Agenda, regular meeting, second session — San Bruno City Council, August 27, 2024 (part 3 of 3)

Airport Influence Area B and within the 70 – 75 decibel (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contour where housing is not compatible.

Caltrans Aeronautics concurs with the ALUC findings that the Project is inconsistent with the policies of the ALUCP. The proposed housing sites are located within the 70 dB CNEL contour, in direct conflict with the ALUCP noise compatibility policies. The Project includes adding a minimum of 1,050 housing units at the Tanforan sites (A.K.A. The Shops at Tanforan), adding a minimum of 60 housing units at the San Bruno Pet Hospital site, and adding a minimum of 40 housing units at the dental office site. All of the sites require a combination of either rezoning, a Specific Plan amendment, or amendments to a Planned Development District. The General Plan will also be amended to effectuate housing on these sites. These same sites were planned for housing in San Bruno’s draft 2023-2031 Housing Element which was reviewed by the ALUC in November 2022. The ALUC found the new Housing Element inconsistent with the ALUCP and Caltrans Aeronautics agreed with the ALUC (as described in the attached letter dated 12/14/2022) noting additional serious safety concerns with the draft 2023- 2031 Housing Element. The City is now proposing changes to the general plan and zoning designations on these four sites to accommodate the identified housing units.

Aeronautics has reviewed the proposed findings provided by the City and has determined the findings are insufficient to warrant this proposed overrule.

Specifically, the findings are not consistent with the purposes of the statutes set forth in the California Public Utilities Code (PUC) section 21670. These findings do not provide substantial evidence that the proposed Project will meet the requirements of PUC statutes set forth in PUC section 21670. These findings do not provide substantial evidence that the proposed Project will meet the requirements of PUC, section 21670(a) (1) and (2).

Regarding noise compatibility for residential uses, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook), published by Caltrans in 2011, states the three CNEL values of acceptable residential noise exposure are 65 dB, 60 dB, or 55 dB.

The choices and rational for each are listed in Table 4B of the Handbook on page 4-7. The Projects projected 70 dB contour directly conflicts with the Handbook which states:
“For purposes of airport land use compatibility planning, Caltrans advises that 65 dB CNEL is not an appropriate criterion for new noise-sensitive development around most airports. At a minimum, communities should assess the suitability and feasibility of setting a lower standard for new residential and other noise-sensitive development.”
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

280 of 345

Mr. Michael Smith, Senior Planner
May 9, 2024

Page 3 ends

Further, the majority of the proposed Project sites are located in the Handbook’s Safety Zone 4, which is the Outer Approach/Departure Zone. This Safety Zone is considered by the Handbook as having a moderate risk level for an aircraft accident occurring at these locations. Per Handbook page 4-23 the Safety Zone 4 policy states the basic compatibility is to limit residential uses to low density in Safety Zone 4, and allow infill at up to the average density/intensity of comparable surrounding uses. Additionally, in Safety Zone 4, prohibited uses include children’s schools, large daycare centers of 15 or more children, nursing homes, and hospitals. High intensity retail or office buildings are to be avoided.

Avoided is defined as: Use generally should be permitted only if an alternative site outside the zone would not serve the intended public function. Additionally, it notes to consider potential airspace protection hazards of certain energy/industrial projects.

Concerning the Handbook, the California Public Utilities Code, section 21674.7 (b), states:
“It is the intent of the Legislature to discourage incompatible land uses near existing airports. Therefore, prior to granting permits for the renovation or remodeling of an existing building, structure, or facility, and before the construction of a new building, it is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies shall be guided by the height, use, noise, safety, and density criteria that are compatible with airport operations, as established by this article, and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, published by the Division…”
Aeronautics stresses the importance of considering the compatibility policies in the ALUCP, with references in the Handbook for supplemental guidance.

Additionally, as an unfortunate commonality in California, Caltrans understands that the City is facing affordable housing supply shortages and is looking for new areas to accommodate residential developments. Consequently, environmental justice and equity concerns should also be reviewed for consistency with goals identified in the California Transportation Plan of 2050 and the California Aviation System Plan of 2020. Aeronautics notes that new laws regarding the provision of housing do not supersede existing laws, including Section 21670 of the California Public Utilities Code, which require counties to establish ALUCs and compatibility plans to protect public health, safety, and welfare.

The proposed Project will create new noise and safety issues which is not in compliance with the ALUCP nor following the guidance of the Handbook. As you will see in the attached comment letters from Caltrans dated January 25, “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

281 of 345

Mr. Michael Smith, Senior Planner
May 9, 2024

Page 4 ends

2022; August 26, 2022; October 28, 2022; and December 14, 2022; we have brought forward these same noise and safety concerns on redevelopment projects in this general area. The comments contained in those letters continue to stand and should also be considered on the proposed project within the City of San Bruno.

