►
Description
City of San Bruno - Planning Commission meeting from January 17,2023
A
B
Thank
you.
Everyone
for
attending
the
Planning
Commission
meeting
the
Planning
Commission
will
continue
to
hold
meetings
remotely
via
Zoom
until
such
time
that
is
determined
that
it
is
safe
to
meet
in
person.
So
we
asked
please
know
that
we
want
to
hear
from
you
if
you're
in
the
audience-
and
you
would
like
to
address
the
commission
during
public
comment
for
the
item
on
the
agenda.
Please
use
the
raise
your
hand
button
at
the
bottom
of
the
zoom
screen
when
it
is
your
turn
to
speak,
planning
staff
will
call
your
name.
B
B
If
you're
joining
us
by
telephone,
you
may
address
the
commission
during
public
comment
by
pressing
nine
or
Star
nine
and
staff
will
address
you
and
then
mute.
You
you'll
also
be
given
three
minutes
to
address
the
commission.
Please
note.
Anyone
in
the
attendance
may
only
speak
once
per
agenda
item
if
we
could
do
a
roll
call.
Please.
B
A
B
B
D
B
H
F
F
E
B
B
B
B
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
There
will
be
no
changes
to
the
lower
level,
as
shown
here.
The
main
floor
of
the
home
will
see
two
major
changes.
The
first
change
will
be
the
removal
of
the
existing
closet
to
accommodate
the
creation
of
the
second
staircase
heading
to
the
third
story,
and
the
second
change
will
be
the
increased
height
of
the
garage
to
accommodate
the
proposed
car.
Lift.
E
E
Next,
we
will
look
at
the
site
elevations
pursuant
to
San
Bruno
Municipal
Code,
section
12.200.030,
a
conditional
use
permit
is
required
for
a
third
story
or
any
part
of
the
three
stories
lie
within
the
same
vertical
plane
in
the
pink
you'll
notice
that
the
front
half
of
the
Edition
is
built
above
crawl
space,
which
would
appear
to
be
two
stories
at
the
street
level
in
the
blue.
I've
highlighted
the
rear
half
of
the
Edition.
E
On
this
slide,
we'll
go
over
the
height
of
the
building.
So
for
this
property,
the
maximum
height
is
26
feet,
because
it
is
a
downsloping
lot
from
front
to
rear.
With
an
average
slope
of
20.5
percent,
the
height
of
building
is
excuse
me.
The
height
of
buildings
is
defined
as
the
vertical
distance
from
the
average
level
of
the
highest
and
lowest
point
of
that
portion
of
the
lot
covered
by
the
building
to
the
topmost
point
of
the
roof.
E
E
In
this
scenario,
the
addition
reaches
a
height
of
26
feet
and
7
inches.
The
portion
of
the
roof
exceeding
the
maximum
height
is
shown
in
yellow
pursuant
to
San
Bruno
Municipal
Code
section
12.96.060.
A
request
for
a
conditional
use
permit
for
a
project
which
exceeds
the
permitted
height
can
be
approved
through
the
Planning
Commission.
E
E
E
E
E
After
public
comments
at
the
arc
meeting
on
December
15
2022,
the
applicant
provided
a
revised
set
of
plans
that
interest
concerns
of
height.
The
applicant
has
provided
these
revised
plans,
but
would
prefer
an
approval,
take
place
on
the
initial
plans
and
just
to
review
again.
The
height
of
buildings
is
defined
as
the
vertical
distance
from
the
average
level
of
the
highest
and
lowest
point
of
the
portion
of
the
lot
that
is
covered
by
the
building
to
the
topmost
point
of
the
roof.
E
Based
on
based
on
analysis,
staff
recommends
that
the
plan
a
commission
approve
the
Architectural
Review
permit
ar22-011
and
use
permit
up22-007
based
on
the
following
findings.
The
project
conforms
the
goals,
policies
and
standards
of
the
zoning
code
and
general
plan,
because
the
design
of
the
addition
is
compatible
with
neighborhood
character.
E
The
project
will
not
be
detrimental
to
the
public
health,
safety
or
welfare
and,
lastly,
the
project
creates
attractive
building
environment
because
it
includes
a
variety
of
building
styles
and
Designs,
such
as
stepbacks
insets,
roof,
overhangs,
varied
roof
lines
and
material
changes
to
break
up
the
mass
of
the
home,
and
that
is
all
for
this
item.
We
can
open
the
floor
to
questions.
D
E
D
That's
proposed
height
quite
a
bit
less
and
that's
like
a
quarter
less
or
something
right.
