or different designers about stuff uh so I will gladly back you guys up on this one I I know like it's it sounds surreal for our 5,000 typical lots on things like these and people will will try to be creative but you know the reason why drill and drill and drill uh I just want to hear that um like you're very very confident that this is aligned with HC D and SML fact if anyone that is not aligning with H C D like that ordinance that they pass whatever they pass is obsolete immediately so that give me an a full understanding of the power of what state mandates are and um uh uh I appreciate the clarification thanks I want to thank Stephanie for the presentation I'm sure those walking work looking 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 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 table with individual what's the need because I think it's been clarified there every lot's 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.

Um, 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 home lot, right?

It's not very likely, but I 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, um what you are seeing are pretty straightforward ADUs, um, practically speaking.

So I think there's still some daylight between what the laws, like 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 um hypotheticals that may not even be applicable.

I think that would be really beneficial.

Um, and you know, just generally uh am supportive of ADUs as a practical option to fulfill an important city goal of you know more types of housing, uh intergenerational options, affordability options.

Um so I think the more we make it practical and easy to understand what applies to people and what doesn't, um, all the better.

Um 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 takes to just keep up.

Um any other comments from commissioners, please.

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, 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.

So we appreciate you just you pointing out what the resources are that are available.

The state also mandates.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um, then I think we are ready for a motion on item 4A, please.

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 Sangh.

Yes, Chairperson Palmiku.

Yes, Commissioner Evans, yes.

Commissioner Punes.

Yes.

Commissioner Faria.

Yes, Commissioner Shahade.

Yes.

Vice Chairperson Baker is absent.

Thank you.

Uh motion passes.

Um, and that takes us to administrative business for our regular meeting.

Uh do we have any administrative business?

We do not.

Okay.

Then do you commissioners have any items or announcements for the regular meeting?

No.

Uh, 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, um, I'm looking to staff here.

Do we go straight to consent calendar or do we 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.

Um, but if any, but I I'm I'm fine just going through the um if there's any announcements from staff, public comment and taking up from there.

Okay.

So let's then start the special meeting with disclosure of Exparte 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.

Um, and that is the entirety of our agenda, the consent calendar.

Uh, may we have a listing of the consent calendar, please.

Yes, we have one item on the consent calendar.

Um, number one is report regarding a resolution making findings and determining that the acquisition of twelve twenty-nine Crestview Crestwood Drive by the City of South San Francisco is in conformance with the South San Francisco adopted general plan and in accordance with government code section six five four oh two and one A is the resolution.

Thank you.

Uh, does any commissioner wish to pull this item from consent?

No.

Does any member of the public wish to address the commission uh 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 uh take a motion, please, on the consent calendar item.

I take a motion, we approve the item on the consent calendar.

Thank you.

Roll call, please.

Commissioner Faria.

Yes.

Commissioner Shahade.

Commissioner Evans.

Yes.

Chairperson Palmiku.

Yes.

Commissioner Zang.

Yes.

Commissioner Funes.

Yes.

Vice Chairperson Baker is absent.

Okay.

Consent calendar uh is approved.

Uh that is the entirety of the items for the special meeting agenda.

Uh, I don't think there's any administrative business for the special meeting.

Uh, then if that's the case, we will go ahead and adjourn uh the special meeting.

All right.

Thanks, everyone.

Made it through regular and special meeting.

Great, everyone.

Have a good night.

Thank you.

Hello everyone, welcome to the South San Francisco Planning Commission meeting for January, or excuse me, February 19, 2026.

I call this to order.

To provide a comment during the meeting, please fill a speaker card and give it to this the clerk.

You will 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 South San Francisco Planes carry call to order.

Please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you.

Roll call, please.

Commissioner Baker.

Here.

Chairperson Funes.

Here.

Commissioner Faria.

Here.

Commissioner Shahade.

Here.

Vice Chair Pomiku.

Here.

Commissioner Zhang.

Here.

Commissioner Evans is absent.

Thank you.

Are there any changes to the agenda?

No changes to the agenda.

Thank you.

Does any member of the public wish to address the commission on any item that is not on the agenda tonight at this time?

Please fill out a speaker card and give it to the clerk.

At this time, I will ask the clerk if there are any members of the public who would like to provide comments.

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

Hearing no speakers, we will move on.

Next on the agenda is the disclosure of ex parte communications.

If any commissioner has had any communication with applicants, did any site or project visits had any interactions with third parties or has any conflicts regarding any of the items on the agenda?

You may disclose them at this time.

Yes, we have one item on the consent calendar.

Number one is consideration and approval of minutes from the November 20th 2025 planning commission meeting.

Yes.

Yes.

Vice Chair Palmiku.

Yes.

Commissioner Zhang.

Yes.

Commissioner Evans is absent.

