►
Description
San Bruno Planning Commission Meeting
August 16, 2011 Whole Meeting trt 34 minutes
C
A
D
One
on
the
roll
call,
ID
I
missed
Commissioner
chase.
He
is
scheduled
to
be
here,
so
you
should
be
here
shortly
and
just
the
normal
communications
that
our
whole
packet
is
online.
In
the
planning
section
of
the
community
development
section
of
the
website,
san
bruno
CA
gov,
the
minister,
there,
the
last
time
as
well
as
the
agenda
and
the
staff
reports
very.
C
Good,
thank
you.
Hi
Jen
dynamo
number
three
is
public
comment
on
items
not
on
the
agenda.
If
there's
any
public
who
would
like
to
comment
on
items
that
are
not
there,
please
come
forward.
Seeing
none
we'll
move
to
agenda
item
4
announcement
of
conflict
of
interest.
Do
any
of
the
commissioners
have
a
conflict
on
an
item
that
to
mention
at
this
time
seeing
none
move
to
agenda
item
5a,
which
is
980
east
and
avenue
request
for
a
use
permit
to
allow
an
addition
which
increases
the
gross
floor
area
by
greater
than
fifty
percent.
C
E
You
and
good
evening,
isolated
the
applicant
has
applied
for
use
use
permits
to
allow
an
addition
which
increases
the
gross
floor
area
by
greater
than
fifty
percent.
The
subject
site
is
located
on
the
east
side
of
Eastern
Avenue
between
four
slain
and
euclid
avenue.
The
site
is
2,500
square
feet
and
is
currently
developed
with
a
one-story
single-family
dwelling
that
single-family
dwelling
consists
of
644
square
feet
of
living
area
and
one
detached
garage.
The
applicant
is
proposing
a
first
and
second
story
addition
to
the
existing
single-family
dwelling.
E
The
first
floor
will
be
remodeled
and
will
include
two
bedrooms,
one
bathroom
and
a
large
entrance
hallway
feature.
The
detached
garage
will
also
be
demolished
and
will
be
attached
to
the
single
family
huddle.
The
second
story
will
include
one
bedroom,
one
bathroom
a
living
room
and
a
kitchen
all
together.
This
would
be
1275
square
feet
of
living
area
with
an
attached
two
hundred
square
foot,
one
car
garage.
The
project
was
reviewed
at
the
July
architects
review
committee
meeting.
E
At
that
meeting,
the
committee
forwarded
the
project
on
to
the
Planning
Commission,
with
a
favorable
recommendation
with
staff
recommendations
to
include
the
correct
garage
dimensions.
Ten
feet
wide
by
20
feet
deep
and
to
incorporate
a
decorative
band
along
the
south
side
elevation
in
the
rear
elevation.
The
applicant
has
updated
the
plan
set
accordingly.
Additionally,
the
architects
review
committee
also
asked
the
applicant
to
revise
an
internal
stairwell
connecting
the
first
and
second
storey
living
area
to
meet
building
code
standards.
The
applicant
has
since
updated
that's
fair.
E
Well,
it
does
meet
building
code
standards
and
a
cross
section
has
been
included
within
your
plans.
Overall
staff
does
find
that
the
character
and
scale
of
the
home
will
be
consistent
with
other
single-family
homes
in
the
neighborhood.
We
do
find
that
it
is
consistent
with
the
residential
design
guidelines.
Specifically,
the
second
floor
is
utilizing.
Some
facade
articulation
techniques
found
within
the
residential
design
guidelines,
most
notably
that
second
floor
will
be
set
back
two
feet:
one
inch
from
the
first
story
below
on
the
north
side
elevation.
E
Additionally,
the
window
type
and
trim
will
be
consistent
on
all
elevations
step
did
send
the
courtesy
notice
in
the
required
300-foot
public
notice,
and
we
did
not
receive
any
comments
from
concerned.
Neighbors
overall
staff
is
supportive
of
the
project
and
would
recommend
that
the
Planning
Commission
approved
the
use
permit
request
subject
to
findings
affect
one
through
seven
and
conditions
of
approval.
One
through
twenty-four
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
have.
Thank
you
does.
C
No.
Thank
you
very
much
for
your
report.