If
I'm
doing
math
in
my
head
right,
it's
like
more
than
25
less
anyway.
That's
I
just
wanted
to
establish
that,
because
I
mean
in
terms
of
the
you
know
the
question
of
whether
the
height
of
this
is
out
of
place
with
approving
that
extra
seven
inches,
that
that
seems
like
a
relevant
point.
I
C
Thank
you
chair
the
I'm
a
little
intrigued
by
the
car,
lift
I
I,
don't
think
I've
ever
in
my
life
in
short
time
on
the
Planning
Commission.
Had
anybody
proposed
one
of
those
I,
don't
think
I've
ever
seen,
one
of
myself
other
than
on
TV?
Is
there
I'm,
just
surprised
and
apparently
I'm?
Apparently
you
don't
that
there's
not
a
additional
permit
or
anything
required
to
ensure
maintenance
or
safety
on
something
like
that.
It
just
seems
really
dangerous.
C
G
G
D
This
came
up
at
the
arc
meeting
and
there
was
some
conversation
around
it
because
of
the
amount
of
the
house
that's
getting
its
height
raised.
This
is
the
part
that
projects
forward
the
most
and
it
it
was
funny,
because
some
of
the
neighbors
I
think
would
have
preferred
that
that
expansion
of
the
height
that's
closer
to
the
street,
not
get
done,
and
it's
a
thing
that
the
city
is
requiring
and
you
know,
costs
the
homeowner
money,
and
so
there
was
some
conversation
around
whether
they
might
consider
applying
for
a
variance.
I
I
It
was
very
new
and
very
weird
to
me
and
I
was
very
skeptical
and
I
imagined
my
children
being
crushed
in
this
contraption,
so,
thankfully,
staff
put
together
a
little
field
trip
out
to
Berkeley
and
we
were
able
to
go
and
visit
a
residential
building
that
had
used
this
for
I.
Think
all
of
their
units
had
had
these
lift
and
we
got
to
see
it
in
action.
We
got
to
you
know,
experience
how
it
worked
and
I
was
actually
really
pleased
with
the
safety
features
of
it.
I
It
did
not
seem
like
something
that
was
extraordinarily
dangerous.
The
way
that
I
had
imagined
it
being
I
think
it's
really
interesting
to
see
it
as
a
solution
in
a
single
family
home,
but
I,
don't
think,
given
the
nature
of
impacted
parking
on
our
streets,
I,
don't
think
it's
something
we
should
I
think
it's
something
we
should
entertain
and
think
about.
I
think
it's
very
I
think
it's
a
creative
solution
so
anyway,
that's
my
experience.
B
Okay,
I'm
not
seeing
any
hands
at
this
time
so
now
I'd
like
to
open
it
up
for
public
comments
on
this
item.
It
looks
like
we
have
about
five
people
in
attendance.
If
you
would
like
to
speak
on
this
issue,
please
use
the
zoom
tool
and
raise
your
hand
or
press
star
nine
on
your
telephone.
If
you'd
like
to
speak
and
staff,
can
let
you
well,
it
looks
like
we
have
a
Roberta.
Hannibal
is
first
on
my
list
here
to
speak,
followed
by
Fred,
strathee
and
David
Stafford.
J
Hi,
can
you
like
hear
me
now?
Yes,
I
can
hear
you
yeah,
so
one
I'd
like
I'd,
like
to
thank
everybody
for
modifying
the
design
I'm,
not
sure
why
the
design
wasn't
shown,
but
I,
really
like
the
modification
and
any
reduction
in
height,
would
be
great,
so
I
still
object
to
this
design
on
the
grounds
that
is
a
unnecessarily
large
for
single
family
home
and
blocks.
A
beautiful
view
for
the
Neighbors
on
the
west
side
of
the
street
and
I
have
three
more
comments.
J
First,
the
package
states
that
the
neighborhood
that
surrounds
the
subject
properly
shares
a
similar
architectural
building
style,
the
one
architect
architectural
feature
the
houses
have
in
common
on
the
west
side
of
the
street
on
this
part
of
the
block
are
large
Windows
to
enjoy
a
view
of
the
bay.
Therefore,
building
additions
on
the
east
side
of
the
street
directly
for
conflict
with
the
architectural
building
Style
on
the
west
side
of
the
street
and
I
wanted
to
comment
on
410
Chestnut.
J
In
particular,
it's
actually
a
couple
of
houses,
maybe
five
or
six
houses
away
from
from
460
Chestnut
Avenue.
