Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

WELCOME EVERYONE TO THE DECEMBER 15TH PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. WE START WITH THE ROLL CALL.

COMMISSIONER CHEN.

PRESENT.

COMMISSIONER QUIG. VICE CHAIR CHOI.

PRESENT.

CHAIR DAVIS.

HERE.

ALL PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT.

THANK YOU. FOR THOSE ABLE, WE WILL STAND UP FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. Thank you. Next item is the agenda review. Anybody want to move anything around or anything? We're good. All righty. We have one set of minutes from the December 1st meeting. Yep. Yep. Any corrections, comments?

I'll move approval of the December 1st meeting minutes.

Thank you. We have a second. You vote.

Thank you motion passes for 0.

Thank you next step is public communication. This is time set aside for the public to address the planning commission. on a topic that is in our purview, but not on tonight's agenda. Do we have any speaker slips or people on Zoom?

We have one speaker slip from Marion Kong.

OK. Marion Kong. Anyway, I never expect to speak tonight, but I'm here now. What I want to say is that Millbrae is moving forward economically, but our planning code has a lot of outdated sections. I want to compliment our community development department. They made the Moosey project, make it possible, make it occupied by some tenants, which is that brings some revenue to the city, and then also occupy, doesn't seem that empty, that deserted area. But there's quite a few other building in our downtown area, El Camino, on Broadway, and those buildings actually, to me, is a victim of the old planning code, the permitted usage for that particular building, permitted usage for that block. And then so it kind of stopped. a lot of potential tenant businesses will have to come in to make Mill Bay better, to make more revenue, and to make it more vibrant to the city. So I know this body has a lot of experience, and you know that. So whenever it is, please help out. city government, community development department, try to look through their planning code, try to update it because the code is old and then the economy is progressive, it's moving, okay? So I think, FOR THE CITY TO BE BETTER, TO BE MORE SUCCESSFUL, IT REQUIRES EVERYBODY'S EFFORT. SO I ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO TRY TO ASSIST OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT TO UPDATE THE CODE. MAYBE EVEN YOU CAN TAKE AN INITIATIVE, ASK THEM TO REVISE THE CODING. THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER NO MORE SLIPS OR HANDS RAISED ON ZOOM.

Thank you. Next up, item four is a public hearing, 1284 Encina Drive. It's a public hearing to consider a design review permit application to allow a 1,467 square foot rear addition to an existing two-story residence and an exception request to maintain an existing non-conforming front and upper floor right side setback in the single-family residential. Jennifer?

