►
From YouTube: San Bruno Planning Commission Meeting February 2, 2021
Description
San Bruno Planning Commission Meeting
February 2, 2021
trt 1:30:30
A
All
right
are
we
ready
folks,
thank
you
okay,
good
evening
and
welcome
to
the
february
2nd
2021
planning
commission
meeting
to
all
of
those
of
you
who
are
attending
virtually.
Thank
you
for
joining
us.
Please
know
that
we
won't
hear
from
you
if
you're
in
the
audience
and
you'd
like
to
address
the
commission
during
public
comment
for
an
item
on
the
agenda,
there's
two
options
for
those
of
you
using
zoom.
Please
use
the
raise
your
hand
button
at
the
bottom
of
the
zoom
screen.
A
When
it's
your
turn
to
speak,
you
will
be
unmuted
and
given
three
minutes
to
address
the
commission.
If
you're
joining
us
by
telephone
and
you'd
like
to
address
the
commission
press
star
nine
and
when
it's
your
turn
to
speak,
you
will
be
unmuted
and
you'll,
be
given
three
minutes
to
address
the
commission
as
well.
Please
note,
you
may
only
speak
once
per
agenda
item
madeline.
Would
you
give
us
an
assistance
with
roll
call?
Please.
B
D
A
A
B
C
C
B
A
A
D
D
I'd
like
to
start
by
presenting
the
staff
and
consultant
team
working
on
this
effort.
City
staff
include
pamela
wu
community
and
economic
development,
director
matt
newbaumer
associate
planner
and
mark
sapp
rano
city
attorney
who's
in
attendance.
At
this
meeting
tonight
on
the
consultant
team,
we
have
myself
and
erin
acknon
principal
at
good
city
company
and
then
barbara
coutts
has
served
as
outside
counsel,
reviewing
the
ordinance.
D
As
you
can
see,
many
chapters
are
being
updated
as
part
of
this
ordinance
and
that's
largely
due
to
how
interrelated
the
various
chapters
and
sections
of
the
zoning
code
are.
When
we
amend
one
section,
there
are
often
many
cascading
effects,
so
I
apologize
for
the
amount
of
text
but
wanted
to
show
you
the
full
scope.
D
D
D
But
then,
in
november
of
2016,
the
effort
resumed
there
was
a
downtown
walking
tour
with
council
members
and
community
members
to
talk
about
downtown
and
then
in
february
of
2020.
The
parking
chapter
was
adopted
by
city
council
and
that
really
marked
the
first
step
in
the
newest
series
of
zoning
code
amendments
and
then,
as
you
may
recall,
in
august
of
2020,
the
planning
commission
held
a
study
session
to
vote
to
discuss
this
next
update.
That's
before
you
tonight,
which
focuses
on
housing-related
issues.
D
Okay,
so
this
slide
lists
the
major
objectives
of
the
ordinance
amendments
which
I'll
discuss
throughout
the
presentation.
These
objectives
include
implementing
policies
of
the
general
plan,
tcp
and
housing
element
revisions
due
to
state
law
which
relate
to
adus
and
junior
adus,
and
the
state
density
bonus
and
then
revisions
to
the
affordable
housing
requirement,
as
well
as
clarifications
to
administrative
procedures.
D
All
right
so
starting
at
the
beginning
of
those
so
through
the
addition
of
chapter
12.280,
the
ordinance
codifies.
The
zones
identified
by
the
transit
corridors
plan,
creates
five
new
zoning
districts
outlining
new
permitted
and
conditionally
permitted
uses
and
setting
forth
development
standards
and
design
standards
to
encourage
high
quality
pedestrian-oriented
design.
D
So
the
other
zone
that
this
chapter
implements
is
actually
from
the
general
plan.
It's
the
multi-use
residential
focus
area,
this
zone
emphasizes
multi-family
housing
and
new
development
projects
and
permitted
uses
include
restaurants,
personal
and
business
services,
hotels
and
offices
that
would
support
and
relate
to
those
multi-family
uses.
D
D
D
The
tod
1
district
is
located
here
in
this
orange
and
it
allows
for
a
mixture
of
pedestrian-oriented
land
uses,
and
then
we
have
the
tod
two
district,
which
is
this
purple.
That's
kind
of
goes
along
camina
real,
and
then
we
have
the
civic
center
district
right
here,
which,
as
you
may
know,
is
where
city
hall
fire
department
of
the
library
are
all
currently
located.