So
it's
not
really
indicative
of
the
houses
right
near
Four,
460,
Chestnut
Avenue,
so
on
410
the
the
street
actually
doesn't
slope
As
Much
from
the
from
the
East
to
the
west
side
of
the
street.
It
actually
doesn't
slope
at
all.
So
even
at
410
Chestnut
was
a
single
story.
It
would
still
block
The
View.
So
it's
actually
a
very
different
situation
than
460
Chestnut
I.
J
L
I
said
wrong:
button
yeah.
After
the
design
of
your
meeting,
we
were
looking
at
options
to
see
what
it
would
take
to
hide
as
it
turns
out,
because
the
width
or
the
height
of
the
roof
is
actually
determined
by
the
width
rather
than
the
depth.
The
shaving
off
of
the
back
helps
from
a
side
view,
but
it
doesn't
help
from
a
front
view
so
and
it
and
again
it's
just
based
on
the
width
of
that
third
floor.
L
L
Car
lifts
before,
in
fact
in
the
city
of
Berkeley,
is
the
first
time
I
used
it.
It
was
on
a
multi-family
project,
and
that
was
a
number
of
years
ago
and
there
have
been
no
incidents
that
have
occurred
because
of
that.
So
that
was
that
was
good,
but,
and
it
seemed
like
about
the
only
practical
way
to
get
an
additional
parking
space,
because
otherwise
we
would
have
had
some
kind
of
a
tandem
situation.
L
B
D
L
If
you
look
at
the
Ridgeline
you'll
see
at
the
front
of
both
versions,
the
the
hip
and
the
front
meets
at
that
same
height
as
you
go
back
in
the
house
immediately
on
the
revised
version.
It
starts
right
at
that
intersection
and
starts
down.
It
means
that
the
plate
height
in
the
back,
is
dropped
and
indents
about
three
feet,
so
he
kind
of
shaved
off
the
roof.
The
back
about
three
feet.
In
order
to
achieve
the
26
feet,.
D
L
L
B
B
B
H
This
would
be
the
second
house
now
that
is
building
up
a
second
story
and
is
blocking
the
view
of
the
bay
for
everybody
on
the
west
side
of
the
street.
So
it
is
not
something
that
you
know.
We've
been
here
20
years
and
and
now
all
these
houses
are
going
up
and
with
second
stories
and
blocking
the
view,
and
so
just
want
to
make
that
as
a
comment,
thank
you
yeah.
H
H
H
M
The
comment
in
response
to
that
comment,
like
the
precedent
has
been
set,
was
Set.
So
with
that
my
my
response
to
the
idea
that
well,
we've
already
started
to
Green
Light
these
projects
that
go
beyond
the
existing
zoning
regulations
for
height.
It's
just
a
matter
of
going
through
the
process.
At
that
point,
what
what
is
the
significance?
I
would
guess.
This
is
an
open
question
that
doesn't
need
to
be
responded
to
right
now,
but
what
is
the
significance
of
those
zoning
restrictions?
If
it's?
If
it's?
M
If,
ultimately
you
get
to
you,
can
you
will
get
permission
to
build
your
addition?
The
objections
of
anyone
whose
views
are
blocked,
there's
no
legal
statute.
That
says
you
have
a
right
to
a
view
that
goes
over
someone
else's
property,
there's
what
it.
What
is
the?
What
is
the
purpose
of
the
existing
regulations
now
I
think
I'll
stop
there,
and
and
thank
the
thank
the
presentation
which
again
was
really
really
well
well
done,
bye
for
now,.
B
B
C
D
K
G
G
So
the
the
the
addition
of
a
third
story
is
just
one
of
the
triggers
that
puts
an
addition
into
the
purview
of
the
Planning
Commission
through
a
use
permit.
So
it's
not
a
violation
of
the
zoning
code.
It
just
it
requires
a
greater
degree
of
review
by
the
Planning
Commission
I.
Do
want
to
note
in
this
situation
and
you'll
notice,
from
what
from
Christy's
presentation
that
the
front
half
of
the
Edition
is
actually
just
a
two-story
addition.
G
So
if
the
applicant
wanted
to
do
a
second
story,
addition
with
the
same
square
footage,
but
yet
also
move
it
forward
closer
to
the
street
within
the
front
setback
that
that
actually
and
it
would
have
been
within
the
floor
area
that
actually
would
not
have
triggered
any
type.
A
third,
a
review
of
a
third
story,
but
the
visual
impact
of
it
would
would
have
been
much
worse.
So
again,
the
the
the
review
requirement
for
the
third
story
is
is
just
to
allow
that
extra
scrutiny.