Good evening, Chair Davis, Jennifer Lim, Associate Planner with the City of Mulberry, and tonight I will be presenting the project at 1284 Encina Drive. So this is a public hearing to consider a design review permit application to allow a 1,467 square foot rare addition to an existing two-story residence and an exception request to maintain an existing non-conforming front and upper floor right side setback in the single-family residential R1 zoning district. SO THIS PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE MILLS ESTATE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S IN THE R1 SINGLE FAMILY ZONE. IT'S AN INTERIOR LOT ABOUT 9478 SQUARE FEET. THE EXISTING RESIDENCE IS A TWO STORY SPLIT LEVEL HOUSE ABOUT 3364 SQUARE FEET. AND THE PROJECT PROPOSAL IS FOR A 1467 SQUARE FOOT REAR ADDITION TO THE EXISTING SECOND STORY. And an exception request for an existing non conforming setbacks. So the existing home will have a substantial interior model and the existing shed area will be removed, as well as the front yard landscaping will be modified. The proposed home will feature a two-story split level home. The hatched area depicts where the addition will be. The front yard landscaping and rear yard open space requirements will be met. The proposed first floor plan includes one bedroom, one bathroom, and an attached two-car garage. The proposed area of work is interior only with the relocation of the stairs. The proposed second floor plan includes four bedrooms, four bathrooms, a half bath, a living room, dining room, and a kitchen. Here's the proposed front elevation. The proposed residence is a split-level two-story home. There will be an off-white colored stucco with the weathered tee horizontal siding along the front facade and garage area. The home will have a dark gray colored shingle roof, and the windows will be black with a black colored wood trim. There's the proposed left side elevation, proposed right side elevation, and the proposed rear elevation. So this is the proposed 3D rendering from the front view. And this slide has the proposed 3D rendering from the backyard right side. A total of seven adjacent owner consultation forms were sent out to the adjacent neighbors. Three of those forms were returned in support of the project. One form was returned in opposition and three forms were not returned. Here's a map of the responses from the neighbors. So the property owner on the upslope side of the project at 268 Sebastian drive noted concerns regarding the height of the addition and affecting their landscape and loss of views. So the applicant installed story pool showing where the new addition area will be. And planning staff conducted a site visit with the neighbor at 268 Sebastian drive to assess these concerns and noted views of the San Francisco Bay from their backyard and rear deck area. So this is a photo taken from that staff visit with the neighbor. You could see here the story poles that were installed. So the applicant also provided a superimposed 3D rendering of the proposed project. And you could see here that the bay view is still being preserved with the low-pitched roof. The applicant has reached out to the neighbor on different occasions to address their concerns. SO WITH THAT THE APPLICANT HAS LOWERED THE SLOPE OF THE ROOF TO TWO AND A HALF TO 12. SO STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE DESIGN AS THE BAY VIEW WILL STILL BE PRESERVED WITH THE LOW-PITCHED ROOF. THIS PROJECT IS CONSIDERED SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT PER BUILDING CODE 9.10.055 AS MORE THAN 50% OF THE EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE IS BEING ALTERED. ALL SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ARE CONSIDERED NEW CONSTRUCTION AND MUST MEET ALL PLANNING REQUIREMENTS. SO THIS PROJECT HAS AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING GROUND FLOOR AND UPPER FLOOR SIDE SETBACK AS WELL AS AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING RIGHT SIDE SETBACK. SO SINCE THESE EXISTING NONCONFORMING WALLS ARE NOT BEING ALTERED, AN EXCEPTION IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT. MILBURY MUNICIPAL CODE REQUIRES SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES IN THE R1 ZONE TO HAVE A 20-FOOT GROUND FLOOR FRONT SETBACK AND A 10-FOOT UPPER FLOOR SETBACK MEASURED FROM THE EXTERIOR WALL BELOW. This existing first and second front setback near the garage are nonconforming. Therefore, the applicant is requesting an exception for the first and second story front setback. This project is required to have a four foot upper floor right side setback measured from the exterior wall below. The existing upper floor right side setback is existing nonconforming and will not be modified. Therefore, the applicant is requesting an exception. The front setback exception is reasonable, given the form and mass of the structure is very similar to other homes in the street. Many homes were also built with the second story that cantilevers over the first story above the garage area. So the upper floor right side setback exception is also reasonable, given many homes in the neighborhood were also built without upper floor side setbacks. In order to approve the design review permit, the Planning Commission must make the following findings in Milbury Municipal Code section 10.05.2500, which staff is in support of. The Planning Commission must also make the following exception findings per Milbury Municipal Code 10.05.2530, which staff is also supportive of. So with that, staff recommends the Planning Commission receive the presentation, review the project, consider the public testimony, and approve a design review permit application to allow a 1,467 square foot rear addition to an existing two-story residence and an exception request to maintain an existing nonconforming front and upper floor right side setback in the single-family residential R1 zoning district. So staff and the applicant are available for any questions.

Thank you. We'll start. Are there any clarifying questions for Jennifer? Not right now? OK. Does the applicant or their architect want to come up?