If the clerk can please read the next agenda item.

Yes.

The next item is number two.

And it is a report regarding an application for design reviews for the Westboro Preschool Expansion Project, including the construction and operation of an approximately 7,000 square foot child daycare center at 2360 Galway Drive at Westboro Park in the parks and recreation zoning district in accordance with Title 20 of the South San Francisco municipal code and determination that the project is consistent with the 2040 general plan environmental impact report and that no new environmental document is needed per sequel guidelines 15162, 15168, and 15183.

Great, thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good evening, Chair Funes and Planning Commissioners.

For your consideration tonight is an application for design review for the Westboro Preschool Expansion Project, including the construction and operation of an approximately 7,000 square foot preschool located at 2360 Galway Drive at Westboro Park.

The project site has an approximately half acre footprint that is located within the boundaries of the 10-acre city owned Westboro Park, located at the corner of Westboro Boulevard and Galway Drive.

The new preschool will be located in the northeastern corner of Westboro Park, where currently a public restroom, maintenance yard, existing lawn, and maintenance road exist.

The project site is bound by fire station 62 and residences to the north, Galway Drive and residences to the east, Westboro Boulevard to the south, and Westboro Middle School to the west.

The City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department offers child care through its preschool early learning program serving children ages two and a half to five years old.

The existing child care program at the community center at Westboro Park has an enrollment of 59 children, distributed among three classrooms and up to eight staff members on site during preschool hours.

The community center would continue to function as a preschool until construction is complete.

Preschool operations would then move to the new preschool facilities immediately following completion.

The community center currently houses one preschool classroom with two additional classrooms in modular buildings directly adjacent.

The relocating of the preschool component may allow for increased community programming at the community center.

There would also be outdoor play areas with climbing structures and natural play areas.

The proposed preschool will serve children ages two and a half to five years old.

Monday through Friday.

And the new preschool building would meet energy efficiency requirements and be all electric.

The design review board reviewed the project in October of last year and recommended approval to the planning commission.

The DRB liked the create a modern design, the finishes, artwork, and color palette.

They found the design to be well integrated into the surrounding residential neighborhood and lacking an institutional appearance, which made it also appear very welcoming.

The DRB also praised the proposed ADA enhancements, which improved path of travel to the baseball field and tennis courts, as well as improved access for city maintenance vehicles.

In March of 2025, the Westboro Preschool Expansion Project was the primary topic at the annual town hall meeting for District 2, hosted by Vice Mayor Nagales.

The meeting was held at the Westboro Community Center, and over or approximately 80 residences attended.

At the meeting, the project was presented, as well as the overall need for the additional preschool space and the benefit of creating a new facility separate of the existing community center.

The community members in attendance were appreciative of the update and raised no concerns about the project.

Staff did receive six letters in support of this project.

In summary, these letters express support for the project because it will increase availability of preschool enrollment, which is in very high demand based on the wait list.

It will provide high quality preschool curriculum, or I should say it would continue high quality preschool curriculum.

It would offer affordable preschool options and provide safe preschool options and allow opportunities for siblings to attend with currently enrolled children.

Again, just summarizing some of the comments in the staff report.

In terms of circulation, the existing circulation pattern is to remain on site.

Minor modifications are proposed to the designated pickup and drop-off spaces, EV spaces and ADA spaces.

The site is located in the parks and recreation zone district where a preschool is a permitted use.

An environmental checklist was prepared for the preschool expansion project, which concluded that the current project is within the scope of the previous environmental analysis for the general plan EIR, and that subsequent SQL analysis is not required for the proposed project.

In conclusion, the Westboro preschool expansion project complies with the city's municipal code, development standards, and findings for approval for design review, as well as the city's general plan goals and policies.

Therefore, staff recommends the planning commission approve the proposed project of an approximately 7,000 square foot new preschool facility at 2360 Galway Drive in Westboro Park.

That concludes the staff presentation.

The applicant team is also here to present and answer questions.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

So I will now open the public hearing and call for a staff report.

If there is one or sorry, the applicant, sorry.

And keep it open.

Oh, thank you.

And you added these slides.

Oh, wait a second.

Who's doing that?

Oh, Lehman's here.

Um good evening, Chair Ferness and Commissioners.

Um Jake Gilkhurst, your director of capital projects.

Um, Christy, of course.

Um for the last six oh, this is the last slide.

What's happening?

No.

There we go.

Thank you, Lehman.

Um for the last six and a half years, I've had the privilege to serve as the city's director of capital projects.

And while I've worked on larger and more complex projects than this one, including the building we're in, um I think this is the project that's been closest to my heart.

Um, and I'm really excited that we're finally here after five years.

Um I'd like to introduce the project team, including Greg Mediati, our director of parks and recreation, of course.

