►
Description
San Bruno Planning Commission Meeting July 20, 2021
Whole Meeting
trt 1:08:10
A
Thank
you
good
evening
and
welcome
to
the
july
20
2021
planning
commission
meeting
to
all
of
you
attending
virtually
thank
you
for
joining
us.
Please
know
that
we
want
to
hear
from
you
if
you're
in
the
audience
you
would
like
to
address
the
commission
during
public
comment
for
an
item
on
the
agenda.
There's
two
options
for
those
on
zoom:
please
use
the
raise
your
hand
button
at
the
bottom
of
the
screen.
A
When
it's
your
turn
to
speak,
you
will
be
unmuted
and
given
three
minutes
to
address
the
commission
if
you're
calling,
if
using
a
telephone,
you
may
address
the
commission
by
pressing
star
nine
and
when
it's
your
turn
to
speak,
you
will
be
given
three
minutes
to
speak
to
the
commission.
You
may
only
speak
once
per
agenda
item
pamela
roll
call.
Please.
C
B
A
D
A
D
B
A
B
A
F
Good
evening,
commissioners,
my
name
is
brandon
and
for
the
first
item
on
tonight's
agenda,
we
have
use
permit
21-003
at
311
summit
road.
This
is
a
request
for
a
used
permit
to
allow
a
residential
edition
that
would
exceed
the
existing
floor
area
by
greater
than
50
percent
staff.
Does
recommend
approving
the
use
permit,
based
on
find
the
findings
and
conditions
of
approval
contained
in
the
staff
report.
F
The
current
home
is
1682
square
feet
containing
three
bedrooms:
two
bathrooms
and
a
two-car
garage.
It
is
a
typical
ranch
style
property
of
the
area
neighborhood
as
they
were
all
developed.
About
the
same
time,
the
project
proposes
to
add
a
200
square
foot
addition
to
the
first
floor
and
a
second
floor
addition
of
769
square
feet.
The
total
proposed
addition
is
969
feet
which
would
increase
the
home
from
1682
to
2651
square
feet.
F
We
did
receive
one
public
comment
today
from
a
neighbor
who
was
concerned
about
the
height
of
the
addition,
as
well
as
the
placement
of
a
of
windows
adjacent
to
his
yard
concerned
that
the
windows
could
be
placed
in
a
manner
and
that
could
see
into
his
home.
He
did
wish
to.
He
may
be
here
to
tonight
to
also
reiterate
that
statement.
F
The
arc
did
review
this
project
on
may
13.
At
a
public
meeting,
there
was
some
discussion
around
the
cantilevered
facade,
which
staff
did
note
is
not
allowed
in
her
san
bruno
residential
design
guideline.
However,
the
arc
did
find
the
original
design
to
be
adequate
and
past
it
with
no
recommended
modification,
despite
increasing
by
50
percent.
F
This
project
does
remain
under
maximum
permitted
floor
area
under
lot
coverage
and
under
height
limits,
so
it
does
still
comply
with
all
development
standards
of
the
municipal
code
and
besides,
the
cantilevered
facade
not
complying
with
residential
design
guidelines.
All
other
aspects
of
the
project
do
it
does
comply
with
the
daylight
plane
requirement
necessary
of
second
story
additions,
and
it
does
comply
with
all
style
and
material
guidelines
matching
the
present
house
and
other
relevant
guidelines.
F
A
D
B
G
G
We
got
rid
of
three
windows
that
were
overlooking
his
property
and
the
ones
that
are
the
two
windows
that
you
see
in
the
first
image
to
your
left
is
actually
overlooking
on
top
of
his
garage.
There
is
only
a
single
window
that
kind
of
looks
over
his
garden,
but
that's
higher
and
it's
the
staircase.
So
it's
not
like
we're
gonna
have
a
direct
view
into
his
garden.
G
A
C
Applicant,
I
I
just
wanted
to
on
the
the
one
window
my
I'm
trying
to
remember.
If
I
I
think
I
might
have
sat
on
the
architectural
review
committee
when
we
discussed
this,
is
it
the
the
window?
It's
the
one.
That's
farthest
back.
The
two
more
forwards.