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Recently,
state
law
has
increased
the
available
density
bonus
from
35
to
50
percent
for
projects
with
an
affordable
housing
component,
and
that
has
increased
the
density
bonus
for
to
80
for
projects
that
are
100,
affordable
and
projects
within
a
half
mile
transit
have
even
more
flexibility.
Granted
the
city
has
very
little
discretion
over
this
topic,
but
the
new
density
bonus
chapter
does
set
forth
application
requirements
and
procedures
to
help
the
city
process.
D
D
So
I'll
start
by
showing
this
slide,
which
I
also
showed
in
august
just
to
provide
context
for
the
city's
affordable
housing
chapter.
This
shows
the
city's
progress
on
meeting
the
regional
housing
needs
allocation,
also
known
as
rena
as
you
can
see.
The
city
is
not
on
pace
with
producing
housing
at
any
income
level.
Pursuant
to
arena.
D
This
slide
shows
the
requirements
from
the
current
ordinance.
So,
as
you
can
see,
affordable
housing
requirements
kick
in
for
development
projects
of
five
or
more
units.
Rental
projects
are
required
to
pay
a
fee
rather
than
provide
on-site
housing,
but
they
may
elect
to
provide
on-site
housing
as
an
alternative
to
paying
the
fee.
D
D
So
this
slide
shows
the
proposed
changes
relative
to
the
current
ordinance,
as
you
can
see,
we're
keeping
the
threshold
for
the
applicability
to
five
units
for
rental
projects.
It's
distributed
among
the
income
groups,
adding
to
a
total
of
15
percent
and
then
for
the
ownership
projects.
It's
more
concentrated
towards
the
moderate
income
level,
but
with
five
percent
devoted
to
low
income.
D
New
buildings
would
be
considered
by
the
arc
or
planning
commission
subject
to
the
size
thresholds
listed
of
six
units
for
residential
developments
or
10
000
non-residential
square
feet,
and
then,
along
with
these
changes,
the
architectural
review
committee
meeting
will
become
a
public
noticed
hearing.
We
did
make
that
amendment
to
the
public
noticing
section
and
then,
if
adopted
by
council,
the
bylaws
for
the
arc
will
be
updated
to
formalize
the
committee
meetings
as
public
meetings
and
then
projects
in
the
bay
hill.
D
D
D
So
I'm
just
pulling
up
one
comment,
so
the
city
did
receive
a
public
comment
from
alexander
malindra's
and
I
will
just
read
the
contents
of
the
email,
hello,
san
bruno
planning,
commission
and
city
staff.
My
name
is
alex
melinda's
and
I'm
only
representing
myself
and
no
one
else.
I
am
encouraged
by
the
zoning
code
update
on
tonight's
agenda.
We
must
continue
to
allow
more
opportunities
to
zone
for
multi-family
housing.
D
Additionally,
with
our
income
reading
incoming
arena
allocation
plus
how
far
behind
on
our
current
goals,
we
will
need
to
rezone
as
much
as
as
much
housing
as
possible.
Zoning
is
a
community
adopted
system.
What
constraints
exists
are
largely
self-imposed.
We
must
shed
those
as
much
as
possible
and
choose
pro-integration
policies.
D
One
of
the
things
I
noticed
in
the
staff
report
was
some
of
the
parking
requirements
for
adus.
I
understand
the
constraints
of
parking
in
eastern
san
bruno.
However,
given
the
variety
of
lot
sizes,
especially
the
further
west,
you
go
in
san
bruno
and
the
constraints
that
parking
requirement
may
have
on
the
production
of
adus.
D
D
So
we
received
also
a
few
questions
from
vice
chair
harman,
that
I'll
respond
to
right
now
as
well
and
feel
free
to
chime
in.
If
I
get
anything
wrong,
but
I
think
the
first
question
that
vice
chair
hartman
had
asked
was
about
rescinding
the
tsm
chapter
and
that
relates
to
transportation
systems.
Management.
D
Excuse
me
so
that
actually
relates
to
a
pretty
outdated
county
program
and
right
now
the
way
that
transportation
demand
management
is
really
working
is
more
on
a
project
by
project
basis
through
environmental
analysis
and
oftentimes.
Tdm
plans
are
required
to
be
implemented
as
mitigation
measures,
and
then
we
also
have
some
provisions
in
our
parking
chapter
that
provide
an
incentive
for
parking
reduction
if
the
project
introduces
a
tdm
plan.
