1 Simin Zakavand
From: Simin Zakavand
Sent: Monday, December 8, 2025 3:59 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Joanna Winter; Sung H. Kwon; Zachary Dahl
Subject: Planning Commission Regular Meeting for 12.9.2025 -The Carey school
Good afternoon Commissioners,
We received the following questions/comments regarding the Carey School Early Childhood Education Center on tomorrow’s agenda from one of the Commissioners. Please see the responses below, highlighted in blue:
1. The report says the following about the interplay between SUPs and the actual re-zoning. As I am new to the commission, I'm having a little trouble understanding the interplay between SUPs and the zoning. Could they get approval of this project with just an SUP and without the change in the Q8 overlay, or do they require both? Could you explain how the two interact for me a bit more? a. Report: Extending and amending the Q8 Overlay for the Early Childhood Education Center maintains consistency with prior Q overlays for private institutions. While educational facilities are allowed in One Family Dwellings districts through a Special Use Permit (SUP), the proposed zoning reclassification and code amendments would facilitate implementation of General Plan policies, while ensuring that development standards remain compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood and that regulatory oversight is maintained. With the adoption of the proposed overlay, the Project will conform to all applicable zoning code standards. Private educational facilities are generally allowed in the R1-B zoning district with an SUP. However, an SUP alone still requires compliance with the standard R1-B development regulations, which are intended for single-family uses. Due to the site configuration and the distance of the oƯ-site parking, the project cannot meet those standards and therefore cannot be developed as proposed without the Q8 overlay. Rezoning the site to R1-B/Q8 would provide the flexible development standards needed to accommodate the proposed layout and oƯ-site parking.
As a result, both the SUP (to allow the use) and the Q8 overlay (to allow flexible development standards) are required for the project.
2. There were resident concerns about the safety of the preschool children. Do you know what existing signage there is (e.g., school zone, slow down signs, etc.)? Did the city consider adding conditions requiring additional signage regarding the school site (other than the daily a frame signage discussed in the conditions for use during drop oƯ). The surrounding area has been studied through the city 'Slow for Students' program, following California Vehicle Code (CVC) 22358.4, which posted reduced speed limit signs along 20th Ave, from 25 mph to 15 mph, for this studied area under phase 2. La Salle Drive was also evaluated but did not qualify for a reduced speed limit. The reduced speed provisions apply only to elementary, middle, or high schools and do not apply to the proposed early childhood education center. Additionally, the Local 2 Transportation Analysis did not recommend any additional signage along La Salle. However, the Planning Commission may consider discussing additional signage if they feel it would be appropriate.
3. I saw some diƯering information regarding the number of spots reserved at the school for students whose seats are subsidized. One document said 10%, another said 15%. Do you know how many spots will be subsidized? I didn't see these subsidized spots as a condition of approval, is that correct? Is there anything requiring that some number of spots be subsidized? According to the applicant, the percentage ranges from 10–15% each year. There is no City requirement to subsidize these seats.
4. If I am reading it correctly, the traƯic study says the project (as it concerns traƯic) doesn't qualify for the CEQA small project exemption that the City is relying on for the project as a whole, but instead qualifies for the Local-service retail and public services exemption. Could you explain whether we disagree with the traƯic consultant about the qualification for the small project exemption or whether there is a way to reconcile the traƯic study's conclusion that it does not apply with our invocation of that exemption? The CEQA small-structure exemption is independent of VMT screening because each evaluates diƯerent factors. The CEQA small- structure exemption is based on the physical characteristics of the building, such as its square footage, while the VMT small-project screening criteria is based on the number of trips the project generates. A project may be screened out of VMT analysis under any screening criteria (e.g., low trip generation, local-serving retail, aƯordable housing, proximity to transit) and still qualifies for CEQA small-structure exemption if it meets the square footage threshold. In this case, since the project is less than 10,000 SF in an urbanized area, it meets the CEQA small-structure exemption criteria. However, because the VMT small-project screening evaluates the project based on trips generated rather than square footage, it does not meet the VMT small-project screening criteria.
Sincerely,
Simin Zakavand, AICP (She/Her)
Associate Planner | Community Development Department
330 W. 20th Ave., San Mateo, CA 94403
650-522-7219 | [email protected]