►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
C
All
right,
it
is
7
p.m,
and
we
are
all
here
so
I
think
we
can
just
get
started.
Thank
you
to
everyone
for
attending
the
Planning
Commission
meeting
this
evening.
The
final
meeting
of
2022,
the
Planning
Commission,
will
continue
to
hold
meetings
remotely
via
Zoom
until
such
time
as
it
is
determined
that
it
is
safe
to
meet
in
person,
ongoing,
covid
and
I,
guess
now,
RSV
and
all
those
fun
things.
C
Please
know
that
we
want
to
hear
from
you
if
you
are
in
the
audience,
and
you
would
like
to
address
the
commission
during
public
comment
for
an
item
on
the
agenda.
Please
use
the
raise
your
hand
button
at
the
bottom
of
your
Zoom
screen
when
it
is
your
turn
to
speak,
planning
staff
will
call
your
name
and
unmute
you
and
you
will
be
given
three
minutes
to
address
the
commission
if
you
are
joining
by
telephone.
C
C
I
am
requesting
a
roll
call.
Who
is
our
our
staff
person?
That's
managing
this
evening,
all
right,
thank
you
or.
D
C
Oh
sure
we
have
a
new
member
of
the
commission
joining
us
this
evening.
Welcome
commissioner
Kun,
hopefully
I'm
pronouncing
that
adequately.
Yeah.
E
I'm
Thomas
Kuhn:
it's
a
pleasure
to
join
you
all
I
promise
to
work
hard
and
be
unbiased.
F
H
A
C
All
right,
thank
you
very
much,
I
guess.
Moving
on
to
our
Pledge
of
Allegiance,
commissioner,
would
you
care
to
lead
us
in
the
pledge
this
evening?
It'd.
E
B
C
All
right
next
item
is
our
approval
of
the
November
29th
2022
minutes.
Did
anyone
have
any
concerns
with
the
content
of
the
minutes
or
do
we
have
a
motion.
F
Through
the
chair,
I
move
that
we
approve
the
minutes
of
September
20th
2022.
F
And-
and
it
also
has
I've
scrolled
down
to
the
minutes,
and
it
has
September
20th
and
November
17
2022.
D
F
F
I
I
approve
the
minutes,
as
date
stated.
C
F
C
All
right
at
this
time,
we
would
welcome
public
comment
for
items
not
on
our
agenda.
If
anyone
in
the
audience
cares
to
comment
on
an
item
of
concern
to
the
Planning
Commission
that
isn't
agendized
now
is
the
time
to
raise
your
hand.
I
will
just
give
a
brief
moment.
C
I
do
not
see
any
hands
if
staff
can
confirm.
C
Right
moving
right
along
do
we
have
any
announcements
of
conflicts
of
interest
this
evening
on
any
of
our
public
hearings?
Aha,.
I
Through
the
chair,
hi
I'm
going
to
be
recusing
myself
from
from
items
A
and
B
because
of
my
relationship
with
the
architect.
C
Go
all
right:
yeah
scrolling
down,
okay,
all
right,
then,
okay,
well
I!
Guess
we
should
move
commissioner
lethian
to
the
attendees
group
as
we
are
moving
into
our
first
public
hearing,
then.
C
All
right,
so
our
first
public
hearing
is
768
Easton
Avenue,
just
over
by
Rolling
Pin
and
staff
presentation.
Please.
J
J
J
J
B
J
So
the
proposed
project
is
a
first
floor:
Edition
minor,
50
square
feet,
385
square
feet
of
which
will
be
a
j80u,
add
a
second
floor
edition
of
841
square
feet,
total
increase
of
1
756
square
feet,
and
it
will
make
for
an
additional
three
bedrooms
and
four
bathrooms.
So
five
bedrooms,
five
bathrooms
in
total
and
of
course,
adus
and
jdus
are
ministerial
and
they
do
not
count
towards
the
floor
area
and
lot
coverage.
J
So
looking
at
floor
area
and
if
you
once
you
subtract,
the
jdu,
the
area
ratio
comes
out
to
0.565
and
the
growth
square
area
comes
to
2826
square
feet.
J
J
J
You'll
notice
that
they're
changing
the
the
appearance
of
the
home
from
exciting
to
stucco
and
that's
standard
for
them
for
the
neighborhood
as
well.
L
J
Left
side,
elevation
and
right
side,
elevation
and
worth
mentioning
here
is
that
the
highlighted
windows
on
the
right
there.
We
are
recommending
that
the
applicant
modify
those
windows
due
to
privacy
concerns
and
our
last
meeting
for
the
for
Arc,
the
applicant
I
believe,
did
comment
and
said
that
they
would
be
open
to
doing
that.
J
Mentioning
is
that
it's
been
established
that,
even
with
these
windows
modified,
it
would
still
be
compliant
with,
with,
with
with
the
fire
code,
that
that
Second
Story
window
would
still
be
there
on.
A
J
It
conforms
the
goals,
policies
and
standards
for
zoning
code
and
general
plan,
and
it
is,
it
maintains
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
It
will
not
be
detrimental
to
public
health
safety,
welfare
and
it
creates
an
attractive
bullying
environment
and
that's
all
from
me
and
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
C
C
C
That
was
the
only
question
I
had
just
to
make
sure
I
knew
what
was
going
on
with
that
still
not
seeing
any
other
hands
so
I
guess
we
can
open
for
public.
Oh
actually,
do
we
have
a
presentation
from
Sofia
this
is
Staff.
Did
we
have
an
applicant
presentation
as
well?
C
Okay,
then,
for.
C
Yeah
I
mean
she's,
definitely
certainly
welcome
to
address
US.
Briefly,
if
she's
interested.
M
Hi
good
evening,
I'm,
the
designer
of
this
project,
I,
was
want
to
make
a
comment
about
the
the
windows
my
client
decided.
Instead
of
you
know
obscure
that
window.
She
would
like
to
have
more
like
a
high.
M
You
know
long
type
of
window
to
you
know
to
be
able
to
have
the
bed
under
that
window
and
then
removing
the
the
window
from
the
stairs
is
it's
totally
fine
for
privacy.
We
still
have
the
egress
window
that
faces
the
front
of
the
house
and
and
then
we
try
to
work
on
articulation,
especially
on.
If
you
see
this
neighborhood
it
has
the
two-story
houses
are
pretty
bulky,
and
so
we
try
to
work
on
articulation
of
this
house.
So
that's
my
comment.
B
C
Are
there?
Is
there
any
other
discussion
from
the
commission
comments,
or
do
we
want
simply
want
to
make
a
motion.
F
I'm,
just
looking
for
the
if
they
scroll
here,
I'm
looking
for
the.
C
C
I
spent
a
lot
of
time
walking
through
that
neighborhood
too
many
visits
to
Rolling,
Pin
but
I
think
it's
a
great
project
and
adds
you
know
valuable
living
space
in
an
area,
that's
very,
very
close
to
Transit
and
so
I'm
delighted
to
move
to
approve
use,
permit
up
2205
and
Architectural
Review
permit
ar2208,
based
on
findings,
one
to
three
for
the
use
permit
and
four
to
eight
for
the
Architectural
Review
and
conditions
of
approval.
D
A
C
So
then
we
are
on
to
public
hearing
7B
1511
Crestwood
Drive.
Do
we
have
a
staff
presentation.
G
E
A
G
All
right
good
evening,
commissioners,
I'm
Navi
sale
on
Mayo,
the
lead
planner
for
this
project
and
the
subject
site
is
1511
Crestwood
Drive.