So
it's
less
of
that
that
is
being
removed
and
more
that
it's
replaced
by
these
more
modern
processes.
D
A
F
Since
I
was
already
talking,
I
did
want
to
respond
to
alex's
comment
a
little
bit
I
did
observe
I
mean
I.
I
am
guessing
that
the
deal
is
that
the
state
law
prevents
us
from
requiring
parking
replacement
for
a
to
use
correct,
whereas
for
ja
to
use,
we
have
flexibility,
correct
and
I
can
understand
which
you
know.
Like
I
mean
a
lot
of
jdus
are
specifically
garage
conversions,
so,
like
you
are
definitely
removing
a
parking
space
and
so
like.
I
can
understand.
F
Have
some
sort
of
discretionary
level
where,
like
it's,
not
a
hundred
percent
required
that
you
know
every
day?
Do
you
replace
the
parking
you
know
subject
to
some
kind
of
staff
review
of
parking
conditions
in
the
in
the
places
because,
like
I,
I
do
agree
with
alex's
point
that
you
know
like
we.
We
need
a
lot
of
housing
units,
both
just
as
a
as
a
as
a
matter
of
what
the
state
is
going
to
be
requiring
of
us
as
a
matter
of
moral
imperative,
and
so
whatever
we
can
do
to
create
the
flexibility.
E
D
D
There's
also
a
requirement
for
a
junior
adu
that
it
has
to
be
converted
of
existing
floor
area
so
entirely
within
a
single
family
dwelling
unit,
and
then
the
last
item
is
that
it
can
share
sanitation
facilities
with
the
single
family
dwelling
unit,
and
so
it
has
to
have
an
efficiency
kitchen.
But
technically
it
could
be
connected
to
the
single
family
unit
and
share
bathroom
facilities.
Basically.
D
E
D
E
D
B
E
E
Okay,
all
right
yeah.
I
think
there
was
some
something
in
literature
about,
maybe
increasing
that
to
20
feet.
I
think
that's
a
practical
thing
to
do
because,
typically
in
a
house,
you
have
eight
foot
floors
and
then
you
have
the
thickness
of
the
floor
at
level
two
and
then
you
have
the
roof,
and
then
you
have
foundation
crawl
space
by
the
time
you
add
all
that
up,
you're,
probably
adding
18
to
24
inches
to
the
structure
height.
So
probably
a
good
idea
to
at
least
raise
it
to
18
to
19
feet.
E
G
I
would
hate
for
kind
of.
Like
commissioner
harman
was
saying,
I
would
hate
for
restrictions
in
parking
that
could
potentially
be
remedied
in
some
creative
way
prevent.
I
wouldn't
want
these
units
to
be
prevented
from
being
built.
I
do
understand,
if
somebody's
converting
their
garage
into
an
apartment,
that
that
is
actively
eliminating
parking
and
adding
housing.
So
I
I
would
would
you
would
you
mind
just
clarifying
again,
please
what
the
parking
requirements
are
for
each
one.
D
You
are
allowed
technically
to
require
one
space
per
adu,
but
it's
really
limited
the
areas
in
which
that
would
actually
apply,
because
there
are
so
many
exemptions
if
the
adu
is
at
all
close
to
any
kind
of
transit.
Stop.
So
I
believe
it's
within
a
half
mile
of
public
transit,
including
bus
stops,
then
there's
no
parking
required
and
then
for
adu
there's,
also
no
garage
conversion
parking
required.
G
D
D
H
H
An
adu
has
its
own
kitchen,
its
own
bathroom,
its
own
access,
its
own
address,
and
it
could
be
a
detached
unit
in
the
back,
as
kelly
said,
even
though
the
state
has
has
this
very
small
caveat
for
the
cities
to
require
parking,
99.5
circumstances
in
city.
San
bruno
is
not
going
to
trigger
a
parking
requirement
for
an
adu.
H
H
If
the
junior
adu
was
to
convert
the
garage
think
about
it
as
a
single
family
home
being
converted
into
a
triplex,
so
you
have
a
single
home.
Now
you
have
adu
in
the
back
and
you
also
have
a
garage
conversion
as
a
junior
adu.
So
the
state
is
saying
city
in
that
incident.
Do
you
want
to
require
maybe
one
parking
replacement
for
to
compensate
for
the
third
unit
coming
in.
G
F
As
I
recall,
we
had
as
part
of
our
parking
ordinance
revision.