Ones
are
over
the
garage
and
the
one
at
the
back,
it's
over
a
stairwell
and
essentially
it's
over
the
landing
so
that
a
person's
head
height
there
would
still
be
below
the
window.
H
I'm
sorry,
I
was
just
curious.
I
did
not
have
the
opportunity
to
go
and
view
the
site
in
person
today,
and
I
did
read
in
the
notes
in
the
staff
report
that
the
applicant
had
at
the
arc
meeting
provided
other
properties
in
the
neighborhood.
That
did
have
the
cantilevered
style,
and
that
seems
to
be
the
only
concern
that
staff
had
raised
outside
of
the
50
does
either
the
applicant
or
the
arc.
Members
have
any
recollection
of
of
how
those
look
relative
to
these,
because.
G
So
basically,
what
we
did
is
we
pretty
much
walked
the
neighborhood,
and
this
design
that
we
chose
was
most
commonly
noted
on
all
these
properties.
In
fact,
the
house
that's
right
behind
ours
is
kind
of
built
with
the
same
architectural
design.
There
are
a
couple
of
them
on
susan.
We
saw
a
few
on
fasmin,
so
we
we
have
been
trying
to
kind
of
you
know
kind
of
go
with
the
the
same
design
and
not
stick
out
like
a
sore
thumb.
H
D
A
A
C
A
D
B
I
E
D
The
chair,
there
was
no
public
comment,
but
there
was
articulation
of
a
concern.
I
don't
know
that
was
how
that
was
communicated.
If
that
was
emailed,
can
we
get
a
little
more
context
about
what
that
concern
was?
I
was.
I
was
hoping
that
that
individual
would
be
here
to
speak
during
public
comment,
but
they
weren't
of.
D
D
F
B
Mr
commissioner,
so
we
usually
present
the
latest
complaints
or
concerns
or
feedback
since
the
completion
of
staff
report.
So
this
particular
neighbor
received
the
notice
and
also
received
a
staff
report.
Packet
would
like
to
make
a
note
of
his
or
her
concern,
but
the
fact
that
he
or
she
was
is
not
here
present
tonight.
H
H
It
sounds
as
though
the
windows
that
are
existing
on
the
top
left
presuming
that
the
the
complainant
was
on
the
left-hand
side
of
the
of
the
property,
the
subject
property.
The
larger
windows
overlook
their
the
roof
of
their
garage,
so
that
should
not
pose
a
privacy
concern,
as
well
as
the
smaller
window
at
the
stair.
Landing
also
should
not
pose
a
privacy
concern,
and
I
can't
remember
the
other
thing
that
was
mentioned.
C
And
we,
just
as
a
as
a
point
of
my
understanding,
is
as
a
point
of
our
municipal
code.
We
don't
have
a
view
ordinance
and
the
only
justification
for
sunlight
being
a
concern
you
know
like
there
is
a
state
law
about
overshadowing
solar
panels,
but
this
isn't
nearly
high
enough
to
be
relevant
to
that
and
yeah.
So
there
there
is
no
there's,
no
sort
of
cause
of
action
to
deny
a
permit.
Based
on
this
issue.
A
D
D
D
B
D
F
Hello
again,
everyone
for
the
second
item
tonight
I
do
have
a
use,
a
use
permit
a
request
and
architecture
review
permit.
So
the
use
permit
is
a
request
to
exceed
existing
floor
area
by
greater
than
50
percent
and
an
architecture
review
permit
to
allow
an
addition
of
greater
than
one
thousand
square
feet.
F
F
F
The
project
does
propose
1589
square
feet
of
addition
and
interior
remodel,
to
increase
this
home
to
28
42
square
feet.
This
is
entirely
a
first
floor
edition
and
there
is
no
new
second
floor
being
proposed.
There
is
currently
a
one
car
detached
garage
on
the
property
and
the
project
when
completed,
proposes
a
new
attached
two-car
garage.
F
There
was
a
used
permit,
approved
in
2002
for
the
original
home,
which
was
669
square
feet,
increasing
it
by
542
square
feet,
and
I
did
miss
in
the
staff
report
or
I
was
did
not
put
in
the
staff
report-
that
there
was
an
additional
use
permit.
That
was
approved
by
planning
commission
in
2006
or
almost
the
same
project,
but
it
was
never
built
and
expired.
