Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

through the chair. We're ready to begin. Thank you. Welcome to this regular meeting of the planning commission this Tuesday evening, December 9th. I will now call this meeting to order. Please join me in the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Ava, could you please call the role? Chair Patel, here. Vice Chair Cler here. Commissioner Bush here.

Commissioner Shaml. Commissioner Shankl is absent this evening and Commissioner Williams here.

Good evening and welcome. We are excited to be here in person with options for virtual participation. This meeting is being held at the San Mateo main public library oak room due to construction at city hall as authorized by city charter section 2.10. For those attending in person, complete a yellow request to speak slip and hand it to the clerk. If participating remotely, use the raise your hand feature in Zoom and you will be called on at the appropriate time. If calling in via phone, press star 9 to raise your hand and when called upon, press star six to unmute. These options for public comment will remain available until I close the public comment period for that specific item. And finally, we welcome speakers providing public comment, but please be advised this is a limited public forum. As such, speakers must stay on topic if speaking to a particular agenda item. If speakers fail to follow these rules, they will be warned and if they continue to disregard our rules, their opportunity to speak will be ended. The first item on our agenda is public comment. Members of the public wishing to comment on any item not appearing on the agenda may address the planning commission at this time. State law prevents the commission from taking action on any matter not on the agenda. Your comments may be referred to staff for followup. Public comment is generally limited to a total of 15 minutes. However, that is subject to the commission's discretion and can be extended if the commission wishes to do so. The public comment period is now open. Any members of the public wishing to comment on any items not on the agenda, please turn in your yellow speak to slip speak speaker slip now or raise your hand if participating remotely. Hello, how many speakers do we have for public comment

through the chair? We have no public commenters at this time. Great. I will go ahead and close the general public comment period. The next item on our agenda, 2033 Lasal Drive, zoning reclassification, zoning code amendment, special use permit, site plan and architectural review, and site development planning application for an early childhood education center. We will start with the staff presentation followed by an applicant presentation and then public comments. Members of the public are given two to three minutes to speak depending on the number of speakers. The applicant may also be given five minutes at the end to respond to the public comments. Once the public hearing is closed, I may ask staff to respond to any public comments. The commission will ask clarifying questions, deliberate, and render a decision. Finally, if a decision is made tonight, the decision of the planning commission can be appealed to the city council within 10 calendar days. Can we go ahead and start with a staff presentation? Thank you.

Looks like Samine is getting the presentation up. Good evening, Chair Patel and members of the planning commission. My name is Sim Zakovan, associate planner and staff planner for item number one. Joining us via Zoom are John Thompson, assistant engineer with public works and Kenny Jung with the city's traffic consultant with W Trans. This is a public hearing for 2033 Lasal Drive zoning reclassification for the Kerry School Early Childhood Education Center planning application 2025 012. Sorry, excuse me. still working through the technology in our our temporary location here. Hang with us for just a few minutes as we get this up on Zoom. [clears throat]

Sorry for the tech issues. This project outlined in red is located at 2033 Lassal Drive. Surrounding uses include single family residential development to the north, Sarah High School to the east, the existing carrier school campus to the south and multif family apartment to the west across Lasal. The project land use designation is residential very low and the site is zoned R1B for one family dwelling. The project site is 26,380 square ft and the existing uses include a single family residence and an accessory dwelling unit in it. This request before you tonight is for the development of the site with an early childhood education center consisting of 20 excuse me consisting of 5,98 square foot building and associated site improvement. The the facility would accommodate up to 75 students ages 2 to 5 years old and 16 staff. The project includes 11 on-site parking spaces and proposing to use an off-site parking facility for the remaining parking. The proposed hours of operation are Monday through Friday from 7:45 a.m. to 6 p.m. The proposed project would require five entitlements which I will discuss the details of each permits and requested entitlements in the next slide. This includes zoning reclassification from R1B to R1B/Q8 overlay zoning code amendment to provide development standards for private educational facility. Site plan and

architectural review for the development of the site and an offsite loading zone. special use permit for a private educational facility in R1B and substantial removal of a single family residence as well as an off-site parking facility. [snorts] And lastly, site development planning application for the removal of major vegetation. This slide shows the proposed zoning reclassification to accommodate the development of the early childhood education center. The applicant is proposing to reszone the site from R1B to R1B/Q8 overlay. The Q8 overlay was established to provide development standards that reflect the unique charact characteristic and operational needs of private educational facilities within residential district. It is important to note that the city has previously applied qualified overlay designation to other private educational institutions including St. Matthew's Catholic Parish and School and Sarah High School and um ex the existing Kerry school adjacent to the site. Next, I would like to discuss the proposed zoning code amendments. This slide provides a comparison between the current R1B development standards and R1B/Q8 development standards. The items highlighted in red are the the specific provisions the applicant is requesting as part of the code amendment under Q8 overlay. First, I'll start with the permitted uses. Educational facilities are allowed in R1B zoning district with a special use permit. The current code language

for Q8 overlay aligns with this requirement and requires a special use permit for the proposed use. Next, offsite parking standard under R1B. An off-site parking facility must be located within 200 ft of a project site. The current language in the Q8 overlay allows for off-site parking facility within,000 ft of a project site. And finally, the last two items are the sections that the applicant proposes to add to the Q8 overlay. Parking location R1B does not allow parking within the front or side setback. However, the applicant is proposing to modify the Q8 overlay to allow uncovered parking within front or um sight setback and awning projection. R1B allows awning up to 8 ft in height to project into the rear yard setback. The applicant is proposing to increase this allowance under Q8 overlay to permit awnings up to 9 ft in height within the rear yard setback. Also, I wanted to add that the rest of the development standards for the site, including building height and building setback, are conforming to R1B zoning regulations, and a full analysis of the applicable zoning standards are provided in attachment six. Going into more details of the site, the proposed development consists of a onestory building and includes six classrooms. Outdoor features include a play area and a teaching garden. And teaching garden is um outlined here in yellow which is situated on the south side of the building to minimize potential noise impact to the u residences to the north.

Vehicle or access is provided via a one-way circular driveway from Lasal and one loading zone is provided along the street frontage which is u marked here with the red arrow. Off-site loading is allowed through spar or um site plan and architectural review by the approval of public works and public works have reviewed this loading zone and approved um this street width could adequately accommodate the proposed loading zone. The project removes 10 heritage trees and proposes installation of two 20 new trees. Also, it is important to note that the private creek, which is highlighted here in uh blue, runs along the southern border of the site and the proposed building maintains an appropriate setback um from the creek to avoid any significant impact. Here are the renderings of the proposed building. The architectural style is best c uh categorized as contemporary and would match the design of the adjacent Kerry school campus. Exterior materials include cement plaster, standing seam metal roofing and a wood fencing. A special use permit is required for the following actions. establishment of a private educational facility within R1B zoning district, substantial removal of an existing single family, and use of an off-site parking facility. The proposed early childhood education center qualifies as a private educational facility and it is similar to other educational facilities that were approved in R1B zoning district and it is not expected to adversely affect

the general health, safety or welfare of the surrounding neighborhood. A traffic and parking evaluation memorandum for the project was prepared by the applicant's consultant Kimbley Horn and it was pre-reviewed by public works and city's traffic consultant Wr. Before discussing the details of the traffic analysis, it is important to clarify several items related to the assumption and methodology used in the evaluation. The applicant currently operates a preschool program at $3,900 per class which is proposed to be relocated to the project site. Enrollment data shows that about 60% of the students have have a sibling [snorts] that attends the existing carrier school at um one carry lane adjacent to the project site. This means that there is at least 60% trip overlap between the proposed project and the existing carry school site uh which allows for carpool reduction. However, as a conservative approach, a 50% carpool reduction was applied to the analysis rather than 60. The trip generation analysis as shown on this slide was prepared with the 50% carpool reduction that I mentioned and the project is expected to generate a net increase of 133 daily trips including 28 net new trips during the AM peak hour, 27 net new trips during the PM the school PM peak hour and 27 net new trips during the PM peak hour. The project is a screened out of vehicle

miles traveled analysis pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act guidelines section 150643 under local serving retail and public service uses of 50,000 square feet or less. schools and private educational facilities qualify as a local serving use and therefore it is screened out of VM uh VMT analysis. Also a level of service analysis was conducted for the nearest intersection to the site which is west 20th and um Lassal drive with the 50% carpool reduction. It was concluded that the intersection would operate with level of service of C or better which is an acceptable level of service for this intersection. Lastly, for a queueing analysis, it was found that the project would not increase the queueing by more than one vehicle. And based on these findings, it is concluded that the project does not have an excuse me does not have an adverse impact on the local street system. As part of the traffic analysis, a parking and traffic operation plan was prepared for the project. And this plan includes three designated drop off and pickup locations, Alama de los pulos, Lasal Calac, and the project parking lot. The operation plan incorporates staggered start and end times, requires a minimum of five traffic monitors, and ensures that staff escort the students safely to and from the building. The project requires 23 parking spaces per the zoning code parking standard and provides the project provides 11 on-site parking spaces and proposes an off-site

parking facility to meet the remaining required parking spaces. On-site parking will be used exclusively for student drop off and pickup while the off-site parking facility will sell will serve staff members. The Curry School has an existing parking agreement with the nearby office park at 19,000 and 2000 Alamita Deospas to provide 15 parking spaces for the early childhood education center. And as part of the parking analysis, the existing parking at 1900 and 2,000 Alamita was evaluated. And based on the mix of uses, it was determined that the surplus parking is available to accommodate the 15 parking spaces for the proposed project. With the use of the off-site parking facility, the total parking provided for the project is 26 spaces, exceeding the required parking by three spaces. This project is has been determined to be exempt from further environmental review pursuant to California environmental quality act guidelines section 15061 subsection B3 common sense exemption and section 15303 small structure exemption. The proposed zoning reclassification and zoning overlay do not authorize physical development or ground disturbance on the site and therefore they are exempt from um from SQA under common sense exemption. The development of the site involves the construction of a singlestory approximately 5,98 square ft building within an urbanized area on a site that allows for educational facility with a special use permit and therefore it is exempt from

further environmental analysis under class three small structure exemption. This project held a public uh excuse me held a neighborhood meeting on January 9, 2025 prior to submitting the planning application and 31 neighbors attended the meeting and raised concern related to parking, traffic, and noise. For tonight's meeting, staff has completed all standard noticing procedures listed on this slide. And at the time that the staff report was published um we received comments both in support of the project and in opposition to the project. These comments are included in attachment 11. And also I want to mention that we received an additional um comment letter after the packet was published. With that, the staff recommends that the planning commission make a recommendation to the city council to adopt an ordinance to approve a zoning reclassification from R1B to R1B/Q8 and a zoning code amendment to provide development standards for an educational facility and find it exempt from SQA pursuant to section 15061 subsection B3 common sense exemption. and adopt a resolution to approve the planning application for the establishment and construction of an early childhood education center subject to the findings for approval and conditions of approval and finded exempt from SQA pursuant to section 15303 small structure exemption. This concludes the staff's presentation and I'm available to answer any questions that the planning commission may have. Um, also the applicant, Neilie Norris, the head of the Kerry School is

here and um, we'll be providing a presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Can we go ahead and have the applicant's presentation next? Madam Chair, if I could just interject real quick. I did want to announce that we are having some technical difficulties streaming the presentation on Zoom and YouTube, but we are using putting in a camera view, but just wanted to put that out there. um that our viewers online may have some difficulties viewing the presentation. [clears throat]

Hi, good evening. I know we're switching presentations, but my name is Neil Norris. I'm the head at the Kerry School. I want to say thank you to the commission for having us tonight. And I also want to say a very sincere thank you to Simine, Zach, Sang, the planning department. Um, this is my first experience going through um, a planning application like this and they they were very accommodating and helpful along the way. Um, thank you. Um, we I'm just going to jump in. You'll see the slide in a moment. Um, [laughter] sorry, before you begin. Oh, yeah. The timer will be set for 15 minutes for your presentation.

Thank you. Right. Um we're really excited to share about our early childhood center with you this evening. Um before I jump into the bulk of the presentation. Um if if you're here from Carrie, if you could stand up. We have some students here. We have parents. Lots of people from our community. We have some educators here. Um and just want to say thank you to all of them for being here too. Okay. Um, does this have to be my clicker is not working. I'm okay if you want to just advance it for me.

Oh, I just let me know where I don't know.

All right. Um, Carrie has been part of the San Mo community for many years. Um the school was founded in 1928 by James and Mary Kerry. Um they first had the school in their home in San Monteo. It then um was in residence at the Clark family mansion in Sonteo um which I don't believe exists any longer, but it moved to its current site where we are now on the Alamita um and what is now Lasal Drive in 1955. And this is an image from right around that time um where you can see Carrie in that sort of U-shape um and Sarah next door and not much else around it. And I learned this evening from um Vice Chair Clara that that area before being um home to two long-standing schools in the community um was actually a privately owned polo field um owned by a family in Sano. So um a little bit of history there. Um we are a missiondriven nonprofit independent school and really um our whole goal we exist to serve families on the peninsula and really working with our youngest students from early childhood through fifth grade. Um we believe very deeply that um where you're educated first matters most and that our students get a strong foundation that they can take wherever they go next um both educationally and large largely beyond that into the world. Um we currently serve 256 students on our main campus and 40 students at the preschool space that Samine mentioned um at 3900 Alama where we rent space currently from Transfiguration Church which has been a great partner to us for the last few years. We first moved our prek offampus during COVID um when we were trying to create a bubble for our youngest students and they had some different requirements um than K5 did. Um and we found that there was a real need in the

community for uh growing our preschool program. And so we've been thinking about doing that um ever since. 99% of our families live in San Monteo County. Um and just about half of our families live in San Monteo, the city of San Monteo. Um 13% of our students benefit from financial aid. And yearto year it's about 10 to 15% of our students that um benefit from financial aid. And I'll talk a little bit more about that as we go. Oh, it worked for me that time. Um, this is our mission and I won't spend long on this page, but it is really a statement that we live by. We read it um all the time at our board meetings, at um faculty meetings. We are constantly checking in with the decisions we're making if they're helping us create a space that celebrates childhood. Um, and those last three tenants, kindness, respect, and personal responsibility, have been important to the Kerry School since its founding. Those were statements that were identified by the Kerry family um and that still hold true today for the work that we do.

And now it's

Thank you. Um community is a huge piece of what we do at Kerry every day and what we um find important. We really work to build community. We um do that by communicating with our neighbors, by hosting our neighbors. Um we also work to partner with our community. This image here um is a picture. Recently, just two weeks ago, our prek students visited Empowerment Through Action, which is a local nonprofit run out of Hillsdale High School. We have a partnership with Empowerment Through Action, where we actually work with them through a service learning program from preschool all the way up through fifth grade. And um these pre-K students were sorting produce that was going to be handed out uh through their peace pantry that day. Um and then we're also committed to supporting our community. I mentioned mentioned financial aid and that commitment is something um one of the many ways we're committed to diversity at our school. Um so economic diversity and financial aid is really important to us and our community focus is really what helped us identify the need for expanding our preschool. Thank you. [cough]

[clears throat]

Uhoh. [clears throat] Oh, there it went. You go one back. That's perfect. Great.

Oh, here we go. Um so in learning about our um community's need for additional child care and preschool, we learned and the count um the commission might be aware that Saman County is currently only meeting 70 73% of the need for licensed child care in the county and that many families especially those with children over two who are looking for highquality school-based programming but with daycare hours. And when we looked around, we realized that's what we provide, but to a relatively small number of children. We have a really strong, amazing preschool program, but we provide hours from 7 7:45 in the morning until 6:00 p.m. in the evening, which really allows for two parent working households um to have both their educational and their child care needs met. Um, we also realized that most private child care programs are not able to offer financial assistance where our model that goes all the way through fifth grade allows us to have a financial aid program and that's something that we can start in our earliest grade um and bring families into our school across the socioeconomic spectrum. Um, and so we started pretty early on partnering with 4C's and Buildup Sanato to learn more about the child care need um, and how we could develop a program um, that could help the needs of the community more. So what we are offering now to those 40 students and hope to offer to um an additional 35 students is a program of really high quality play-based curriculum where students learn very early on the importance of um social emotional learning interacting with one another um and have those academic skills woven in so that they are ready for kindergarten but they're also ready for life beyond elementary school. We have a full day program 7:45 to 6. Um, and we are committed to getting this

program up and running quickly. Um, with the timeline that we're hoping to stay on now, we hope to open this project in fall of 2027 so that um, in the very near future, we'd be able to bring more childcare spots to Sonteo. Um and the other piece that I think is worth mentioning, there are some really amazing programs through the city and the county um grants that allow childare programming um to get support for both building and um running their establishments. And this project is actually intended to be fully donorfunded so that um we will increase childc care spots in Sanonteo but reserve those funds for hopefully other child care organizations to come in and increase spots um as well with the help of those public grants. Um, we knew as um, members of our community, Carrie has been on the same site, like I mentioned, since 1955. And so, we know we're part of a residential community. We um, interact with the neighbors every day. I'm out um on duty every day and um have interactions with the neighbors all the time. And so, from the very jump with this project, we knew we needed to engage our neighbors. And um we started by um Michelle Writer, my director of finance and I walked the neighborhood very early on and shared information with neighbors. Um we had the neighborhood meeting that Zamine mentioned. We also had an additional neighborhood meeting in November just recently to share um our approved traffic and parking plan after we'd um received feedback from the city about it. Um, we've also had numerous neighborhood meeting, um, individual neighborhood meetings, numerous email communications, um, and I have daily conversations with people on 20th and Lasal. Um, and I would say over, um, since January of last year, we've had over 50 touch points with our neighbors and, um, happy to have many more. We know that this is a project that has impact on our neighbors and so we're trying our best to be good neighbors

through that through that while also still staying very committed to the project itself. Um as Samine also mentioned the two main concerns we've heard from our neighbors are around parking and traffic and so I wanted to speak a little bit about um the work we've done to understand those two concerns a little bit more. Um we, as Simeon mentioned, maintain a parking agreement at 2000 Alamita. Um not only do we have those spots for um our employee use on the on a daily basis, we also have a special event relationship. Um so that anytime a family is choosing to come to Kerry and walk their student in. Um we encourage them to park at 2000 Alamita and walk across the street with their child. Um we do daily monitoring on Lasal both at the circle as well as on the corner of 20th and Lasal. Um on the traffic concern side, you heard about our traffic study. We've also developed um a drop off and pickup plan um that actually came out of COVID. Um we had an approved drop off and pickup plan through our last entitlement process. Um and then part of the reopening um process with COVID, we actually had to change that and stagger it further because of social distancing. Um and that parking that traffic plan, excuse me, um was actually a better plan. It's the staggered nature of it um kept more cars off the street at the same time and really reduced congestion. And so we've maintained that and now have planned to add the early childhood center into that plan. Um, so we staff car lines um with administrators and teachers. We have um really well organized sibling drop off and pickup so that there's not cars coming down the street multiple times unnecessarily. Um we stagger like I mentioned both um in the morning and in the afternoon. And in addition to the sibling overlap that Samine mentioned, we also have about 50% of our students that stay for extended care into the evening. So, when our

school day ends, 2:45 at the preschool, um 3:00 or 3:15 depending on um the end of day for our K5 students. Um about 50% of the students stay on between 3:30 and 6:00, which um obviously slowly staggers the um leaving of students every day. This is just a quick glimpse. Um you saw a little bit of this before of sort of the circulation that you see um on Lasal for drop off and pickup on the Alamita for drop off and pickup um and then the proposed site for the early childhood center in their um parking lot. With that I am going to introduce our architect Michelle Huber to just share a little bit more about the project in our remaining time. two minutes.