Hi. My name is Aki Tanaka with Studio 02 Architects. I'm the designer on the project. Just to kind of briefly go over the project, The main goal of this project for us was to increase the living space for the family of five. So, yeah, first and foremost, our goal was to do the addition while also having minimal impact on the the street view as well as the neighbors. So we kept the addition to the back. AND AS JENNIFER NOTED, WE WENT THROUGH A COUPLE ITERATIONS FOR THE ADDITION SINCE WE HAD AN ISSUE WITH THE NEIGHBOR. ORIGINALLY WE HAD, IF YOU LOOK AT THE ROOF PLAN ON AE 6.0, ORIGINALLY WE HAD A SINGLE ROOF OVER THE ADDITION WHICH ESSENTIALLY INCREASES THE RIDGE HEIGHT. SO IN RESPONSE TO THE NEIGHBOR'S COMMENT WE basically almost having the the roof height um and hopefully we we preserve the view for the neighbor um so yeah with that said I'm happy to answer any questions yeah yeah any questions okay

Just very quickly, so I want to confirm that the rendering that was shown in the presentation represents the updated roof. Yes, that's the updated roof where we have essentially split.

Yeah, two split and then there's this long cricket in between the two roofs. Thank you.

Anything else right now? Nope.

I have one more question. Okay. The rendering of the front where it shows the landscape retaining wall, is that how you envision it would actually look like? It looks really heavy. There's a lot of concrete. Is it a pretty accurate representation of what you believe?

I think the rendering, it looks concrete, correct? But the intent was it to be more of an earthy tone. I thought that's what we had in our final it's in it's in the drawings okay okay um the the retaining walls are meant to be more of an earth tone okay so not the same color as the house so i'm i'm referring to to this this rendering here yeah it's it should be more of an earthy okay

kind of similar to the headed toward a brown color not rather than gray correct um closer to almost the stucco color i'd say maybe a little darker something like a little contrast yeah okay thank you all righty anything else right now no okay thank you very much for now thank you uh we'll put it up to public comment now any speaker slips or hands on zoom no speaker slips or hands raised on zoom OK, then can we close this section? Motion.

Motion to close.

Second.

Did you vote?

Thank you motion passes 4-0 public comment is now closed.

Thank you. All right, let's open it up for discussion. Who wants to kick it off? Comments? Go ahead.

I think it looks really nice. I don't feel uncomfortable about the setbacks because of the way it's built. When those setbacks were put in effect was really a second story. This is second story, but it's not your typical second story. So I feel fine with it. I don't know how everyone else feels and I do appreciate that you were working with the next door neighbor from the upside to ensure that there are a few was as protected as possible.

Thank you. I concur with Commissioner Quigg. I think the setback exception requests are reasonable and I commend the applicant for working with their to address the neighbors concerns.

I think the non-conforming front setback is reasonable in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. I do would like to urge that the amount of concrete as represented in the rendering be considered, whether it's in color or in mass, so that it looks a little bit more, so that the ratio of landscaping and hardscape is more in line with the neighbor. Other than that, I think it's a fine project.

a good investment in the neighborhood thank you yeah but once again what was nice is roof lines can't always be modified so nicely so that lucky on this one and well done on that part and i just realized i have one question on that ramp does it connect to the porch is that why the ramp is there is that a to bypass the stairs sorry yeah so that that's part of the the concrete that you're mentioning which sounds like it's required so it's kind of nice that it has a a pretty ramp not a couple of pieces of plywood and stuff that so many people have to use. So with that said, are there any motions? I'll make a motion.

I can make a motion. I have a motion that we approve this project before us for 1284 Encina Drive. Subject to the conditions. approval and we go ahead and approve the 1467 square foot rear addition to an existing story residence and an exception request to maintain an existing non-conforming front and upper front floor right setback in the single-family residence zoning district we have a second

We do we have your votes.

It's gonna look really nice.

Thank you. Motion passes for zero.

Thank you. The action of the Planning Commission is considered final pending a 10-day appeal period and the payment of a required appeal fee. For anyone that wishes to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission, please contact the City Clerk at 650-259-2414 or etran at ci.milbray.ca.us with appeal process questions or visit the City of Milbury website, ci.milbray.ca.us. thank you our next public hearing is 380 ashton avenue excuse me a public hearing on a design review permit application to allow a 7.87 square foot new entry edition on the first floor and a 51 square foot second floor addition to an existing two-story residence congratulations goodbye uh To an existing two-story residence a conditional use permit for a non-conforming upper story right side setback and an exception request for a non-conforming upper story front setback and an existing non-conforming upper story left side setback in the single-family residential zoning district. And Claire? Thank you.