Um Sami from Kitchell Construction and Project Management is here, and you'll also be hearing from Chris Dorman from Dorman Associates, who's also here with um Mary Peterson, the project architect.

Um I really want to appreciate, like express gratitude to them for really putting the community and the children first when it comes to the integration of this building and facility into the park and into the neighborhood.

I'd also like to really thank Christy and Adina for their leadership.

Um I think we take for granted a lot of the time um just how excellent our planning staff is, and so thank you both for your leadership.

Um, and also because he's here as a resident.

Um Vice Mayor Nogales has just been instrumental as a champion, not just for preschool across the city, but also specifically for this project, and so I wanted to acknowledge him too.

Um, five years ago, when this project was originally assigned to me by then city manager Futrell, uh, one of our first tasks was to find a location for the preschool.

And um we knew from the preschool wait list and the sort of heat map of where the the wait list sort of centered that Westboro was the place that needed expanded preschool within the city.

We searched for a site, and after two fall starts at different locations in the neighborhood, we slowly began to settle on a location somewhere within Westboro Park.

And initially we thought we were going to expand the Bulos Center and build off of that and potentially add more modulars or move the playground or do something in that area.

Um but as the project developed, Director Mediati and I were really in alignment that this project would really be a success if we didn't just add preschool capacity, but if we also gave something back to the residents in the park users who were never going to use the preschool itself because it's such a narrow group of people who actually get to benefit from the preschool itself.

And so we really felt like the project would succeed if we were going to be able to do other things to help the the park.

And so I think creating this accessible route up to the tennis courts is really important.

Um improving the picnic picnic facilities by moving the exterior restrooms away from Galway and closer to the group picnic area is really important.

Opening up the younger kids' playground, the the two to five-year-old playground to public use all day, because right now it's limited in use because of licensing requirements for the preschool that uses this the playground during the day.

And then, excuse me.

Lastly, um just rededicating the Alice Bulos community center to the public.

We've heard a lot of clamoring for additional senior programming.

Um by moving the preschool to its own discrete facility within the park, we're really allowing a lot more flexibility of programming of the um the excellent facility that is the Bullo Center.

I'm happy to stick around and answer any questions about project delivery or otherwise, but um before I hand it off to Chris Dorman for the design presentation.

I just wanted to mention that as a landscape architect, I'm just so impressed with the way they managed to really integrate the facility, not just into the neighborhood, but also with a really light touch into the park itself.

And with that, I will hand it over to Chris Dorman.

Thank you very much.

I'm gonna practice with this and see if I can make it work.

There we go.

Okay.

Well, hello, commissioners.

Thank you very much for taking a minute to listen to our description of a chill child care center.

Um I've been blessed to be able to work on children's centers for more than 20 years, and none more interesting and more fun than this one.

Um the city of South San Francisco has been uh really uh fun place to work, people to work with.

So I'm excited to present this.

Um I will be fairly brief because I think Christy did a tremendous job of of introducing the project, uh, and I'll be here for questions.

So um this this first uh slide here is about so sort of the the goals that we have for children's center.

So we thought we would show um what it what what will this look like um in the future when we're done, and this is a similar center.

We've um learned a lot over the years about um providing uh for children, and so this illustrates a lot of our core principles.

We taught we want to get lots of light into classrooms, we want to create space, natural ventilation.

We have a real commitment to indoor outdoor play areas.

So we are trying to incorporate all those things when we come and look at a new project.

Talk about the summer and winter solstice, the wind directions, and how can we address some of those things as we lay out the building.

So as we move this forward and started to zoom in, we started to look at how do we create a central entry.

Our children's centers have a secure entrance for all parents.

They all have to drop off as was mentioned, and they all have to walk through this the primary entry so that we you know can create a nice and secure environment.

So the lighter green area is the administrative area.

And then you know, we utilize the uh interior courtyard, which is also the play area as a circulation spine to access the classroom.

So everybody walks through the entry and then they go out and disperse their classrooms.

And what we tried to do is create a courtyard that creates some uh visual noise separation from the park.

It also protects a little bit from the wind, depending on the direction, but a lot of the prevailing winds uh will be protected.

Um we have some uh outdoor classroom areas that we'll show you in a minute.

So really giving a good opportunity to create um this space that hopefully you know will will allow for children to feel like they have the space they need, but also create some security and separation from the rest of the park.

Um as was mentioned, the the dark gray area is the new accessible path up to the tennis court, which we're able to incorporate into this design, as well as moving the existing restroom up closer to the picnic area.

So there's a lot of great benefits that we were able to achieve with the design and the layout uh in this park area.

Um so uh you know, if you zoom in, you can see that the preschool classrooms have um you know have teacher supports and child toileting in each zone, and the drop-off is right located next to the entry so that we can uh hopefully address uh timeline timely drop off through the process.