F
So
the
arc
did
see
this
project
on
july
15th.
There
was
some
discussion
about
changing
the
front
facade
of
the
home
to
have
more
decorative
elements
and
have
a
more
defined
entrance,
but
ultimately
it
was
approved
by
arc
with
the
recommendation
to
make
changes
to
the
entrance
and
front
facade
at
the
director's
discretion
of
the
final.
F
This
project
would
actually
bring
this
home
into
better
compliance
with
the
neighborhood
because
it
is
almost
60
feet
from
the
sidewalk.
So
at
present
time
the
neighborhood
is
comprised
of
single-family
homes
around
15
to
20
feet
from
the
sidewalk
and
multi-story
apartment
buildings.
So
this
is
actually
the
only
property
within
several
blocks
that
doesn't
have
a
a
set,
much
closer
setback.
So
staff
is
of
opinion
that
this
project
will
bring
the
home
into
further
compliance
and
make
the
home
fit
better.
F
Despite
all
the
additions
and
the
1000
square
foot
edition,
this
project
still
stays
below
maximum
floor
area,
maximum
lot
coverage
and
well
below
building
height,
so
it
does
comply
with
all
development
standards
of
the
san
bruno
municipal
code,
as
well
as
recommendations
of
the
san
bruno
residential
design
guidelines.
That
concludes
the
presentation
for
141
santa
lucia
avenue.
C
E
Yes,
we
discussed
the
front
entrance
at
the
arc
and
it
was
felt
that
it
needed
something
else.
Personally,
I
think
if
the
column
in
the
middle
was
removed,
it
would
look
better,
but
that's
just
one
point:
there's
also
a
discussion
about
the
siding,
whether
it
was
horizontal
or
vertical,
and
I
think
the
the
owner
wants
to
go
with
vertical
t111,
which
I
think
looks
awful.
It's
it's
outdated
now
with
present-day
standards
and
I
think
horizontal
siding
with
a
composite
material
such
as
hardy.
I
think,
would
look
way
better.
H
I
don't
have
any
questions
right
now,
but
I
I
wanted
to
just
while
we're
on
that
topic.
Real
quick,
I
did
I
did
manage
to
drive
by
today
and
and
view
the
the
property
and
bringing
it
forward
is
really
going
to
be
a
big
benefit.
I
still
do
believe
we
need
to
discuss
the
issue
of
the
porch
and
the
lack
of
architectural
articulation
in
the
front
facade,
but
regarding
the
t-111
surprisingly,
the
the
material
that's
on
the
existing
home
does
seem
to
be
the
t-111
and
all
the
rustic
it.
H
C
You
know
sort
of
details
of
our
of
our
code,
and
I
think
that
the
feeling
was
that
we
wanted
to
incorporate
that
as
an
actual
condition,
but
that,
ultimately
we
were
delegating
discretion
to
the
planning
director.
To
kind
of
you
know,
approve
or
not
the
final
designs,
but
to
work
with
the
architect
and
owner
right
now.
So
we
didn't.
C
We
don't
want
to
bog
this
down
in
like
coming
back
to
arc
another
time
and
then
back
through
planning
commission,
but
that
there
was
enough
concern
that
we
really
did
want
to
see
an
actual
condition
of
approval
that
that
front
porch
is
going
to
be
redesigned
because
it
is.
It
is
sort
of
a
funny
little
box
porch
with
I
think,
as
kelly
put
it,
that
it
was
like
you'd
sort
of
punch
two
holes
in
this
box.
There
was
sort
of
no
articulation
of
the
surface.
C
I
F
So
yes,
so
currently
that
it's
hard
to
see,
let
me
see
if
I
can
zoom
out
a
little
bit,
but
so
currently,
if
you
could
see
that
the
existing
house
on
the
left
far
back-
and
this
is
to
scale
with
the
with
the
plan
on
the
left
and
then
then
the
the
new
house
on
the
right.
So
let
me
see
if
it
is
so.
The.
I
F
Or
is
that
so
there?
The
setback
to
the
regular
part
of
the
house
is
less
than
the
garage,
but
it's
it's
not
a
requirement
that
it
has
to
be
that
way.