Hi. Good evening, Chair Davis and members of the Planning Commission. I'm Claire May, Consultant Planner, here to present the project at 3 Ashton Avenue. This is a public hearing on the design review permit application to allow a 7.87-square-foot first-story addition and a 51-square-foot second-story addition to an existing two-story residence, a conditional use permit application to extend the existing nonconforming upper-story right-side setback, an exception request for a nonconforming upper-story front setback, and to maintain an existing nonconforming left-side setback in this single-family residential R1 zoning district. This map shows the project location. This project is located in the Highlands neighborhood. Residence is in the single-family R1 zoning district. Its interior is a 6,063-square-foot lot. The existing two-story residence is about 3,200 square feet. This proposal is for a 7.87-square-foot first-story addition and a 51-square-foot second-story addition along the front and right side of the house. And you can see that's where the existing deck is. This lot is a triangular-shaped parcel. Due to the narrowing of the lot at the rear of the parcel, the existing home has legal nonconforming setbacks. The existing front and side setbacks are also nonconforming. The portion of the building on the left side where the garage is located is not being modified as a part of this application. The proposed project includes a new entry addition of 7.87 square feet. The proposed project also includes a 51 square foot addition and the construction of a second story addition and the enclosure of existing upper level deck that is within the front setback. To allow the proposed additions, a CUP, a conditional use permit is required to extend existing nonconforming upper story right setback. Exception requests are required to extend an existing nonconforming upper story front setback. and to maintain the existing non-conforming left side setback. There are homes in the neighborhood that also lack conforming upper story setbacks. These non-conformities would not be out of character. This is the proposed landscape plan. The proposed landscape plan includes replacing the existing artificial turf in the rear yard with a new sod lawn. The concrete area to the left of the garage will also be replaced with a new lawn that matches the existing lawn. They are modifying the exterior of the home with colors, materials, and a roof type that is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed exterior finishes will be a Swiss coffee stucco color with black asphalt shingles, stone white windows with sage green gable vents and soft white trim, and sage green shutters. The proposed roof over the garage will be modified from a hip to gable roof. A portion of the proposed roof will also include a new flat roof that would not be visible from the street, and the new roof remains THE OTHER EXISTING ROOF PITCHES. THE BUILDING HEIGHT WOULD INCREASE FROM 24 FEET 6 AND A HALF INCHES TO 30 FEET ALONG THE TALLEST PORTION OF THE HOUSE. THIS IS THE RENDERING OF THE FRONT ELEVATION. A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO EXTEND THE EXISTING NONCONFORMING UPPER STORY RIGHT SIDE STEP BACK OF 7 FEET 3 INCHES WHERE 13 FEET IS REQUIRED BY CODE. THE NONCONFORMITY ALREADY EXISTS DUE TO THE EXISTING DUCK'S FOOTPRINT. These are the existing and proposed right side elevations. On the existing, you can see the deck to the left of the chimney, and on the proposed, you can see where they're adding the new addition along there. The project is requesting an exception to allow a nonconforming upper story front setback of 23 feet 6 inches, where 33 feet 6 inches is required. The project is requesting exception to maintain a non-conforming left side setback. There are no modifications to the footprint of this portion of the house, but a new roof will be placed over the entire house, including this area. The total of eight adjacent owner consultation forms were sent out to the adjacent neighbors. Seven of these forms were returned in support of the project and two requested conditions. One form was not returned. ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT RECEIVED THE CONSULTATION FORMS WHO REQUESTED A CONDITION AT 731 TAYLOR BOULEVARD SUPPORTED THE PROJECT WITH THE CONDITION TO NOT EXTEND THE ROOF LINE IN THE NORTHWEST DIRECTION. AND PLANS HAVE BEEN MODIFIED TO ADDRESS THIS. THE PROPERTY OWNER OF 370 ASHTON AVENUE SUPPORTED THE PROJECT WITH THE CONDITION TO USE PARTIALLY OBSCURED WINDOWS IN THE PRIMARY BEDROOM FACING THE BEDROOM AND BATHROOM WINDOWS ON THEIR SIDE OF THE HOUSE. Plans have been modified to address this, along with condition of approval number 48. This map shows the project location in blue and the adjacent neighbors who were notified in red. In order to approve the design review permit, the Planning Commission must make the following findings. What do you like me to read the findings about? The first is the architectural landscaping and general appearance of the proposed building or structure and grounds are in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Two, the project complies with all applicable development regulations. Three, the project will not cause a significant visual impact to neighboring views from principal rooms of a residence. And four, the proposal is not detrimental to the orderly, harmonious, and safe development of the city and will not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood in which the building or structure is proposed to be erected. In order to, through the conditional use permit, the Planning Commission must make the following findings. One, the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use. And two, the establishment, maintenance, or operation of the use applied for will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be detrimental to the property improvements in the neighborhood of such proposed use. And lastly, in order to improve the exceptional class, the planning commission must make the following findings. One, the deviation granted from the minimum required or maximum level development standard prescribed for the zoning district in which the project site is located will not under the circumstance of the parking case detrimental to property and improvements existing upon any abutting parcel. And to the deviation granted from the minimum required or maximum allowable development standard prescribed for the zoning district in which the project site is located. Well, under the circumstance of the particular case compatible with the property improvements existing proposed upon the project site. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive the presentation, review the project, consider the public testimony, and approve a design review permit application to allow a 7.87-square-foot first-story addition, 51-square-foot second-story addition to an existing two-story residence, a conditional use permit application to extend the existing non-conforming upper-story side setback, RIGHT SIDE SETBACK AND EXCEPTION REQUEST FOR A NON-CONFORMING UPPER STORY FRONT SETBACK AND MAINTAIN AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING LEFT SIDE SETBACK IN THE SINGLE-FOUND RESIDENTIAL R1 ZONING DISTRICT. STAFF AND THE APPLICANT ARE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. NEW SPEAKER Thank you.