I'd
like
to
open
the
public
hearing
and
abide
first,
the
applicant.
If
you
have
any
comments,
please
come
forward
to
the
podium
and
if
you
don't
have
any
comments,
please
come
forward
so
that
the
Commission
might
ask
a
question.
Staff
is
the
applicant
here,
oh
okay,
there
you
are
excuse
me
wait.
Please
give
your
name
and
street
name
for
the
record.
My.
G
F
C
You
very
much
do
any
of
the
commissioners
have
questions
for
the
applicant
nope.
Thank
you
very
much.
Are
there
any
members
of
the
public
who
would
like
to
comment
on
this
application?
Please
come
to
the
podium.
If
you
do
know
seeing
no
one
and
without
objection,
I'll
close
the
public
hearing
bring
the
matter
back
to
the
Commission
for
discussion
or
emotion
through.
G
Talked
to
Matt
earlier
today
about
not
just
this
one,
but
also
also
another
project,
I
believe,
starting
july
or
august
matter
or
Aaron
correcting
wrong
net.
That
CO
detectors
are
now
required,
and
so
maybe
we
could
put
that
in
a
boiler
plate
with
the
fire
extinguishers
are
not
fire
extinguisher.
The
smoke
alarms,
sure.
G
D
C
A
D
I
mean
there's
several
conditions
that
are
covered
under
other
laws.
Some
conditions
are
good
when
it's
new
laws
just
to
give
people
heads
up
early
on
in
the
process
and
I
think
conditions
of
approval
serve
dual
purposes,
sometimes
to
give
people
heads
up
as
well
as
state
what
planning
conditions
are
in
there.
Okay,
thank.
G
A
A
C
Motion
carried
and
there's
a
10-day
appeal
period
now
we'll
move
on
to
agenda
item
5b,
which
is
114
acacia
Avenue,
a
request
for
a
use
permit
to
allow
erection
of
a
new
home
which
increases
the
gross
floor
area
of
the
existing
home
by
greater
than
fifty
percent
to
sixty-three
percent
and
exceeds
the
forty-four
percent
lot
coverage
requirement
by
one
percent
per
sections:
12
230,
B,
1
and
12
230
B
three
of
the
San
Bruno
Municipal
Code
staff
report.
Please
thank
you.
As.
E
Stated
the
applicant
has
applied
for
a
use
permit
to
allow
the
construction
of
a
new
home
which
increases
the
gross
floor
area
of
the
existing
home
by
greater
than
fifty
percent
and
exceeds
the
forty-four
percent
law
coverage
requirement.
The
subject
site
is
located
on
the
east
side
of
acacia
avenue
between
santa
lucia
avenue
and
san
felipe
avenue,
and
is
currently
developed
with
a
one-story
single-family
dwelling.
The
applicant
is
proposing
to
demolish
the
existing
single-family
dwelling
and
replace
it
with
in
another.
E
With
another
one
story:
single-family
dwelling
the
home
will
contain
two
bedrooms:
two
and
a
half
bathrooms
a
living
room,
dining
room
and
a
kitchen.
The
home
would
consist
of
1621
square
feet
of
living
area
and
a
309
square
foot.
One
car
garage.
The
project
was
reviewed
by
the
Planning
Commission
at
or
by
the
architecture
review
committee
at
their
May
meeting.
E
If
you
would
there's
an
attachment
included
within
your
staff
report,
Exhibit
D
that
displays
the
original
elevations
of
that
original
proposal.
So
you
can
see
the
elevations
there.
Additionally,
I
would
like
to
point
your
attention
to
a
graphical
image,
also
included
as
Exhibit
D,
showing
the
original
roof
bridge
in
relation
to
the
side
property
of
118
acacia
Avenue.
So
you
can
see
that
roof
ridge
was
blocking
two
of
the
second-story
windows
at
118,
acacia
Avenue.
E
That's
primarily
what
the
property
owner
was
concerned
with
at
the
architecture
review
committee
meeting
the
architecture
review
committee
discussed
a
number
of
different
ideas
to
reduce
the
overall
height
of
the
roof
ridge,
but
ultimately
recommended
that
the
applicant
and
the
property
owner
work
with
one
another
to
resolve
this
issue.