Okay, I'm gonna be very quick. Hi. Um, as Neil said, my name is Michelle Huber. I'm a principal at Studio Bondi Architecture and the focus of our practice is designing for schools. That's almost primarily what we do and the majority of those projects are located in residential neighborhoods. So, our general approach uh in our designing our school projects is keeping in mind that there are two goals. One is to make sure that the design supports the program of the school, but also that the design is compatible with the neighborhood and the context of that neighborhood and that we're very respectful of the privacy of those neighbors. for Kerry schools specifically. I know Simmons um described our site plan, but we um are trying to make that balance between our the school's goals and the neighbors goals by designing the project both from a landscape perspective and a building perspective to be good neighbors. Um, from the landscape perspective, we've designed a what what we consider a green buffer along the north property line, which is our immediate property line that we share with the neighbors. And we've um are proposing to plant a large quantity of trees along that property line to create a green buffer. And of the number of trees that we are planting, almost 50% of them are located along this property line to provide that green buffer. We're also uh retaining existing trees, in particular uh four mature redwood trees along the um northeast corner of the site to continue that green buffer. We're also citing the building to create a spatial buffer, setting the the building back as far as we can in terms of setbacks um to to give more space to our building um next to the neighbors. Simmon described the U-shaped building with the play area in the middle. And

the goal here is orienting the building so the building itself acts as another buffer and it provides a physical visual separation and an acoustic separation from that playyard. Uh I talked about wanting to be compatible with the character of the neighborhood. Our neighbors, as was described, are primarily one and twostory stucco single family residences and then the two-story apartment build complex across the street. So, our proposed building design is a one-story stucco building to be compatible with that character. And the intention is to be um decidedly modest in scale so that we aren't a big presence that we're trying to to be um small and contained. And our roof line is also intended to slope gently. It's not a steep slope again to kind of minimize the scale of the building. Um you can see on the left hand side uh a wood fence and as Neie mentioned we we had a chance to meet with the neighbors several times and we actually got to speak directly with the neighbors who live in this residence and we talked about the design of that fence and the goal is to keep talking with them to make sure that we're designing a fence that is um aesthetically pleasing but also provides the privacy that would be important to them. I have one more slide to share and this is the an elevation of our north facade and it's a view from our neighbors property. So you're looking at the fence that would separate our property from from theirs and you can see the intention to be designing a a fence that conceals a majority of our building. And those the view that you see above that fence is um a filtered view from a the tree canopy of the new trees that we're planting

along that north elevation. Um so I I hope I wasn't talking too fast, but the the goal and our intention is really to be good neighbors and to design the building so that it's compatible. And um I'll end by by thanking you very much for your time and for your consideration. Um like I said, this is what I do all day and it's really rewarding to work with a client like the Kerry School who is clearly doing amazing things and it's exciting to know that we're part of a project that is going to give our youngest commun community members a good start and an exciting place to to learn. So, we're all here to answer any questions that you might have.

Thank you so much. At this time, we'll go ahead and open public comment for this item. Members of the public wishing to comment on this item should submit a yellow speak to speaker slip now if they are in person or um raise their hand if they are participating remotely. Through the chair, we have four public commenters in person. Uh we will begin with Timothy followed by Patrick, Aaron, and Mark. Do we have any remote commenters? There are zero remote commenters at this time.

Okay, great. So given the total of four public commenters, um I think our guidelines allow for up to three minutes for each comment. Thank you. Timmy, if you Excuse me, Timothy, if you'd like to come up. Um I'll set the timer for three minutes and I'll let you know when to speak. Right when the fire alarm went off. So that's good.

Cool. Um, if you don't mind, thank you uh for the opportunity. My name is Timothy Wong and I'm a Samato resident and parent of two young children, one of whom just started at Kerry just a few months back. I'm here tonight to voice my strong support for Car's proposed early childhood center. My wife and I moved to Sanonteo back in 2018 and we lived right near Kerry at Abbott Middle School and we love the neighborhood so much we moved about 10 blocks away right next to Barisford Park. So literally right next door. Um we have a four-year-old who's attending care right now and a one and a halfyear-old daughter. Um, as full-time working parents who have gone through the process of trying to find reliable, highquality child care in Sato, um, I'm sure you all know and I can tell you that it's incredibly challenging. Um, nearly every family I know has faced some of the same hurdles around long wait lists, uh, limited availability and shortage of programs, especially for true kind of full day coverage. Uh, this project for us is is a rare and much needed uh, solution. K's Early Childhood Center would add, as you can see here, 75 new child care spaces for ages 2 to five, daily programming, which we use as a family from 7:45 to 6:00 p.m. That schedule alone makes an enormous difference for parents like us. We're balancing careers and young kids. What's more, care is thoughtfully included, fully subsidized spots um so that families of all backgrounds can access highquality early education. That's a meaningful commitment to equity and community. Uh, and it reflects Car's long-standing role here in San Monteo as a school is that is of the community and for the community. [clears throat] I believe this project is a concrete way to make our city more familyfriendly, to support early learning, and to help f young families stay here and thrive. As a parent, I see this not only as an investment in education, but as an investment in the future of our

community. Thank you much for your time, for your service, and for considering this project. Thank you, Timothy.

So, the chair, we'll have Patrick go ahead and come up to speak.

All right, let me be the bummer. Um, good evening, commissioners. I'm asking you to reconsider assumptions underlying the approval of the scary school proposal expansion, specifically the conclusion that it serves the local community and that 50% ride share requirement will adequately mitigate increased traffic. Under the Sato Municipal Code, your findings must be based on substantial evidence in the record, not assumptions. Car's own material showed the school draws families, [clears throat] excuse me, from a wide area across the peninsula and even into San Francisco. There's no evidence that an enrollment increase primarily benefits the surrounding neighborhood. Thank you. Or that most new families will live close enough to walk, bike, or meaningly participate in car pools. Without that evidence, the required findings that the project minimizes detrimental impacts cannot be supported. The traffic analysis also relies heavily on achieving a 50% ride share rate. Under SQA, which I know you guys are saying it's doesn't apply. Uh mitigation [snorts] measures must be feasible, enforcable, and supported by substantial evidence. A ride share target is not valid unless the city and applicant can show aggregated anonymized zip code data for the current families, evidence that new families will live close enough for car pooling and be realistic and monitoring and enforcement program with consequences for non-compliance. Without this information,

the right share mitigation is speculative. I respectfully ask the commission to require the applicant to provide actual evidence supporting the enrollment and transportation assumptions before final approval. This ensures your findings are legally defensible and consistent with both SQA and Samato Municipal Code. I didn't think I'd be this nervous. Anyhow, but uh that's my points and thank you all for your listening to me. Um, the other thing is Kerry's a great school, but uh, the communication hasn't been great always throughout. And I feel like some of the studies are superficial, especially things like um, the trees um, as far as how many they're tearing down and whether or not some of those are heritage trees. I haven't seen any not any sort of process of as far as that goes to. That's it. Thanks. Thank you for your comment, Patrick.

Good evening, commissioners, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Aaron Hogan. I live in Sonteo and I've been here for over 10 years. I have three young children who all attend the Kerry School. I work as an ICU nurse at Sonteo Medical Center and I occasionally teach in the nursing school at College of Sono, which means my hours can be unique and unpredictable. I see firsthand just how critical reliable fullday early childhood care is for working families in our city. Several years ago, during the pandemic, we were urgently searching for an in-person prek program after our oldest child's preschool closed permanently. Like so many families, we faced long wait lists, limited options, and schedules that did not work for two working parents. It was incredibly stressful, and it's an experience we've heard echoed by fellow parents, even outside of pandemic years. We were lucky when Carrie had a spot available to keep students safely in person. The school creatively moved its pre-K program offampus like Neie mentioned, rented space at Peninsula Temple Bethl and split the class into smaller groups. That created just enough capacity. And in a year full of uncertainty, the one bright spot for our family was how much our son loved what became affectionately known as Little Carrie. Later, when our younger two children attended Little Carrie at its temporary location at Transfiguration Church, we were once again reminded of what early childhood educational excellence looks like. Our family deeply believes that where you are educated first matters most. And Carrie has upheld that philosophy while serving Samonteo children for nearly a hundred years. Our experience at Little Kerry over the past six years is one of the biggest reasons we believe so strongly in the Kerry School's vision for an early childhood

center. Little Carrie deserves a permanent home. The proposed center would expand much needed child care capacity at a dedicated 2-year-old class and preserve Car's full day hours from 7:45 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. And for families like mine, these hours are not a luxury. They are what allow us to work, for need to care for patients in our city, and to know our children are safe, supported, and thriving. More young families in San Monteo deserve the chance to experience this stability and joy. On behalf of my family, and as a longtime Sonteo resident, I urge you to support this project and help address one of the most pressing needs facing young families in our city. Thank you for your time and for your service.

Thank you, Aaron. through the chair. Mark, if you'd like to come up to speak.

Good evening, commissioners. Uh, and thank you for hearing from us tonight. My name is Mark Actton. Uh, I am a part of the Kerry community. I also live in the neighborhood. I live on West 20th, right on the intersection of Lasal. Uh, so I'm in a rare position where I'm also part of the community and in the neighborhood. And my family has been part of the Kerry school community for many years now. One of my children is a Kerry graduate and the other is a current fourth grader. Uh, so I've seen firsthand the kind of care, integrity, and compassion this school brings to everything that it does. Uh, I'm here because the proposed preschool at 2033 Lasell Drive isn't just a construction project. It's something that families in Sonteo desperately need. When our kids were younger, we struggled like so many parents to do to find early quality childhood education close to our home. And the shortage is real. And it puts families in impossible situations. A preschool like this would have made a world of difference for us and it will absolutely make a difference for families today and in the future in San Monteo. What gives me confidence in this project is not just the need, but the way Carrie is approaching it with humility, transparency, and respect for neighbors who are my neighbors as well. They're voluntary uh doing traffic and noise studies, committing to stagger drop off times, staff monitoring, and sound mitigation design. They've opened direct lines of communication and are inviting neighbors to campus to talk, listen, and collaborate. And that's who the Kerry School is. This preschool aligns with Sato's own goals around expanding child care, but more importantly, it strengthens the fabric of our community. It gives working families like my wife and I stability. It gives the kids an excellent, strong start in life and it gives our city something to be proud of.

I respectfully ask for your support and thank you for your time and caring for the futures of families in Sanonteo.

Thank you, Mark. through the chair. We have four additional public commenters. Peggy, if you'd like to come up. Well, I have to say first of all that I'm not used to speaking on this, so I'm rather nervous, but I thank you all for listening for the little bit I have to say and the little effect that I can have on this whole situation. Uh, I live at [clears throat] My name is Peggy Karp and I live at 2001 Alama unit 170 which is in the multi-unit complex. We live on the one in the one closest to Carrie School. Carry school has been a wonderful neighbor in many ways, but this project in our estimation just does not work. I've been here 15 years, 13 years, and in the 13 years we've seen Carrie School expand at least once. one time about three to four years ago which created terrific traffic problems during the construction and has continued to give us problems. The condominium complex itself I must say is overdesigned and overpop populated and has always created parking problems for all the residents. the uh it was not designed to accommodate all the people who [laughter] had cars, certainly not for twocar parking spaces. So we constantly battle trying to solve

our problem and it has only increased with all the new construction. If you consider the properties along Alama, if you consider the feeder streets uh from between El Camino and Alama, if you consider Saras School, it's really creating a terrible problem. I was a first grade teacher myself and I know that when you have pre and a parent and when you have preschoolers and kindergarten children especially in the first couple months they are still very attached to their parents rightly so and they do not want to separate. They also are are on in car seats which are cumbersome in terms of getting the child quickly in and out of the seat and again we have a traffic problem. The uh school will be starting at 7:45 in the morning so that we will have construction noise from 7:45 on. We just finished the construction problem of the new house currently on the on the corner of 20th in Alama. Environmentally, it will also be a problem. We will be losing a lot of birds. And I think I'm just going to conclude my statement here and tell you that I hope you will consider the neighbors. And I know it's going to be difficult to do so, but I think there should be some allowances made that make having Harry's new addition [laughter]

satisfying our needs, which is for quiet and good community, not to mention the values of our properties, which will be dropping because of the change.

Thank you for your comment, Peggy. Okay. So, thank you very much. Our next public speaker is Geette. Um, good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. Um, my first question is, oh, what's the time limit here? Is it three minutes? Yes.

Oh my god. Okay. It's been a long time since I've maybe not that long. I wouldn't know where to begin other than Okay. My husband and I moved out to 4472nd Avenue in 1968. um battles began way back when with Sarah High School. We thought we had problems uh then now and we have a more or less of an amicable relationship with them now but it was fought very hard. Uh there was a movement started by the uh community uh several times over and actually it goes back to 1979 for me. So that we worked out a special use permit. Um fortunately that hasn't helped any because um all the activities uh increased the traffic increased. But what's really interesting is this. when I kept hearing that um oh the school was there first. I'm going to tie this into Carrie in a minute. And uh no it wasn't. I researched the records and found the notes of the planning department. I believe it was 1954 and then there were five planners commissioners. Two of them voted against the school being established there and three of them did not. What the two were concerned about was traffic. Can you imagine this back in 1954 that there could be an increase in traffic, the quality of life? Well, they did have foresight.

The others did not. It has become a nightmare in our neighborhood. I leave that's not going to leave me much to go pick up my grandchildren at Berling game even even Aragon and I can't get through. It would be disastrous to have this increased traffic and believe me it will bring about increased traffic. Everything's backed up anyway on 22nd, El Camino, Alama, it would be the biggest I would say um catastrophe traffic-wise and for the community in that area. You got to find somewhere else and it can be done. So, I'm sorry. I would never I would urge you not to approve the project at all. Thank you. Thank you for your comment, Geette.

Jason, if you could come to the mic, please. Hello everybody. My name is Jason Cruz and this is my beautiful wife Rosie Cruz. And we live in the house that Kerry School is going to is planning to do this school in. We have been residents of San Mateo for 30 years. We've lived next door to the Kerry School for 21 years. We have three children that have gone through Kerry and our alumni and one student that went graduated through Sarah High School. So, I think if there's an expert here that can tell you how great Kerry School is, it's right here. So, um, we've had nothing but fantastic, uh, memories with Kerry School and our children have been impacted for the rest of their lives because of the education that they received at the Kerry School. Um, I hear a lot of naysayers of the neighborhood, much older residences that have been there for a long time that complain about parking. And I've seen that this year that the parking has been the parking and the uh traffic flow has been better than it ever has been before now that they've implemented a few other um uh programs. And so traffic's going in and out smoothly. Um I we are we want our home to go to the Kerry school so that that they can impact many other famil family's lives as well like they have ours. So that was been our hope and dreams that if we're going to give up our house which is fantastic house, fantastic property in a fantastic city, great county, um we wanted to go to do good and we think that the Kerry school is definitely the one to have that. I think that all the problems that you'll hear from residents that live in a condominium complex that really are not even affected because they don't work, they don't leave their apartments during

the day, they don't go into traffic, they don't even have cars, I think some of them, but a lot of them are naysayers because I think they're just concerned about uh the uh the neighborhood being more congested. But I think Kerry School has done a great job on mitigating the additional traffic or even their existing traffic. And I think that this project will uh increase the uh quality of life in the neighborhood than than than it already has been. So I thank you for your time. I'll be the shortest one talking here. And uh thank you very much for your time. Thank you for your comment, Jason.

Our final speaker speaker is David Hello. So, I'm David Sigman. My wife is uh Stasha Zlatar and uh we're longtime residents of Samonteo and parents to two children at the Kerry School. I have a kindergartener and a second grader. Um both of whom attended the preschool program at Kerry. We're strongly in support of the uh early childhood um learning center uh next door to the current campus on Lasal and we're asking the planning commission uh and city council to approve this very important effort. Samonteo has a child care crisis. Uh and I remember vividly how panicked we were when our oldest was born and we realized how limited quality child care options were in our area. We were on weight lists for months. uh in most cases didn't come off those weight lists. The uh the opportunity to add 35 preschool spots with daycare coverage hours is hugely valuable on its on its own merits uh to help address this crisis. The ability to do so at a school that pro that provides the exceptional caliber of teaching and the care that uh the Kerry school offers should be a no-brainer. Um because of the pandemic uh and the child child care issues that we faced during that time, our family [clears throat] experienced multiple daycare and preschool environments for our uh our oldest and we finally landed at the Kerry school for prek. Uh our experience has was incomparable um to the prior schools. the quality of the teachers, the thoughtfulness of the curriculum, the engagement of the community, uh, all contribute to developing young learners, uh, who will be excellent citizens to the city. Uh, Carrie, uh, teach teaches students to care about others and to

understand that our choices and actions affect everyone. It's our responsibility as adults to model that same behavior as we [clears throat] uh, shape our community. We understand that this project could be seen as disruptive to the neighbors of the Kerry School, and we acknowledge that concern. However, we maintain that the benefits of the project far outweigh the challenges and we politely ask. If not here, then where? Uh there will never be an ideal location and that uh has hindered the city's ability to increase high-quality childcare options to its residents. Additionally, the ability to bring the school together in one location reduces traffic congestion, vehicle emissions from uh parents who have to drive between the two locations. I I know [snorts] this firsthand. many many times up and down Alama. Uh finally, as involved parents in this community, we've seen firsthand how uh conscientious the school is about maintaining orderly driving and parking logistics on the south and alamita. We regularly receive reminders from school administration. Uh and we know other parents to be equally concerned uh with following the rules, respect local residents. We're confident that the school will do everything in its power to min minimize disruption, maintain positive relations. Thanks very much for your time.