This
is
a
request
for
an
architecture
review
permit
to
allow
a
residential
Edition
that
would
increase
the
overall
floor
area
of
the
single
family
resonance
by
more
than
one
thousand
square
feet,
and
it
is
also
a
request
for
a
use
permit
to
allow
a
residential
Edition
that
would
exceed
the
existing
floor
area
by
more
than
50
percent,
and
the
project
numbers
are
ar22-009.
N
G
G
So
the
subject
site
is
located
on
Crestwood
Drive
between
Rollingwood
Drive
and
Fleetwood
Drive.
This
is
in
the
Rolling
Wood
number
one
subdivision
the
subject:
lot
measures
5949
square
feet
and
currently
consists
of
a
one-story
single-family
home
with
an
attached,
two-car
garage,
and
it
has
the
gross
floor
area
and
a
lot
coverage
of
1907
square
feet.
The
home
was
built
in
1956
and
includes
three
bedrooms
and
two
bathrooms.
G
G
Now
the
property
is
low,
it's
surrounded
by
a
variety
of
land
uses.
This
is
actually
the
R1
District
nearby.
You
have
the
R3
district
and
it's
to
the
west
of
I-280.
So
most
of
the
houses
here
in
this
neighborhood
were
built
around
the
same
time
between
1954
and
1958,
so
they
have
very
similar
architectural
Styles.
G
G
Now
the
proposed
project
includes
a
new
Second
Story
edition
of
1027
square
feet.
On
the
first
floor,
it
has
an
addition
of
63
square
feet
which
will
be
added
to
the
garage,
and
the
project
will
also
have
an
interior
remodel
to
the
first
floor.
So
the
total
proposed
Edition
is
1090
square
feet
and
this
would
increase
the
existing
home
from
1900
70
square
feet
to
2997
square
feet,
and
this
is
less
than
the
maximum
permitted
far.
G
Now
when
it
comes
to
the
changes
of
the
first
floor,
I
highlighted
it
in
yellow,
for
you
guys
to
see
that
is
a
63
square
foot
addition
to
the
garage
and
the
purpose
for
this
is
to
expand
the
existing
storage
area
to
have
more
room
for
the
pantry
and
laundry
space.
But
the
lower
floor
will
also
be
remodeled
to
have
an
open
concept
kitchen
and
living
room,
and
they
will
also
increase
the
size
of
the
bedrooms.
G
It
will
remove
some
of
the
walls
to
implement
the
new
stairway
and
a
new
Powder
Room
the
second
floor.
Edition
is,
it
will
consist
new
bedrooms
and
most
of
it
will
actually
be
the
last
bedroom
walk-in
closet
map,
Master
bathroom.
They
will
also
have
a
sauna
and
a
gym
that
property
owner
is
very
into
fitness,
so
they
will
be
used
utilizing
that
space
for
face.
G
Now
when
it
comes
to
the
elevations,
they
will
utilize
material
that
is
consistent
throughout
the
neighborhood.
So
that
includes
stucco
vinyl
windows,
asphalt,
shingles
and
for
the
garage
it
will
be
a
stained
wood
garage
door.
G
You
could
also
see
that
they
implemented
some
facade
articulation
with
varied
roof
lines,
step
backs
insets
and
roof
overhangs.
So
this
is
the
elevation
to
the
rear.
These
are
to
the
side.
G
The
second
key
condition
is
regarding
the
20-foot
easement
in
the
rear,
but
there's
also
a
five
foot
easement
highlighted
in
yellow
to
the
north
and
our
engineer
determined
that
there's
some
brick
Planters,
a
six
foot
fence,
a
side
gate
and
some
other
side
planter
walls
that
are
located
within
these
easements.
So
the
property
owner
has
the
option
to
either
remove
them
or
apply
for
an
existing
encroachment.
Acknowledgment
permit
I
was
notified
that
the
applicant
has
started
conversations
with
the
public
works
department
to
satisfy
these
two
conditions.
G
So
on
November
10th,
the
architecture
Review
Committee
considered
these
these
items
and
recommended
Planning
Commission
approval
and
staff
recommends
that
you
approve
architecture,
review,
permit,
ar22-009
and
use
pyramid
up22-006
for
the
following
findings.
We
find
that
it
conforms
with
the
standards
of
the
zoning
code
and
the
general
plan.
It
also
conforms
with
the
character
of
the
neighborhood.
Since
it's
consistent
with
the
design
elements
of
the
residential
design
guidelines,
it
will
not
be
detrimental
to
the
public
health.
One
thing
that
no
is
due
to
the
orientation
of
a
building.
G
C
I'm
not
seeing
any
hands
from
our
commission.
Do
we
have
a
presentation
from
the
applicant
at
all
or
comments.
C
I,
don't
see
any
hand
raised
in
our
attendees,
so
do
we
have
comments
on
this
project
from
members
of
the
public.
C
C
Still
not
seeing
any
hands
do
we
have
any
discussion
comments
from
the
commission
or
do
we
just
want
to
proceed
to
a
motion
on
it
actually,
I.
E
So
you
discussed
the
need
so
there's
a
public
utility
use
easement
in
the
back
in
the
front
I.
This
is
probably
a
process
question
I'm,
not
understanding.
E
G
Yeah
so
after
Planning
Commission
approves
this
project,
the
applicant
will
apply
for
a
building
permit
and
they
will
be
able
to
satisfy
these
conditions
of
approval
during
the
building
permit
issuance
process.
So
they
have
to
satisfy
these
conditions
before
the
final
inspection
and
our
reviewing
departments
sign
off
on
them.
E
C
D
Through
the
chair
motion,
first
to
close
the
public
comment:
oh.
C
Too
many
windows
open
all
right.
Well,
I
will
just
move
to
close
public
comment
on
this
item.
Second,
should
we
do?
Can
we
do
this
one
just
by
acclimation.
A
F
As
a
point
of
information
through
the
league
of
city
Lego
Cities,
they
indicate
that
it
doesn't
require.
It
could
be
at
the
discretion
of
a
chair
to
close
the
public
comment.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
a
vote.
It
is
yeah.
C
F
We
haven't
had
anyone
yeah
of
course,
but
just
so
you
know
that
it's
not
a
it's
it's
at
the
discretion
of
the
chair,
so
we're
consistent
in
the
process.
Okay,.
C
All
right,
we
are
going
to
consider
public
comment
on
this
item.
Closed.
Do
we
have
a
motion
from
the
commissioner
regarding
this
I
can
just
make
the
motion
myself
if
I
need
to.
H
C
B
C
Right
and
I
will
note
that
on
any
item
where
the
Planning
Commission
is
the
normally
the
final
decision
body,
there
is
a
10-day
period
for
appeal
to
council
which
may
carry
a
fee
of
a
few
hundred
dollars.
You
can
consult
with
staff
for
the
details,
contact
planning
at
San,
bruno.ca.gov
or
650-616-7074.
If
anybody
does
want
to
appeal
things
all
right,
I
think
that
concludes
7D
and
we
can
bring
back
commissioner
lethine
for
our
final
public
hearing.
O
For
this
second
story,
Edition
and
first
floor,
Edition,
two
permits
are
required
in
Architectural.
Review
permit
is
required
because
the
increase
to
the
home
exceeds
one
thousand
square
feet
and
the
proposed
project
would
result
in
a
square
footage.
Exceeding
three
thousand
a
use
permit
is
required,
because
the
proposed
increase
of
the
existing
gross
floor
area
is
greater
than
50
percent,
and
the
proposed
floor
area
would
exceed
the
permitted
floor
area.
Maximum.
O
O
O
The
proposed
Second
Story
consists
of
a
1
100
square
foot
Edition.
The
proposed
first
floor
consists
of
a
428
square
foot
addition
and
a
kitchen
remodel.
The
total
of
these
additions
is
1528
square
feet,
which
would
result
in
a
total
gross
floor.