We
were
going
to
be
trying
to
expedite,
or
you
know,
sort
of
like
do.
You
know,
buy
right,
permitting
ministerial
approvals
for
things
like
you
know,
converting
a
small
portion
of
the
yard
to
an
additional
driveway
spot
for
this
type
of
thing,
and
I
don't
know
like
have
we
waived
some
of
the
old
hardscape
requirements
for
that
purpose,
or
anything
like
that,
because
I
I
really
like
I
would
like
us
to
have
as
much
like.
I
would
not.
D
D
E
A
A
F
F
It's
on
page
nine
of
the
packet
about
the
discussion
of
the
mountain
view,
model
of-
and
I
mean
I
understand
it's
more
complicated,
but
I
know
you
know
as
council
member
mason
observed
last
week,
like
we've
produced
zero
vli
units
in
what
is
it
six
years
out
of
this
current
renault
cycle?
That
sounds
right
and
so
like
I,
I
remain
concerned
that
we
are
not
finding
the
right
sort
of
flexibility
to
find
the
way
to
incentivize
to
say
hey.
Maybe
you
can
do
a
slightly
smaller
absolute
number
of
units.
D
We
did
develop
something
similar
to
that
to
address
that
concern,
so
there
is
an
alternative
available
that
would
require
city
council
approval,
but
it
does
allow
exactly
what
you're
talking
about
for
perhaps
fewer
units
at
a
deeper
subsidy
to
be
developed
subject
to
certain
findings.
So
that
would
just
be
an
alternative,
and
I
believe
one
of
the
findings
is
that
it
has
to
address
a
city
arena
deficit.
F
Right
and
that
actually
right,
that's
actually.
My
next
note
is
that
that's
on
page
12,
where
we
have
a
discretionary
process
for
this.
I
feel
like
that
developers
are
much
more
likely
to
use
it
if
they
have
more
certainty
that
it
will
work
that
they're
not
going
to
take
the
time
to
develop
a
plan
that
may
then
be
rejected
by
a
council.
Vote
that
I
I
feel
like
there
would
be.
F
People
would
be
more
likely
to
use
this
if,
if
they
know
going
in
I'm
meeting
the
requirements
so
right
yeah,
I
did
actually
review
that.
So
I
don't
know
I
still
my
feeling
is
that
that
we
should,
you
know,
kind
of
make
clear
what
we
want
up
front
for
this,
but
I
don't
know
I
mean,
like
I'm,
not
upset
about
it
enough
to
vote
against
recommending
this
overall
package,
but
I
I
do
really
think
we
should
be
concerned
about
the
lack
of
of
the
ali
units.
B
And
through
the
chair
and
vice
chair
armin,
one
thing
I'll
note
is
most
of
the
very
low
income
units
you
see
produced
throughout
the
bay
area
are
usually
into
100,
affordable
housing
projects
because
they're
able
to
leverage
contra
local
contributions.
What
the
local
zoning
is
and
then
use
tax
credit
funding
in
order
to
fund
those
and
produce
very
low
income
units.
F
F
I
do
feel
like
there
is
value
to
the
whole
inclusionary
zoning
model
where
we
we
say
that,
like
you
know,
it
is
healthy
in
society
for
well-paid
engineers
like
myself
to
actually
like
rub
elbows
with
be
neighbors
with,
you
know,
have
your
have
your
kids
playing
with
you
know
the
people
who
are
sort
of
earlier
in
the
the
process
of
of
climbing
the
ladder
of
the
american
dream.
You
know,
so
I
I
do
appreciate
what
you're
saying
but
yeah
I
just
I
would,
and
I'm
glad
I
mean
we
have
a
five
percent.
F
B
Yeah-
and
I
I
I
think
from
general,
like
urban
planning
philosophy,
I
think
100
agree
with
what
you're
saying
I
think
you
both
have
to
have
mixed
income
buildings.
Probably
even,
more
importantly,
is
mixed
income
neighborhoods,
so
that
you
do
use
the
same
amenities
and
to
your
point
of
what,
how
I
would
see
this
playing
out
on
an
annual
basis
is
the
city
has
to
turn
in
a
report
to
the
state
every
year
that
says
hey.
B
What
I
would
recommend
for
any
city
is
in
that
during
that
report
we
say
hey
over
the
neck,
no
we're
really
short
on
very
low
income
units
right
right
now,
in
the
next
year,
when
we
see
projects
submitted,
we
want
to
see
these
submitted
with
more
very
low
income
units.