Thank you for your comment, David. And that is our final comment. Yes, thank you. Um, so I will go ahead and close the public comment for this item. Next are clarifying questions from the planning commission. So I will look to my fellow commissioners. Does anyone have clarifying questions? [clears throat] Yes, I do. Commissioner Williams, you're up first. Okay. Um, can you hear me?

Okay. Um, let's see. A lot of my questions were answered, but um, I wanted to also note that I visited the site this week and walked the culde-sac and the Alamita Dillis Pulgus connection between the, um, culdeac and the street. Um, so my first question, oh, maybe I should move it. I my first question is um there's a bus stop at Alama Dis Pogus that says it's no longer in service and I'm wondering do we know is that a long-term decision or um it's at that drop off area. There's a sign that says it's no longer in service right

they had temporarily moved it um to the cutout the white zone on They were refurbishing that permanent structure. Okay, good. The sign was just never removed when they moved you back to the permanent spot.

Okay. Yeah, it looked like an old sign actually. And I um see that there is a you know drop off zone there. Um and I was hoping that a bus stop wasn't going to move back there. So, um yeah, that makes sense. The sign looked old. Um, I also thought that it might help if we, my second question is about the process. I thought it might help if we could just reiterate what the process is for my benefit and others. Um, because there were questions about trees and heritage trees and you know various things as part of the design of the site design and the building design. But at this point corre like please confirm for me staff that um we are we are at this point making a recommendation to city council. It would still need to come back to planning commission for um um R and uh other design discussions. Uh to answer your question, um the plan commission is making a recommendation to the city council and because the city council will be the decision body for the Q8 overlay, they will also be the decision body for the rest of the

uh Okay, thank you for clarifying that. Okay, so will there be an opportunity to address um more detail of the design if if that if needed at the city council? you mean?

Yes. Okay. So, [clears throat] um, so just to kind of clarify, that's what we're doing tonight. No, I we're simply making a recommendation. So, then it would move on to city council. Um, okay. Um, through the chair, just to provide further clarification, the planning commission is considering the full application packet tonight. So, it is the the zoning code amendment for the overlay, but then also the spar and the site development permit. So you are making a recommendation but this would be your primary opportunity to address all of those site design as well as the code amendment.

I think to I think what you were asking if I may interject is will this come back to the planning commission and I believe the answer to that is no. This is the planning commission's only opportunity to see this item. Okay. Thanks. But also my question was um does the applicant have but is there another opportunity to address anything um of the project at the city council level? Yes. I mean they they have final decision-making authority. So yeah, all the issues discussed here could be reviewed and considered at the plan at the city council as well. Okay. Um all right let's see what else did I

well I have a couple design questions then um minor one but um I think that when you are looking at the front of the building the par a parent and child would enter through the gate on the far left or north side of the building right in order to enter the main entry to the far right which then goes to the courtyard that's right Okay. Not through like the office for instance because I didn't see a connection to all the rooms. There's an opportunity to go through the main office but there's probably a primary entry for parents and children through the gate into the courtyard and then classrooms are directly from the courtyard.

Okay. Oh, that makes more sense than what I was thinking. Okay. So, it would really be to the to the south into the courtyard. Um, thank you for that. Um, I guess that's the main thing. Let me just see. Um, I mean, I think we've covered I had a question about monitoring and enforcing the traffic plan and there's a lot of detailed information in the packet. Um, and you know, a lot of um, I I get, you know, I I hear that there's a lot of um, effort on the part of the Kerry School as well. So my question is should or can this be incorporated as a condition of approval? How does that or is it already essentially a condition of approval?

Is there something specific you're looking to add as a condition of approval? The commission could ultimately um with majority vote um make a recommendation if there's additional conditions that you um are interested in seeing as part of this approval. Um, I'll find the information in the packet and we can talk about that later, I guess. Okay, those are all my questions. Any other commissioners have clarifying questions?

Yes. Um, can you if to the extent you know, can you talk about like the practical realities on the ground with respect to how folks exit from that condo complex? It's just the one entrance and exit from that that complex on the corner. Are they um I just looking at the map it's like that left-hand turn seems like impossible out of the complex. I'm curious. Condosifically. So um the condos on Lasal that are closest to Kerry has that one driveway. Yes. That's on 20th itself. Um and they can turn left or right from um that driveway there. Um

Okay. Yes. And then um on Lasal, I understood from some of the public comments we received um before the meeting and now that um maybe there's a lot of folks from the condos who park in on Lasal even though they don't live they're not the driveways on Lasal. Yes. So to Peggy's point, I believe um I think each of the condo units has just one assigned parking spot within their complex lot. And so any unit that has more than one car um associated with it uses street parking. Okay. I believe.

Did you all consider not having any kind of drop off on Lasal and just having the extra 15 or 20 kids who aren't siblings be dropped off at the uh the little inlet on Alama? So the Alamita um well what we found and Mike our um traffic engineer might be able to speak to this better than me but what we found is that um Alama is also um a thoroughfare in the morning obviously there's a corridor of schools and businesses along that route and um access to 92 and so um by segmenting our population Alama and in the Lasal Circle circle it helps kind of keep everything flowing from what we found. Um, and we also try to keep our youngest students um, not entering and exiting cars unless they have older siblings on the Alama because it is a little bit busier of a street. So, um, it feels like um, Lasal offers some protection um, and certainly the early childhood centers parking lot will offer even more protection um, from any additional traffic. So in the morning on Alamita going north where the drop off is is that usually pretty backed up down Alamita

now in present day. No no it there is a period of time that um Alamita's busy but um yeah it is like a long Yeah. in my neighborhood where there's a school there's like a very long line of cars all the time. I'm just curious like

yeah I mean Alama is busy it is most busy from like 8 to 8:15 in the morning. It's a relatively short period of time. Um yeah, and um we have though really limited the cars that we have coming down Lasal. So we have we stagger um both in times and grade levels um where they have designated drop off spots and pickup spots. Um and we have the fewest grade levels using LAL for that reason to keep more of um our drop off and pickup on Alama but then have our youngest kids um dropped off and picked up in Lasal under the current structure of the school. Are there kids being dropped off on Lasal or just under the proposal?

Yes. No, our current structure um has students dropped off on Lasal and on Alamita and um that would continue and then we'd weave in the preschool. Okay. Okay. I had I had to internalize that. Okay. On the on the subsidiz no on the subsidized seats or enrollment seats um I saw the range between 10 and 15%. Yeah. Is that um a part of the school's like mandate? Is that built in anywhere that you're required to have a minimum um number of subsidized seats or is that just a a goal and you all try to meet it every year?

It is. Um so we have no mandate from we take no um federal or state funding. So we don't get any mandates from anyone but those that we create ourselves and um our accreditation procedures through the California Association of Independent Schools and then um was the Western Association of Schools and Colleges. So there's no mandate that requires that but that's something um that we've held to and our board of trustees which governs our school uh votes every year to um establish um our tuition as well as our rate of financial aid. And so that number is really um monitored by our board and um as our fiduciaries and then um we as an administration are bound to meet those goals every year.

And is that goal structured by number of students or is it a certain amount of financial aid? It's it's a percentage of our operating budget. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Thanks. Those are my questions. Can I uh to the chair, may I add something? Um the questions about u drop off wanted me made me want to clarify you know with a two or threeyear-old um preschool child the parent is walking is parking and walking them into the classroom or into the school and picking them up in the same manner at the end of the day. Child's not walking by themselves. And so are those parents parking across Alama at the big at the larger parking lot?

So it's a great question. We actually run a carline. Now, we don't have a 2-year-old program currently, but we have a three-year-old program. Um, and we do carline every afternoon with those students. And so, um, what we found is when we adequately staff it so that there's escorts, kind of bringing kids from their car into their classrooms, um, kids actually will participate in drop off and pickup. Um, but that's also why we will reserve the 11 spaces in the early childhood cent's parking lot for parent drop off and pickup so that if a parent wants to park and walk in, they'll have those 11 spaces um open to them all the time. And then um additional parking is available across the street at 2000 Alamita as well.

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I would add sorry um we also see when we have siblings arriving um together that that also helps significantly. So because so many of our preschool students often have older siblings on the main campus, it is much easier to get those little ones out of the car. They hop right out when they're with their third or fourth grade sibling. Yeah, I remember that. Yeah.

Um yeah, so I had some questions on that uh topic. I'm looking at your uh traffic management plan. Uh maybe I'm too close. Um so uh like have some like little hypotheticals here. So, like let's say you have a um let's say you have a a third grader and um in this chart here uh they're starting at 8:15 and their location for drop off would be Alama and um and then they have a prek sibling. Um and that designated spot would normally be the uh uh parking lot, the new parking lot proposed. Um, and then I see a note here saying that it says if you have more than one child in the school, please use the designated spot for the oldest child. So then the question is um is the uh the prek student going to exit on Alama with their is that the plan? They would exit on Alama with their

Yes. Yeah. And as noted in the plan as well, we'll have um escorts available so that they're they'll hop out with their older sibling at 8:15 on the Alamita and there'll be an adult there to walk them to the early childhood center. um where they will then be escorted into the building.

Okay. So yeah, so there's a plan to escort the smallest kids over to there. So then so then uh from that you I was looking at the uh diagram in the traffic management plan and I noticed something that differed from the U project plans a little bit which is that uh in the [clears throat] uh early childhood center drop off pickup diagram on like page five here uh it actually shows a pathway sort of on the south edge of the parking lot connecting the sidewalk to the or maybe I'm seeing that um it it kind of looks like a pathway. It's not an official pathway.

Okay. So, there's not planned to be a um because in the plans there's it's just a planted bed along that edge there. Right. Okay. Sorry. The official pathway. I'm sorry. through the share. Could all commissioners uh check their laptops and make sure that you are muted on your laptop? There is some feedback that one of the microphones is receiving. It's that is me.

It's technically an easement right there, I think is the the correct term for it. Um the public works needs to maintain access to the private creek. Um and so that's why it kind of looks like just an undeveloped space because um it is a an easement space.

Okay. Um and then um I also stopped by I think on Monday someone spotted me [laughter] uh just to take a look. I actually live uh um over uh in the neighborhood um near 26th Avenue. Uh so I just stopped by there on the way home the other day. Uh was taking a look around. I did see a comment in one of the one of the letters that we received about some parking signs. I was curious about that because I noticed a no parking sign on the fence attached to the fence in Alama and then there was another no parking sign with certain hours on the lampost on the culdeac at Lasowl. Um I wasn't sure are those official city signs or were those placed by the school? school.

I believe those were placed by the school. It predated me, but um yeah, and as you'll note though on the Alamita on our parking plan, we have a a notation that there's no parking um on the Alamita, it's between the fire hydrant that's there and the white zone um to allow for safe kind of pulling in of cars into that white zone. Um and that was approved by as part of our um parking and traffic plan um with public works.

Um yeah, and and the signs um yeah, like I said, they predated me, but I believe they were are mostly intended um for our Kerry families um so that we keep that area clear and safe for um parking. As as you'll note, if you walk the street with any frequency, there are often neighbors parked there um as needed. Um okay. And [clears throat] then um and then actually also just curious me. So you we also you have the Lel drop off and then you have people also pulling will be would be pulling into this parking lot and um have you been giving a think a thought about how those two groups are going to sort of are they just going to queue together? Is that the idea?

Yeah, it'll move as one group but it'll be a staggered time frame. So the Lasowl circle will be in use until 8:30 and then um the early childhood drop off begins at 8:30. So they will follow that same pathway but they won't be uh won't double the queue. So the early Okay. So early childhood drop off but if if if they have an older sibling and they're starting at 8:15 there will be a they would be either in the circle or on Alamita. They won't go into the early and they are somewhere they can they can enter the facility and just sort of hang out until Exactly. We have care beginning at 7:45 each morning. Yeah.

Okay. Um and then I guess this question may be more for staff. um the when the there was a traffic study done of the intersection at um Lasal and 20th, but um was there not a requirement to look at uh 20th and Alama because I was that just not because that was not directly uh through the chart. Um per our traffic guidelines only the nearest intersection to the project site was um required to be studied. So that was um 20th and lassal.

Okay. I I think those are all my questions for the moment. Thank you. Um I also have questions about the drop off process. So I was actually wondering I think it may have been in the staff presentation. I know it's in the project plans. There's a diagram that shows all of the numbered drop off spots and I was wondering if we could have that up. It's the three on LEL circle. Well, I think there's five on LEL circle and three on Alamita de Pulgus. And I was wondering if there's a diagram that shows all of them that we could look at. I have all three.

I'm I'm pretty sure there's one either in the traffic analysis or the um project plans. No, the best page. Is it page three of the traffic analysis? Is that what you said? Yes. Although I'm I feel like I've seen a diagram where it's got the Alama drop off. Wasn't it a site plan? it. I thought it was a satellite image, but maybe I'm conflating the two. Yeah, I mean, we saw it during the presentation. Is that [laughter] Is it you? Sorry. It was [clears throat] Yes, it's this one. Yes. Thank you. There's the six.

That's right. Okay. Um, so I'm very familiar with school dropoff lines and so, uh, I've I'm one of the rare ones where the younger kid will get out of the car much faster than the older kid. And it's the older kid that needs help. So, um, okay. But there's there's Yes, there's also one drop off spot on Alama Deis Poggas. Is that right? Or is there more than one on Alamita Deis Pogus? Yes, there's one required monitor there. Um Okay.

And um there's also then uh the runners that will um the escorts that will take the little kids. But um so there's one required monitor on Alamita, four on the Lasal Circle, and then um the sixth that you see out there is not a drop off pickup location, but it's um a a administrative monitor who's posted there. And then there will be three more monitors indeed. during the time period that there will be drop off and pickup happening in the early childhood center. Perfect. Yes.

So, my experience with drop off lines, the way it runs at my kids school is that you've got administrative officials out there who are very actively monitoring the situation and then encouraging the drivers of the cars to pull forward when possible so that people aren't just sort of randomly pulling over and stopping. that anytime there's a gap, especially if you're waiting for a kid to come out of the school and get in the car, it's like pull up, pull up, pull up, get everyone in as fast as possible. So, my specific question is, and I think this is because I'm trying to both coordinate the drop off times, the staggered drop off times with the monitor locations, I'm imagining a parent who is going to drop off at the early childhood education center. They're going to pull into that parking lot. And my question is, do they have to go through the full circle and wait for all of the cars that are dropping off at 1 through 4 to move or can they hang a left straight into the parking lot?

It's a great question. Um, so the time is staggered such that they will come all the way through the circle, but there will not be cars there doing drop off and pickup um if they're doing early childhood drop off. So, um the in the mornings the circle will be used until it's like right after 8:15 8:20. Um and then if you do not have an older sibling, the early childhood center students won't get dropped off until 8:30 in the early childhood parking lot. And the same is true in reverse in the afternoon where the youngest kids get picked up first before carine starts for the older kids on Lasal. So that um cuz we didn't feel like although that quick left into the first driveway over the parking lot would be more efficient, it felt unsafe. Um cars coming and going and queuing. And so we um went for a safer stagger so that we could spread it all out and use each space sort of in its own

time period so that we don't increase the queue. Yeah. And you have stagger drop off now, correct? We do. We have Well, we have staggered pickup. Um and then uh drop off is staggered in the morning um primarily by um the use of the 7:45 um early drop off um but we'll have a further stagger drop off when we add the early childhood center. Got it. In the morning.

Do you find that um parents or whoever is guardians that are picking up the kids adhere to those staggered windows or do you find that some people kind of come a little bit early or maybe are running a little bit late? They adhere to them because we require them to. I I see that number six out there. I'm out there every afternoon and like I know every parent and guardian, babysitter. Um and yes, we give people feedback if Okay, great. They don't. So does my school, but it doesn't always work. So that's I mean, can we control every single person in every moment? No. And you know, are there special circumstances where people

Yes. I guess what I was really trying to get at is how likely is it that the circle is clear when you're doing the early childhood drop offs and it seems like pretty likely. Okay. And I our school day officially for K through 5 starts at 8:15. So by 8:20 even like the late people late to school are at school. Yeah. Okay. Great. and or the kids are pretty motivated to be there and so I think they're the ones dragging their parents to be on time. That was my only question. Um just trying to understand the drop offline process. Do do we have any additional questions from my fellow commissioners?

Uh no I the thing I was wondering about I found it and it's in the conditions of approval. So Okay, great. Um Commissioner Clafter. Yes. Uh I still on the subject of pickups now. [laughter] Um so then uh picking up if you have a student in the in the new proposed facility and then you have an older sibling uh is it still going to default to the pickup site for the older sibling? Yes. Okay.

Yeah. So there'll be extended care that starts right when the early childhood technical day ends and um then we'll have coordination so that students whose siblings are leaving for Caroline um will be brought out to Caroline and matched with their sibling and then picked up at the designated pickup spot for the older sibling. Do do you also do you and would you anticipate group activities where the younger students would be gathering with the older students at any time? Obviously that's not something that you're necessarily doing right now because you have two separate facilities in two different locations. Yeah. Is that something that you might anticipate?