Please note: Caltrans comments are to be included in the public record of any decision to overrule the ALUC.

If you have questions or we may be of further assistance, please contact me at [email protected] or call (805) 835-6555.

Sincerely,
Ingrid McRoberts
Aviation Planner
Caltrans Aeronautics
c: Suzy Kalkin, Staff, C/CAG ALUC; [email protected]
Nupur Sinha, Director, Planning & Environmental Affairs, San Francisco International Airport (SFO), [email protected]
Joseph Carroll, Attorney, Legal Division, CA Department of Transportation, [email protected]
Matt Friedman, Chief, Office of Aviation Planning, Caltrans Aeronautic, [email protected]
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

282 of 345

STATE OF CALI FORNI A- -- -- -- CALI FORNI A STATE TRANSPORTATI ON AGENCY Gavi n Newsom, Gover nor

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS – M.S. #40
1120 N STREET
Making Conservation
a California Way of Life.

P. O. BOX 942874
SACRAMENTO, CA 94274-0001
PHONE (916) 654-4959
FAX (916) 653-9531
TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
January 25, 2022
Mr. Jovan D. Grogan
City Manager
Electronically Sent
[email protected]
City of San Bruno
567 El Camino Real
San Bruno, CA 94066-4247
Dear Mr. Grogan:

One of the goals of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Division of Aeronautics (Division), is to assist cities, counties, and Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUC) in the development and implementation of policies that protect the safety and general welfare of their communities in which aeronautical activities take place. Recently, it came to Caltrans’ attention that the City of San Bruno (City) is reviewing the proposed “Reimagining Tanforan” redevelopment project (Project). As such, the Division feels it is important for the City to consider specific aviation concerns as the proposed Project progresses.

The proposed Project is approximately 1.2 miles beyond the departure ends of runways 28L and 28R at San Francisco International Airport (SFO). It is directly along the runways’ extended centerlines. These runways are the primary departure paths for SFO. The Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (ALUCP) prepared by San Mateo County, indicates the proposed Project is within SFO’s 70 decibels (dB) Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) contour. The ALUCP states:
“residential uses are not compatible” at 70 CNEL. (SFO ALUCP p. IV-19).

Pursuant to the California Code of Regulations (CCR: Title 21 CCR, §5006), 65 CNEL is “the level of noise acceptable to a reasonable person residing in the vicinity of an airport.” While construction practices can reduce interior noise levels to 45 CNEL, residents would not be expected to remain indoors continuously. When outside or when opening windows or doors, they would remain subjected to 70 CNEL from regular aircraft overflights. These considerations are consistent with the Division’s California Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook). The Handbook’s guidance with the California Building Code (Title 24 CCR, Handbook pages 3-4) seeks to minimize the number of people exposed to frequent and/or high levels of aircraft noise capable of disrupting noise sensitive activities. Title 24 CCR discusses interior noise levels further for “dwellings other than detached single-family residences.” “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”

283 of 345

Mr. Jovan D. Grogan
January 25, 2022

Page 2 ends

Additionally, the ALUCP, in accordance with guidance provided in the Handbook, identifies the objective of safety compatibility planning to minimize the risks associated with potential aircraft accidents. The proposed Project shows portions located in Safety Zone 4, the outer approach/departure zone.

For Zone 4, the ALUCP stipulates limiting residential uses to low density, avoiding high-intensity retail or office buildings, and prohibiting group recreation areas.

Please see below: As the proposed Project site is directly along the flight paths of aircraft departing from runways 28L and 28R, the proposed Project would be under a portion of airspace that has critical One-Engine Inoperative (OEI) procedures. OEI procedures are used when a mechanical failure, bird strike, or other issue prevents one of an aircraft’s engines from operating at full power when relatively low in altitude and slow in speed. Accordingly, remaining altitude and speed decay rapidly.

Depending on when an OEI event might occur, the proposed Project site could conceivably be the point where an aircraft makes ground contact if an aircraft’s performance is compromised enough to preclude other choices.

Since OEI events are unpredictable, and to maintain safety, an OEI procedure must be available for every departure.
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”

284 of 345

Mr. Jovan D. Grogan
January 25, 2022

Page 3 ends

The ALUCP for SFO defines all critical aeronautical surfaces in relation to mean sea level as measured from the origin point of the North American Vertical Datum of 1988 (NAVD88), and so the maximum building height permissible at any point may be calculated by subtracting the ground elevation above Mean Sea Level (AMSL) from the elevation AMSL of the critical aeronautical surface.