So
I
believe
at
present
the
whole
house
will
come
to
a
25
foot
set
back
from
the
property
line,
but
the
requirement
is
to
be
the
the
minimum
you
can
be
is
15
feet
to
the
house,
but
the
driveway
must
be
20
feet
from
the
back
of
the
sidewalk.
I
Right,
but
what
I'm
getting
at
is
that
the
left
house,
where
the
porch
is
that's
the
the
front
door,
is,
is
further
away
from
the
sidewalk
than
the
garage
door
and
I
believe
the
guidelines
for
the
city
once
you
do
the
opposite.
They
want
the
entrance
of
the
house
more
prominent
than
the
garage
door.
Is
that
true.
I
F
I
F
Sorry
there
was
some
further
discussion
about
this
at
the
arc,
so
the
existing
house
is
horizontal
siding
and
they
did
present
it
that
way
in
the
elevations.
However,
in
the
rendering
they
presented
it
with
vertical
siding,
which
is
what
the
owner
prefers,
but
they
had
also
said
that
if
it
was
a
required
requirement
from
the
architecture
review
committee
to
do
one
or
the
other,
they
would
follow
whatever
the
arc
said.
F
F
H
If
I
might
jump
in
real
quick
here,
I
think
maybe
I
can
help
I
drove
when
I
drove
by
today.
If
my
eyes
did
not
deceive
me,
I
do
think
that
the
existing
siding
is
vertical
and
not
horizontal,
so
that
maybe
maybe
we
could
look
at
the
the
photograph
of
the
subject
property
and
that
might
clarify
for
us
what
it.
What
the
existing
conditions
look
like,
but
it
sounded
to
me
like
the
applicant,
did
want
to
keep
the
vertical
sighting
and
have
it
be
t-111.
F
C
Yeah,
I'm
I
am
looking
at
the
relevant
page,
it's
39
out
of
51
in
the
packet
and
commissioner
latin
is
correct.
The
at
least
the
garage
in
front
has
vertical
siding
and
yeah.
I
I
mean
I
think
it's
fine
like
and
it
does.
I
think
the
the
texturing
of
the
property
immediately
adjacent
to
the
right
is
kind
of
a
vertical
patterning
as
well.
C
I
think
the
the
concern
that
commissioner
morgan
had
brought
up
around
the
relative
durability
and
quality
and
sort
of
standard
of
care,
that's
required
for
the
the
t-111
versus
some
sort
of
composite.
I
mean,
I
think
it's
a
valid
concern,
but
it
is,
you
know,
caveat
emptor,
that
the
the
house
belongs
to
the
owner
and
if
they
want
to
buy
something
that
that
requires
a
little
more
care
to
keep
it
from
getting
termites
and
dry
rot.
Then
you
know
it's
their.
I
I
F
C
B
Good
point
all
right,
that's
a
slight
distinction
that
madeleine
would
know,
but
you
know
going
with
the
flow.
Let's
invite,
I
believe
the
owner
and
the
architects
are
in
the
audience
with
us
right
now
and
I
do
not
see
any
and
I
I
do
see
mr
mapa,
the
owner
is
with
us.
Mr
mob,
would
you
like
to
address
some
of
the
comments,
or
would
you
like
to
address
the
commission.
D
J
J
Perhaps
we
could
push
the
entire
porch
about
three
feet
past
the
garage
that
will
create
an
extra
post
that
two
plus
one
and
then
we
he
doesn't
wanna
columns
very
decorated
columns,
but
maybe
some
kind
of
10
to
12
inch
columns
with
a
little
bit
of
enhancement
in
the
bottom
and
the
top
and
the
fact
pushing
it
three
feet.
That'll
give
a
little
bit
of
better
look,
I
think,
to
the
entire
design,
and
we
will
still
be,
I
believe,
within
at
about
20
feet
from
the
from
the
front
property
line.
J
C
C
B
For
because
I
I'm
not
as
familiar
with
the
project,
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
the
commissioners
are
aware
of
the
possible
ramification
of
the
last
minute
design
and
if
the
commission
is
okay
with
increasing
the
overall
project
scope.
And
we
can
note
that
in
the
final
motion,
so
mr
designer,
mr
owner,
if,
if
you
are
proposing
a
change,
would
that
change
the
overall
scope.