4
area
of
3182
square
feet
with
a
floor
area
ratio
of
0.64.
O
O
In
the
proposed
site
plan,
the
addition
of
the
first
floor
extends
out,
but
it
does
not
approach
into
the
front
yard
setback
area.
You
will
also
see
the
current
paved
driveway
will
be
replaced
with
permeable
pavers
to
ensure
the
project
complies
with
the
maximum
impervious
service
area
of
4
000
square
feet.
O
O
O
O
Based
on
analysis,
staffer
recommends
that
the
Planning
Commission
approve
Architectural
Review,
permit
ar22-007
and
use
permit
up22-004,
based
on
the
recommended
conditions
of
approval,
revised
plans
and
the
following
findings.
The
project
conforms
with
the
goals,
policies
and
standards
of
the
zoning
code
and
general
plan,
because
the
design
of
the
addition
is
compatible
with
the
neighborhood
character.
O
The
project
conforms
with
the
character
of
the
neighborhood,
based
on
the
use
of
similar
materials
and
design
of
neighboring
homes.
The
project
will
not
be
detrimental
to
the
public
health,
safety
or
welfare,
and
the
project
creates
an
attractive
building
environment
because
it
includes
a
variety
of
building
styles
and
Designs,
such
as
step
backs,
insets,
roof,
overhangs,
varied
roof
lines
and
material
changes
to
break
up
the
mass
of
the
home.
All
right-
and
that
is
all
for
this
item-
I'd,
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
C
K
Good
question
the
floor
area
ratio
seemed
pretty
high
is
that
above
our
typical
norms.
D
Through
the
chair,
I
can
respond
to
that.
So
the
yes,
the
the
again,
that's
that's
typically
the
case
of
the
the
the
Planning
Commission
does
have
the
discretion
to
approve
floor
area
Beyond.
What
is
the
the
floor
area?
That's
that
we
calculate
based
on
the
the
size
and
the
slope
of
the
lot
with
a
discount.
D
You
know,
depending
on
how,
if
the,
if
the
lot
is
more
than
five
thousand
square
feet,
it's
slightly
discounted
for
determining
the
floor
area,
so
you
know
really.
The
allowance
is
in
the
code
to
allow
for
more
floor
area.
You
know,
given
that
if
the
setting
and
the
you
know
the
appearance
of
the
home
and
you
know
are,
are
such
that
the
additional
floor
area
is,
you
know,
still
allows
the
home
to
be
consistent
with
the
neighborhood.
So
so
you
do
have
that
discretion.
K
Yeah
it
looks
like
the
according
to
the
summary
sheet.
The
limit
is
0.55
and
we're
at
0.64,
so
that's
significant
overage
and
there's
no
Adu
in
this
one
right,
so
we'd
be
making
a
kind
of
an
exception
to
what
we
normally
do
proving
what
this
this
large
seems.
I
Through
the
chair,
I
know
that
the
are
our
official
code
says
the
point
I'm
sorry,
commissioner
Madden
or
vice
chair
Madden,
just
said
it
was
1.5
0.55,
but
I
know
that
following
the
the
crestmore
explosion
and
the
rebuild
there,
we
kind
of
have
a
soft,
a
new,
a
new
limit,
though
it's
not
official
I.
Just
don't
have
my
cheat
sheet
in
front
of
me,
but
I
can
really
grab
it
real,
quick,
but
does
any
other
commissioner
or
staff
have
that
number.
I
F
C
Well,
I
mean
I'm
just
going
to
observe
that
I
I
mean
I.
Think
it's
important
to
just
in
principle.
Consider
that
the
the
sort
of
the
point
of
these
limits
is
that
they
describe
what
you
can
do
without
discretionary
review
at
all
right.
But
if
you
stay
under
the
various
limits
for
the
percentage
expansion
and
the
floor
area
and
blah
blah
blah,
you
don't
even
come
to
Planning
Commission.
That's.
E
C
That
it's
fine,
and
so
you
know
I,
think
okay,
like
it's
over
the
limit,
so
we
have
discretion
to
review
it.
But
the
whole
point
of
the
discretionary
review
is
that,
like
yes,
if
it's
very,
very
big,
it
might
be
offensive
in
some
way
or
a
problem
for
the
neighbors,
and
so
this
gives
an
opportunity
to
have
a
conversation,
give
us
an
opportunity
for
a
neighbor
to
get
a
notice
and
come
and
complain,
but
it
isn't
necessarily
mean
it's
that
it
shouldn't
be
approved.
That
the
point
is
that
it
get.
You
know
it.
C
It's
a
this
objective
standard
exceed
some
limit.
It's
flagged
for
review.
We
talk
about
it,
but
I
I,
wouldn't
you
know,
I
mean
if
you
tried
to
do
like
a
1.5
floor
area
ratio
in
an
R1
neighborhood,
then
it
might
that
you
know
just
by
itself
as
an
objective
standard
you
might
go
but
I
think
being
at
you
know
0.64
when
the
the
sort
of
point
at
which
we
review
it
is
0.55
doesn't
seem
disqualifying.
You
know
right.
E
Yeah
I'd
like
to
ask
staff:
could
you
go
back
to
show
a
slide
with
x,
I
think
I
think
it
brings
up
a
good
point
on
bulk.
E
Particularly
the
front
and
rear
I
think
that
that
can
tell
a
story
of
the
the
bulk,
not
just
this
pure
square
footage.
E
E
So
no
would
it
be
true
to
say:
there's
no
increase
in
the
general
bulk
of
the
floor
plate.
O
The
current
distance
from
sidewalk
to
garage
that
we
require
is
20
feet.
I.
C
I'm
in
my
own,
my
own
house
has
that
feature
where
the
existing
garage
was
built
in
like
1940,
and
it
is
closer
than
the
modern
setback.
But
his
grandfathered.
O
The
home
was
built
in
1957.,
so
if
that's
any
indication.
F
There's
a
chair
just
actually
it's
just
a
comment:
I
think
that
you
described
it
quite
well,
commissioner,
Carmen
and
also
the
same
goes
with
the
with
the
the
garages
there's.
Also,
this
threshold
of
number
1825
triggers
two
Craig
Rogers
and
I.
Don't
remember
the
3
000,
something
that
triggers
the
three
third
car
garage,
but
we
take
into
consideration.
Is
there
space?
Did
they
change
every
I
mean
there's
just
a
lot
of
and
and
when
we
look
at
it,
it's
adding
over
and
above
a
bedroom?
F
A
C
You,
commissioner,
Johnson,
if
there
are
not
additional
clarifying
questions
from
the
commission
for
staff,
do
we
have
any
comments
from
the
applicant.
C
I,
don't
see
a
hand
raised
was
the
applicant
in
attendance
this
evening.
B
P
That
you
were
right:
the
open
space
there's
an
opus
space
there,
so
we're
just
trying
to
close
that
up
and
then
build
the
second
floor
on
that.
On
top
of
that,.
C
Great,
thank
you.
Did
you
I
mean
if
you
have
any
other
comments,
you
know
I
mean
obviously
optional.
If
not,
we
can
move
on
to
other
public
comments.
C
Right,
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
being
with
us
this
evening.
Do
we
have
any
public
comment
on
this
project.
C
All
right,
I
will
move
that
we
close
public
comment.
C
Do
we
have
any
other
further
discussion
or
other
concerns
to
to
go
over
before
moving
on
to
emotion,
commissioner
lethine
thanks.
I
I
I
do
actually
have
concern
about
the
floor
area
ratio,
although
the
project
itself
seems
to
really
thoughtfully
and
well
designed
I
know.