In the proposed Project area, the ALUCP for SFO indicates that the maximum elevation of structures should be no higher than approximately 126 feet above AMSL at the southeastern corner, and up to approximately 144 feet AMSL along the proposed Project’s northwestern edge. To exceed the existing permitted maximum elevation of 126 feet 9 inches AMSL could penetrate the critical aeronautical surfaces around SFO and cause changes to operations including, but not limited to, the creation of new procedures, which could expose more residents to overflight noise.

The proposed Project must also address requirements from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), specified in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 77. (14 CFR Part 77). Title14 CFR Part 77.9 provides vertical and horizontal criteria for construction near an airport. Assuming the height of the proposed Project structures would be less than 200 feet, the horizontal criteria applies, requiring FAA airspace evaluation for each structure. Notices should be submitted to the FAA’s Obstacle Evaluation Group (OEG) online at the following site: https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/portal.jsp. OEG Determinations are not building permits, but the Determinations may specify obstruction mitigation.

The Division stresses the importance of considering the compatibility policies in the SFO ALUCP, with references in the Division’s Handbook for supplemental guidance. Additionally, as an unfortunate commonality in California, the Division understands that the City is facing affordable housing supply shortages and is looking for new areas to accommodate residential developments.

Consequently, environmental justice and equity concerns should also be reviewed for consistency with goals identified in the California Transportation Plan of 2050 and the California Aviation System Plan of 2020. The Division notes that new laws regarding the provision of housing do not supersede existing laws, including Section 21670 of the California Public Utilities Code, which require counties to establish ALUCs and compatibility plans to protect public health, safety, and welfare.

If you have questions or we may be of further assistance, Caltrans stands ready to offer additional subject matter expertise:
 Mark Leung in Caltrans District 4, Oakland, ([email protected]) regarding local development review
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”

285 of 345

Mr. Jovan D. Grogan
January 25, 2022

Page 4 ends

 Christopher Brooks ([email protected]), Aviation Safety Officer for the Bay Area, Aeronautics Division in Sacramento, regarding airspace, airport safety, and flight operations
 Dennis O’Connor ([email protected]), Associate Transportation Planner in the Aeronautics Division in Sacramento, regarding land use, the State aviation system, and FAA regulations
Caltrans appreciates the opportunity to maintain an on-going collaborative effort with the City of San Bruno that endeavors to meet multiple needs for preserving local safety, supporting airport safety, and assisting the City of San Bruno in meeting its needs and goals. Please contact me as needed via email at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Originally signed by
Gabrielle Sefranek
Associate Transportation Planner
c: Nupur Sinha, Director of Planning and Environmental Affairs, San Francisco International Airport; [email protected]
Raquel Girvin, Western-Pacific Regional Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration; [email protected]
“Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”

286 of 345

DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS
P.O. BOX 942874, MS–40 | SACRAMENTO, CA 94274
(916) 654-4959 | FAX (916) 653-9531 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
August 26, 2022
Mr. Billy Gross, Principal Planner
City of South San Francisco, Planning Division,
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Dear Mr. Gross,
Thank you for notifying the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (Division), of the proposed overrule by the City of South San Francisco (City). The City is proposing an overrule of the County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG), acting in their Role as the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), for the San Francisco International Airport (SFO).

On July 14, 2022, the Division received an email notification that included City Resolution 122-2022 and draft findings, declaring an intent to consider overruling the ALUC’s July 14, 2022, determination of inconsistency of the proposed 180 ECR Residential/R&D project (Project), with the 2012 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of the San Francisco International Airport (ALUCP). This proposed project is on an 11.2-acre site in South San Francisco located at 180-188 El Camino Real and 415 Spruce Avenue, APN 014- 183-110.

The proposed Project consists of a high-density mixed-use development, consisting of construction of three (3) 6-story life science/R&D buildings, a 7-level parking structure, and a 7-story, multi-family residential building containing 184 units. The Project is in the Airport Influence Area of SFO as defined in the ALUCP, with much of the Project site located within ALUCP’s Safety Compatibility Zone 4, the Outer Approach/Departure Zone. This includes the three R&D structures identified in the site plans as Buildings 1, 2 and 3.

The ALUC found that the Project is inconsistent with the policies of the ALUCP.