Does anybody have any questions for Claire?

Yes, thanks so much for the presentation. I was kind of curious about the planning division special conditions of approval. So, I mean, you already discussed number 48, but, you know, I was just curious why there needs to be an inspection of the attic cross brace or, and this is the first time that I've seen a stipulation that the color and materials have to match the ones received by planning. I don't think that's normally in the conditions of approval. So just curious why they're being enumerated here.

So you were introduced to our new city planner, Brad Meisner, at the last meeting, and the conditions were at his recommendation. You know, it is a requirement anyway that the materials match. THE CROSS-BRACING CAME UP JUST DURING PLAN CHECK. IT'S JUST A BUILDING CODE. IT'S MORE OF A, THEY'RE REALLY MORE OF A, I MEAN, THEY'RE CONDITIONS THAT APPLY NO MATTER WHAT, BUT THEY'RE MORE OF A REMINDER. PERSONALLY, I THINK REMINDERS DON'T BELONG IN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT'S REALLY A STYLE THING, BUT, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO HAPPEN NO MATTER WHAT, SO THEY'RE IN OUR CONDITIONS.

NEW SPEAKER OKAY.

THANK YOU. NEW SPEAKER THANKS. NEW SPEAKER I HOPE THAT HELPS CLARIFY.

Any other questions for Claire right now? No? Okay. Does the architect or applicant want to come up?

uh good evening commissioners my name is jesse gursa i'm a designer on the project um i apologize that my clients aren't able to make it tonight for the reason that um uh they're sick so it's good that they're not here to get everybody else sick um i'd like to thank you uh for the opportunity to present this project to you um my clients and i have worked very hard on designing this house according to their growing family and also uh DESIGNING IT SO THAT IT HAS A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A MORE UP-TO-DATE LOOK TO THE HOUSE THAT'S BEEN OLD AND TRADITIONAL IN ITS WAY IT WAS. BUT JUST A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE MARSHED ALONG WITH THIS DESIGN IN REGARDS TO HAVING THIS EXISTING UPPER LEVEL DECK THAT WE WANTED TO BUILD UP ON TOP OF JUST BECAUSE IT WAS THERE. MOMENT, SO WE KIND OF CAPITALIZED ON DOING SO, THEREFORE THAT CREATED THESE NONCONFORMING REQUESTS FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. In designing it, you know, we designed it so that it was compatible with the neighborhood and the look of the neighborhood. And so my client did speak to the neighbors and we've gotten feedback from them and address those issues so that they're happy with the overall design. Anyways, we're here to answer any questions that you may have regarding the project and the design. Hopefully it's to your satisfaction.

Any questions for him?

No?

Not right now?

OK. Thank you for now. If anything comes up, we'll let you know. Thank you. We're good for now. Next up is public comment. Do we have a speaker slip?

Yes, we have a speaker slip and a hand raised on Zoom. And a hand on Zoom. OK. So the first one will be speaker slip. Tony and Carol Giovannini, will you please come to the stand?

Thank you.

WE ALLOW THREE MINUTES, SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE TIME RUN. NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU.

NEW SPEAKER MY NAME'S TONY GIOVANNINI AND I LIVE AT 360 ASHES. PROVE THE PROGRAM THEY HAVE HERE. BUT I HAD SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE FIREPLACE. IT'S UNENFORCED MASONARY. AND IT RIGHT ALONGSIDE MY HOUSE. AND I TALKED TO CATHY ABOUT IT BUT I DIDN'T KNOW SHE SAID SHE WAS THINKING ABOUT GETTING But I'm worried about an earthquake, that's all. And the windows that they're fixing, it's fine. Because there's no windows on that side of the house. Now they're putting three windows, and they're putting the frosted windows in there. So that's a good thing. But the only thing I'm worried about is that fireplace. I'd like something to address about it.

Thank you.

SO THE BUILDING CODE WILL REQUIRE THEM TO BRACE THE FIREPLACE WHEN IT GOES THROUGH PLAN CHECK FOR SEISMIC STRENGTHENING.

NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THAT. OKAY.

NEW SPEAKER JUST TO CONFIRM, THE FIREPLACE AND THE CHIMNEY WASN'T PART OF THE EXISTING BUILDING, CORRECT?

NEW SPEAKER RIGHT. NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. NEW SPEAKER WE DON'T USUALLY COVER THOSE IN A PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING BECAUSE THEY'RE TAKING CARE OF UNDER THE BUILDING CODE SO WE DEFAULT THE STATE BUILDING CODE.

And our next one. No, go ahead.

That's all right. I can.

And we have one hand raised on Zoom. My, Maria, would you like to unmute yourself, please? Can you hear us, Maria?

Sorry, I didn't have a mute button. I'm and I live at 390 Ashton Avenue and my husband approved the, the neighbor consultation form. He signed that. but I'm the gardener in the family and I'm concerned that the roof line is going to be raised substantially and that will limit the amount of sunlight that we will have in our backyard. By the numbers, this doesn't sound like a very big expansion because the current roof deck, which is basically an unused space, is already counts as square footage even though it's just sort of a setback and now that space will be filled in so the front of the house will feel much closer to the street and the front uh the front eave over the garage, which the garage itself is not moving any closer to our house, but that front roof peak will be bumped out and quite a bit taller. So I'm worried that it's going to remove all the direct sun from our backyard at certain times of the year. I'm also worried about the construction noise, but I don't know how that gets mitigated. I work sometimes from home, and my bedroom slash office is right next to the build site. Thank you.

Thank you. No more speaker slips or hands raised on Zoom. Thank you. Can we close the public comment portion motion?

Close the public comment second votes.