Um well I don't know about largecale gatherings. Um, but I think we may we have a buddy program now where like our kindergarten's matched up with third graders and our first grade's matched up with fourth graders. Um, I I could see that extending down to the preschool. So class by class grouping so that might be going back and forth at times. Yeah. Okay. In small groups certainly um and and adults certainly. Yes. Will walk back and forth. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Oh, I keep thinking of things. Uh what about um you know open house night or something? Are parents encouraged to park across Alama Dispos? That's the only place they can

Yes. Yeah. And we we maintain a special events use um agreement with um 2000 Alamita as well um for use um after hours and during the school day for special event. Thank you. Any final questions? Nope. All right. Um, then I suggest that we move on to deliberation. Do any of my fellow commissioners have comments?

No, I can go first. Um, yeah, I just wanted to say thank you to Simmon and and the staff for all the hard work. It was a really um really detailed thorough packet and project and um super accessible. So thanks for that. Um clearly the Kerry schools such a great community. I mean it's obvious by the number of people here and the comments. Um you really clearly exceptional head of school. Thank you for coming and giving your presentation. Um I had an opportunity also to watch the recording of the January meeting with the neighbors and um you know saw you handled yourself very admiraably there as well. So um I I do have a lot of empathy for the neighbors who are here today. I mentioned during my questions that I live literally right next to a school. Um, and I was thinking about, so I have a backdoor neighbor and then the school and I was thinking about what if my backdoor neighbor's house was raised and then uh, preschool was put there and uh, my wife and I had several conversations about it because she has her own perspectives. Um, and you know, um, I do have a lot of empathy. Um, it is very noisy. Uh, you know, I work from home several days a week. So, even even the people here who are retirees, I I think I can see why it would be it could be a meaningful impact um on your day-to-day lives. And so, I I definitely empathize with that. Um including the traffic. In order to exit my neighborhood, I either have to go by the school behind me or I have to go by a different school and I can't otherwise exit. Um so, that's a pain point as well. So, I definitely recognize that. Um but I I I think I uh ultimately my I'm in the same boat as the commenter has

said if not here where I mean this really feels like an a kind of ideal location for for a preschool um particularly one that is tied so closely to [clears throat] the school right next to it. Um, I also think, you know, one thing I I haven't heard mentioned, but that would be important to me is there's already a large school right there. So, I'm I'm guessing it's already kind of noisy. Um, I'm talking about Sarah High School. So, um, you know, there's no doubt that little kids running around are also going to bring their own their own noise. But um I think this does seem like uh the cruis's lot seems like a really excellent location and that the school has uh seemingly done all they can to mitigate the impact although there's no doubt there will be impact. Um I also you know really agree that child care is a paramount uh paramount need both in our county and in our city. I think uh having more child care seats uh is um provides opportunity for particularly women to um to work to be in the workplace um especially at a great school like this where there's both uh all day care and um and schooling while getting the daycare. So, um I read some comments that were concerned about um it not serving the local community from from what I heard from Miss Neil's presentation. 50% of families in Sonteo, 99% in Sanonteo County. So, in in my opinion, this is the exact type of project to be looking for to to increase child care in the city. Um, I was looking also at the design and I didn't hear any negative comments about the design of the building or the um the efforts that were taken to

mitigate the noise impact. Um, I thought I think the design looks great. Um, not an area of expertise of mine, but I do appreciate the acoustic barrier concerns. Um, it's kind of similar at the school behind me, like it's the school and then kind of behind it is the the play area. Um what else? Um I I guess the like one thing is I I didn't know the school's uh three tenants. The kindness, respect, and personal responsibility. I really love that. I would encourage all the parents who are here today to remember that when you are running late and you are in the carpool line and you want to park illegally and you want to, you know, do things that are convenient for you to just continue to remember the the neighbors who are also dealing with maybe pause and let them turn left on what seems like a very difficult lefthand turn out of their apartment complex. Um, I would be interested in exploring the notion of a condition for approval that requires a 10% subsidized enrollment for students at the school. I don't know if we're allowed to do that, but to me particularly affordable child care is important. Um, I don't I guess that's a question for the team here and if interested the staff. Um that would be my only kind of question is whether we could make sure that there are um you know affordable seats um mandated here.

Yeah. No, it's fine. Um I think uh that's an aspirational goal, but I don't think the city has the power to enforce that because there's no nexus to the project.

Okay. I would strongly encourage that you mandate it yourself. [laughter] Um and uh and then um I I asked staff beforehand about um signage and like it sounds like the only city signage is reduced [clears throat] speeds on Alamita. Um, and I guess I didn't I I don't think I I don't have a perspective on whether this should be any kind of condition or anything, but I think more signage indicating that there's going to be very young children here, that it's a school zone, would be obviously really important. Um, yeah, those are my those are my general comments. Commissioner Clifter.

Yes. Uh, through the chair, happy to go next. Um, yeah. So, I I uh lived in the neighborhood for over 30 years over on 26th Avenue. Uh and then of course uh uh now that I'm driving around myself for a long time, you know, obviously uh you know, go by the school pretty much anytime I'm going north. Um and uh walking by there, driving by there. Um, anecdotally, I've definitely encountered traffic over the years and uh, there was a comment about it maybe being a little better and obviously that, you know, there it hasn't been I was curious about whether or not that the intersection of 20th and Alama uh, had any study because we didn't see anything and and so I I kind of wish it had because I think that's always been a spot where where things, you know, tend to back up and um, you know, that's just a function of of peak hours and not any one source. Um, but uh I think that that's something that, you know, probably the neighborhood, you know, if you were to ask anyone in the neighborhood, they say, "Well, what's the what's the intersection that's really, you know, causes a lot of challenges? It's uh uh 20th Alamita." And again, anecdotally, I've observed uh that it almost seems like the signal timing uh on the light there could maybe use a little improvement. I'm wondering if that's something that uh public works could uh could look at. Um because uh sometimes it feels like the office park gets the priority and uh the traffic going north south uh does not. Um is that something that we could uh ask public works to take a look at?

We can definitely share that that feedback with public works.

Yeah. Um also with the I had asked about the signs because again you I'm thinking like you know if if uh if this project I think this project uh you know has a lot of uh does have some benefits. So you know if it's something that that uh moves forward is you know and and these no parking signs um can help again sort of smooth things out, keep things moving, keep keep, you know, make keep, you know, parents efficiently moving forward and everything like that. Is again, is that something that that we could uh potentially um have public works look into uh making official because I know we have some I know like go downtown here at St. Matthews. Uh they have some similar concerns on the street there um where um they have uh signs right now, official city signs which basically forbid parking during uh pickup and drop off hours. Uh is that something that might be possible?

We do have a public works staff member here. I I do know that there are official ordinances and other things required for the way we regulate parking. So, I I don't know that we could be that specific with the parking controls [clears throat] in this area, but um I'll I'll look to see if our our public works staff has any input on that comment. Okay. Yeah. Um I had all these questions earlier about the um Oh, Commissioner. Yes, we do have um our public works, John Thompson, on online. He has Hello. Yeah, my name is John. Um I'm with public works. Uh to answer your question, I if you're Were you asking about along Lal having no parking signs or along

Alamita? Well, it seems like there might be um some benefit to have a um sort of a timed zone on Alamita potentially and then also on that just on the curve of the culde-sac on Lasal.

I see. Yeah, we can look into um putting up possible signage around the culdesac. The existing signage along Alama. There are no parking signs past like the white um uh loading drop off zone in front of alongside Alama, but that white u curb marking is in fact like seen as a passenger loading zone which has time limits. Um, and with the proposed project, we do have a off-site loading zone that would be striped with a similar white curb marking to um, signal it as a loading zone. But along the uh, culde-sac, I believe we would just keep it non-restricted as um, just access to public street parking.

And um, is this is the signal timing? I'm going to interrupt and say that we have a comment from

Yes. through the chair. Um, just one other consideration, when you do customized parking limitations, that requires enforcement because with that sign comes expectations. Um, so that would be also a factor that we would need to consider. Does the city have resources to enforce that? Because if we're establishing specific time limits, um, there would need to be city resources that enforce it if those are city signs that go up. And just to build on that, um, as a reminder, the planning commission is making a recommendation to the city council. So, would you, um, want us to note in the kind of an advisory, uh, request in the staff report or, uh, yes,

the commission should kind of determine what weight this should carry. Um, yeah. Yeah, I think I might be interested in in making a recommendation to um the council to to ask public works to look into some of these like the signal again the signal timing on that intersection there or just kind of the traffic flow on uh at Alama and 20th um during those peak periods and and then also these potentially the signage the signal issue um is not related to the project. Correct. It's not on the project site. Is it or is it? Sorry.

So, per our traffic guidelines, we can only limit the traffic the project traffic study to the nearest intersection to the project. And um so basically, I don't think we can include the Alamita and 20th Avenue into the traffic um scope for this project. Okay.

And also, if I if I may add to the parking issue. So um typically residential parking are uh parking for residential units are um like they can park during the night overnight and the Kerry school uses the the street for like um for early morning and um like afternoon for pickup. So the both they don't conflict usually because that they're they're like offset hours the that the both uses need the um parking. So that's why they can like coexist together.

Okay. Thank you. Um I did have another comment which I think is um more directly about the the project site. I had I had kind of asked the questions about the pickup and the drop offs because I was and I asked about this this potential pathway that I thought I saw on the diagram because um I was thinking about the logistics and uh I remember I do remember being a little child and I remember being told to stay on the sidewalk and um I was looking at the layout of the parking lot and I and I was looking at you know where these drop off locations are along the culde-sac and my immediate thought was that um uh the term there's a term called desire path. It's like what's the shortest path between two points and and if I'm on the culde-sac or if I'm coming from the main campus and I wanted to get to the new facility, I'm going to want to go along the the south edge of that that driveway there. And um I don't see a sidewalk there. And so I'm sort of thinking to myself, okay, if I'm if I'm a little sibling and I'm going to meet my older sibling, um I don't want to have to go through the actual driveway um where the cars are coming in and turning and and picking other people up. And so then the current pathway that's proposed is to go to the north edge, go along a pathway there, cross an active driveway, go along the sidewalk, cross an active driveway, and then go over to the driveway of the main school, which I'm assuming doesn't have active people coming in out during the pickup and drop off hours. Whereas, if there's a sidewalk directly from the entrances along that edge, that bottom edge over to the main area there, it's a nice pedestrian continuous path. And I'm almost wondering if maybe if uh because there's this easement there, which you know, it says existing grades will be retained

and everything so that uh the creek can be maintained. I'm almost wondering if if that has to stay the way it is that maybe the whole parking lot just shifts up a couple feet and the path the the uh accessible path might be better placed at the bottom edge there for those for the reasons I've just discussed.

Is there a hand raised? Sorry. Yeah, I raised my hand real quick. Um this is John again with public works. I just wanted to clarify that that um that section at the south side. It's um we our public's works crew needs a maintenance. We're going to do an a maintenance agreement with the Kerry school. We added that as a condition of approval. Um so it it it wouldn't be a an easement and um I just wanted to make that clarification. wouldn't wouldn't be an easement or would it would not would not it would just be a m maintenance easement not a pedestrian

yeah it would be a maintenance we will have a maintenance access agreement for our crew to enter that area down to the creek to access the trash rack at the souththeast corner of the lot So would would it be important though for for maintenance would it be important to maintain the existing grade in that corner um at the corner and you're talking above the the creek setback. Correct.

Yeah, I'm I'm I'm looking at the project P plans like I'm just currently looking at page seven. I think it's on multiple pages though. There's just this uh kind of edge of the drive. If I may interject, I think what I I I think I could summarize what's being discussed and and potentially say that um we would encourage the the architect in the Cary School to think about the walking path between Big Carrie and Little Carrie, if those names are going to stick around. And um and think about that fact that desire paths come into existence whether you want them to or not. and think about like what is that shortest and safest point between two lines and potentially consider reworking that little area to make sure that there is a safe route for kids to get between those two campuses.

Is it possible to

Yes. Yeah. We actually did look at that exact path or the path of travel because of that understanding that the shortest distance between two points is is a straight line. Um, we have to provide an accessible path of travel and that's a a sloped area and there's a there's a challenge between the two goals for the direct path and the the Eastmen public works access. The two can't live together in that area. And so we deferred to public works to provide the the easement and the the public access or public works access to the creek where it's desired by them. And we've provided the the next best thing which is the accessible path that is a longer pathway but it is accessible and it is a continuous sidewalk and where the driveway um intersects. We will comply with the city design to provide truncated domes and protected crossways at those two uh entry and exit points.

Okay. Thank you. [snorts] Thank you.

Um thank you for the uh summary uh to the chair. Um so yeah, I mean I I um uh I'll try and finish up my comments. I definitely um I think there's a a benefit to providing uh additional opportunities for um care during the workday um and additional seats for for students. Um, at the same time, I'm definitely uh cognizant of of the concerns of the neighborhood. um as you know terms of traffic and impacts and um the uh you know noise uh I I you know construction noise during during uh during the project while the project constructed is in some ways unavoidable. I but I definitely appreciate the design uh and being oriented towards the existing school uh so that during uh the day once uh site is activated um it's sort of you know away from the residential areas uh and [cough] um uh you know I was sort of asking about some of these other things like you know Alama and 20th and the sidewalk and with with the mind towards kind of efficiency um and it's kind smooth operation of that pickup and drop off areas. Uh and uh you know at the end of the day obviously a certain amount of traffic at peak hours uh is unavoidable especially uh you know anywhere in this region. So I, you know, I'm I don't think that that's something that And I also don't think that that uh um you know, that's being contributed by other entities, uh Sarah, other schools in the area, people coming home from work, etc. But um far outside the scope of this. So um I think that's everything that I really saw there. So I'll uh I'll I'll I'll seed my spot

through the chair. Just really I just want to do a quick announcement. The library is closed. So for anyone to enter or exit the building um please go through the back door. Going through those doors will set off the light. Um there is an entrance if you go around. There is an exterior entrance to then get down into the garage. But I'm going through here. The library is closed. So those doors are locked.

I have to walk home. I guess I can. [laughter] If my car is locked in there, I'll walk home. Um okay. So, I'll try to make my comments um brief, but well, I don't know about that. But anyway, um thank you to planning staff and to the applicant and the architect uh for the presentations and especially thank you to all the public speakers. Um I always find it very important for I think all the planning commission finds it very important to get the input of the of the public on these projects. So, um I visited the site and I walked the area as I said around the culdesac and Alama um and the residential sites um part of the way down the street. Um it was off peak time I must say because I had recently been stuck in traffic at Sarah a little bit not that bad but a little bit at Sarah High School and they're teenagers um in cars. So, a lot more dynamic than you know than what I think will be uh taking place here at the Kerry School. um um a lot of cars moving in and out with teenagers in it. So um I a couple things um I do I mean I I feel um as the other commissioners have said you know I I definitely um kind of put myself also in the shoes of the neighbors or in the locations of the neighbors um because it is a unique situation. Um, I do agree though that there's a great need for child care options for people that live and work in San Monteo. Um, I, you know, I I think that the effect of the on the neighbors is specifically at drop off and pickup. Um, and hopefully, you know, hopefully it's it's those are the those are the peak times and the the remaining parts

of the day and week are not um not as detrimental. But um I I guess I also just wanted to provide a couple well I comments but positive comments on the design of the building. I think that uh the overall project is um attractive, well thought out. Um, I think it blends really nicely with the multif family units across the street and the scale of in fact it's lower scale than the other uh single family homes on the street. So, it's really uh blends in nicely and is not going to be, you know, standing out. I think the landscape design uh at the front is very important um will go a long ways to to buffer that um activity that's going on um at the at the preschool. Uh, I was glad to hear about the um entrance being really off to the south and that the courtyard with the outdoor play area is really perfectly located to face the main campus of the Kerry school and away from the neighbors and provide visual and acoustic separation to the neighbors um during the school day. Um, so, uh, the other thing I was going to comment on, I think that the construction schedule sounds really great. I hope I hope that's I hope that's that's true because it's really relatively short and um the for you know, you know how projects go. We see it all the time throughout our neighborhoods with new houses and all kinds of things. Um so if it's you know efficient and um you know the contractor can limit the impact to the neighbors. Um so I hope that will be the case but there's lots of um pieces in the

conditions of approval to um to guide that. Um let me just see there's a couple other comments. Um, let's see. I think that the traffic um the traffic issues um maybe the traffic study every there may be things people don't agree with about it, but there's obviously um you know I think a big benefit to the fact that 60% of the students are at the early childhood education center will be younger siblings of the Kerry school. Um that's one car, two kids. I mean I you know that's that will I think go a long ways in um uh managing the traffic. Um the applicant is making every effort to work with the neighbors and limit the traffic impacts. And I think that the fact that it is a condition of approval that the monitoring and the um staggering and the the I mean there's multi-points um within this traffic plan um that need to be maintained but the fact that there's you know there's multiple points of um management I think uh really goes a long ways to um create success. us as much success as possible during those peak times. Um I mean it's in the school's best interest to create to maintain create and maintain a smooth process there. Um, [sighs] I guess my thoughts are that, um, I think the Kerry School is making every effort to be, um, good neighbors and they have a well-designed project. And, um, they sound like an asset to the community from what we've been hearing.

And I guess the other thing nobody's touched on but I wanted to also add is that we were we worked hard on the general plan update and it is um a commitment in our city of Sonteo general plan that um that the city can provide you know not the city but I mean that there are opportunities for child care within our city. So we have an opportunity here with a project that um helps fill that need. So, I I um I I will I'm in support of the project.