Um for the for the look and feel you've already seen what the elevations look like, but you know, the inspiration was kind of a mid-century modern sort of eichler of the houses that are of the area.

How could we sort of take advantage of light and air and um and space and uh and so an indoor outdoor um environment?

So we tried to utilize that in creating um glass that typically in the in the classrooms is indirect light, north facing light, um, cross ventilation in all the classrooms, operable windows so that we can reduce the need for air conditioning and really just have this opportunity uh for children to go in and out of the classrooms uh that the entry you know is is intended to be easily readily available and visible so people can come and see that.

And then you can see there's a sort of a moving walkway that um uh roof that allows parents to move through the play area without getting wet in the rain, um, but also gives some additional shade to the to the play area.

So we've tried to utilize uh a few materials without um and and be able to um optimize some of the textures so that the building feels like it's got a few um uh different items that are of interest.

Um one of which is the um is the pattern we made out of this uh cement tile cement panel, which is called equitone.

It's really lovely, and I think we'll be able to add a little splash of color, and then at the same time warm things up with a little bit of uh vertical wood.

Um as you can see, the building does surround the courtyard and the play area um and create sort of like a uh a visual separation using landscaping um between the the parking drop-off and and the play area.

Um this is just a you know uh axon from above, and you can kind of get a sense of the the building, its location next to the restroom, which is uh up to the left, and of course the walkway to the tennis court.

Um one of the things we did like about the way we were able to fit the building into the site was the ability to um just create enough of a step in the site so that the building is not too dominant from the park view.

It stepped down about four feet from here, so uh it diminishes some of the visual impact, fits in.

Um you can barely see the fire station and the scale of the fire station behind, but just trying to keep things um you know of uh of a single story and uh you know uh pedestrian scale.

Um and finally, these were all the materials that we used.

Uh we did use them uh we uh we're proposing a mechanical screen for the um rooftop units that will be a laser cut screen to help screen the units from uh from sight lines.

We tried to create a couple of different um accents for metal posts, and as I mentioned, the fiber cement and the wood.

So we've tried to create some um some opportunities for color without overwhelming uh children and and the neighborhood.

Um that's one of the things we try to do is make it feel like a uh residents feel like home.

So happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you so much.

Does any of the do any of my fellow commissioners have any questions for the applicant?

Um can you just through the chair?

Sorry.

No, of course.

Commissioner Beaker.

Could you describe a little bit about the um kitchen facilities?

Um I know that's important in uh in a preschool.

For the um say that one more time, the kitchen kitchen facilities is there food preparation.

Here, I'll go back.

I mean, uh basically there's what we call effectively a food prep facility, and um, because there's a number of uh meals, mostly snacks and and lunch, um, that this gives them the opportunity to bring in foods and and prep for that.

Um there I don't believe they're actually necessarily cooking in that location, but they're able to create preparation for all the snacks that that the children have and and lunch.

Um I think they bring some of that food in pre-prepared, but then if they did you know prepare some of it, they're able to do that.

But it's not a full uh commercial kitchen.

The other question I had was related um, especially in the winter um in the afternoons.

Um you're on the east side of a of a hill.

I can imagine that the there's not a lot of sun after probably about three o'clock or so in in the courtyard there.

Um what uh I I guess my question is um have you maximize outdoor exposure in this courtyard?

Is this gonna be a uh a play area?

Because I know there was a play area up front.

You know, you're reminding me that I skip to because I'm an architect, so I get all excited about the architecture and answering questions, but um, I'm gonna skip ahead for one second here because we do have um a blow up of the play area here, uh, which I should have shown before.

But essentially um I'll digress for one second and um you this is intended to give you a sense of the nature play that's involved.

Um that entire uh sand like brownish area, dirt area where the where a play structure would be, the play structure is gonna be sort of a log play structure.

That is completely uncovered.

So the idea is you know, you're not wrong about the um about the sun uh in the winter time.

Um one of our biggest challenges, and I know that it's very foggy here.

I live in Mill Valley, it's very foggy there too, but on those rare occasions where it is hot.

What we tried to do with the roof is also utilize it to um to help shade in the afternoon sun.

So it was kind of like a you know, we're trying to capture both opportunities there, but um, but we did, you know, we tried to bring in extra light into the classrooms by facing all those windows north.

So I think you know, I think ultimately because of the low the low height of the building itself, we're not gonna have as much trouble with actually shading the courtyard.

It it's really more of the trees that are kind of around and behind that will be a concern.

Yeah, I try trust me.

I'm not worried about their sun exposure in Westboro in the summer.

I know, I know, I know.

Only maybe May and part of September.

All right, thank you.

Any other questions?

I'll go ahead.

This is to uh to staff.

The building-wise, we're fine.

I notice that we're with this capital project, we're we're look we're picking up forty-one additions.