In
the
past
we
have
really
held
every
applicant
that
we've
seen
to
the
0.62
far
and
we've
done
that
quite
often
out
of
respect
for
the
people
who
are
rehabiling
their
homes
after
the
explosion
and
I
based
on
precedent,
don't
feel
comfortable
approving
something
at
the
the
0.64
I
want
to
stay
at
the
0.62.
F
There's
a
chair,
I
would
agree,
that's
Paul,
you
know
it's.
It's
a
fair
comment.
I
think
that
when
you
look
at
what
expansion
is
and
it
is
infringing
on
front
or
back
or
site
that
box
and
I
would
say,
that's
something
to
but
I
think
in
this
circumstance,
because
it
is
unique
and
it
is
filling
in
the
Gap
that
the
setting
of
presidents
is
not
the
case,
because
this
is
a
unique
situation
where
the
space
is
within
and
not
expanding
anything
further.
F
That
impacts
neighborhood
so
for
the
mere
fact
of
it
being
a
logistic
and
setting
the
presidents.
I
I
feel
in
the
circumstance
that
it's
that
it's
it's
a
unique
situation
and
for
those
reasons,
I
just
support
it.
E
You
know
I
I'm,
sorry,
I
I,
don't
understand
the
precedent.
Actually,
this
is
probably
because
I'm
new
I
might
have
to
ask
after
it's
probably
a
long
story,
that's
not
appropriate
for
this
meeting.
E
C
It
does
mean
that
hypothetically,
possibly
depending
on
some
things,
like
utilities,
easements
in
the
back,
you
know
or
or
other
rules
like
if,
if
the
backyard
is
available
for
use,
they
could
add
additional
living
area
as
an
Adu
and
it
would
not
get
discretionary
review.
It
would
just
be
a
ministerial
automatic
approval.
C
Yeah
I,
think
I
mean
there's,
there's
some
legitimacy
to
the
concern
that
they
could
be
getting
up
to.
You
know
a
0.75.8
type
ratio
by
adding
something
like
that,
but
to
some
degree
you
know,
respect
the
Goodwill
of
the
homeowner
that
they
want
to
use
their
space,
but
yeah.
E
And
in
the
same
respect
there
might
have
been
other
projects
approved
that
would
have
exceeded.
A
E
C
At
earlier
you
know,
the
Jadu
was
excluded
from
the
floor
area
ratio
for
the
for
our
purposes
of
our
review
and
the
total
was
higher
with
it.
Okay,
that's
interesting
all
right.
K
Staff,
it's
been
a
long
time
since
I've
calculated
floor
area
ratio,
but
my
recollection
is
that
it's
the
condition
space
does.
It
also
include
the
garage
and
the
there's
a
balcony
on
the
second
floor,
like
a
covered
area,
could
that
be
subtracted
out.
D
Yeah,
so
we
we
do
count
the
garage
in
this
case,
so
it
is
different
than
the
Realtors
look
at
would
look
at
square
footage
when
you
know
if
you're
buying
a
house,
we
include
the
garage
you
know,
basically
because
it's
we're
looking
at
Mass.
A
K
Area
ratio
right
so
the
there's
a
second
floor
kind
of
area.
It's
got
the
balcony
and
whatnot
is
that
already?
Is
that
already
subtracted
out
in
the
square
footage
for
the
second
floor.
O
D
Yeah,
if
it's
yeah,
if
it's
not
enclosed,
it
is
not
not
included
in
floor
area,
that's
correct,
but
because
the
the
roof
covering,
though,
would
count
it
as
part
of
the
the
lot
coverage.
D
If
you
know
the
roof
covering
like
a
covered
patio
at
the
first
level
of
the
house
or
one
that
extends
out
over,
that
would
be
counted
in
lot
coverage
but
not
floor
area.
Okay.
K
C
K
There
are
no
Dimensions,
it's
eight
foot,
nine
clear
in
One
Direction
and
then
probably
the
other
direction
as
well.
I.
K
Foreign
clear
on
one
side
and
four
six:
seven.
C
Yeah
you're
right
I
was
looking
at
the
window
measurements.
Yes,.
K
The
concern
I
have
for
the
commissioner
is
what
out
what
happens
on
another
lot,
that
saved
a
different
shape
or
configuration,
and
you
know
we've
been
kind.
I
haven't
been
on
the
commission
that
long,
but
this
is
the
biggest
law
coverage
I've
seen
so
far,
and
so
you
know
I
agree.
The
footprint
is
not
growing,
which
is
great.
K
The
lock
coverage
is
staying
the
same
basically,
but
I
just
don't
want
to
start
getting
too
far
above
the
established
limit,
which
is
0.55
for
this
Zone,
where,
like
16
over
that
I,
don't
know
if
that
can
be
exceeded
with
there's
like
a
formal
variance
application.
K
I,
don't
know
if,
if
that
was
included
in
here,
I
do
note
on
the
cover
sheet
that
floor
area
ratio
is
not
calculated
only
lock
coverage
for
the
for
the
plans,
but
if
we
can
squeeze
under
by
subtracting
out
this
balcony,
I'll
be
I'll,
be
happy
to
approve
it.
E
Sorry
can
I
ask
for:
are
you
saying
the
it's,
the
largest
lot
coverage,
so
that's
the
floor.
Plate
divided
by
the
lot
size
5000
or
is
it
the
largest
far.
K
K
K
We
have
rules
and
I'm
fine,
pushing
him
to
the
Limit,
but
when
we
go
over
them,
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
doing
it
for
a
good
reason.
I
agree.
The
bulk
of
the
house
is
not
really
anything
that
I
would
object
to.
I
just
want
to
see
if
we
can
get
the
number
down
here
using
this
little
bit
of
open
airspace.
C
Looks
like
if
this,
if
this
diagram
is
representing
what
was
done
for
the
far
calculation,
that
I
think
it
already
was
excluded.
Yeah.
O
That's
correct
so
just
through
bluebeam.
This
is
a
very,
very
rough
perimeter
that
I've
drawn,
but
it
does
look
like.
The
balcony
has
already
been
excluded
from
that
1100
that
you
saw
in
the
first
page.
O
C
I
mean
I
in
the
absence
of
some
sort
of
record,
of
kind
of
what
have
been
the
the
areas
and
and
Laurier
ratios
I
mean.
If
you
look
around
that
neighborhood,
there
are
definitely
units
that,
from
the
street
present
a
similar
effect,
there
are
other.
You
know,
some
of
them
have
the
they're
on
the
slope
and
they
have
the
tuck
under
garage
and
then
they
have
a
main
floor,
an
upper
floor,
and
you
know
the
Upper
Floor
is
typically
somewhat
stepped
in.
C
C
The
neighboring
houses
have
comparable
side
setbacks
and
in
terms
of
precedent,
I
mean,
as
I
observed,
like
the
point
of
the
far
rule,
is
that
when
you
exceed
a
certain
far
you
get
a
discretionary
review,
and
so
it
gives
the
opportunity
to
say
okay,
you
know
you're
over
this
line
we
set,
but
the
line
is
fundamentally
arbitrary
and
you
know
that's.
The
the
question
I
think
is,
is
not
what
the
number
is
it's,
whether
the
overall
effect
of
the
property
is
going
to
be.
C
A
I
Through
the
chair,
We've
really
held
other
people
to
that
number
really
firmly
I
can
only
remember
one
that
we
allowed
to
exceed
by
a
fraction
and
that
involved
kind
of
a
a
multi-use
area
that
was
kind
of
dug
into
the
crawl
space.
I
I
think
it's
well
designed
and
I
think
it's
thoughtful
I
do
think
it
adds
a
significant
Mouse
to
the
the
Upper
Floor
and
unless
I'm
afraid,
I
I
can't
vote
Yes
on
this
project.