J
Oh
by
extending
the
front
porch
three
feet:
that's
gonna
increase
the
square
feet
by
about
30,
roughly
30
square
feet
more
on
the
front
porch,
and
I
don't
recall
about
what
is
the
maximum
lot
coverage
if
there's
one,
so
I'm
not
sure
if
that
would
go
over
the
maximum
maximum-like
coverage.
If
there's
one,
we.
C
Should
have
we
should
have
that
in
the
table?
Yes
brandon,
it
should
be
a
pretty
quick
check.
I
mean
I
will
say
I
I
I
think,
there's
pretty.
It
sounds
like
pretty
broad
agreement
among
us
that
we
like
the
articulation
of
the
front
porch,
and
so
I
it
seems
like
we
would
be
inclined
to
probably
approve
this,
even
if
it
does
go
slightly
over
in
order
to
get
the
benefit
of
the
better
facade,
but
we
could
certainly
we
can
certainly
check.
Does
as
just
a
technical
point
does
front
porch
count
towards
floor
area.
C
I
J
You're
not
thinking
well,
he
answered
that
question
myself.
Actually
I
have
never.
I
haven't
been
at
the
side.
It
was
my
assistant
and
measured
the
house,
but
by
looking
at
the
pictures
that
he
took
from
all
around
it
looks
like
a
portion
of
the
house
on
the
back,
maybe
on
a
race
floor,
a
small
portion
perhaps
portion
of
the
existing,
but
then
the
rest
seems
to
be
in
a
slab.
J
I
Okay,
because
I
think
what
what
makes
it
look
slightly
odd
is
that
the
the
roof
is
very,
very
tall
right.
It's
you
know,
got
this
big
gable,
but
the
porch
has
such
a
slight
step.
It
doesn't
even
look
like
it's
even
the
six
inch
step.
It
looks
something
less
and
then
you
have
that
post
in
the
middle
kind
of
creating
these
two
little
punch
throughs.
So
I
was
just
curious
because
you
know
it
is
a
big
volume,
we're
adding
on
a
one-story
house,
but
normally
the
porch
has
some
verticalness
to
it.
I
J
Just
one
small
more
detail
than
that,
I
have
some
pictures
that
were
sent
to
me
and
the
front
of
the
the
front
door
of
the
house
is
already
pretty
low.
So
if
we
were,
I
even
suggested
the
owner,
perhaps
maybe
creating
a
step
up
on
the
new
addition,
but
he
didn't
want
to
have
a
step,
because
my
concern
was
that
sometimes
you
can
draw
something,
but
but
is
it
practical?
J
It's
gonna
work
when
it's
being
built-
and
one
of
my
concerns
was-
is
this
gonna
be
the
finished
floor
to
be
a
few
inches
of
upgrade
and
right
now?
The
way
we
have
it
is
the
most
that
we
could.
So
it's
an
approximate
about
four
or
five
inches,
maybe
six
inches
above
grade,
so
if
we
make
it
any
higher,
he
would
be
with
that
step
up.
There
is
that
the
owner
didn't
want
to
have.
I
Understood,
okay,
just
be
mindful
that
you're
below
code
level
and
you're
prone
to
dry
rot
at
termites
when
you're
so
close
to
the
soil,
like
that.
So
it's
important
that
you
use
the
proper
materials
when
you're
building
those
walls
that
are
resistant
to
those
things.
So
but
okay,
thank
you
for
explaining.
C
D
A
C
C
B
C
I
guess
I'll
say
I
I
am
I'm
not
inclined
to
impose
that
restriction.
I
would
I
would
vote
against
adding
that
condition.
I
mean,
like
I
agree
at
both
aesthetically
and
as
a
matter
of
what
I
would
do
as
a
homeowner,
that
I
wouldn't
do
it
this
way,
but
it
doesn't
seem
like
something
where
the
city
needs
to
interfere
with
this
personal
preferences
for
their
house,
especially
given
that
the
at
least
the
adjoining
property,
the
sort
of
prevailing
lines
of
the
surface
on
that
are
vertical
as
well.
C
I
think
that
the
it
is,
I
understand
it,
it's
difficult,
because
this
is
sort
of
an
aesthetic
issue
which
makes
it
very
hard
to
like
write
down
a
mathematical
formula
for
what
satisfies
it.