Since
the
architectural
review
committee
meeting
the
applicant
and
the
concerned,
property
owner
have
worked
very
closely
with
one
another.
E
They
have
redesigned
they've
gone
through
a
number
of
design
revisions
and
finally
agreed
upon
a
cross
gable,
roof
design,
and
this
does
one
major
thing:
it
limits
the
height
of
the
overall
home.
So,
instead
of
being
19
feet,
8
inches
the
new
cross
gable,
design,
maxes
out
at
17
feet
two
and
a
half
inches
at
the
front.
Gable
the
rear
gable
would
max
out
at
14
feet
three
and
a
half
inches.
E
The
concerned
property
owner
has
since
submitted
a
letter
with
a
number
of
questions
regarding
how
height
is
measured
in
the
overall
planning
and
building
process.
This
was
included
as
a
or
was
handed
out
to
the
planning
commissioners
prior
to
this
meeting.
Additionally,
stats
comments
and
responses
to
those
questions
within
the
letter
r
were
also
distributed
to
the
Planning.
Commission
staff
did
contact
that
concern
property
owner
today
and
we
did
address
some
of
the
items
mentioned
within
the
letter.
E
The
concerned
property
owner
was
satisfied
with
staffs
response
and
now
has
a
greater
understanding
of
how
height
is
measured
in
general
and
has
a
greater
understanding
of
the
planning
and
building
process.
The
property
owner
is
no
longer
opposed
to
the
proposed
addition.
In
regards
to
the
specific
lot
coverage
entitlement
staff
really
looks
at
one
thing
and
that's
if
there's
a
number,
if
there's
a
good
amount
of
open
space
on
the
law,
and
then
this
particular
case,
we
do
find
that
there
is
a
good
amount
of
open
space.
E
They
have
a
15
foot,
front
yard
and
a
23
to
25
foot
rear
yard.
So
we
do
find
there
is
adequate
space
in
the
rear
in
overall
on
the
site.
Staff
does
find
that
the
addition
is
consistent
with
the
residential
design
guidelines.
For
the
most
part,
they
are
incorporating
horizontal
hardiplank
siding,
which
is
a
common
feature
in
the
neighborhood
it.
E
Additionally,
the
home
will
also
incorporate
a
shed
dormer
on
the
front
elevation,
which
will
probably
provide
additional
architectural
interest
and,
furthermore,
the
windows
and
window
trends
will
be
consistent
on
all
elevations,
with
that
staff
is
supportive
of
the
proposed
of
the
proposal.
N
recommends
that
the
Planning
Commission
approved
the
project
subject
to
findings
affect
one
through
seven
and
conditions
of
approval.
One
through
26
within
the
staff
report
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
you
may
have.
Thank
you
thank.
G
E
So
Exhibit
D
was
the
original
design
that
the
architectural
review
committee
agreed
or
MERS
that's
with
the
three
dormers.
So
the
proposal
before
us
tonight
is
one
shed
dormer
and
is
included
as
Exhibit
C
within
your
staff
before
so
includes
a
cross
gable,
roof
design
with
that
front,
Gable
running
in
the
north-south
direction
and
the
rear
gable
running
in
the
east-west
direction
and
that's
included
as
Exhibit
C
within
the
staff
report.
A
proposal
before
snow
I.
E
E
C
G
H
Good
evening,
good
alma,
her
here
and
my
wife,
Jan
and
our
architect,
Jerry's
here
as
well
as
the
our
neighbor
eileen,
is
here
that
had
the
complaints
on
the
original
design.
When
we
made
the
first
presentation
to
the
architectural
review
committee,
they
reviewed
it
approved
it,
and
we
were
moving
forward
at
that
time.
I
leaned,
the
neighbor
to
the
north
that
118
had
some
concerns
about
the
view
and
light
that
that
design
was
impacting
her
home.
H
H
We
came
up
with
a
few
designs
which
we
didn't
like
Matt
mentioned.
Several.
There
were
six
redesigns
which
our
architect
did,
which
we
over
the
course
of
about
30
to
45
days
decided
that
was,
it
was
an
okay
design
for
us,
Eileen
and
I
met
went
through
it.
We
installed
some
storyboards
up
to
show
that
the
dynamics
of
where
the
roofline
ridgelines
would
be.