I
After
the
experiences
we've
gone
through
and
said,
I
don't
want
to
set
a
new
precedent
for
going
above
that
number.
K
Well,
I
would
say
that
they
know
that
they're
over
the
limit
by
0.9,
and
they
didn't
even
mention
that
in
their
summary
sheet
on
the
drawings,
they
just
ignored
the
calculation
altogether.
They
just
did
lock
coverage,
so
I
think
they
were
aware
of
it.
I
mean
all
they
have
to
do
is
shave
down
a
little
bit
off
their
master,
bedroom
and
they'll
get
it
it's
a
very
large
master
bedroom.
I
My
my
understanding-
this
was
just
my
guess.
Maybe
Steph
can
clarify
but
yeah
the
0.55
is
in
ink.
That's
that's
firm
and
clear,
and
then
my
understanding
was
that
the
crystal
precedent
was
the
0.62,
and
that
was
something
that,
when
an
applicant
is
working
with
staff
to
bring
their
project
forward,
that
would
be
something.
I
was
guessing
more
word
of
mouth,
something
that
would
be
advised
on.
F
Who's,
the
chair
I
can't
help
but
continue
to
raise
the
the
discussion
that
we're
looking
at
a
number
and
I
and
I
agree
from
the
point
of
rules.
I
do
I'm
I'm
a
real
follower,
I'm
completely
supportive
I.
Don't
believe
that
we
should
arbitrarily
just
because
we
have
a
change
of.
You
know
a
thought,
however,
but
because
there
isn't
any
change
in
error
in
the
far
I
think
we're
not
setting
presidents
it's.
There
is
a
very
valid
reason
why
this.
F
Whereas
others
we
have
declined
or
held
them
tight
to
it
is,
there
was
an
impact
to
something-
and
that's
not
the
case
in
the
situation.
That's
why
I
look
at
it
differently
and
I
can't
possibly
remember,
but
I
know
that
we've
gone
over
0.62
and
I'll
Stand
correct
it.
If
that's
not
the
case,
but
I
do
re,
I
mean
have
been
on
there
a
long
time,
but
it
it
has
happened.
C
Yeah
I
mean
I,
guess
you
know
like
right,
I
mean
there's
the
whole
sort
of
right
slippery
slope.
Arguments
right
that,
oh,
if
you
do
0.64
today,
you'll
you'll
somehow
be
forced
to
do
0.67
tomorrow
and
I,
just
I,
I,
fundamentally
I,
don't
feel
that
there
is
any
kind
of
sort
of
slippery
slope
aspect
or
or
precedent
that
can
be
taken
advantage
of,
because
the
the
rule
that
triggers
the
discretionary
review
will
remain
the
same
and
the
next
project
that
comes,
if
somebody
I
mean
honestly
I
doubt
any
architect
anywhere
in
the
Bay.
C
Area
is
going
to
be
looking
at
this
particular
project
and
pick
up
that
number
and
you
know
like
they
just
that's
sort
of
not
how
it
works,
but
even
if
somebody
did
and
they
come
with
something,
that's
a
0.67
or
a
0.68,
it
triggers
the
exact
same
discretionary
review
and
we
have
the
discretion
to
look
at
it
and
say
yeah.
No,
this
is
really
unpleasant
and
it's
going
to
make
the
neighbors
lives
miserable
and
reject
it.
C
You
know
I
mean
we
have
recently
had
a
second
story,
Edition
that
we
said
you
know
what
this
is
too
much
and
and
pushed
it
back
for
revision.
We
we
retain
that
power,
regardless
of
what
we
do
on
this
project,
so
I,
just
I.
You
know
like
if,
if
people
believe
that
this
is
overly
bulky
like
fine,
that
you
know,
you
can
look
at
it
and
make
that
review,
but
I
think
the
heuristic
number
that
we
use
to
trigger
discretionary
review
like
just
setting
a
hard
line
on
that.
Heuristic
is
a
mistake
with
respect.
F
And
through
the
chair,
I
think
that
at
the
counter
there's
discussion
about
that,
one
I
hear
that
the
applicant
purposely
ignored
it.
I
think
that's
quite
a
strong
opinion
and
I
and
I
believe
that
that,
if
it
was
that
strong
that
could
stop
at
the
counter
would
have
had
those
discussions
and
so
I
I.
Don't
believe
that
it
was
an
intention
of
ignoring
I
believe
that
we
have
seen
Architects
ask
for
the
most
and
then
we
have
shaved
things
off
from
pastimes
and
restructured
and
changed
things.
F
But
I
do
believe
that
those
discussions
do
take
place
at
the
counter
and
and
that
and
it
comes
before
us
with
or
without
information.
I
don't
know.
Sometimes,
yes,
sometimes
not
so.
C
K
L
K
F
I'm
do
not
like
to
delay
projects
at
all,
but
if
the,
if
I
know
that
the
architect
is
not
on
but
the
owner,
it
could
be,
and
sometimes
there's
that
discussion
with
with
the
designer
that
could
say
you
know
what
no
issue
we'll
be
happy
to
do
that
or
we
want
it
presented
as
is,
and
then
we'll
take
our
chances
with
the
outcome.
So
is
there
that
opportunity
to
have
that
discussion
with
the
owner
or
architect
of
the
architect
is
available.
C
How
does
Staff
feel
about
bringing
back
in?
Was
it
Ms,
Valencia.
D
P
So
I
am
on
the
line.
This
is
Brenda
Valencia,
the
owner
and
I.
Think
I
think
we're
kind
of
we're
a
little
bit
thrown
off
here,
because
it
did
go
to
the
Planning
Commission
and
commissioner
I
believe
it's,
commissioner
Madden,
you
were
part
of
that
commission
as
well,
and
so
it
was
approved
the
first
time
around
I
think
we
could
have
made
some
changes
beforehand.
P
If
this
had
brought
been
brought
to
our
attention
at
that
time
and
kind
of
worked
on
that,
and
now
it's
kind
of
just
we're
a
little
thrown
off.
To
be
quite
honest,.
P
Yeah,
there's
there's
multiple
homes
in
our
neighborhood
that
we've
seen
that
are
that
are
pretty
big
we've.
Driven
around
this,
the
crestmore
3
neighborhood
we've
seen
we've
seen
homes
that
are
at
least
3
000
square
feet.
We've
taken
a
look
on
Redfin
we've
taken
a
look
on
Dillo,
so
we
know
that
they
are
out
there.
I,
don't
think
it's
it's
out
of.
It
doesn't
look
out
of
place
and
once
again
we
are
just
filling
the
open
area.
P
So
we
currently
have
like
when
we
walk
through
the
front,
we
have
a
front
gate
and
then
you
can
it's
just
all
open
area
to
the
front
door.
It
would
just
be
filling
that
in
it's
we're
not
we're
not
adding
anywhere
extra
in
the
front
I
mean
in
that
area.
So.
K
Yeah,
so
regarding
the
arc
review,
I
don't
believe
this
issue
was
brought
to
our
attention
and
I
just
noticed
it
tonight.
When
I
was
looking
through
the
packet,
so
you're
correct.
We
did
not
discuss
this
at
the
arc
meeting,
largely.
K
It
wasn't
brought
to
our
attention
that
it
was
over
the
limit
by
in
the
presentation,
nor
was
it
tonight.
K
So
that's
unfortunate,
but
I
I
just
don't
characterize
this
as
filling
in
the
empty
space.
There
is
an
addition
to
the
front
of
the
house,
but
this
looks
like
14
feet
of
reading
these
plants
correctly.
L
Yes,
how
are
you
doing?
This?
Is
the
other
homeowner
here
yeah
that
for
that
14
feet,
that
you're
talking
about
moving
forward
is
still
in
line
with
the
rest
of
the
houses
on
the
Block?