I
think
the
suggestion
by
the
designer
that
they
are
already
considering
bringing
out
the
porch
by
an
additional
three
feet.
C
I
think
that's
very
positive.
I
agree
with
commissioner
madden
that
having
the
pedestrian
entrance
of
the
home
be
more
prominent
than
the
garage
is
just
a
positive
feature
for
a
neighborhood
and
it
sort
of
it
creates
enough
of
a
porch
that
you
can
now
stick
a
chair
there.
You
can
sit
and
chat
with
people
on
the
front
porch
right
sort
of
it's
a
it
creates
a
more
of
a
communal
space,
and
so,
if
we
could,
I
don't
know
how
to
formalize
this.
C
That,
like
we
could
say,
like
you
know,
as
a
condition
that
there
will
be
a
redesign
that
adds
this
additional
three
feet
to
the
porch
and
adds
some
sort
of
elements
of
architectural
interest
to
be
approved
by
the
planning
director
and
with
the
other.
Like
you
know,
I
think
we
want
to
maintain
flexibility
for
the
owner
to
express
their
own
aesthetics
with
it
right.
We
don't
want
to
design
it
for
them,
and
so
we
do,
I
think,
want
to
leave
a
fair
amount
of
flexibility.
Here
I
see
hands
from
commissioners,
morgan
and
latin.
H
Thank
you,
that's
very
kind.
I
tend
to
agree
with
vice
chair
harman
that
I
think
it's
encouraging
that
the
owner
said
that
he
is
interested
in
doing
the
horizontal
sighting,
which
I
presume
is
not
the
t111.
So
I
think
that's
great.
I
also
agree
that
it
does
feel
a
little
bit
funny
to
prevent
him
from
using
a
material,
a
building
material
that
will
ultimately
be
his
own
responsibility
and
upkeep,
and
that
may
be
driven
by
overall.
H
You
know
expenses
and
practicality
and
also
maybe
matching
the
existing
the
existing
sighting
on
the
house.
If
that
is
still
good,
and
I
think
that
if
we
are
going
to
be
making
adding
a
condition
of
approval
regarding
the
porch,
I
think
it
would
be
great
if
the
porch
was
increased
by
the
three
feet
or
two
feet
or,
however
much
they
would
like
to
increase
it
by.
I
don't
think
it
necessar.
E
Yeah,
I'm
pleased
that
the
owner
has
agreed
that
they
will
use
horizontal
siding
and
I'm
hoping
that
he
will
use
a
composite
some
something
similar
to
hardy.
The
board,
which
is,
as
I
said,
was
guaranteed
for
50
years.
It's
in
his
own
interest
to
have
something
that's
easy
to
keep
and
I
think
it'll
look
far
superior
to
t111
and
we
with
the
price
of
wood
and
plywood.
At
the
moment.
C
C
H
D
I
B
Looking
at
the
plans,
I
was
hoping
so
perhaps
we
could
do
three
feet
beyond
the
face
of
a
garage
or
minimum
six
feet
depth,
so
I
think
currently
it's
proposing
at
three
feet.
So
if
we
require
minimum
six
feet
depth,
it's
it's
at
a
certain
current
location
without
much
modification,
but
basically
adding
another
three
feet
to
it.
E
C
Sorry,
just
to
clarify
so
the
existing
plan,
I'm
just
looking
at
the
proposed
floor
plan
right
now
that
there
is
like
a
flat
surface
all
the
way
across
the
front.
The
porch
is
kind
of
recessed
into
that
by
three
foot:
zero
and
so
we're
adding
the
the
three
feet
in
front,
and
so
that's
hence
the
and
is
our
our
phrasing
going
to
be
sort
of
just
calling
it
a
six
foot
depth
and
that's
clear
enough
that
it's
it's
the
three
feet.
Extension.
B
D
I
A
D
A
B
All
right,
so
I
do
have
so
on
the
agenda.
I
have
the
volunteer
for
the
august
12
architectural
review
committee
volunteers.
In
addition
to
that,
I
have
a
few
other
follow-ups,
so
I'll
start
with.
What's
on
the
agenda,
if
I
can
have
three
volunteers
as
normal
for
the
august
arc,
I
see
a
hand.