H
We
looked
at
it
with
a
with
a
cautious
I.
The
redesign
removed
some
of
the
dormers,
as
you
saw.
We
have
a
shed
dormer
still
remaining
to
keep
some
of
the
look
of
the
of
the
home.
We
also
removed
and
lowered
the
major
Ridge,
which
was
impacting
her
view,
the
most
the
roofline
that
was
basically
running
from
north
to
south.
H
We,
we
lowered
that
when
we
reconfigured
the
dormer
along
with
that,
we
change
the
orientation
of
the
ridgeline
to
east
and
west
more
or
less
that,
coupled
with
changing
the
pitch
and
the
design
of
that
roof,
lowered
the
roofline
Ridgeline
down
to
approximately
one
foot
higher
than
the
existing
home.
That's
there.
Now
we
Eileen
and
I
looked
at
that.
We
erected
storyboards
to
those
Heights
and
Eileen
had
indicated
to
me
at
that
time
that
it
looked
okay.
She
still
had
some
concerns
and
questions,
some
of
which
are
in
the
letter
that
you
guys
have
tonight.
H
I
think
matt
has
given
a
good
good
display
of
what
we
intend
to
do
or
hope
to
do,
and
I
think
that,
with
the
compromise
that
we've
made
with
our
neighbor
I
hope
to
be
a
good
neighbor
and
hope
you
guys
can
see
that
I
think
we've
done
everything
that
we
can
and
to
accommodate.
You
know
the
neighborhood
to
design
our
wishes
and
our
neighbors
our
architects.
Here,
if
you
need
any
question,
GN
and
I
are
here
for
any
general
questions.
Thanks.
C
H
G
I
Lemon
I'm
the
neighboring
question:
I
live
at
118
acacia
and
before
I
start,
I
want
to
thank
the
mockers
janice
and
out
for
their
cooperation
and
their
flexibility.
It
was
really
a
wonderful
thing
to
work
with
people
who
are
willing
to
compromise
and
I
believe
we
did.
I
have
no
objection.
I
am
the
one
who
wrote
the
letter
to
match
earlier
and
in
that
the
first
exhibit
a
is
the
is
the
written
one
that
al
showed
me
that
that
he
then
visualized
by
putting
up
the
storyboards,
which
is
next
and
this
we
agreed
to.
I
C
B
Just
really
want
to
comment
on
acknowledge
the
applicants
and
the
neighbor
is
that
when
you
do
come
together
and
work
through
things,
you
will
be
neighbors
for
many
many
many
years
and
for
the
purpose
of
public
to
recognize
and
see
that
it
really
makes
sense
to
meet
and
to
have
discussions,
and
sometimes
you
have
to
go
through
some
peaks
and
valleys
to
get
to
that
point.
But
in
the
big
picture
it's
a
win-win-
and
this
is
a
very
very
good
example
of
that.
B
Win-Win
combination
and
I
really
appreciate
her
in
both
sides
is
a
very
thorough
presentation.
The
storyboards
make
a
huge
difference
in
being
able
to
see
what
the
picture
looks
like
I
appreciate
as
well
having
Eileen
here
to
present
her
site
in
here
your
points
of
views
in
clarifications,
and
you
did
an
excellent
job
and
I'm
very
pleased.
B
I
want
to
acknowledge
Matt
for
his
presentation,
the
thoroughness
of
working
on
this
project
and
certain
it
was
a
combination
of
staff
and
doing
this,
and
this
is
a
really
good
example
of
making
a
planning
commissioners
job
just
pleasurable
to
do
this
work.
So
thank
you
for
that.
In
one
acknowledge
the
team
for
all
of
this,
so
we're.
B
F
C
D
One
is
also
going
to
go
over
a
few
some
development
activity
that
we
have
in
san
bruno
right
now.
The
first
is
an
update
on.
You
may
remember
a
couple
cell
sites
that
were
approved
at
the
Planning
Commission
level.
There
was
one
on
maple
that
was
approved
near
parkside
school
and
there
was
another
one
that
was
approved
in
Grundy
park
and
there
are
several
iterations
of
these
applications
that
went
through
the
planning
commission
until
we
got
to
the
point
where
they
were
approved.