It's
not
like
it's
it's
still.
It's
still
in
line
with
the
garages
for
the
both
of
the
neighbors,
so
I
understand
that
the
14
feet
is
sounds
big,
but
it's
still
in
proportion
with
the
rest
of
the
neighborhood.
It's
not
like
it's
a
sticking
out
like
a
sore
thumb
and
it's
it's
I.
K
K
You
know
something
that
we'd
be
diverting
from
previous
ruins
on
this
commission
and
it's
a
bit
concerning
for
me
because
again,
I,
don't
think,
there's
anything
wrong
with
your
house
as
far
as
the
way
it
looks
the
size
of
the
lot,
how
it
is
relative
to
the
neighborhood,
but
it
is
technically
over
the
limit
by
quite
a
bit
and
then
there's
this
special
limit
that
is
carved
out
for
this
neighborhood
and
we're
over
that
as
well
I.
That's
that's
all
I'm!
Getting
at.
C
Would
make
two
observations?
One
is
just
to
say
again
that
the
you
know
if
it
wasn't
over
the
you
know
if
it
was
under
the
0.55
limit,
we
wouldn't
even
be
here
right.
I
mean
that's
the
whole
point
that
that's.
There
are
a
variety
of
reasons.
This
is
one
of
them,
but
if
you
know,
if
you
do
an
addition
and
you
stay
under
the
various
rules,
it's
just
ministerial,
it
doesn't
come
for
discretion
and
I
mean
I.
Think
that
maybe
this
is,
you
know
my
little
bit
of
a
Libertarian
streak
coming
out.
C
The
the
question
should
not
be
oh.
Why
should
we
let
you
do
something
on
your
own
land?
The
question
should
be:
do
we
have
a
good
reason
to
stop
you
and
it
exceeds?
Some
number
is
not
a
good
reason
that
doesn't
mean
it
hurts
anyone
if
it
doesn't
hurt
the
neighbors,
then
who
cares
what
the
number
is.
K
I,
don't
think
that's
what
we're
saying
I
think
we're
saying
it
can
be
abused
by
others
or
exceeded
by
others
in
other
projects
in
other
parts
of
the
town
and
they.
C
C
So
I
am
I,
guess
I'm,
looking
I
I
to
put
my
cards
on
the
table,
I'm
I'm,
leaning
towards
an
approval
and
I
I,
am
asking
the
question
other
than
this
calculation
yields
a
slightly
higher
number
I
I
do
not
see
harm
to
the
neighborhood
it
you
know,
I
mean
they
extend
forward.
The
you
know.
What's
on
the
diagram,
the
right
side
of
the
house,
I've
forgotten
where
North
is
on
this.
But
if
you
look
at
the
footprint
of
the
adjacent
property
to
the
left,
it's
quite
comparable
like
that.
One.
C
It's
just
and
then,
and
then,
like
I
said
I
mean
looking
around
like
I,
would
at
least
suspect
that
some
of
the
other
properties
in
the
neighborhood.
If
you
do
this
calculation,
where
you
include
the
garage
because
they
have
the
tuck
under
garage
and
then
two
additional
floors,
I
would
bet
there's
some
of
these
that
are
going
to
come
out
even
higher.
L
Yes
and
that's
kind
of
what
we
did
we
did,
we
did
quite
a
bit
of
research
and
we
kind
of
went
big
house.
You
know
on
in
the
neighborhood
the
biggest
houses
we
went
around
and
we
looked
at
them
and
we
researched
the
square
footage
and
we
came
up
with
the
number
that
we
got
based
upon
those
houses
which
are
in
our
immediate
neighborhood.
So
we're
not
we're
not
going
super
over
the
limit,
we're
doing
what
the
houses
that
are
similar
to
us
in
our
own
neighborhood.
So
there's
it's
not
like.
We.
L
We
want
to
be
super
breaking
these
rules
or
going
above
this
percentage.
We
just
seen
houses
that
we
liked
and
what
we,
what
we
wanted
out
of
our
house
was
based
upon
our
family
needs.
So
we
went
with
that
number.
It's
not
that
we
were
trying
to
do
it
to
break
or
rules
or
or
we
didn't
want
to
stay
within
the
regulations.
It's
for
a
reason.
K
E
I
just
like
to
point
out
project
that
we
approved
on
Easton
the
floor
area
ratio
is
0.64.
If
you
include
the
Adu.
K
E
E
E
Right
if
they,
so,
if
this
owner
resubmitted
the
project
with
an
Adu,
then
they
could
they
would
just
get
through
right.
Yeah.
L
E
C
N
Commissioner,
be
assadi,
so
I've
been
listening
to
this
and
I'm
getting
everybody's
Point
Armand
all
right,
commissioner
Harmon
rather
I
get
where
you're
coming
from
about
telling
people
what
to
do
with
their
property
and
commissioner
weapon
and
commissioner
Madden
I'm
right
there
with
you,
because
I
sat
through
those
meetings
where
we
limited
people
to
six
0.62
and
in
looking
at
the
overall
situation.
What
I'm
seeing
is
perhaps
for
this
one
rather
than
send
it
back
and
make
people
redo
things
and
it
for
for
point
two
over
the
limit
or
zero
two.
N
Maybe
we
should
just
approve
this
one,
as
is
because
it's
a
decent
project
but
I
think
as
a
commission,
we
need
to
have
a
conversation
about
the
0.62
I
I'm,
not
comfortable,
going
over
it,
because
we,
we
limited
people
in
the
past
to
that
number,
and
it
was
very
hard
for
some
of
those
people
to
keep
their
projects
under
that.
And
it
was
a
very
difficult
conversation
and
we
have
brand
new
staff
members
who
said
that
counter?
Who
are
not
that?
N
Don't
have
the
institutional
report,
historical
knowledge
of
what
we've
talked
about
so
I
think
it's
kind
of
unfair
that
we
at
this
juncture
for
this
particular
project
holding
to
that
number,
seeing
as
it's
how
it's
so
close,
I
I
completely
agree
that
I
I
am
still
for
the
0.62,
but
perhaps
we
should
separate
those
two
conversations
too
this
project
and
then
we
should
have
a
conversation
perhaps
afterwards
about
whether
we
want
to
hang
on
to
that
0.62,
because
it
was
very
emotional.
N
It
was
very
hard
and
there
was
a
lot
of
projects
that
we
looked
at,
that
we
turned
back
because
they
went
over
that
6-2
and
I.
Don't
feel
good
about
going
over
six
two
because
we
denied
other
people
that
in
the
past.
So
that's
my
two
cents.
H
I
just
want
to
Echo
what
commissioner
biasadi
just
said
at
least
a
portion
of
what
he
just
said:
I'm
inclined
to
approve
I
like
the
project.
I
think
our
conversation
does
need
to
happen.
H
The
second
to
newest
member
on
the
on
the
committee-
and,
if
you
have
asked
me
about
this
precedent
this
morning
or
earlier
today,
I
wouldn't
have
been
able
to
articulate
it.
I
mean
I've
only
been
on
the
on
the
committee
for
about
a
year
and
a
half
but
I
think
that's
a
conversation
that
needs
to
take
place
and
we're
talking
about.
President
I
mean
the
the
homeowners
making
a
point.
It
did
go
through
our
Arc
right,
so
there
has
to
be
some
consistency
with
that.
We
can't
just
say
as
a
committee.