Thank you. Um my fellow commissioners have already made a bunch of excellent comments, so I will try to keep my comments brief and not repeat uh some of the great points that they made. Um but I will repeat my thanks to staff and the applicant for all of their hard work on this project and particularly to the applicant for the amount of community engagement that you have done. Um, I think that is very much appreciated. So, um, I will just wrap and say that, uh, I'll reiterate, you haven't heard many comments on the design of the facility because it's such a great design. I mean, we we usually have quite a few comments. The fact that we don't have any is is a testament to how well thought out the design is. Um, and I think I'll make one other point that I heard a public commenter make, but that I haven't heard made again, which is with a 60% overlap between students at Little Carrie and Big Kerry, if uh if that's how the other car's known, um the colllocating these two facilities will substantially decrease traffic in the neighborhood because you're going to have 60% of your families no longer driving the 1.7 miles between the two sites. rides on Alamita de las pulgus which is so um backed up in the morning. So I I actually think there's a potential here for the traffic on Alama de las pulgus to improve. Um and I'm curious to see what whether that actually manifests. And and then the last thing I'll say is I'll reiterate the importance of uh child care within our city and within our county. Um every parent has that same story of trying to get on the waiting list. And when my oldest was born, it was a six-year waiting list for the infant care facility at my work. And I remember thinking, but in 6 years, she's not she's be too old for this room. So, like, how does this even work? Um, so the need is very real. Um, I appreciate some of the statistics that

you provided. And and and to reiterate what Commissioner Williams said, I if I remember correctly, there's three or four policies or actions in our general plan related to child care and facilitating additional childcare facilities in our community. And so in many ways, this this project um seems really ideal between the collocation with an existing facility um and with um uh just just the addition of 45 additional spots. I think 30 35 additional spots um within the city. So I will wrap my comments there and ask if um we can get the text of the recommendation back on the screen and and then I will ask for a motion from my fellow commissioners. Would anyone like to make a motion? uh through the chair really quick just um this would be the opportunity maybe to uh add that additional recommendation. Yes, I think you could motion to include that the city council um ask the the staff or departments to investigate things. So yes, this would be the opportunity.

Yes. So I I yeah, maybe I would make a motion then to uh um add just an additional note to suggest that the city council um look into the questions of the uh the signage, the timed uh signage. Um I would I would ask that if you're going Why don't you make the full motion and then include that with the other recommendations? Yes, make the motion then to uh include that in the full resolution. through the chair. Um might I suggest maybe a recommendation on the action before you and then if you wanted to do a supplemental recommendation to be carried forward for planning for city council consideration? Yeah.

So is the motion um what's on the slide? The staff. So I would ask um for a motion for what is on the slide? Okay. And that motion could include an additional recommendation if someone wanted to word it that way. Are you interested in what's on the slide? Yes. to read it. You can move this line and your recommendation. Yes. Yes. Um then I'd make a motion to uh move forward with the uh resolution uh on the on the slide and then uh with additional recommendation to the council.

Okay. So just to be clear, your motion is to recommend that the city council do numbers one and two as depicted on the slide and to go ahead. Oh, and and sorry. Um what is the additional recommendation you want to make from city council? And the additional recommendation to uh request that public works look into the uh signage um uh timed uh no parking signage uh on uh Lel. Great. Thank you. Y second. May we have a roll call vote, please?

Through the chair. Sorry, just to verify who is it that seconded the motion. Commissioner Bush. Thank you, Commissioner Bush. And for the vote, Vice Chair Clafter, yes. Commissioner Bush, yes. Chair Patel, yes. And Commissioner Williams, yes. Thank you. The motion passes 40. And with that, we will end this item. And I would request um from our clerk that we take a 10-minute break before moving on to the next item. Thank you everyone for coming. [clears throat]

Thank you. All right, we are back from our break and we will move on to item number two on our agenda, the accessory dwelling unit residence zoning code amendments. We will start with a staff presentation, applicant presentation, and public comments. Members of the public are given two to three minutes to speak depending on the number of speakers. The applicant may also be given five minutes at the end to respond to the public comments. Once the public hearing is closed, I may ask staff to respond to any public comments and the commission will ask clarifying questions, deliberate, and render a decision. Finally, if a decision is made tonight, the decision of the planning commission can be appealed to the city council within 10 calendar days. Um, before we get started, I will also note that I currently have an open ADU application with the city. Um, we are pretty far along in the process, just putting the final touches on our third submission and expect to have that in shortly. So, with that, um, can we have the staff presentation? Great. All right. Good evening, planning commission and members of the public. I'm Liz Galliardi, an associate planner with the community development department, and I'm going to be giving the presentation for this item tonight. So, before I dive in, just a quick background of what I'm going to cover. Um, I'll start with background on ADUs in Sonteo and some info about the broader regulatory context, followed by a summary of the proposed updates to our ADU ordinance and then ending with the recommendation before the planning commission tonight. And just to set the stage before we dive in, um, what is an ADU? An ADU is an accessory dwelling unit. Um, it's a separate self-contained home on a property with a primary unit. An ADU must have its own separate exterior

entrance, bathroom, kitchen, and area for living and sleeping. And they can be built on any residential property, both single family and multifamily. And what is a JADU? So, a JADU or junior accessory dwelling unit is a special subset of ADUs. So, it's a special type of conversion ADU subject to some additional requirements. Jedus are only allowed on single family homes, so not in multifamily, and they have to be located within the walls of the main home or an attached garage. Similar to ADUs, JADUs have to have their own entrance, kitchen, and living and sleeping area, but they can share a bathroom with the main home and are subject to more restrictive size requirements. So, just to give some context about how ADUs are regulated, um, ADU regulations are affected both by state law and local policies. The state department of housing and community development, which I'll refer to as HCD, has authority to enforce state ADU laws and to review local ordinances for compliance. Additionally, cities have the option to adopt a local regulations through an ordinance. The local ADU ordinance cannot be more restrictive than state law. And then in Sonteo, the city also has a local commitment within our housing element under policy H1.4 to support increased ADU development. This policy includes several implementation actions, one of which is to amend the city's ADU ordinance to align with current state law and resolve any inconsistencies identified by HCD. And just some timeline context for how we got to today with the updates proposed. So going back to 2016 and then

again in 2019, these are two landmark years for state ADU legislation um when the state legislature passed sweeping laws to promote ADU development statewide. And they've continued to make updates to state law since that time. On March 21st of 2022, that's when the city of Sonteo updated our local ADU ordinance, which reflects the current statute that we have on the books today. Then in 2024, HCD provided a formal review letter to the city reviewing our ADU ordinance identifying specific areas that need to be updated to come into compliance with state law. That letter is included as an attachment to the report. And then in 2025, so January of this year, um HCD published an updated ADU handbook which summarizes some of the many changes that have made been made to state law in recent years. And then more recently in August of this year, this item was brought to the planning commission during a study session. So some of what is being discussed tonight was already contemplated a little bit in that meeting. Um following the study session back in September of this year, staff held a virtual community webinar to give some additional Q&A time and information um for community engagement on this topic. And just a snapshot of where we're at with ADU permitting. Since um the current ADU ordinance was adopted in March of 2022, the city has seen pretty strong and steady ADU production. Um about 75 ADU permits on average are issued per year. It does vary a little bit year-to-year with a slight dip in 2024, but we're back on track with strong ADU production. Um 85 ADU permits issued already this year. and we're not

even at the end of the year. So now I'm going to get into the ADU ordinance updates. The updates proposed to the city's ordinance fall into two categories. So the first are changes to address HCD comments specifically for state law compliance and that's what I'll focus on in the first part of the presentation. In the second half of the presentation, I will pivot to discussing additional local changes that we are proposing to address community needs and improve functionality of the ordinance. And I'm going to try and go through these rather quickly. Um they're all discussed in much more detail in the pres the staff report and happy to come back to anything that we need to dive into further in discussion. So this is a snapshot of the many changes that have been proposed specifically in response to comments from HCD. The first is updates to some definitions. So there is a new definition section that's been added to the draft ordinance to improve overall functionality. Um right here I'm going to call out two definitions that have been updated specifically in response to HCD's review. The first is our ADU definition. Um, this has been updated to include a reference to multifamily structures. It previously only referred to single family. Additionally, a new definition has been added for multifamily dwelling structure, which is defined in the context of state edu law to mean a structure with two or more attached primary residential dwelling units. Next, we've made some changes to address separate sale of ADUs. The current ordinance doesn't allow for ADUs to be sold separately from the primary residence in any situation. However, government code section 66341 includes an allowance for separate sale

of ADUs when they're developed by a qualified nonprofit subject to specific criteria. So, the ordinance includes a reference to this provision. Next, we have some clarification around fees. The ordinance updates specify that no impact fee may be charged for an ADU that is less than 750 ft in size. And then for larger ADUs over 750 ft, those impact fees must be proportional to the size of the primary unit. Additionally, the updated ordinance makes clear that sewer connection fees or capacity charges can only be applied when an ADU is built with a new primary residential dwelling unit. And I'll note that these things are done in practice, but made more clear in the updated ordinance. The next change is removal of language referring to a variance process for ADUs. This has been taken out of the ordinance in response to a comment received from HCD. I'll also note that while this variance reference has been removed, the ordinance continues to include provisions for an ADU discretionary review alternative, which I'll get into a bit more in the latter half of the presentation. The next change addresses the number of ADUs that can be created on a single family lot. So the current ordinance allows for up to two ADUs to be built on a single family property. So that would consist of one ADU in combination with one junior ADU. And HCD has clarified that up to three ADUs must be allowed on a single family property. So this includes up to two ADUs and one junior ADU. Um the two ADUs would be one attached or conversion ADU and one detached new construction ADU. So those

three different types are clearly defined in the updates. Next are changes to address front setback clarification. Um under the current ordinance. This is not clear. So it's been updated to clarify that no front setback is required for stateex exempt ADUs. We will continue to apply a front yard setback of the underlying zoning um for non-exempt ADUs. And just to give some context what I mean by stateex exempt versus non-exempt. Stateexempt ADUs are units that are described specifically in government code section 66323. So what does that mean? That includes conversion ADUs. So conversions of existing space and a new construction ADU of up to 800 square ft with 4ft side and rear setbacks. A non-exempt ADU would be any unit that is not covered by the provisions of that government code. So functionally that would be new construction ADUs that are larger than 800 square ft in size. Similar to front yard setbacks, um HCD provided us guidance that our ADU architectural standards cannot apply to stateex exempt ADUs. So, it's been clarified that these architectural standards would only apply to non-exempt ADUs. Additionally, state law requires that all standards applied to ADUs must be objective. Objective standards are things that are clear, measurable, and uniformly applied and do not rely on personal judgment. So, HCD's review letter identified several architectural standards in the current ADU ordinance that are not objective. So, these have been removed from the draft update. Next are some updates specific to junior

ADUs. The first is related to interior access between the JADU and the main home. Currently, our ordinance requires this for all junior ADUs. Um, and HCD has clarified this that this can only be required when the JADU shares a bathroom or thermostat with the main home. In other situations, it would be voluntary. Additionally, the current ordinance sets a maximum JADU size at 650 square ft and this has been updated to a 500 square f foot maximum for junior ADUs in the draft ordinance update per guidance from HCD. Next for JADUs are some updates to deed restriction provisions. So currently we do require a deed restriction be recorded for junior ADUs and the pro provisions of that deed restriction have been updated to only list the items that are outlined specifically in state law. So these are prohibition on separate sale of the junior ADU and we can also include a description in the deed restriction of the size and attributes of the unit. We have removed the following provisions from the deed restriction. So, these are prohibition on short-term rental and owner occupancy requirements. These things will still be required and enforced. They just will not be specifically listed in deed restrictions. And this is per guidance from HCD. Um, I will also note here that owner occupancy requirements will be changing with an update to state law as of January 1st, 2026. So to get ahead of that, um we've aligned the draft ordinance update to meet those requirements. Um owner occupancy will only be required for junior ADUs when they share a bathroom with the main home.

And the last um updates that are related to state law requirements are for multifamily ADUs. So the main change to note here is the regarding the number of ADUs allowed on multifamily properties. Um under Senate Bill 1211, this has been changed to allow on properties with an existing multifamily residential unit up to eight new detached edus. That number would match the number of primary units on the property, not to exceed that number. So, for example, a property with three primary units could have up to three ADUs. Um, additionally, conversion ADUs are also allowed on existing multifamily properties, and these would need to be conversions of non-livable space like a garage or a storage area, and those can be at least one and up to 25% of the existing unit count. Then for properties with a proposed new construction multifamily project, those can include up to two new detached ADUs. So now that we've covered the HCD comment revisions, um the next section of the presentation will dive into additional changes that are proposed um beyond the scope of what's specifically required by state law. A lot of these changes were discussed in detail at the August 26th planning commission study session. So I'll try to keep this high level and happy to um come back to anything that requires further discussion. So this is a snapshot of the different standards that we will be looking into for more local control and I'll get into each in more detail. Starting with our ADU discretionary review or ADUDR process. So, just for

some context around what state law requires here, um, state law requires that ADUs can be approved ministerially when they meet all requirements outlined in state law and it also allows the city to impose objective standards on ADUs. So, in Sonteo, the existing ordinance includes a ministerial review option for ADUs that meet all of our objective standards to address this state law requirement. And in addition, we have another option for the ADUDR, which is an alternative review process for discretionary review of any unit ADU unit that does not meet the objective standards of the ordinance. In the August study session, the planning commission directed staff to maintain the ADUDR process in the updated ordinance. So, it it has been um left in the ordinance, has not been removed. The ADUDR process has been amended a little bit with some changes proposed to clarify how the discretionary review will proceed and how it's applied. So these updates include clarification for what standards can be reviewed under ADUDR. This would apply only to exceptions to objective standards such as height setbacks and daylight plane, but would not be allowed to increase the available floor area of a lot. Additionally, the findings for the ADUDR application have been updated to be a little bit more clear and straightforward. And the process for ADUDR appeals has proposed to be changed from going to planning commission on to city council when appealed um to a hearing officer instead. Um, and I won't dive too much into this, but just wanted to reshare some of the stats around what we've seen ADUDRS um, be used for in the time since the

ordinance was adopted in its current form. And the reasons that ADUDRS have been saw are to seek exceptions to setbacks, um, taller ADUs above our height limit, and for large second story decks primarily. The next item I just wanted to touch on briefly is maximum ADU size. So there was discussion of this brought to the planning commission in the August study session. Um for some context with state law, um local jurisdictions must allow at least a byite ADU of up to 800 square ft with 4ft side and rear setback. So that's going to be your state exempt unit. And in addition, state law stipulates that a local agency cannot impose a maximum ADU size that does not allow for at least 800 square foot for a studio or one bedroom or 1,000 square ft for an ADU with more than one bedroom. Currently, the local ordinance actually does not set a maximum size on ADUs. Rather, the ADU size for units over 800 square feet is regulated by floor area ratio of the lot. with an exemption of up to 800 square feet of ADU living area from that total floor area requirement. Additionally, ADUs can't be larger than the primary dwelling unit. At this time, we have not proposed any change to this existing local standard. Um, this was discussed at the planning commission study session and direction was provided to staff to not introduce additional size restrictions on ADUs. So, the only changes here are just to kind of clean up some of that language and clarify how that floor area exemption is applied. Next, I'll look at height standards for detached ADUs. So, for context, state law requires that the city must allow

for detached ADUs up to 16 ft in height. And then for ADUs near transit or on lots with multi-story multif family buildings, there's an additional two feet that's required. So up to 18 feet plus 2 feet on top of that to allow for a match matching roof pitch on the ADU to the main home. Additionally, the local ordinance has to allow for twotory detached ADUs. Um, I'll also note here that there's a slight difference in how state law addresses height standards versus how we typically review them in San Monteo. Um, so for state law, it does not distinguish a difference between top plate height and roof peak height. It's only looking at total height of the structure versus in Sonteo, we have a standard to the top plate as well as the roof peak. So with that, our current local standard allows for detached ADUs up to 16 feet to top wall plate and 24 ft to roof peak. The proposed update provides an additional 2 ft to that top plate. So it would be at 18 ft top wall plate and 24 ft roof peak. These are all measured from existing grade. And the diagram here kind of shows some of the comparisons for where that those different height measurements would fall on a structure. And I just wanted to provide a little bit of added context for how this fits in with our single family zoning districts. So in single family zones, homes are allowed to be up to 24 ft to top wall plate and 32 feet to roof peak. So this diagram kind of shows how an ADU, a detached ADU built to the proposed maximum height standard would compare to a single family home built to the maximums um of an R1 zoning district. So it would still be smaller

in scale than the maximum allowed by single family, but just adding a little bit of height to that top wall plate to accommodate a more comfortable two-story structure. The next set of updates are related to setbacks. So the current standard requires that 4 foot side and rear setbacks be provided for all ADUs. The updated SE standard would include an exemption for ADUs that meet accessory dwelling, sorry, accessory structure requirements in the rear one-third of a parcel. And this diagram provides a little bit more context for what that setback exception would look like. So this would only apply to ADUs that meet the same standards that are required for accessory structures in the rear third of a single family property. So by design that would require these structures to be built to a lower plate height and daylight plane with a 9- ft plate height max. They'd be limited to one story and could not occupy more than 50% of a required yard. And functionally, what this exception would allow for is conversion ADUs of accessory structures to come through a one-step permitting process rather than have an applicant apply to build an accessory structure and come back to convert it to an ADU. The next topic area where updates are proposed surrounds parking requirements for ADUs. So there's a lot of text on this slide, but it's going through all of the ex exemptions from parking that are required under state law for ADUs, and they are numerous. Um, the main one to focus on is proximity to transit. And this map shows in Sonteo that the vast majority of residential

properties are already exempt from requiring any parking on an ADU just due to these existing exemptions under state law. So the red circles show properties that are more than a half mile from a transit stop as defined by state law. Currently, our local regulations do require one parking stall to be provided for ADUs that are not in an exempt area, but it applies to very few parcels in the city. So, with that in mind, the updated standard in the draft ordinance would be to eliminate all required off- streetet parking for ADUs citywide. Um, and this was deliberated at the planning commission study session um with direction to proceed with this exemption. However, the planning commission also directed staff to consider creative approaches to incentivize voluntary parking pro provisions for ADUs with the um understanding that parking in single family neighborhoods can be impacted and when you're adding units, there's also cars that come with them oftent times. So, we took a close look at this and have added some updated standards for voluntary parking. These include allowing up to two voluntary parking spaces per ADU. These ADU parking stalls could be allowed in tandem configurations um to allow for more flexible parking. Existing driveways and curb cuts may remain in place even when a garage is demolished or converted to an ADU. And I'll note this is already being done in practice but would be codified with the updated ordinance. And then the two new ones would be that driveways can be expanded up to 20 feet in width. And this would allow a few extra feet to accommodate for more parking area. And I think the one that probably is the biggest change from when

we last considered this with the planning commission is a added provision um that setback exemptions for covered parking structures that are within the footprint of a twostory ADU would be applied. So, for example, if a ADU is proposed to be built to a 4-ft setback along a street sideyard, normally a garage would have a greater setback requirement. And with this provision, if the garage fits entirely within the footprint of the ADU above it, it could also be afforded that 4ft setback. So, it' look something maybe like the photo on the screen. And then the final set of changes that are being proposed with the local updates are around secondstory decks and balconies. So under our current ordinance, all second story decks and balconies proposed with an ADU must go through a discretionary review. The updated draft includes some carveouts to allow for second story decks and balconies to be considered ministerially when they meet specific requirements. So that would be that no portion of the deck or balcony is within the side or rear setback of the underlying zoning district. So there would be some added buffers built in through that provision. The deck or balcony cannot exceed 50 square ft which is meant to provide for like more passive use by tenants rather than a large gathering space. And then finally that the deck is interior facing towards the property that it exists on. they're not facing over a neighbor's yard or into a neighbor's windows. And that's meant to be an objective standard to get at some of the privacy concerns that had previously come up with these decks and balconies. And I'll note that the ADUDR process would remain available for designs that include a deck or balcony that doesn't meet these standards with

the added caveat that roof decks are always prohibited for ADUs. And then finally, I also wanted to draw attention to the memorandum that was passed around to the planning commission. This is a desk amendment to include a small adjustment to the draft ordinance um to add some language under our multifamily ADU standards to include the provision that any additional ADUs as allowed pursuant to state law be considered. Um, this is in context from a conversation that staff had with HCD, um, and would just kind of cover us for any future changes to state law there and make sure that we're staying compliant with state law. So, with that, I will leave the recommendation before the planning commission tonight on the screen and happy to take any questions. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Um, since there is no applicant, uh, I think we will go next to the public comment. So, if there are any members of the audience that would like to give a public comment on this item, um, I don't think we have anyone in person, so speaker slips don't count, but if there's anyone watching remotely who would like to give a public comment, now is the time to raise your hand. Do we have any public comments on this item? So, the chair, we have no public commenters at this time via Zoom.