B
D
D
It
really
does
not
seem
to
me
that
this
difference
in
design
is
going
to
make
much
difference
to
the
Views,
given
the
way
that
it
shaves
off
the
back,
rather
than
the
side
that
actually
faces
the
people
who
have
the
views,
I'm
sort
of
I
think
it's
very.
It
was
very
generous
of
the
applicant
to
offer
it,
but
it's
not
clear
to
me
what
benefit
it
really
adds
in
any
case,
and
then
you
know,
and
as
you
noted,
they
could
have
without
even
triggering
discretionary
review
done.
D
C
K
Thank
you,
I
didn't
sit
on
the
Architectural
Review
Committee
for
this
one,
but
I'm
just
curious.
Looking
at
the
design
from
the
front
facing
part
of
the
house,
the
trim
around
the
garage
door
seems
more
bold
or
excessive
than
the
rest
of
the
house
seems
rather
plain,
but
then
there's
just
quite
a
lot
going
on
around
the
garage
doors
and
the
windows
and
stuff.
Does
anyone
remember
anything
from
Architectural
Review
about
that
or
yeah.
B
So
I
was
a
bit
confused
about
the
garage
initially
because
I
didn't
realize
that
the
car
stacker
went
upward,
usually
I'm
familiar
with
them
going
into
a
pit.
But
are
you?
Are
you
referring?
Well
I?
Don't
think
we
had
any
comments
about
the
roof
type,
the
window
type
or
the
garage
door
type.
Is
that
what
you're
referring
to?
No?
It
looks.
D
B
I
B
Thank
you.
Official
I'll
just
go
ahead
and
say
that
in
reviewing
the
first
architectural
sheet,
the
roof
plan
is
overlaid
on
the
site
and
that
Ridge
that's
seven
inches
over
the
limit
is
really
short.
It's
like
two
feet,
long
of
a
ridge
we're
probably
talking
about-
maybe
maybe
a
foot
of
width,
that's
over
the
limit.
If
you
look
at
it
from
the
front
six
inches
on
either
side
of
the
the
ridge.
Probably.
B
And
as
I
mentioned
in
the
arc
meeting,
I
I
didn't
have
a
problem
with
them
exceeding
the
height
limit,
by
only
seven
inches,
for
a
very,
very
small
segment
of
the
roof.
So
I
would
no,
if
the
the
applicant,
the
architect
and
the
homeowner,
would
prefer
to
stick
with
their
original
design.
I
think
I
can
support
that,
based
on
just
how
little
the
the
overages
on
the
roof
height
and
for
both
just
seven
inches
total
overage
and
a
very
small
width
since
we're
talking
about
a
very
small
Ridge.
B
B
I
If
it
is
noted
in
the
plans,
you
can
actually
go
on
YouTube
and
put
in
the
model,
number
that's
specified
in
the
plans,
and
you
can
actually
at
least
what
I
discovered
in
the
past
is.
You
can
actually
watch
it
being
used,
they
have
little
commercials
and
they
have
the
lady
who
goes
and
puts
their
little
car
in,
and
it
actually
can
be
helpful
to
help
help
understand
how
it
works
and
what
it
looks
like
foreign.
B
Yeah
I
will
second,
that
I'm
working
on
a
residential
multi-story
project
in
Palo
Alto
right
now,
and
it
does
have
a
stacker
Parker
and
the
YouTube
video
from
the
manufacturer,
animates
all
the
movements.
So
you
can
understand
how
a
car
gets
in
and
out
and
whatnot
and
so
they're
very
helpful
if
anyone's
curious.
So
great
point.
K
I'd
like
to
Echo
my
fellow
Commissioners
comments
that
we're
making
just
now
it's
a
good
design
and
I.
You
know
looking
forward
to
it
or
looking
ahead
at
whether
to
approve
it
or
not.
I,
just
like
the
public
to
know
that
I
am
very
cognizant
and
concerned
about
the
view
that
they
may
lose
and
I
am
sensitive
to
that,
so
it
making
this
decision.
That
would
is
not
being
ignored
so,
and
that's
just
want
to
make
that
point.
Thank
you.
A
B
B
G
A
B
Okay,
I'm
not
seeing
any
comments
from
members
on
anything
not
on
the
agenda
so
or
new
items,
so
that
brings
us
to
adjournment
so
I
think
our
next
meeting
is
next
month.
This
time,
I
think
I
misspoke
last
time,
I
didn't
realize
we
had
another
meeting
quite
so
quickly,
but
I
think
we
are
adjourned
and
thank
you,
everybody
for
your
participation.