H
C
Yeah
and
I
I
will
just
observe
that
one
of
the
example
houses
that
has
a
tuck
under
garage
and
then
it
has
a
main
floor
of
comparable
size
reaching
to
the
you
know,
distance,
the
curb
and
then
a
second
floor
is,
is
basically
across
the
street
at
2320,
Bennington
I
mean
I,
really
think
this
is
not
a
particularly
exceptional
design
for
the
neighborhood
and
I
would
be
I
would
be
willing
to
to
bet
that
2320
is
going
to
come
out
to
greater
than
0.62
as
well,
given
the
the
overall
footprint.
C
If
not
it's,
you
know,
and
the
point
is
it's
right.
You
know
if
it's
very
close
to
that,
then
you
know
who's.
It
hurting,
but
yeah
I
think
you
know.
If,
if
we're
going
to
apply
some
sort
of
strict
scrutiny
at
this
number,
then
people
should
know
about
this
number
earlier
in
the
process,
and
you
know
I
mean
I
to
be
honest,
like
I
think
it
may
have
been
a
mistake
to
apply
it
as
strictly
as
it
sounds
like
it
was
in
some
cases.
F
Me
I
want
to
just
you
know,
exchange
the
conversation
with
you.
Basically
in
the
past,
when
we
have
adhered
to
that
0.62,
there
was
discussion
with
the
architect
and
we
were
able
to
get
to
a
solution
very
much
quicker,
because
the
architect
was
able
to
give
us
input
and
we
came
to
choices
and
options
it
it's
we
held
it
out
to
them
and
they
adhere
to
it,
we're
not
having
that
opportunity.
So
that's
why
the
conversation
is
is
expanded.
F
The
other
thing
is
that
we
have
made
many
many
exceptions
to
garages,
and
so
do
we
strict?
No
there's
a
lot
to
look
at
these
roles
and
I
think
bottom
bottom
line.
It's
the
discretion
of
the
of
the
commission
to
look
at.
What's
the
impact
you
know,
is
there
a
detrimental
impact
to
an
outside,
Source
I?
F
Think
you
know,
and
that's
the
key
thing
you
look
at
all
those
pieces
and
it's
not
completely
black
and
white
and
I
feel
strongly
that
that
rules
are
important,
but
there
are
exceptions
to
rules
and
there
are
variances
in
use
permits
in
other
ways
to
make
things
happen
applies
in
Adu
as
as
it
was
discussed
earlier
and
I
I
never
want
to
put
an
applicant
a
position
to
beat
the
system,
but
to
be
able
to
have
a
conversation
that
that
says.
Okay,
this
this
every
decision,
I
make
I
look
at
it.
F
Is
it's
not
because
I
it's
it's
I,
look
at
those
decisions
that
I
want
to
hold.
My
to
my
word,
I
want
to
hold
to
my
reason
behind
it.
If
I
can
make
a
good
case
for
it
and
it's
valid
to
to
me
obviously
then
I
I
go
forward,
and
if
it
isn't
that
I
stick
to
that
role
as
well,
it
isn't
it
isn't
a
black
and
white
from
my
point
of
view,
in
every
circumstance.
C
Yeah
I
will
acknowledge
that
around
the
question
of
the
Adu
I
mean
the
concern
is
that
we
approve
this
thing,
that's
slightly
larger
than
the
usual,
and
then
an
Adu
can
be
added
later
and
so
I
was
curious.
It
looks
like
this
backs
on
to
the
canyon
and
I,
wasn't
sure
if
staff
had
any
knowledge
around
any
easements
at
the
back
in
terms
of
whether
that
space
actually
is
usable
to
further
expand.
C
L
Yes,
I
can
kind
of
touch
on
that
one.
The
back
of
our
house
is
a
hill
and
our
property
goes
back.
You
know
a
couple
feet,
but
there's
absolutely.
We
have
one
of
the
V
drains
that
basically
goes
down
the
whole
Street
and
we're
kind
of
the
top
of
that
V
drain.
L
So
it's
almost
impossible
for
us
to
add
anything
in
the
back
it
just
due
to
that
drain
being
kind
of
and
I
want
to
say
in
the
center
of
our
backyard,
but
it's
it's
significantly
in
the
way
of
actually
being
able
to
put
any
kind
of
addition
back
there.
C
Okay,
that's
kind
of
what
I
that's
kind
of
what
I
expected
from
from
looking
at
it
on
the
map,
yeah
I
mean
I
I'm,
coming
back
to
I,
mean
I,
guess
maybe
I'm,
not
persuading
you
Vice,
chair
Madden,
but
I
I
think
my
feeling
is
that
you
know
the
rule.
Is
the
you
know
the
0.55
that
triggers
us
to
have
the
discretion
and
that
then
the
right
question
to
ask
about
this
is
okay,
it's
high,
but
does
does
it?
Does
it
hurt
anyone
do
we
have
a
reason
to
say?
C
No,
that
you
should
you
shouldn't
vote
no
based
on
some
technical
calculation.
There
should
be
a
health
or
safety
issue
to
the
public.
That
is
what
drives
the
decision
to
tell
somebody.
No,
you
can't
build
this
thing
on
your
land
and
that
that
sort
of,
as
a
matter
of
principle,
how
I
feel
around
how
we
should
do
these
considerations.
I
Thank
you,
I
I
agree
with
commissioner
bisotti.
There
has
got
to
be
a
discussion
about
this.
There
can't
be
some
like
Hush
Hush,
you
know
at
the
counter.
Oh
you
know
it
says
0.55,
but
we
go
to
the
point.
That's
that
is
not
working
here
and
staff
has
to
be
clear
on
that.
We
have
to
be
clear
on
that
and
it
needs.
I
It
needs
to
be
clear
to
the
applicant
and
I
agree
that
at
this
phase
it's
not
I,
don't
want
to
tell
them
no,
but
I
also
don't
want
to
prove
something
that
we
told
these
people
whose
homes
blew
up
and
they
lost
loved
ones.
They
can't
go
over
0.62.
So
it's
really
a
nasty
little
situation,
we're
in
and
I'm
a
little
annoyed.
I
So
I'm
inclined
to
approve
this
with
the
agreement
from
staff
that
there's
going
to
be
a
topic
raised
about
this,
and
it
needs
to
be
clear
to
every
applicant,
to
every
staff
member
and
to
the
entire
commission
where
our
limit
is
because
this
is
ridiculous
and
it's
not
fair
to
the
applicant.
It's
not
fair
to
us.
K
That
it's
fun,
it's
crazy,
I
I
get
on
board
with
that
too,
based
on
commissioner
P.
So
these
excellent
recommendations
I
think
again
it's
over
the
limit
than
what
I'm
used
to
seeing
and
but
again
it
really
doesn't
affect
the
character
of
the
house
to
chair
Harmon's
point,
but
at
some
point
we
I
think
we
need
to
draw
the
line
and
maybe
get
it
codified
or
in
writing
somewhere.
So
it's
not
abused
in
future
projects.
K
So
I
think
I'd
be
happy
to
go
along
with
commissioner
basavi's
suggestion
and
it
sounds
like
commissioner.
Left
is
not
the
same
one.
So.
C
Oh
commissioner,
sorry.
N
So,
given
everyone
else's
kind
of
going
along
with
that,
I
I
see
no
reason
not
to
approve
this
one
this
evening
and
I
think.
At
the
same
time,
I
would
like
to
offer
to
staff
to
know
that
moving
forward.
If
you
come
up
with
something
that's
more
than
0.62
we're
going
to
have
the
same
conversation
again,
I
think
that's
the
simplest
way
of
handling
it
so
Michael.
You
know
you
may
want
to
let
your
staff
know
moving
forward
that
that's
going
to
be
an
issue.
K
I
think
it'd
also
be
helpful
to
make
the
summary
tabulations
state
in
the
presentation
it
is
over.
The
limit
by
you
know
0.55
is
the
limit.