That
way,
when
the
next
developer
submits
they've,
already
heard
some
council
direction
related
to
what
type
of
affordable
housing
you
want
to
see
in
an
incoming
project,
and
that
might
fluctuate
from
from
year
to
year.
F
Yeah
the
partial
unit
fee-
I
remember,
but
that
so
the
question
was:
does
the
rounding
apply
within
the
category
or
to
the
total
requirement
right?
Because
there's,
like
this
case
of
you,
could
have
1.3
1.31
each
of
those
would
round
down
but
3.9
the
sum
across
them
would
round
up,
and
I
wasn't
clear
you
know.
Obviously
we
will
produce
more
affordable
housing.
If
you
know
either
case
rounding
up
require,
you
know,
imposes
a
requirement.
B
Yeah,
I
think
I
mean
to
vice
chair
harmon's
point
I
mean
I
think,
that's
ultimately
a
policy
decision
that
we
have
to
make
and
we
have
to
make
sure
that
we
define
it
well
within
the
code.
So
what
I
would
say
is
let's
hear
from
the
planning
commission
on
your
thoughts
and
then
we'll
forward
that
to
the
city
council
and
make
sure
that
we
tweak
a
language
in
a
way.
That's
consistent
with
what
the
council
ultimately
wants
to
do.
B
F
Yeah
I
mean,
I
think,
the
more
the
most
important
thing
is
just
that
it
be
clear
that
everybody
knows
what
the
rules
are.
My
personal
preference
is
that
we
create
the
rules
such
that
you
know
if
the
sum
across
those
fractional
units
is
something
that's
going
to
round
up,
you
do
have
to
allocate
that
unit
somewhere
somehow,
but
you
know
I
mean
as
long
as
the
rules
are
clear
and
you
know
the
person
who's
submitting
a
project
knows
what
they
need
to
do
and
doesn't
have
to
go
back
to
the
drawing
board.
F
F
F
Because
we
are
still
allowing
the
inleu
fees
specifically
for
buildings
with
very
large
unit
sizes,
it
seems
like-
and
that
seems
like
it-
almost
incentivizes
kind
of
exclusive
luxury
buildings
where
it's
like
you're
gonna.
You
know
you're
gonna
build
something.
That's
like
all
four
bedroom,
large
condos.
D
So,
just
to
kind
of
tell
everybody
else
what
we're
talking
about
this
regard.
This
is
a
section
of
the
alternatives
to
providing
on-site,
affordable
housing
in
the
payment
of
in
lieu
fees,
and
one
of
the
findings
that
council
must
make
is
that
the
average
unit
size
in
the
project
is
seeking
to
pay
an
affordable
housing
and
leafy
equal
to
or
greater
than
2
000
square
feet
for
four
bedrooms.
D
So
just
to
respond
to
to
vice
chair
harmon's
comment.
I
believe
that
this
actually
makes
the
in
luffy
is
on
the
square
footage
index.
So
this
actually
is
trying
to
make
sure
that
the
project's
not
trying
to
shortchange
the
city
by
only
providing
very
small,
a
very
small
amount
by
minimizing
their
payment
of
the
unmoved
feed.
F
F
B
So
I'll
have
one
answer
to
that
and
I
ultimately
again,
this
is
just
kind
of
another
policy
call
question
and
direction.
You
know
this
is
typically
found
within
codes
because
of
the
fact
that
when
let's
say
you
have
single
family
neighborhoods,
you
may
only
get
two
or
three
affordable
units,
but
then
in
luffy
you
could
take
and
produce
a
whole
lot
more
units
down
in
the
transit.
Let's
say
in
the
transit
corridor
area
that
are
more
proximity
to
transit
proximity
to
other
to
other
amenities.
B
So
a
lot
of
cities
like
to
take
that
big
lump
sum
of
money
and
then
leverage
it
to
create
more
units
in
areas
where
you
would
typically
have
access
to
amenities.
But
to
your
point
I
think
the
counter
policy
argument
is
that
you
do
want
some
folks
to
you
know,
folks
of
all
income
levels
to
live
in
a
single
family,
new
neighborhood.
So
I
mean
like
everything
else.
G
G
D
So
the
the
kind
of
default
option
is
to
provide
on-site,
and
then
they
have
an
option
of
applying
for
different
alternatives
through
a
city
council
discretion.