Thank
you,
commissioner
johnson.
B
All
right,
so
that
takes
care
of
the
stated
item,
the
next
one.
You
don't
have
to
absolutely
let
me
know,
but
this
is
kind
of
me,
giving
the
commission
a
heads
up
for
the
august
planning
commission
we're
preparing
two
big
items
to
bring
to
you,
so
we're
hoping
that
we
could
start
the
planning
commission
at
five
o'clock.
B
You
can
you
don't
have
to.
Let
me
know
right
now,
but
if
you
definitely
have
a
conflict
at
five
o'clock
feel
free
to
call
me
email
me
text
me
so
that
we
have,
we
can
arrange
a
quorum.
So
the
two-bit
project
that
will
be
coming
to
you
and
we're
hoping
to
do
a
certain
agenda
is
to
bring
the
21
29
units
glenview
subdivision,
to
planning
commission
for
recommendation
to
council.
As
most
of
you
know,
this
is
a
project
that
has
been
in
making
for
quite
some
time.
B
So
this
is
exciting
that
we'll
bring
that
29
unit
to
you
for
recommendation
later
on
that
evening.
We're
also
bringing
you
the
bay
hill
specific
plan
and
the
drive
eir,
the
final
eir,
the
phase,
one,
the
development
agreement,
the
general
plan
amendment
the
zoning
of
the
slew
of
things
to
planning
commission
with
a
project
of
that
size.
B
We
want
to
make
sure
that
there's
ample
time
for
planning
commission
to
ask
your
question
to
digest
we're
also
inviting
the
youtube
team
to
be
present
and
possibly
making
a
small
presentation
so
that
everyone
in
the
room
is
available
and
also
has
the
freedom
to
ask
questions.
So
it's
gonna
be
quite
a
night
and
which
is
the
reason
why
we
would
like
to
bump
it
up
to
five
o'clock.
B
What
I
would
also
want
to
make
it
available
to
the
planning
commission
is
that
we're
also
finalizing
a
virtual
learning
website
for
the
bay
host
specific
plan.
It
should
be
rolled
out
in
part
of
the
city
manager's
newsletter
tomorrow,
if
not
the
day
after,
where
you
can
click
on
it.
This
is
something
staff
is
very
excited,
we'll
be
working
with
the
consultant
for
over
a
month.
B
I
am
not
a
tech
savvy
person,
but
I
find
myself
lost
in
that
room
where
you
can
turn
around
listen
to
avatars,
talking,
look,
click
on
things
and
flows
up.
It's
just
quite
amazing,
with
the
amount
of
information
that's
available,
so,
in
addition
to
the
packet
feel
free
to
kind
of
play
around
click
the
buttons
I
I
promise,
they
won't
hurt
you
just
and
there's
a
lot
of
information
out
there
and
to
kind
of
even
get
myself
ahead
of
time.
B
Is
that
once
the
planning
commission
is
able
to
make
recommendation
on
the
item,
the
next
stop
will
be
city
council
kind
of
similar
to
glenview.
This
is
also
a
project
that
has
been
in
the
making
for
quite
some
time.
This
is
an
exciting
milestone
for
the
city,
so
we
want
to
make
sure
that
the
planning
commission
has
more
than
adequate
time
to
review
both
items.
So
we
don't
necessarily.
I
don't
necessarily
need
to
have
an
answer
right
away.
B
We
probably
will
be
reaching
out
to
you
individually
to
make
sure
there's
a
quorum,
but
I
do
want
to
give
a
heads
up
to
you
along
that
line.
You
should
also
receive
the
email
from
the
youtube
team
about
a
possible
upcoming
tour.
That's
different
from
the
bay
hill
specific
fund
and
the
phase
one.
The
youtube
team
would
like
to
tour.
B
Lastly,
I
want
to
welcome
commissioner
garazzo
one
more
time
for
an
exciting
commissioner,
we're
finally
full.
Thank
you,
the
very
last
piece
and
also
wanted
to
ask
all
the
commissioners.
If
you
have
had
a
chance
to
receive
the
updated
planning
commission
roster
contact
information.
If
you
don't
against
email
text
call
me,
I
will
make
sure
that
we
send
it
over
to
you.