We
are
at
this
I,
don't
know
if
that
happened
here
or
if
it
happened
in
the
arc.
K
So
just
that's
why
this
thing
might
have
been
handled
at
that
point
in
time,
as
the
applicant
said,
because
I
sure,
as
hell
didn't
notice,
it
back.
C
A
K
C
All
right,
well,
I
I,
will
agree
that
if
we
are
going
to
impose,
this
is
a
limit
that
that
staff
should
consider
having
some
sort
of
written
guidelines
to
make
sure
that
everybody,
you
know
anybody
bringing
a
project.
You
know
has
this
clear
that
said
to
avoid
belaboring
things,
commissioner
villasade,
since
you
I,
think
forged
our
consensus.
Would
you
care
to
do
the
honors
of
making
a
motion.
N
C
Have
it
it's
looks
like
it
was
a
motion
to
approve
use,
permit
up,
22004
architecture
review,
permit
AR
2207
based
on
findings,
one
to
eight
conditions
of
approval
1
to
24,
and
the
revised
plans
to
include
new
windows.
C
Thank
you,
roll
call.
B
F
M
C
All
right,
so,
should
anyone
wish
to
appeal
this?
There
is
a
10-day
period
for
appeal
to
the
council
with
a
fee.
If
you,
if
anybody
does
wish
to
make
an
appeal,
they
should
contact
planning
at
San,
bruno.ca.gov
or
call
650-616-7074
I.
Believe
that
that
concludes
our
public
hearings
and
I.
Believe
we
have
an
exciting
item
of
business.
Does
any
do
staff
want
to
introduce
this
or.
D
Sure
every
December,
the
Planning
Commission,
rotates
the
chair
position
and
so
the
there's,
a
basically
nominations,
would
be
taken
from
the
floor
and
voted
upon
for
the
position
of
chair
and
vice
chair.
So
I'll
leave
it
up
to
the
the
current
chair
too.
C
The
privilege
of
serving
my
final,
my
final
meeting
as
chair.
We
have
a
tradition
of
of
rotating
the
position
you
know
sort
of
so
our
our
most
senior
member
who
has
not
served
is
offered
the
opportunity,
and
it
is
my
pleasure
to
to
nominate
my
discussent
what
I
think
we
really
need
to
have
some
very
interesting.
You
know,
respectful
disagreements
and
I
always
appreciate
your
point
of
view.
C
I
would
like
to
nominate
a
commissioner
and
my
current
able
Vice
chair,
Gerard
Madden
to
be
chair,
and
commissioner
Marco
dorazo
for
vice
chair.
A
C
Oh
congratulations,
chair
Madden
and
vice
chair
deraza.
K
Hey
you
just
I
want
to
say
you
did
a
great
job,
R
Us
all
year,
super
organized
I,
know
for
sure.
I
will
not
do
as
good
a
job
as
you
as.
F
The
chair
I
just
in
the
chair,
I'd,
like
to
acknowledge
you,
chair,
Harmon,
for
leading
us
well
always
raising
the
bar
and
looking
at
things
from
a
really
Fair
perspective,
and
and
given
that
giving
me
a
lot
of
opportunity
to
think
outside
the
box
and
I
wanted
to
just
technology
for
that
you've
done
a
good
job.
Thank
you.
Thank.
C
D
Yes,
so
the
first
is
the
selection
of
three
individuals
who
would
like
to
volunteer
for
the
January
12
2023
Arc
meeting.
We
do
not
have
any
agenda
items
for
this
meeting,
but
that
could
change
so
if
you'd
like
to
volunteer
it'll,
take
a
show
of
hands,
yasodi,
Johnson
and
durazo.
C
D
Okay,
great,
thank
you
then.
Finally,
attached
in
your
packet,
we
had
the
meeting
calendars
for
the
year,
just
to
make
you
aware
of
our
meeting
dates
and
so
any
comments
on
those
I.
C
Think
I
emailed
you
in
advance
of
the
meeting
I,
am
going
to
preemptively
suggest
that
we
bump
back
the
November
Planning,
Commission
and
Architectural
Review
committees
by
a
week
in
order
to
prevent
it
from
running
up
against
Thanksgiving.
B
D
We
don't
need
an
official
vote
on
that,
but
if
they're,
if,
if
other
Commissioners
are
in
agreement,
we
can
make
that
change
to
the
calendar.
So
the
dates
those
dates
would
be
Thursday
would
be
Thursdays,
so
Thursday
November.
C
Yeah
I
forgotten
the
exact
numbers,
but
the
way
it
is
currently
the
Planning
Commission
meeting
is
in
the
week
of
Thanksgiving
yeah,
it's
the
Tuesday
before
Thanksgiving,
whereas
where
and
if
we
bumped
it
back,
it
would
be
like
it's
not
ridiculously
early
in
the
month.
It's
still
a
four-week
gap
relative
to
the
previous
meeting,
and
then
you
end
up
with
a
five-week
gap
going
to
the
December
meeting.
Instead
of
having
the
five
between
October
and
November
right.
D
Except
we
would
do
Thursday
so
you're,
the
that's
a
good
point.
The
normal
architecture
review
meeting
is
November
16th,
so
that
would
be
your
Planning
Commission
meeting
and
then
the
ninth,
the
pr
the
the
Thursday
prior.
D
I'm
sorry
yeah
for
architecture
review
well
yeah
that
that's
probably
a
little
early
in
the
month,
so.
C
F
Through
the
chair,
we
also
have
to
think
about
Veterans
Day,
because
when
you
say
the
10
people
are
off
because
it's
the
holiday
falls,
correct,
yeah
and
I
have
always
held
out
at
the
first
and
third
Tuesday
of
the
month
is
Planning
Commission
and
we
have
over
the
past.
Several
years
have
not
had
two
meetings
a
month
and
we
used
to
so
the
first
and
third,
is
what
we,
what
we've
held
to
in
past
time,
so
I
think
that's,
probably
how
it's
still
considered,
although
we
don't
use
it.
F
C
D
And
I
think
you
know
it's
all
it's
it's
really
a
function
of
what
we
have
coming
before
you
I
mean
it's
nice,
certainly
for
staff
to
have
that
flexibility.
So
we
will
keep
that
in
mind
as
we're
as
we're
as
we're
scheduling
items
for
November,
but
definitely
I.
Think
that
what
we're
hearing
is.
It's
agreed
that
we
would
not
meet
on
the
21st.
C
Michael
all
right
item
10
comments
from
Members
I
had
received
an
invitation
to
an
event
that
is
perhaps
interesting
to
planning
Commissioners
from
the
non-profit
act,
Terra,
which
I
forwarded
the
invitation
to
Michael,
which
you
can
I
guess
forward
to
the
rest
of
the
commissions
with
not
coming
from
me,
and
it's
not
a
not
creating
a
meeting,
but
it
was
an
interesting
bactera
is
like
a
non-profit
focused
on
sustainability
issues
and
they're
they're,
hosting
an
event
that
has
former
mayor
Rick
Bonilla
of
San
Mateo,
discussing
the
version
of
reach
codes
that
they
adopted
there,
which
is
somewhat
more
aggressive
than
what
we
have
adopted
so
far
as
well
as
a
few
other
folks.
C
Talking
about
how
to
how
public
policy
can
encourage
a
shift
towards
sustainable
electrification
so
possibly
of
interest.
If
you
are
interested
in
that
sort
of
public
policy
issue,
that
was
the
item.
I
had
I,
don't
know
if
anyone
else
has
any
other
comments.
C
Seeing
No
Hands
appreciate
the
interesting
conversation
this
evening
and
we
are
adjourned.
Our
next
special
meeting
will
be
held
on
January
5th,
2023
I
believe
to
review
the
new
amended
housing
element.