Great. I will go ahead and close the public comment on this item. Um, and now we will move on to clarifying questions. Um, before we move to clarifying questions, I'm I'm just going to state real quick, my goal is for us to not have to vote to extend past 11 p.m. So, I'm going to do what I can to try and help us meet that goal. Um, but do we have any clarifying questions from commissioners? Commissioner Bush. Well, I I volunteered to start just because I feel like it's easier, but I started the last time, so I don't know. Please. Okay. All right. [laughter] I just have one question. Amazing.

Keep into that 11:00 p.m. cut off. Um, and I actually just thought of it while you were talking. the uh interior balcony for the ADUs. If it's a um if it's a lot that doesn't abut on one side, let's say it's like the end of the street, so it's not ab budding a neighboring property. If you wanted to add a second story balcony on an ADU that faces a vacant or non-existent property, you could just go through the ADU DR process to get that approved, right?

Yeah. Through the chair, that would be the process. Um, since it's a strict objective standard, we wouldn't really look at ob exceptions outside of the ADUDR process. Okay. Okay. That was my only question. Commissioner Cfter, do you have any clarifying questions? I I I think I also have one uh clarifying question um on the the uh ADODR appeal process. There was a mention of a uh um the decision of the zoning administrator may be appealed to the city manager or designate which may be a hearing officer and and just clarification on who the hearing officer is or or the design in this case. Great question. We never heard that term before.

So that was placed I think the goal is that it would be a hearing officer does cost the city additional money there. that is usually more like an administrative process say for a code enforcement citation that can be appealed to a hearing officer. So the goal of the language really was the um the city manager would kind of be the appeals body to kind of shorten an appeal rather than planning commission and city council. We put city manager or their designate. In theory, it could they could designate a hearing officer if they wanted to, but that they might just designate um if for some reason they weren't available, it would be assistant city manager or something. So the goal would be it's appealed to the city manager who would kind of act like a hearing officer or is only administrator.

So the so the hearing officer if it was not the city manager would be like a third party who was actually from outside who was hired to for this purpose. Is that what you're saying? In theory it could be. I think practically speaking that wouldn't be the approach. I think a hearing officer is better for something say like a cit of a citation. Yeah. Um it it would most likely be another staff member within the city. That's and that's typical language like director or their designated city manager or their designated um just um for the practicality that a staff member would probably have a much greater degree of familiarity with city codes. Okay, thank you. Um

okay, thank you. Um that was one of my questions and uh the other one Okay. The other one is about um this I'm just wondering if you can provide like you probably did already, but I want to be sure I understand the difference between a JADU and an attached ADU. Is a JADU like specifically within the existing building that is then remodeled to create it? It's not involving an addition to the building at all.

Yeah, through the chair. That's right. So, it's a little bit splitting hairs. Um, the real difference between a JADU and an ADU, well, there's a few. The the one of them is that it has to be created within the walls of an existing single family residence in or an attached garage. We have allowed Jedus to be considered as part of an addition project. Um, however, that addition would go through the same process as any other residential addition. So, it wouldn't be afforded like special treatment because of a JADU. Um, and then the other main differences are going to be in terms of owner occupancy, although that is changing a little bit with the new updates to state law to only be required when it shares a bathroom facility. Um there's also a deed restriction requirement for junior ADUs. Um they have a smaller size limit and then the I think I'm missing something. Yeah, they're they're they can be quite similar to an attached ADU in terms of how it's designed and how it functions. Um but if something is designated as a junior ADU, it would be subject to those additional requirements if that makes sense.

Yeah, that makes sense. Through the chair, um I did want to note there is one other um key distinction which is through the building code. Um if you're a junior, a Jedu, you don't need fire separation require you don't need to have a 1 hour of fire rated wall. You also don't necessarily need to have separate utilities um to go with it. Um, if you were an attached ADU, you need that fire separation. You'll need separate sewer, water, um, a sub panel. Um, as a JDU, you could utilize utilities from the existing house and you wouldn't need that fire separation. Okay, thanks. That helps. Commissioner Williams, may I piggyback on your question because one of mine is very similar to yours, but it's slightly different.

So, I kind of wrapped my brain kind of got um wrapped into pretzels looking at the new definitions. So I wanted to ask clarification on my questions. Okay. Um there's now a distinction between new construction or conversion

and there's a distinction between attached and detached. And so I was wondering if you can have a new construction attached ADU because there's this line in the definition that says an attached ADU uses quote existing or sorry there's there's a line that says a conversion uses quote existing structural components of the primary dwelling unit. And I was wondering if like it's an attached ADU and you're attaching it to the existing dwelling unit, like you're going to literally attach it to an exterior wall. Is leveraging that exterior wall considered an existing structural component? Because then it seems like there is no such thing as a new construction attached ADU anymore. There'll all be conversions.

Yeah, through the chair. That's a good point. And the these definitions were actually added um to give more clarification with the HCD direction that we now have to allow three ADUs. Um the an attached ADU can be new construction. The a conversion ADU would really be if you're looking at existing space and no additional square footage that's new. Um once you start to introduce additional new square footage, then it becomes new construction.

Okay, good. Because I was worried about the inverse case that if there is no such thing as a new construction ADU and all attached ADUs have to be conversions, then you can't expand the square footage. But it seems like it's really accounting for the reverse scenario. Yes, that's correct. Yeah, that's it. Yeah.

Oh, great. Well, and then I only had one other question. Um, but I will say uh first uh I'll just thank staff for this uh agenda report which was extremely comprehensive and I think the reason that we only have one or two questions each is because it was so detailed. So thank you so much for the team that prepared that. My only other question was are there any other types of development applications where the appeals are decided by the city manager or a designated officer? [clears throat] tree appeals.

There are um yeah, so for tree permits um those those appeals go to the parks and recreation director and um probably in the near future since private property tree removals have been moved to CDD um the private property tree removals could be appealed to the CDD director. Okay. Are there any discretionary projects with discretionary review that are appealed to the city manager or designate? Um, no, they're not. And at this point, anything in the the zoning code would be appealed to the planning commission. Okay, great. That was only my that's my only other question. So, anybody think of any additional questions while we've been chatting?

Well, I I had a note here. I I mean it was just sort of like a it's not like a it's an odd question. I was wondering like what's anam I was trying to think of an example of something that would require a variance for an ADU because you know I guess I guess it would have to be an unusual site or something like that because I can't think of why you would do that when it's ministerial review. So anyway, just me pondering different options through the chair. You may need a variance um for a setback possibly depending on the shape of the lot. I don't know if um if staff agrees maybe.

Yeah, if there's like a triangular shaped lot and there's really no place to put an ADU. I've literally gone before the planning commission for a variance on a triangular shaped lot in Los Altos or somewhere like that. So all I could think of too. Okay.

Awesome. Moving forward into our own comments and deliberation, I'm going to make a suggestion and that is that per the uh the way that the very comprehensive agenda report was structured, it itemized all of the changes into 23 items. And so when I wrote my notes, I organized my notes in the same way. Um, so I would suggest because there's so many items rather than us going one at a time with all of our comments, which then made it really difficult to piggyback on each other and discuss and keep those trains of thought top of mind, that we go one by one on each of those 23 items. And um I suspect that sounds really overwhelming, but I suspect we may not have comments on all of them. So it might actually go pretty quickly.

Um yes, that sounds fine. And I want to say I have very few comments because two things. I mean, we saw this in August and talked through all of these things extensively and this is the result of that. And then secondly, these are responses to HCD comments which we kind of don't have too much choice in the matter on that. So

I I I absolutely agree with that. I I think that um I I see a lot of the all the discussion that we had the very lengthy discussion that we had represented very clearly in the uh changes and in the st and again the very comprehensive staff report. So I I'm fully in agreement there. It's a brilliant idea. [laughter]

Okay, let's get started. So, um, ADU number one, ADU definition. Anyone have any comments on the ADU definition? Great. Seeing none, moving forward to number two, multifamily dwelling structure definition. I will be the nerd who says I have comments on this. Yeah.

Okay. So, one, the first one is is sort of a comment, sort of a question, and I'll direct this one to staff. Am I understanding now that there's going to be two definitions of multifamily dwelling unit? One within the ADU ordinance that defines a multif family dwelling unit as two or more primary dwellings and then one outside of the ADU ordinance that says it's three or more.

Yeah. So, through the chair, sort of. Yes. Um it's it's a very in the weeds I would say. Um the existing ordinance definitions outside of the ADU section include a definition for multiple family dwelling which would be the three or more. Um we also have a definition for two family dwelling which by state law would be considered multif family but isn't really addressed in our ADU ordinance. Um, so to remedy that, rather than try to parse out the definitions and apply them citywide when this is really focused on um, EDU applications, we've created a definition section that is only applicable to the ADU chapter. And within that, the definition for multifamily dwelling structure is defined to align with what's considered multif family for ADU law, which does differ from how we would define multifamily um in other cases. Um they're very similar, but one is multiple family dwelling and the other is multifamily dwelling structure. So, I think multifamily gets used as the common term to

talk about all of these things, but if you were really to dig into the weeds of it, they are distinct.

I have a slight concern that that might be confusing to the average person. Um, but I also don't know how many average people are going to be this far in the weeds of the [laughter] code. So, it might be uh kind of an unfounded concern. Um, my other comment, and this is an extremely nitpicky comment, so I apologize in advance. Um, looking at the track changes ordinance in the definition section. Um, so multifamily dwelling structure means a structure with two or more attached primary residential dwelling units. And then immediately following that, it says single family dwelling structure means a one family dwelling primary residential unit that either stands alone on a lot or is detached from other primary residential dwelling units. I um I just thought it was uh a a little bit odd that the definition of multifamily dwelling structure just says it's two or more attached primary dwelling units, but the definition of single family dwelling structure specifically calls out that it's a one family. Like the second one mentions the number of families, but the multif family doesn't. And I thought you might be able to just simplify that definition by just saying single family dwelling structure means a what did I put in my notes?

Um a primary residential dwelling unit. So that way it's not calling out the number of families through the chair. Um this is all very specific to respond to HCD. Okay. So I my suggest is maybe look at all the HCD related comments in one bundle because we'll want to look very closely because um we we worked with HCD to make sure that our language met their requirements and we have to come through with a second amendment plan response. Totally fine. You want to identify the numbers

I believe and and maybe Liz can weigh in on it. One other thing too is I think this would be a good note as we move forward with our comprehensive zoning code update to look at our definitions in our largest um zoning ordinance to align here to avoid kind of the confusion you're highlighting but just sensitivity because HC was very specific about exactly how they wanted to see the language that went totally understand. So that is fine. I do not need to get into a back and forth with them. Um okay. Uh so if there's no other on that one we could move on to number three. Does anyone have any comments on the allowance for separate sale of ADUs per government code section 66341?

I just noted agreed as required by HCD. All righty. Next one. Number four, proportionality for ADU impact fees. No takers. Okay. Number five, utility fee clarification. Seeing none. Number six, removal of reference to variance process. Let's see. Why did I have comments on that? Let me just uh I guess I just said okay. Yep. [laughter] Number seven, number of ADUs permitted with single family. Again, as per HCD, I believe. So, yes, that's what I said. Number eight, front setback clarification.

Nope. Oh, I do have a comment. So, I think I brought this up in August and maybe it's not important just to me. Maybe [laughter] it just seems like shouldn't there be some reference for meeting the CBC requirements for fire ratings if you're within the setbacks. Um, or maybe I'm reading the wrong thing. That would be a building code requirement. So, we wouldn't get into that in the zoning code. Okay. Okay. Never mind. Okay, next one. Number nine.

Yes. Sorry, I'm scrolling back and forth in my notes. Architectural standards not applicable to stateex exempt ADUs. I have one on this. [laughter] Okay. So, in the um proposed ordinance, it is chapter 27.19.0660 06 060 subsection G1 specifies the daylight plane requirements and I'm wonder specifically requires ADUs to meet the daylight plane requirements of R1 districts and I'm wondering if this should be meet the requirements of the underlying zoning district and not be specifically tied to R1 because I was thinking about you can apply for an ADU I believe in any residential district. So, what if you're applying for an ADU in an R5 district? Like, does it make sense to be tied to the daylight plane requirements of R1?

Is that's only R1? Yeah. [clears throat] If I may offer through the chair, um, just for context, R1 is the only zoning district that includes any daylight plane standards. Um, so there there are none in other zoning districts. Oh, yeah. Does it make sense to require daylight plane requirements on ADUs if there if other structures in that district don't have daylight plane requirements?

I mean, I'm in favor of them in R1 where where they exist or apply where they where the requirement exists or it applies. So you're you're talking about where what if you have an R4

property and the all of the adjacent properties in that R4 district aren't meeting the R1 daylight plane requirement and then you propose an ADU on that lot and then that ADU is being held to a daylight plane standard that none of the surrounding properties were held to. So right now is it saying that we that there needs to be a daylight plane um regardless? Yeah. I mean we just we would just need to distinguish I guess in R1 where [clears throat] daylight plane

requirements apply. it's, you know, you must meet them, but all other um zoning you wouldn't need to because they don't apply. So, that's what I'm asking. Like, should it should it say meet the daylight plan requirements of the un zoning [clears throat] district instead of saying meet the daylight plan requirements of the R1 zoning district? Okay, I see what you're saying. That makes sense to me. What is

Yeah, through the chair. I just if I may just offer a a point of context for our larger zoning code. Um the way that our residential districts are set up currently, it's additive. So R1 establishes your single family. R2 establishes any uses permitted in R1 districts subject to the same regulations and exceptions plus additional things and so on. So in any context, a new single family residential dwelling unit would still be subject to that R1 daylight plane standard even in a different zoning district. Okay.

So I believe the intention here was to view ADUs as a similar product type to single family and apply that same daylight plane. Um if that helps add context to this conversation. That totally does. That makes sense to me. I think what I was worried about was holding ADUs to a different daylight plane standard than already exists in that zoning district. But if all single family dwellings are held to the R1 daylight plane already, then then that that consistency makes sense to me. Okay. Okay.

I withdraw my suggestion or question. Uh number 10, design standards, removal of subjective standards. Any questions on that comments? No. No. I think we're still in the HD section. Number 11, JADU interior access requirements. Nope. Great. I I um Oh, sorry. Yeah. Yeah. No, no, nothing there. Nope. Okay. Number 12, maximum J8U size. I'll I'll just say that I'm I was uh bummed. I was also [clears throat]

to see that HCD uh when we actually were saying hey and I and I understand from the comments that uh and and the discussion from our previous session that most applicants were not taking advantage of the opportunity to do a JADU above 500 ft uh square feet in size but that I I I think we all agreed uh I don't shouldn't speak for everybody I feel like that there was a general consensus that uh it was nice that the city was allowing some flexibility on that point. Uh so yes, bummed that HCD said no.

Yeah, it's odd to see them require us to be more restrictive um than we were trying to be. That's unusual. All right. Number 13, JADU deed restriction requirements. Any comments? No. Nope. Uh number 14, addition of multifamily ADU development standards. Nope. Okay, great. Number 15, addition of a definition section. Nope. Number 16, updates to discretionary review as an alternative to ministerial review. Uh I have at least one. I also have at least one. Um why don't you go first?

Um yes. So uh uh overall I appreciate um a lot of the recommendations uh and the changes updates that have been uh been made here. Um I feel that they incorporated uh our uh discussion uh again from previous session. Um I also uh feel that you know uh I feel like there was a real uh uh good attempt uh to make the make a discretionary process as objective as possible. uh and um I just maintain my feeling from before which is that um we have a fantastic uh you know um uh process here a ministerial process which is available to 100% of Zamonteo residents uh and that um I just think that you know it's good that we have I I think it's a it's a net benefit to residents that we maintain this this sort of uh opportunity here when I think was the language um in there basically saying, you know, if if if for some reason the ministerial process doesn't work that there's this other avenue there and I just think that that's uh good government. Uh great. I have a couple comments on this one. So, scroll back to my notes. Okay. So on um sub item A clarification of ADUDR applicability um I actually preferred the previous more open-ended language. So this previously said um an applicant may submit an application for discretionary review of an ADU proposal that is not in full compliance with the provisions of this article. Um, to me, discretionary review is like pressing zero when you want to talk to a real human being. When you're stuck in the phone tree, it's like, I have a weird situation and I just need to talk to a person.