So
the
alternatives
would
include
the
payment
of
the
luffy
off-site
affordable
units.
As
I
mentioned
earlier,
we
also
have
kind
of
like
an
alternative
percentages
provision,
and
then
there
are
a
few
others,
including
the
dedication
of
land,
purchase
of
existing
units
for
conversion
and
just
a
few
other
kind
of
niche
scenarios
that
they
could
apply
to
for
and
those
are
all
subject
to
findings.
G
H
All
right,
thank
you
and
third
trip.
I
may
provide
some
clarification
right
now.
The
code
says
that
the
developer
has
the
discretion
on
their
own
to
either
pay
them
luffy
or
to
provide
on-site.
As
the
commissioners
have
seen,
we
have
very
little
developers
who
want
to
provide
those
units
on
site.
Some
are
for
good
reasons.
Some
are
for
not
so
good
reason,
so
the
changes
that
we're
recommending
is
well
number
one
you're
required
to
provide
on
site.
H
However,
for
some
reason,
for
instance,
if
they're
up
on
the
skyline,
it's
just
not
accessible
to
public
transit,
it
doesn't
really
make
sense.
You
have
one
unit
out
of
you
know
five,
you
know.
Do
we
really
want
to
take
that
on?
Maybe
when
we're
going
through
the
entitlement
city
council
will
weigh
in
on
the
ultimate
alternative
choice.
F
F
F
F
F
F
I
mean
they
look
like
sort
of
a
typical
two-story
house
from
the
from
the
front,
but
I'm
I'm
fairly
sure
because
they
are
three
floors
that
they're
well
over
a
0.5
far
and
I
get
like
I
just
like
these
limits
seem.
They
seem
at
first
blush
to
be
unreasonably
low.
For
I
guess,
like
I
wondered
what
the
reason
was
that
we're
constraining.
F
B
So
I
think
I
could
add
a
little
bit
to
that
when
I,
I
think
the
overall
theory,
at
least
for
san
bruno
was
that
the
lots
up
in
the
hills
are
quite
a
bit
bigger
than
the
lots
that
are
down
in
the
flat
land
of
the
area,
so
they
they're
already
having
a
proportional
advantage
on
the
overall
size
of
the
home.
This
also
isn't
a
hard
cap,
so
there's
the
ability
to
go
above
that
through
the
use
permit
process.
B
B
F
F
I
suppose
we
have
some
sort
of
legislative
intent,
language
somewhere,
because
I
mean
I
know
it
comes
up.
You
know,
and
we
just
recently
had.
I
forget
whether
it
was
the
planning
commission
review
or
at
the
architectural
view.
I
think
it
was
the
planning
commission
review
of
one
of
these.
You
know
somebody
doing
a
second
story
and
you
know
we
had
sort
of
neighbors
complaining
about
it
exceeding
the
the
far
guideline
yeah.
I
guess
like
I.
F
B
Anyway,
I
I
think
I
I
don't
it
was
originally
caught.
It
was
this
ordinance
called
ordinance
1520
back
in
1989
in
san
bruno.
They
I
think
it
did
have
some
legislative
intent.
Who
knows
that?
That's
still
the
intent
of
it
now
you
know
things
evolve
over
the
years,
but
I
think
ultimately
it's
you
know
it's
done
as
a
soft
cap
understanding
that
there
are
going
to
be
situations
where
you
have
to
look
at
that
individual
application.
F
F
I
was
mildly
curious
why
we
were
separating
out
all
of
the
new
zoning
district
definitions
in
a
completely
new
section
and
12
280
instead
of
in
the
1296.
I
don't
know
if
that
has
to
do
with
severability
or
something
like.
If
there
was
some
complaint
about
our
zoning,
it
would
just
sort
of.
I
don't
know
it
probably
doesn't
matter
it
sort
of
just.
It
seemed
odd.
H
I
can
take
that
on.
So
it's
as
cali
mentioned
when
you
touch
one
chapter,
there's
a
ripple
effect,
so
we
came
to
learn
that
we
have
modernized
the
definition
in
the
parking
chapter.
If
you
remember
a
year
ago,
we
brought
it
to
you
and
we're
also
proposing
new
definition,
the
vehicle
chapter
and
we're
doing
a
lot
in
each
chapter,
and
so
the
thought
came
to
our
mind.
Why
not
have
a
definition
chapter
to
consolidate?
All
of
that,
so
you
you'll
see.