Well,
we'll
start
with
the
maple
one.
D
The
maple
one
was
going
through
the
process
and
there
ended
up
being
a
neighborhood
protest
about
this.
Someone
who
had
not
received
the
notice
because
they
were
renting,
but
they
rented
a
home
right
near
the
one
on
maple
and
this
the
person
contacted
t-mobile
as
well
as
contacted
the
press
and
had
some
online
petitions
about
this.
It
did
get
some
press
coverage
related
to
the
protests.
D
It
ended
up
the
tmobile
with
the
city
staff,
even
though
it
was
already
approved,
and
the
concerns
were
more
health
related
to
sell
sites
that
aren't
in
our
jurisdiction
to
deny
applications
or
review
applications.
City
staff
did
make
contact
with
tmobile
and
sat
down
with
them
to
see.
If
there
was
any
other
alternatives
it
turned
out.
They
were
going
to
have
to
replace
the
entire
poll,
because
the
full
wasn't
structurally
safe
to
hold
antenna
which
over
n
their
costs
for
the
site,
so
they
ended
up
scrapping
the
project.
D
Regarding
some
updates
on
large
development,
I
think
one
that
was
before
the
Planning
Commission
on
a
couple
occasions:
the
Cedar
Grove
project
on
the
corner
of
pet,
her
and
cedar
599
cedar.
It
was
the
former
Peninsula
Christian
Fellowship
Church
site,
that
burnt
down
in
2002
14
single-family
homes,
it's
originally
by
small
developer
that
the
church
worked
with
that
got
approved,
lennar
development,
which
is
I,
think
the
nation's
first
or
second
largest
developer,
purchased
the
site
about
a
year
ago
got
approved
by
the
Planning
Commission
several
months
ago.
D
I
believe
in
April
to
make
some
changes
and
new
designs.
They
have
they've
sort
of
broken
ground.
They've
started
removing
some
of
the
trees
that
were
up
there
that
are
necessary
to
build
the
homes
and
they're
going
to
aiming
to
start
construction
on
their
model
homes
sometime
this
year,
so
that
one
is
going
forward.
It's
also
now
known
as
cedar
Mills,
not
Cedar
Grove,
because
I
guess
there
was
a
copyright
claim
on
the
Cedar
Grove
project,
so
they
they
took
up
the
mills
name
from
the
nearby
subdivision
corporative
the
cedar
cedar
name.
D
So
it's
known
as
the
cedar
Mills
subdivision
now,
Pacific
Bay
Vista
is
AKA
treetops.
That
is
still
going
forward
there
in
the
final
stages
of
their
Hut
application
process,
they're
still
looking
at
in
October
construction
date,
they
have
their
private
financing,
as
well
as
the
HUD
back
mortgage
insurance
all
set
up.
So
the
neighborhood
to
finally
see
some
relief
of
having
that
abandoned
apartment
complex
in
their
neighborhood
for
the
last
five
years,
so
continue
to
update
the
Planning
Commission
on
those
two
projects.
As
we
move
forward
regarding
glenview.
D
As
you
know,
there
are
38
homes
that
were
destroyed.
Six
homes
are
now
under
construction.
If
you
haven't
had
a
chance
to
go
through
the
neighborhood,
it's
great.
Their
homes
are
already
framed,
they're
moving
forward
to
great
contractors
out
there
that
are
moving
it
forward
at
a
brisk
pace.
Some
homeowners
are
aiming
to
be
in
their
homes
by
the
end
of
this
year
early
next
year.
D
So
it's
going
forward
quickly,
so
there's
six
homes
under
construction
there's
another
five
that
have
recently
recently
been
approved
by
the
Architectural
Review
Committee
that
are
either
in
structural
review
or
about
to
be
in
structural
review.
So
I
could
say
by
the
end
of
this
summer
you
know
mid-september
there
could
be
up
to
about
11
homes
under
construction
in
the
neighborhood
there's
another
13
homes
that
are
in
a
pre-application
review
process
that
are
in
design
with
an
architect
and
there's
another
14
that
are
either
that
are
to
be
determined.
D
You
know
either
thinking
about
selling
to
PG&E
or
in
a
situation
where
they
haven't
yet
decided.