Um, and so now there is the the proposed language is making the discretionary process a little bit more restrictive. It's limiting it to to just height, setback, daylight, plane, and secondstory balcony exemptions. And so I worry like as I look through any policy position, the way my brain works is I'm trying to think of all the possible edge cases that could run into issues with the way things are worded. And I worry by restricting the availability of discretionary review, we may preclude ADUs from being built that run into issues other than those four. like what if there's some reason because of the site configuration or existing structure layout that an applicant needs a driveway that's wider than 20 ft or what if um there's a house on my street where there's a second story I don't know if it's a separate unit but there's a second story living area where the exterior staircase leads up to a balcony and then access to the second story is through the balcony Um but now that the way these design requirements are worded uh sec a exterior staircase can only have a landing that is the minimally required by the California building code. So like what if there's some site compactness reason that an applicant wants to combine an exterior balcony with a second with a exterior staircase and now they have no option for discretionary review to be able to ask to do something like that. So, I would prefer that we keep the previous language that says an applicant may submit an application for discretionary review of an ADU proposal that is not in full compliance with the provisions of this article, especially since the volume of discretionary review applications didn't seem that high. But I do think we need to keep the additional sentence that says that

discretionary review can't be used to increase the maximum allowable floor area. Mhm. Yeah. I feel like that's a good catch on your part and that makes sense. Can we do that? Can we were my fellow commissioners um in agreement with that recommendation? Was there a I I assume there was a conscious decision at some point to limit it to these couple of criteria or

Well, if I recall the conversation in August about decks and balconies, it was kind of confusing and vague. And so I don't know if this if that's, you know, if that's how this ended up kind of getting in there. I don't feel like it was conclusive. Yeah, I mean on I mean on the staff side following our conversation in August, was there is there was there a specific reason for choosing these couple of criteria as opposed to having this broader

Yeah. through the chair. I think it was meant to actually give more clarity to the types of exceptions that could be sought under this. So carving out that F would not be something that could be considered. Um and then the ones the other ones that were listed height setback or daylight plan, those are just the other common exceptions that we've seen ADUD be used for. So, it felt like a natural um list to to apply there. As well as those are the really the only objective standards in this section of the ordinance that we could conceive of someone getting an exception to or seeking an exception to. So, from the staff perspective, I guess it sounds like there's not there's not a real issue with um Chair Patel's proposal because those were just intended to be examples, not purposefully limiting. Is that

right through the chair? The the floor area was purposely limiting. The others would would just be any objective standard. Okay. I'm in support of the proposal. Okay. Yeah. So, it sounds like we're in support of keeping it to any objective standard under the article with the addition of the you can't use it for expanding the maximum allowable size. Yeah.

I I Yeah. I mean I I I think I think my you know my main feeling last time uh was that you know what we what this what the what the intention you know tonight and in the previous session was to to do is just to expand the number of of projects which uh would not require this process uh which I think is accomplished here. So like if you know if if uh you know if if 90% of you know projects that people you know like we're we're we're good before and it's you know 99 now right that we just that 1% uh still making it possible to kind of also consider those 1% and um so I feel like we're we're in that direction and and uh just in terms of the specific language yeah I mean you know it's like the unforeseen how do you plan for the unforeseen you know well you kind of have to be a little broader potentially.

Yeah, that that is where my brain is always going. How you plan for the unforeseen. Okay, so it sounds like where we're comfortable with what I suggested. Yes,

I'll move on in the interest of time to the next sub bullet point. Um, actually, I think I'm the only one with comments on this section, so I'll just keep going. I had some uh comments on the updated ADUDR findings. Um so in the agenda report it's it's sub item four proposes a finding that ensures there is justification for an exception to a specific ADU development standard. That finding made me uneasy for two reasons. Um, one, I don't think we're ever going to be able to envision all of the possible reasonable justifications that may govern an applicant's design choices and then be able to enumerate acceptance criteria that covers all of them. Um, and like for example, what if it's theoretically possible to meet a development standard, but the resulting design and construction methods are 50% more expensive than a design option that violated the standard? You know, what if what if an applicant is trying to replicate historic architecture in their neighborhood or they're trying to match the surrounding built environment, but the features they're trying to replicate violate the current design standards? Like, is that a good enough justification? So, I'm just I'm worried about the idea of justification and then I'm also concerned about this proposed finding because the determination of the finding feels very subjective. So, like imagine two design choices, one that meets the standard and one doesn't and the one that doesn't is 50% cheaper. Is a 50% cost increase and undue hardship? Because, you know, there's a there's a evaluation criteria that talks about undue hardship. So it's like a 50% cost increase in undue hardship. What about a 15% cost increase? Like how do you It feels like a very subjective determination. Or for example, what if an application asks to exceed the height

limit by 5T? Is that minimizing the deviation? Uh does the answer that question change if all of the adjacent properties are 20 ft taller than the proposed ADU? Like you know is is 5T minimizing deviation? is two feet minimizing deviation like the the evaluation criteria to that finding just feels very subjective to me which is making me uneasy. So I think I would prefer not to have that finding because I don't know how to do it in a way that feels objective. Isn't that this like a central finding of the grant of discretion? I mean, isn't that isn't this the whole kitten kaboodleoodle? Like, you can't grant you wouldn't grant an ADUDR process without a finding that there's a reason to do so.

There's a reason to grant the application. Well, there's always a reason, right? Or else they wouldn't be asking to do it. But like I think what this is trying to do is is put criteria around that reason being good enough. And I'm saying how do you evaluate that? Or is it just it maybe this is just an inherently subjective finding and it's really just completely up to staff determination to see is like is that good enough to ask for a point you mentioned about architectural like trying to match the sort of like a an existing architectural style in a neighborhood. It it's compelling to me on a certain level but that is that is very u that can be subjective.

Yeah. So I feel like some of these changes are being made with the intention of making them as objective as possible. And this finding is new. So it wasn't in the previous ADUR findings, right? So and this is Roman 4 that you're talking about. Yeah. It's it's the it's the finding around um

finding that there's justification for an exception. Well, I I think this alternative process is inherently discretionary. Yeah. Um and this parameter was or this finding was added. So like what could stop someone from asking for a 35T ad or a 50ft ad? Like the goal is is to allow for flexibility when there's there's a reasonable basis. Yes, there's going to be discretion. Yeah, I mean if they were asking for 7 feet when maybe two or three feet would do that gives staff the ability to say well look what you're trying to address could be addressed in 3T we can support that we couldn't certainly support 7 ft. So there isn't going to be an objective standard here because then it wouldn't be part of the ADUR. Okay.

Um so that that's kind of I mean the reason we added it was because before we didn't have it so staff was like well they could ask for anything. We can't really push back. This gives us the ability to have that conversation. Okay, I understand that. All right.

Um, and then the last one in that subsection is the updated appeal process. Um, I I think for consistency sake, I would prefer to have the process be the way it was before where it goes to planning commission. Um, or it could go to city council. Um, just because there's no other discretionary reviews that are decided by the city manager. It It feels odd to me to treat ADUs differently. And then the reference to the hearing officer that we've never heard of before, right, seemed unexpected.

So, yeah. Why? Oh, and the other instead of city manager, we see I mean, it's typically going to the zoning administrator. And so, this is the intent is to streamline it to not go to the zoning manager to the zoning administrator. Well, I don't think it could go to the zoning administrator because presumably the zoning administrator was part of the group that made the decision in the first place. So, to appeal the decision to people that made the decision doesn't make

sense. True. True. Okay. So, It would normally go to planning commission or yes and then pursue the council as it says.

I think that the intent here was looking at how do you avoid I mean I I think and I feel there was an SP9 appeal to planning commission at a point where it becomes challenging for the planning commission. But I also I I think there's also a point to be made. This is would be consistent with how other appeals would be handled within title 27 which is the zoning code. So yeah, I think wherever the commission wants to go, this was a staff recommendation trying to lower the bar to move these through quicker, get decisions, keep them moving. But yeah, I I think where it we'll just look to the planning commission for what you want to recommend if there's a majority here

because we've seen SB9 appeals, we've seen single family home appeals. So it just feels weird to me to not to have the ADUs be treated differently. H have there been any appeals of uh ADUDR decisions? No, we have not had any the volume of applications is so low. Yes, I don't imagine this would significantly impact planning commission. And it it does just seem like the city manager seems not necessarily their Bailey wick, right? I mean, but it but it is what we do, right? [clears throat]

I I don't have a problem with the staff recommendation. I think it it seems I don't think this is I don't maybe that having a hearing [clears throat] officer for these types of things is unusual in Sano. I don't think it's that unusual in other jurisdictions. And usually it's the hearing officer has some level of expertise to like look at the different daylight planes as compared to whatever that like we can do, but they are actually like you know have that expertise to do. Um I don't have a problem changing it to planning commission either but I think this changing it to a hearing officer would streamline the process in a way that I would be supportive of. But if everyone disagreed, I'll just go with you.

I think because staff mentioned it's unlikely to be a hearing officer and it's more likely to be the city manager or designate. I would I would say we just keep it consistent with all of the other discretionary. I I was using hearing officer as a shortorthhand for okay like you would call like it would be a planner or some it would be someone but it wouldn't be well the city manager I I don't know but the city manager would designate someone who had the capability a year right but like it wouldn't be someone in planning if it wouldn't be the zoning administrator be I mean for the same reason that planning is who made the determination whether it be zoning administrator or planning staff and So now

well I'm not sure about I'm not sure about that but maybe we don't know but that was I don't think there's a I don't know I don't want to I don't think there's a regular I thought that's was um I wouldn't say that but the the zoning administrator is the um the official person that takes action on an add similar to like a single family design or an SFDDDR or something else at staff level. The zoning administrator is the the um entity that that approves of that action. And so then the appeal would but then the I think what we're saying is that then the appeal has to be a person or persons with some distance from the initial decision.

That's correct. That's why it wouldn't be the community development director because inevitably I'm involved in in goes on in the planning team. So that's why it would within the city the city manager is the logical person to appeal that decision. Um I think our thinking was there's there's always accountability of that individual to the city council. Um but um yeah, I think we'll just look to the planning commission for whatever recommendation you want to make here. I think we would be better equipped maybe than the city manager. I I mean I agree with you. A little below their pay grade.

Well, yeah, that too. And it also would be like a deputy like it would be like your deputy like one of the deputies who's not involved but if it's not actually someone with any plan like planning or building specific um Alex our planning I mean our city manager and like you said I mean yeah we're below that pay grade so I mean I I I think I agree with Commissioner Patel that it makes sense to be consistent and um it's uh having an appeal go to the city manager is not uh something that's typical. So, I would rather be consistent and have it go to to planning commission and city council.

I'm comfortable with that with the caveat that there's always got to be a first in order for there to be a new but but I think in this particular circumstance it makes sense. Yeah, I'm I'm I'm uh I'm okay with either way um whatever the whatever the consensus is. And I again that it it does seem to seem at least a little bit relevant that there have yet to be any appeals. True. [laughter] I'm I'm going to I'm going to lean strongly in favor of keeping it with the planning commission just to move us forward if no one has objections to that. Okay. No objection.

All right. So the next one 30 minutes. [laughter] Maybe we can do this. Aren't we on 17 or something? We're on 17. We can do this. Um, no problem. Next one is clarification on max ADU unit size and FAR exemption for ADUs. My comment was that this was as discussed in August. That's what I that's what my note says. So, it makes sense.

Okay. I actually have a comment on this one. So um there was a public comment letter from Cal HDF which discussed the implementation of SB1121 which um was reviewed in the staff presentation. It's what allows for up to eight detached ADUs on lots with an existing uh multif family dwelling or two on a proposed multif family dwelling. Um per Cal I'm not a lawyer. I'm going to put that caveat out there. Per per Cal HDF's letter, they say because government code section 66323 subdivision A4 does not contain a size limit for new construction detached ADUs on multifamily parcels. The city may not unilaterally impose one. So TLDDR if Cal HDF's interpretation is correct, it seems like we cannot impose any size limits on those detached ADUs under that provision. Do you want to answer?

So, um I think we're fully on board with following state law. Um I think just overall we weren't in agreement with [laughter] um the positions taken in that letter. Um okay. And these are all positions that have been thoroughly flushed out with HCD and HCD did very specifically look at our multif family section and required that we make a number of changes to the multif family section. We then reviewed our draft updates with them. So, um, yeah, I guess our position would be we're not in agreement with the the positions taken in that. Great. As as long as HCD has been in there and HCD didn't call that out as an issue, then I think I'm less concerned about running into a violation of state law.

I mean, I I I would imagine that probably was the uh is the ADU DR was discussed with HD at some point? This doesn't have to do with discretionary review. This is simply No, I know. But I'm just saying like because Oh, yeah. Yeah. Because Cal HDF also had issue with the discretionary review as an option. Yeah. So, we've had two discussions with HCD on our ordinance. And then also, if you look in the um ADU handbook of 2025, uh it allows for um what was the term, Liz? It was bonus bonus provision. I can find the exact language. Yeah. And there was no there's limited restrictions on what that could entail.

Okay. Yeah. Through the chair, HCD in their handbook says that a local agency can adopt an ADU bonus program, which I think functionally is what our discretionary review is. Great. Perfect. Next item. Height of detached ADUs. No comments. Sorry. Which number is this? Number 18. height of detached ADUs. I'm good. Till 20.

Okay. [laughter] Number 19. Setback exception for ADUs in rear third of a lot meeting specific standards. I got one here. Okay. So, um, in the agenda report, the it it it explains this change, um, by noting that, uh, the height and daylight plane requirements for an accessory structure within required yards and R1 districts are set at 9 ft to top plate and 16 ft to the roof peak with 9 foot 45 degree daylight plane. Under existing provisions, accessory structures are allowed to be converted to ADUs. So, a homeowner could propose to build an accessory structure in the rear one-third of a parcel and then convert it to an ADU. And then in the actual text of the uh proposed ordinance, the way that it's listed um is quoting or for a detached ADU that is proposed in the rear one-third of a lot that otherwise meets all requirements of accessory buildings and structures in required yards of R1 districts pursuant to chapter 27.70. So chapter 27.70.0100 010 subsection C is where our municipal code uh states the height limits for accessory structures and um the height limits for accessory structures in R1 districts is 9 ft to plate but in all other districts it's 15 ft to top plate. So I would suggest that we just strike the of R1 districts out of the language in the updated ADU ordinance. So it just says that otherwise meets all requirements of accessory buildings and structures in required yards pursuant to chapter 27.70. My concern is if we limit it to R1

districts, then you've streamlined the two-step process for R1 districts, but you haven't streamlined the two-step process for all other districts because you could have an application in an R3 district that can build up to a 15t plate height. And then they have to go through this two-step process to propose that extret structure first and then a second application to propose converting it. I think confuse everyone by getting really in the weeds.

I I think this goes to Liz's earlier point where this property even in a different district would have a single family dwelling. So zoning code would then go back to the R1 standards for that main structure. So the same principle would apply that the accessory structures would follow the R1 as well because you're referring to accessory structures for say an R3. So that's a multif family apartment building. You that adus would be developed under a different path in that scenario. But an accessory structure wouldn't be developed under a different path. Right.

Well, we're talking about an accessory structure on a site with say a triplex, an apartment building, and at that case it wouldn't even be subject to this section because we'd be looking at the multif family section to regulate ADUs. So the only way we would be looking at this section to regulate ADUs in the river is if there was a single family dwelling on the site. But I think today if there is a single family dwelling on an R3 lot, the way that the municipal code reads to me, if that property owner wanted to build an accessory structure, the height limit for that accessory structure, it just says all all other districts other than R1 15oot plate height limit. So that property owner could build an accessory structure with a 15t plate height limit. It is and I guess I'd look to Liz on

and then later could [clears throat] try to convert that accessory structure to an ADU. They would still have to go through a two-step process.

Yes. Through the chair, what Commissioner Patel has just outlined is correct and there likely are scenarios where that would apply. I think the intentionality with keeping this specific to R1 was that we did want to provide added sensitivity to the scale of ADUs at a property line and that process to build a taller ADU at a 4ft setback is always available or to seek an ADUD. So there was some intention behind keeping it to the R1. Um, however, if the commission wants to direct this differently, we could certainly look at that. But that was the intention with drafting it to specifically site that R1 accessory structure.

I think I think if the ADUR path is available, then that assuages my concerns. All right. Number 20. Sorry, I'm sorry. I'm you look, you know me, I like to get in the weeds. [laughter] Number 20, removal of ADU parking requirements as discussed. Yeah, this was as discussed in August and also per HCD requirements. Yep. Okay. Number 21, additional voluntary parking standards. Um I think was this in response to comments in August from us? uh or I think it was

there are there were already a few things suggested in August to incentivize off streetet parking but I think based on our discussion a few more were added. Yeah, that's how I mean that's how I had it noted from August that we had asked for more encouragement for off streetet parking possible. This this this was the uh slide with the cute little garage, right? Yes. Oh yeah, that's right. just now. I have a few in this section if if [laughter] you would like me to dive in.