That's
kind
of
the
thing
in
this
effort.
D
Right
so
I'll
and
I'll
just
add
on
to
that
that
chapter
12.80
definitions
is
an
existing
chapter,
that's
been
heavily
amended
to
update
all
the
land
use
categories
consistent
with
the
new
mixed-use
zoning
chapter
and
then
we're
actually
rescinding
the
definitions
that
are
in
the
parking
chapter.
So
it's
all
being
consolidated
into
one
definitions:
chapter
that
applies
to
the
whole
code.
F
D
Okay,
I
understand
now.
I
think
that
that
this
is
one
it's
kind
of
one
chapter
with
multiple
zoning
districts
within
it,
so
it
was
determined
that
it
would
be
best
to
have
just
a
new
chapter,
but
I
understand
your
question
is
about
just
organizationally:
why
we're
not
adding
this
end
to
12.96
as
like
several
different
sections.
F
Yeah,
like
a
subsection
of
1296,
so
that
all
of
our
all
of
our
zone,
definitions
would
be
in
one
place,
which
I
don't
know
I
mean
in
terms
of
usability
of
the
document.
I
mean
you
know
it's
all
legalese
and
it
probably
requires
interpretation
regardless,
but
I
did
find
it
weird
as
I
was
reading
through
it.
That's
like
okay,
I've
got
zone
definitions
and
then
there's
like
a
bunch
of
other
stuff
and
oh
hey,
more
different
zones.
What
there's
something
a
little?
I.
F
D
So
just
be
I'm
on
I'm
on
the
page
that
you're
referring
to
and
just
to
clarify
you're
asking
about
like.
What's,
I
think
all
of
the
existing
zoning
that's
to
the
east.
Behind
there
is
r2.
There
were
some
parcels
that
were
incorrectly
zoned
as
commercial
and
it
was
inconsistent
with
the
general
plan.
F
All
right
that
was
all
of
my
all
of
my
notes
from
my
read
through.
I
really
appreciate
your
time
and
all
your
work
on
this.
I
you
know,
I'm
really
thrilled
to
see
this
and-
and
I
do
definitely
like
having
the
multi-family
zoning
in
the
transit
corridor-
is
the
only
way
you
know
like.
Without
this,
there
would
be
no
way
we
could
possibly
meet.
A
Gotcha
and
then
aaron,
this
is
a
question
for
you
going
back
to
our
history
when
you
were
the
planning
director
here
and
we
had
the
fires
up
in
where
the
explosion
and
the
fires
and
we
had
the
rebuild
and
we
were
allowing
people
to
get.
We
were
giving
a
little
bit
of
a
grace
of
going
to
point
six
one
on
the
fars
right
at
this
juncture,
where
we're
looking
at
this
stuff.
Should
we
just
codify
that
and
make
6.1,
because
we've
kind
of
continued
to
do
that?
B
B
You
know
my
thought
now
of
working
in
a
bunch
of
cities
is
that
san
bruno's,
far
0.55
is
actually
pretty
high
comparatively
to
other
cities,
and
I
actually
like
I
like
that,
because
it
gives
homeowners
more
flexibility,
and
I
also
like
the
fact,
though,
that
you're
able
to
go
through
a
discretionary
process
to
go
beyond
that,
because
a
home
can
get
to
start
start
to
get
pretty
big
when
you
exceed
that
0.55,
and
I
think
it
is
good
to
have
additional
eyes
on
it.
At
that
point
to
say:
hey
you
can
still
do
this.
B
It
just
has
to
be
a
pretty
impressive
design
in
order
to
exceed
that.
So
I
still,
I
still
think
I
mean
actually
when
I'm
working
with
other
cities,
I
show
san
bruno
as
kind
of
a
model.
One
of
you
know
how
you
could
still
allow
a
pretty
high
floor
area,
but
when
you
want
to
build
bigger
the
neighborhood,
you
know
the
neighbors
next
door
should
know
what's
going
on
and
they
should
they
could
be
involved
in
the
design
review
process.
D
H
H
C
C
C
H
So
I
can
answer
that.
I
believe,
commissioner
johnson,
the
old
the
the
previous
adu
ordnance
requires
a
discretionary
review
for
any
adu.
So
any
discretionary
review
will
require
the
notice
to
your
neighbors
300
feet,
500
feet
from
the
subject
site
since
2017,
and
also
most
notably,
the
2019
update
to
the
adu.