Thank you motion passes for 0 public comment is now closed. Thank you.

Okay. This is for staff. That's the question I was going to ask, and then we move quickly, and then I remember. So even though it's an existing fireplace, it's going to have to go through plan check and be...

The whole house does, yes.

Okay. I learned something, too.

I have a question on that last comment. Is the garage portion of the house getting taller?

You mean the roofline?

Yeah. I'm looking at the two side by side.

They didn't.

It says it's existing on both for that portion of the home. So it would not go up.

Thank you. Oh, yes. So just to address the first comment, I did see in the list of approval conditions of approval It disappeared for me just now, but one of them is about the seismic bracing of the chimney. I definitely saw it. Oh, here it is. Sorry, the browser is reloading as I'm scrolling through. Oh yeah, it's number 32 on the resolution that will be attached to the approval if it passes tonight. And then on the subject of the second comment, I did see that in the plans there is a shadow study and it looks like the shadows are identical between the existing and proposed or It's minor enough that it's not obviously visible here. Is that correct? Am I reading the shadow study correctly?

Yeah, at 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. the shadows are not visible.

Sorry, public comment was closed.

Okay, thanks.

I have a question for the architect about the front elevation. I think overall it's an improvement. It does look more It's refreshed and looks more consistent between the existing and the new elevation. I do have a question on the arch awning. Was that a preference from the owner?

It was, yeah. They would like it to have more entry coverage. Okay. Without having to push that entry door further back into the house to get more of a cover. We don't have that much space for that. So we elected to do this nice arched canvas so that it kind of has an entry awning on it.

Okay. Thank you. anybody want to comment make a motion I would just say that I think the the only exception on the right side setbacks seem reasonable. All other aspects of the project fits within the requirement of the zoning. So I think it's a fine project. Good job. Thank you.

I'll move that the Planning Commission adopt the resolution approving the design review permit with a conditional use permit to extend the existing non-conforming upper story right setback and exception requests for a non-conforming upper story front setback and existing non-conforming upper story left side setback at 380 Ashton Avenue in the single family residential zoning district.

I can second thank you before we vote. I just want to say it is one of the prettiest houses. I've seen your votes.

I totally agree with that. I looked at that picture and I went wild.

Thank you motion passes for zero.

The action of the Planning Commission is considered final pending a 10-day appeal period and the payment of a required appeal fee. For anyone that wishes to appeal the decision of the Planning Commission, please contact the City Clerk at 650-259-2414 or e-tran at ci.milbray.ca.us with appeal process questions or visit the City of Milbray website, ci.milbray.ca.us. Congrats. Thank you. New business?

none any staff updates our next planning commission meeting is tentatively scheduled for january 5th um i don't believe we have any items uh for certain yet but we'll keep you posted through the holidays and i wish you all a merry christmas thank you so when is your last day on friday okay we'll miss you no other staff updates okay oh and i just want to thank our contract planner who presented tonight um just thank you for your help and we really appreciate it we have we have a few staff vacancies and so we rely on contract staff and this is her first planning commission meeting here in millbrae so thank you thank you so will she be will you be here with us for a while or probably Yeah, probably until February. We're doing second round interviews for an assistant planner this week. And it takes a few months usually to get through background check and the hiring process. So Claire will be with us for a few more months.

Thank you.

Claire and I are both from the same part of Illinois too. No way. She and I grew up probably within 45 minutes of each other.

From Illinois?

Yes, but... You know, two and a half decades apart. It's always cold back there. There's no cold weather. It's just inappropriate clothing.

Oh, the California natives. There's cold weather. We're experiencing it right now. Any announcements?

Merry Christmas.

Okay. I just, there's been so much going on. There's been so much going on that these days are just running right by.

Happy Hanukkah as well. Second of Hanukkah. Oh my God, that was so sad.

Anything else? I hate hearing all this bad news.

And we're adjourned. And I guess we should also say Happy New Year because we won't be back.

Happy New Year, everyone.

Thank you. We're adjourned.