Well, I I I'm very brief on this, so I'll just say I I saw the picture of the cute little garage with the thing above it, and I immediately thought, you know, that's exactly the kind of structure that we already are seeing. We already see a lot, you know, pre-existing in older neighborhoods. And uh um you know, that's sort of like, you know, little little apartment above the garage type thing. Uh just, you know, makes a lot of sense to me. Uh I I I wrote I wrote a nice that sort of a return to tradition. So [laughter] um that's all I have to say on that. I you know

All right. So um diving into my in the weeds comments um on the first suggested uh change which allows um parking in a tandem orientation. I just wanted to note I had no idea tandem parking wasn't allowed for single family homes. It's not that it's not allowed, it doesn't count. It doesn't count. I mean, it only counts as one stall. It doesn't count as two interesting people park that way. And it's not like against um home I lived in in San Monteo had a tandem parking garage. So, that's why it never even occurred to me that that wasn't Well, and it doesn't necessarily mean garage. It also means just on your driveway. Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay. Um the next one was the um the not requiring the removal of the driveway and curb cut. That made total sense to me. We discussed that before. And then the one where I have a I have some more substantial comments is the next suggestion which is um limiting the number of voluntarily provided parking stalls for ADUs to two. And so I will say that I strongly agree with the intent of this requirement, which is to minimize the amount of yard that is being paved over for parking. Um, but I'm worried that this this actual requirement might result in the opposite happening. Um, at the end of like the end of the day, the agenda report notes that um, there's no maximum number of parking stalls for primary units. So, in in some ways, that cat is already out of the bag. And by limiting the number of voluntary parking spots for ADUs, the only thing that I think this will do is impose restrictions on ADUs that don't exist for primary dwellings. But also, I worry that it might make site layout really complicated. Um, like I'm imagining a scenario where you have a single family home with an attached onecar garage and that property owner proposes building a new ADU, new detached ADU. Parking is really tight in their neighborhood. So, they're like, I want to provide two off- streetet parking spaces for my new ADU, but also parking is really tight in my neighborhood, so I want to add another off- streetet space for my primary dwelling. How do they prove that the three off- streetet parking spaces that they are proposing that one of them is for the primary dwelling and two of them are for the

ADU? I don't think you have to do that. Is it is it enough to is it enough to say that two are for one and one is for the other? Yeah, typically you wouldn't have to say which one. I mean, maybe I'm wrong, but I I would think that normally you just show the parking spaces and whether they're used or not or who uses them. I mean, you don't have to designate. Am I correct on that? Like designate

through the chair. You wouldn't it would maybe need to be shown on the application simply for staff to be able to review the appropriate standards that are applicable to that parking space. So I think the the reason to specify here is that under these provisions, ADU parking can pretty much be proposed anywhere on a lot, even within the front yard setback. So if you don't cap the number of stalls that are ADU parking, someone could feasibly come in and pave over their entire lot and say that's ADU parking stalls. and we would have no recourse to say actually our limits on front yard paving don't allow you to do so. Um so by by maximum by setting a maximum of two stalls um property owner could still provide excess parking for the main unit but those parking stalls in that paved area would be subject to the limitations that are already existing for single family parking stalls which um the main things I think that we were considering here are limits on front yard paving and that parking stalls or primary units cannot be located um in the front yard.

Yeah, really. That's the that's the crux of it. Yeah. Okay, that that makes sense and that that makes complete and total sense to me and again like I strongly agree with the intent. I think I'm imagining worst case edge case scenarios where it's like you end up with two different parking structures because you can't you you can't combine the parking in one spot and so now you've actually paved over more land than if you could have combined all the parking in one spot. Right.

Yeah. And through the chair we do work with applicants on like suggestions on where they could put that if it's an issue with the site layout. Of course, we wouldn't design a project for them, but would offer guidance if they're if they need to meet a standard differently. Um, and for what it's worth, we do receive neighborhood complaints about overpaving more often than I think the the inverse. Um, so this was intended to address some of that. And and that's why Tandem is so like important as a tool because then you don't need the white. Yeah. And it's not necessarily convenient, but at least it like gives you a space.

Okay. And you I sent you actually a question about this and you clarified that primary dwelling parking is allowed in the interior sideyard and yard. Yes. Um through the chair that was sent out to the planning commission but for the benefit of the public record. Um, this makes reference to parking for the primary residence not being allowed within required yard areas. That it should read required front or street side yard areas, but rear yard it it's allowed. Yeah. Got it. And then the next one was E. So, um, that one is

is stating it's actually labeled D because the actual D is misitemized. Um, that's actually is this the right one? ABC.

It is. Yeah. So, this is this is talking about allowing covered parking underneath the footprint of um an ADU. And um and again, it was the same issue that I raised before where it specifically references the plate height of accessory structures in R1 districts um by saying like a 9 foot plate height limit is consistent with the height limits established for accessory structures within the rear third of a parcel. And I was thinking about this and the plate height, we're now raising the plate height of an ADU to 18 ft. And that's measured from grade, right? So like the top plate height of an ADU um can be 18 ft. By saying that the un the the parking structure underneath it can have a max plate height of 9 feet, we're basically saying um we're kind of mandating a split between the uses, right? We're saying like 9 ft for parking, 9 ft for living space. But I think I was wondering like is that important? Like is that is that of substantial importance? Like what if the applicant was like, I actually want to do a 10-ft parking structure and an 8-ft ADU. At the end of the day, it's still all under the 18 ft plate height limit. So, if it's all under the 18t plate height limit, does how the uses are split really matter?

And then if there's some reason that they want to be above the plate height limit, then they're going to go through discretionary review anyway, right? But it just kind of feels like when you already have an 18 foot plate height limit, like specifying a separate plate height limit for one of the two uses under that 18 feet just

I guess because it's unusual to have um I don't know why you're right. I guess I mean I've said that about I've said that about small spaces that are you know and whether whether it's the ADU or you know a living like a habitable space. I've said, you know, why do people have feel compelled to make these very tall spaces which are I I think sometimes taller than they need to be for the size of the space for the you know, but I don't know about garages. I just think the more important limit is the 18 foot limit. Right. Right.

It would seem like a waste if someone's going through discretionary review because they want a 10-ft carport and an 8 foot living space a waste of discretionary. Right. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. Would this also be relevant to situations where someone has a commercial vehicle that they're not allowed to park on the street and they would need to have the they might or they might they might want to have the option to do it 10 foot height or whatever. RVs are so tall though. I don't know you could fit a living space on top of a parking structure for an RV and meet the 18. But but [clears throat] yes, exactly right. like as long as you're hitting the 18 ft, does it matter how you're partitioning the uses?

Uh, from a zoning perspective, it doesn't really matter. But from a building code perspective, so if you have the 10T plate height and then you have another 8 ft, you have to drop down 12 in for the ceiling for the joist. So that makes it down to 7 ft and that's not habitable space at that point because you need 7 and 1/2 ft for um habitable space. 7T. So I mean from a zoning perspective we can take that piece out but from a realistic perspective they really need to be within like the nine. So practically speaking if they're trying to do taller than 9 foot plate height for the parking structure they're going to end up going through discretionary review anyway because they're going to have to go over 18 foot plate height

and yeah in order to have living space on the upper floor. So, it's really like 9 and 1/2 once it hits that then. Well, and the other thing is that um I think it's odd that we that it's um plate height from grade because you're going to have like I thought it would I think of plate height at top of plate as from your um subfloor or finish floor to the top of plate, not from grade because that could be who knows if you're honest. Could be. We talked about that last time when we're talking about elevation.

There was the there was also this specific uh project which had gone through the the DR process which had a taller than standard garage existing and then built a ADU on top of that and it was above the plate height required you know the allowable plate height by a number of inches. Um, yeah. So, I think if if they would have to go through discretionary review anyway, if they're partitioning the space differently, then it then it doesn't really matter to me. I was more of like trying to figure out how could we streamline having to go through discretionary review. [laughter] So, yeah. Yeah. Edge cases. Edge cases. It puts you over. Yeah.

No matter what. So, yeah. Okay. I think you could leave it in because it's There's not a way to eliminate the possibility of discretionary review partitioning the space differently in reality. Yeah,

in reality. All right. Um, number 22. Prohibition of rooftop decks or terraces above an ADU. I I was just looking at this just now and I was thinking I was I was suddenly thinking, oh, if you had a if you had a one-story ADU um attached to a twostory existing dwelling, this would prevent, you know, having a door on the second floor and having something on top of that. I don't know if uh

I I actually had the same thing, right? So, like if you have an attached one-story ADU, what's the difference between using that roof for a balcony slash second story deck versus it being a rooftop? And and you could you could design that in a way that did not look over onto a neighboring property by putting up a wall or setting back the edge of the railing

the terrace uh from the edge of the roof. you know, if it was if it was kind of, you know, so that it's more towards the in inside of the property. I mean, there would be ways that you could do that, and I don't know that it would be I don't know that that's something that necessarily should be um outright prohibited. Yep. I I'll also note that there is a house um in my neighborhood that has a rooftop deck, and I'm wildly jealous of it. It looks really awesome. They've got like, you know, nice string lights up there. I mean I I I would just interject. Um this is just saying you can't get it permitted through the ADU ordinance. Oh, okay. Okay. We are and that's how you would permit it. Perfect. Well, that changes everything. That changes everything. All right.

And then I don't remember talking about it. You know, we didn't talk about it cuz I feel like I would have I would have noted, but then that awesome house in my neighborhood. Yeah. I didn't have anything in my notes. So So it would it would just be a separate permit from the ADU. Yeah. I tell where's because this is very explicit on what you're doing with an ADU and we're saying you're not getting it over the top deck through this or you can do it through our single family design interview. Okay, number 23. I know Commissioner Bush has it. I've been waiting. We have five minutes before we have to take a vote.

I have a lot of thoughts. No, I my only thought was that was my related to my question now or whatever it was, but that I I don't see the need to limit to interior balconies when you're not adjacent to a to another home. I agree and have a proposed language change.

Okay, so I had the same thing. What about lots of butt a street or an alley or a park or non-residential building where there's not similar privacy concerns? And so I suggested the wording of this actually be flipped. So it be explicit about what is not allowed rather than stating what is allowed. So in other words, decks shall not face adjacent residential properties. So then that would allow you to face non-residential properties or streets or parks.

Um I disagree because and I think I what did I say about this one? Um I felt that it was acceptable because if you designate where you know where it would be allowed that adjacent property could change in you know the conditions are going to change at some point and then you have you know somebody builds a house next door to this place with a deck and and we're back to like the thing that you were trying to not do. But that could happen anyway through discretionary review, right? Because they can always go through discretionary review to get permission to build a balcony facing that non-residential lot that then in the future could be developed into a residential lot.

So for me, this was about figuring out ways how do we avoid discretionary review for something that wouldn't be problematic. I can show you where it is in the code.

Um, also, um, your comment, the, um, I think I'm not 100% sure about Commissioner Patel's exact language on it. But it, you know, if it's facing a street, then you're then nobody's going to build next to it. But I also think even if it even if it did include my proposal was to um not include even vacant lots that don't currently have a house if it could eventually have a house on it like under the present zoning. I guess I mean I guess you could always change like the zoning but

um but even then um that person choosing to build a house on that vacant lot at least already knows the existing you know what what the existing Yeah. um context is Thank you. Yeah. Um as opposed to adding an ADU where someone already lives next door. So um yeah, so I'd be fine with Commissioner Patel's language. Deck shall not face adjacent residential properties. I could imagine other ways to write that like I will leave it to the lawyers to figure [laughter] out the right way to write that

goes on that. But yeah, so I think the my proposal would be finding appropriate language to draft here that would recognize uh the ability to uh have second story ADU balconies that when there is no adj there is no or could not be an adjacent property. Yeah. Residential property. I I support flexibility. I also recognize that in our last in our study session, I don't think we gave a great deal of direction on this particular topic to staff. So, I appreciate staff's work to uh come up with uh objective standards and uh yeah, I'll just leave it at that.

It is 10:57, so and the meeting will be going past 11 at this point is likely. So, we will we'll need a vote to go beyond 11. All right. Hello. Now we have a roll call vote to extend the meeting beyond 11 p.m. Chair Bazelle, yes. Vice Chair Cler, yes. Commissioner Bush, yes. And Commissioner Williams, yes. If I may introduce, your vote needs to be specific as of how much you want to extend it. So if you need 5 minutes, 15 minutes. Thank you. Why don't we say 30 minutes to be safe because we still have notes and announcements. Yeah. Don't we need a motion and a second? Oh, yeah. Motion to extend the meeting 30 minutes past 11 p.m. I second that.

Vice Chair Cler, yes. Commissioner Williams, yes. Chair Patel, yes. And Commissioner Bush, yes. That was my only comment on number 23. Uh, I mean, I could go either way. So, I don't really feel I I I hear you your rationale. Good. Yeah. What? Oh, I think I think we have three in support of making it allowable to have the deck spacing and non-residential use. Perfect. Yeah, that was my last note on this item. Anyone else? Any other notes? I don't think so.

I'll just reiterate, thank you again to St. Oh my gosh, thank you so much. This is such a meaty topic and and truly like the detail at which the materials were prepped made it really easy to get through. All right, I'm going to go ahead and close this item next. Wait, did we Oh. Oh, sorry. Recommendation. You're right. We have to motion. And can um I ask that the motion include the desk amendment. Yes. And I can put that text up on the slide if it's helpful, too. This is the desk amendment. So yeah. So I can move to

adopt step. Yeah. To adopt the recommendation in addition to the desk memorandum with the changes that the three or four changes that we have had a majority of council commission agree to over the course of this item. Can you list those just so we're clear on what's moving forward here? I'll defer to Chair Patel. [laughter] Okay, let me see if I can go through my notes. Um, one moment. Let's see. We should make the motion more clear.

Uh, the recommendation that the uh um appeals for the ADUR uh remain with the commission. Yes, the appeal should remain with planning commission and then on to council and okay. So

then it was clarification of the ADUDR applicability. So, um, having it be more open-ended to allow for discretionary review for any objective design standard and not just have it be limited to height setbacks and daylight planes and second story balconies. And then the third one was what we just discussed, the um allowing second story decks and balconies that don't face residential interior properties. Can I just clarify on the first one? Appeals to the commission then council. I thought

I thought it was just to the commission. Does everything the commission do does have to be appealed to council? Okay. Yeah. Right. Okay. And and if I could ask the commissioner for again for her specific language on the balconies. Um my suggestion was what I said was seconds story balconies can uh face interior uh have to face interior if they're adjacent to residential property but can face non-residential property. But I suggested that staff figure out how best to write that rather than us trying to write it live. But we can write it live if that's possible. I I suggested deck shall not face adjacent residential properties. I I think that's a good spot we can move that. Yep.

Perfect. Okay. So then I will move again to applicability. I'll just say one more time. Applicability of ADUDR. It is the appeals process having the appeals came to planning commission and city council. And then it's this um second story decks and balconies having them not face adjacent residential properties. Okay, great. So I move to adopt the recommendation as amended by in the desk amendment as well as those three uh changes as articulated by chair Patel second [clears throat]

through the chair. We're unfortunately experiencing technical difficulties right now. It seems the internet's crashed and we're not live on Zoom. Oh, then okay. Okay. Excuse me. And for the vote, Chair Patel, yes. Vice Chair Cler, yes. Commissioner Bush, yes. And Commissioner Williams, yes. Amazing. Now I will close this item. Oh, is that right? Okay, that is that

next item, reports and announcements. Do we have any reports and announcements from staff or the city attorney? Um, a couple just wanted to note. Um, obviously this was our last meeting of 2025. Um, okay.

We are looking at a number of projects queuing up for 2026. So, um I think uh the the hiatus um from our light meeting load in 25 um we will be turning the page on that um as we've got a lot to do in 26. We are looking at meetings on um January 13th and January 27th. Um we anticipate probably two items on both um items that will be probably coming forward. We've got a couple of our SP330 new development applications. We will have housing element amendments. Um, I believe those might be the um the three notable ones, but I in looking at this, we'll we'll send out a list as we get a little closer on our kind of projected list, but um please keep us appraised of any meetings you're not able to attend as a quorum will be crucial to keep everything moving forward and especially with SB330s, we're often looking at specific statemandated deadlines to get these to public hearings. So, it's it's not easy to move a date back if we can't. So knowing everyone's schedule as soon as possible helps us plan ahead and meet our our deadline requirements. Um we'll also be sending out the list of projects as we know they're coming forward because you'll be able to check out our what's happening on development page, do site visits. There'll be a lot of content to go through with each of these applications. So um the degree that you can start doing your homework early definitely will will help at at the meeting. So more to come, but um that's that's all that I have to report out for upcoming meetings. Thank you.

Men from our attorney. Happy holidays. Oh, thank you. Um I just remembered I have a question. Do we know when the ADU updates are going to council? Probably in January. Um we I know we've got a busy January schedule as well. So, but I know this is timesensitive. So, um Kerry's school is probably going to go the first meeting in January. Looks like we're tenatively looking at the second meeting in January. Um the city the 26th.

Do we have any notes and announcements from any of our commissioners? No. Too many times. Um, and I just say I uh reiterate happy holidays to everybody and and I and I um as as was just teased all these SB330 projects which we're going to be seeing next year. I'm I know the staff has been hard at work all year and they've kept telling us, oh, these are coming. These are coming. So, I'm looking forward to to finally seeing all of that that work. So, uh and uh at that at which point also there will be congratulations for having gotten to uh having gotten gotten it in front of us. So, um, so yes, um, just, uh, just to say thank you and, uh, uh, everybody enjoy the rest of their year.

Yeah, I just wanted to reiterate my thanks to the 11 staff members who are here tonight. I thought actually, even with the technical difficulties, it went really smoothly. So, thank you to everybody in the back as well, the unsung heroes back there, and of course to all of you. So, thanks. Yeah. Um, happy holidays and looking forward to next year. I'm going to pull out that calendar that we approved recently and make sure I have all those dates for the year. All right, with that, I'm going to go ahead and close the meeting. See you all in January. Happy holidays. Yay.

Yeah. Yeah, we got to go unplug every You unplug it all. Thank you. Are these new? They're usually at our um Yeah. Oh, they're new. This is so awesome. Nice. I'm keeping them after we move back. Oh, what is this? It's just a little But maybe they're going with But maybe they're going with us. Have a good night. Yeah. When is this? Uh yeah. Bye. Have a good holiday. See you next year. What's going to happen to these? Do we have another meeting here? Are we going to hang on again? But maybe there is.

Yeah, we'll work on that next. Yeah, we'll work on it next time. Room mid January, but unfortunately they won't include carpet and chairs. Delay in getting those. So that's there was a lot to offer. Yes, there's always a fear of leaving something out. I've noticed but you know targeting middle January good. So we might have two more meetings.