The
city
cannot
require
discretionary
review
for
any
new
ad
use,
meaning
that
if
there's
no
discretionary
review,
there's
no
notices,
so
you
probably
are
remembering
an
exercise.
C
Ahead,
you
know
I
can
understand
and
respect
the
the
way
it's
set
up,
but
it's
not
reasonable
in
my
in
my
circumstance
there
were
it
was
it
was
six
months
project
and
it
took
away
10
parking
spots
and
because
the
crew
needed
to
be
in
there
and
and
bulldozers
and
and
the
crew
needed
to
park-
and
it
was
a
horrific
hardship
for
for
it
was
actually
close
to
nine
months.
So
I
just
is
there
something
in
between
that.
We
can
come
to
some
some
discussion
on
it.
C
D
H
H
Or
right
or
some
sort
of
construction
signage,
keep
in
mind
that
when
we
say
that
there's
no
discretionary
review,
a
homeowner
can
just
come
to
the
building
counter
and
submit
for
a
building
permit
to
construct
an
edu.
So
we
also
need
to
think
about
the
timing
of
when
they
need
to
notify
the
neighbors.
Was
it
during
construction
prior
to
issuing
the
building
permit
of
what
sort
we
conduct
like?
I
said.
We
can
definitely
document
that
in
our
summary
minutes
and
forward
onto
council.
C
H
C
F
Commissioner
harmon
please,
I
just
had
quick
follow-ups
on
both
both
mary
lou's
remark
and
and
yours,
mr
chair,
I
think
I'm
I'm
probably
recognized
as
being
pretty
pro
letting
people
build
more
housing.
I
I
do.
I
think
commissioner
johnson
makes
a
a
good
point,
though
I
think
it
would
be
fair
to
do.
Something
like
you
know,
include
as
part
of
the
sort
of
fee
for
getting
the
permit.
F
Just
like
include
enough
costs
to
notify
neighbors
within
you
know,
60
100
feet
like
it
doesn't
need
like
just
the
people
who
are
going
to
be
directly
impacted
by
stop.
You
know
construction
equipment
being
there
like.
That
seems
fair
just
to
let
them
know
you
know
you're
not
going
to
prevent
the
construction.
Obviously
it
would
be
illegal
to
do
so,
but
but
that
I
I
do
agree
that
it
would
be
reasonable
to
have
some
kind
of
noticing,
certainly
signage
and
then,
regarding
the
adus.
F
F
That
seems
my
understanding
from
kind
of
you
know,
reading
about
some
of
what's
going
on
in
socal,
where
they're
farther
along
in
the
cycle
is
that
that
I
mean
essentially
some
cities
sort
of
tried
to
pretend
that,
like
every
building
that
doesn't
already
have
an
adu
is
going
to
add
one
and
therefore
they're
going
to
meet
their
numbers
and
the
hcd
was
like.
No.
F
A
All
right,
I
do
have
one
comment
on
those
subjects
that
mary
lou
brought
up.
If
we're
gonna,
perhaps
we
can,
when
we
forward
our
comments
to
city
council,
if
we're
gonna
send
out
a
notice
for
edu's,
maybe
we
can
make
create
a
courtesy
notice
to
the
neighbors
and
have
it
say
it's
not
subject
to
review
so
that
it
doesn't
end
up
being
a
nightmare
for
the
folks
at
the
counter
at
city
hall.
B
Right
I
mean
I,
I
completely
agree
with
that.
I
think
the
downside
of
a
notice
is
it
gives
some
people
expectation
that
something
could
change
that
you're
notifying
them.
So
you
would
absolutely
have
to
be
clear
enough
that
saying
hey
this
is
just
a
heads
up.
Overall,
this
is
being
approved
under
local
and
state
law.
We
just
wanted
to
let
you
know
this
is
being
approved,
not
that
you're,
having
notice
that
you
could
comment
on
it
comment
on
that
later,
exactly.
A
A
A
F
F
F
A
D
F
B
H
F
F
A
A
C
A
Very
good
should
we
open
up
for
public
comment
for
items
not
on
the
agenda
as
we
usually
do
item
six
is
our
usual
okay,
let's
open
up
public
comment
for
anyone
who
wants
to
address
the
commission
for
anything,
that's
not
on
the
agenda
and
once
again,
zoom
users
raise
your
hand,
button
and
people
on
the
phone,
it's
star,
nine
and
madeline.
If
you
would,
let
us
know
if
we
have
anybody.