If
they're
moving
forward
or
not,
there's
been
six
homes
that
have
been
that
have
closed
escrow
with
PG&E.
Three
of
those
homes
were
of
the
destroyed
lots.
Two
of
those
homes
were
yellow
tag
blocks
in
another
home
was
of
a
green
tag,
green
tagged
one,
so
those
are
owned
by
pge.
D
D
The
three
other
homes
that
they
own,
which
are
destroyed,
lots,
that's
something
that
will
continue
discussions
with
them
and
outreach
to
the
neighborhood
to
see
what
type
of
construction
they'd
like
to
see
on
those
those
Lots.
It's
pge
acquires
them
of
the
17.
Yellow
tag.
Lots
for
have
been
all
the
construction
is
completely
done,
so
people
are
living
within
those
right
now,
there's
another
ten
ten
that
are
under
construction.
D
And
there's
three
that
are
either
in
design
or
construction
to
begin
soon,
so
that's
kind
of
an
update
overall
of
what's
going
on,
you
know
where
inspectors
are
up
there
on
a
day-to-day
basis.
Our
planners
are
speaking
to
the
homeowners
on
a
day-to-day
basis.
So
it's
still
something
that
we're
involved
with.
D
You
know
and
it's
great
to
see
that
the
neighborhood
is
moving
forward,
and
there
also
will
be
one
year
so
one
year
memorials
on
September,
9th
and
as
well
as
on
September
11,
more
details
about
that
will
be
made
available
to
the
public
as
we
as
we
proceed.
I
could
take
any
questions
about
any
of
those
occupation.
G
Marshall
quick
question
on
the
far
side
school
I
mean
I
was
I,
knew
they
were
going
to
remodel
the
school,
but
when
another
commissioners
told
me
about
to
drive
by
the
other
day
and
I
saw
the
two
or
three
story,
you
know
structure
going
up
there.
It
was
the
city
giving
courtesy
of
plans
and
for
such
as
bypass
us
completely.
D
I
mean
is
we
I
mean
there
was
we
had
one
meeting
with
the
contractor?
You
know,
as
they
were
finalizing
the
design.
There
was
some
neighborhood
outreach
that
they
had
independently,
but
I
guess,
fortunately,
or
unfortunately
depending
on
which
your
view
is
there
under
the
jurisdiction
of
the
State
Department,
the
State
architects
department
and
not
under
the
local
zoning
Authority,
so
they
basically
get
to
proceed
on
their
own,
but.
G
D
Be
right:
it's
a
little
bit
different
for
school
building
school
buildings,
kind
of
follow
within
their
own
certain
category,
so
yeah
but
I
know
they
did
have
some
neighborhood
outreach.
I
can't
judge.
You
know
how.
Well
then
at
neighborhood
outreach
was
undertaken
because
I
wasn't
involved
with
it,
but
yeah
that
there
is
a
big
structure
going
up.
There
were
trees
removed.
There's
you
know
some
traffic
impacts,
related
construction
vehicles
and
I
know
they
were
under
a
tight
time
schedule
as
well,
because
they
want
to
get
it
completed
before
the
school
year.
Again.
G
F
Live
right
across
the
street
from
barb
site.
Looking
me,
you
had
the
outreach
it
was.
It
was
okay,
a
lot
of
neighbors
did
a
10,
but
the
scope
of
the
work
that
is
actually
occurring
right
now
was
a
little
bit
more
than
I
think
what
we
all
pretty
much
expected,
but
suddenly
there's
a
two-story
steel
erected.
Building
like
just
staring
into
face.
You
go
wait
a
minute.
I!
Don't
really
recall
that
at
all,
but
you're
right,
they
have
the
room,
you
know
their
own
agenda
and
have
their
own
way
of
getting
through
it.
F
D
A
D
D
A
C
C
C
D
There
there
is
a
there
is
a
way
that
we
could
probably
do
it
within
our
database.
So
it
doesn't
do
it.
You
know,
there's
not
redundant
notices,
sent
out
to
people
but
yeah.
That
would
be
the
way
that
we
do
it
catch
all.
We
do
do
that
in
a
certain
certain
circumstances-
I,
don't
we
just
did
it
in
this
circumstance.