This is based on the fact that the multi-family residential use portion of this Project is located within the 70-75 dB CNEL contour, consequently making it not compatible, since the site had not been zoned exclusively for residential use at the time of adoption of the ALUCP. This is further clarified in the ALUCP Noise Policy NP-2 to mean “that the proposed land use is incompatible with aircraft noise at the indicated CNEL level”, regardless of proposed mitigation. Thus, due “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

287 of 345

Mr. Billy Gross, Principal Planner
August 26, 2022

Page 2 ends

to the residential component, the Project was determined to be not consistent with the ALUCP. Additionally, the ALUC stated that the three (3) 6 story life science/R&D buildings and parking structure would only be considered conditionally consistent with the ALUCP, with the following conditions:
 Prior to approval, the final land use decision-making body for the project (South San Francisco City Council, Planning Commission, etc.) shall make specific findings that there is no feasible alternative for the proposed inclusion of biosafety level 2 use on the site.
 The City of South San Francisco shall ensure that any structure within the project that is located within Safety Zone 4 and that contains a use classified as biosafety level 2 shall be provided with at least 50% more exits than required by applicable codes.
 Prior to issuance of any building permits, the City of South San Francisco shall require that the project sponsor clearly document that all structures, including appurtenances, will be constructed below the heights shown on the SFO critical aeronautical surfaces map (ALUCP Exhibit IV-17.)  Prior to issuance of any building permits, the project sponsor shall file Form 7460-1 with the FAA and provide to the City of South San Francisco an FAA “Determination of No Hazard” for each structure.
 The City of South San Francisco shall require that the project sponsor comply with the real estate disclosure requirements outlined in Policy IP-1 of the ALUCP.

The Division has reviewed the proposed findings provided by the City and has determined the findings are insufficient to warrant this proposed overrule.

The Division agrees with the ALUC that the Project is not consistent with the ALUCP. This is due to the multi-family residential use portion of this Project being located within the 70-75 dB CNEL contour according to the ALUCP. The Division disagrees with the city’s finding “2. d.” with respects to using the noise analysis from Salter, dated February 28, 2022, or any other analysis to determine noise “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

288 of 345

Mr. Billy Gross, Principal Planner
August 26, 2022

Page 3 ends

compatibility instead of the forecasted Noise Contours contained in the ALUCP.

It is with good reason that ALUCPs are the fundamental tool used by ALUCs in fulfilling their purpose of promoting airport land use compatibility. As mandated (PUC sections 21674(c), 21675, and 21676 (b)), the ALUC used the criteria of the ALUCP in making its determination of inconsistency. Thus, the ALUC is correct in its determination that that the proposed multi-family residential use is incompatible with aircraft noise, regardless of proposed mitigation.

Regarding noise compatibility for residential uses, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook), published by the Division on page 4-7 states:
“For purposes of airport land use compatibility planning, Caltrans advises that 65 dB CNEL is not an appropriate criterion for new noise-sensitive development around most airports. At a minimum, communities should assess the suitability and feasibility of setting a lower standard for new residential and other noise-sensitive development.”
Additionally, the Division agrees with the following (from the letter addressed to the ALUC dated June 14, 2022, from Nupur Sinha, Director of Planning and Environmental Affairs, San Francisco International Airport), regarding this prosed Project’s noise incompatibility.
“Noise compatibility for a development project must be evaluated based on the SFO ALUCP as required by state law. Noise contours based on more recent data, such as used in the Salter report, do not fully reflect the future forecast for SFO operations and may underestimate noise impacts to development projects. As a prime example, the Q 3, 2021 noise contours cited in the noise analysis reflect an unprecedented and temporary decline in air traffic as the result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is not a reliable source of data for future forecasts.” Regarding the rest of the project, construction of the three (3) 6-story life science/R&D buildings, and a 7-level parking structure, the Division agrees with all of the ALUC’s required conditions, as being absolutely necessary. Although, the addition of these conditions by the ALUC would make these land uses compatible with the ALUCP, the Division still has serious concerns.

According to the Handbook’s example of Safety Zones, that are to be used as a starting point for ALUCs to develop the Safety Zones for the ALUCP. A significant portion of the area for construction of the 6-story life science/R&D buildings will be located in Safety Zones 4 and 6.
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

289 of 345

Mr. Billy Gross, Principal Planner
August 26, 2022

Page 4 ends

Safety Zone 4 is the Outer Approach/Departure Zone and considered by the Handbook as having a moderate risk level for an aircraft accident occurring at this location. High intensity retail or office buildings are to be avoided. Avoided is defined as: Use generally should be permitted only if an alternative site outside the zone would not serve the intended public function. Additionally, it notes to consider potential airspace protection hazards of certain energy/industrial projects.

Safety Zone 6 is the Traffic Pattern Zone and has a risk level that is considered low. However, the Handbook cautions that processing and storage of bulk quantities of highly hazardous material should be limited.

Concerning hazardous materials, the Handbook on page 4-30 states:
“Two other categories of high-risk uses may not have many occupants, but the consequences of an aircraft accident at the site could nonetheless be elevated. Of particular concern is that these consequences may extend beyond the immediate location of the accident. Manufacturing, storage, or use of hazardous materials may warrant special consideration depending upon the specific materials and quantities. The concern is whether an aircraft accident could cause an explosion or release of toxic materials, thus posing dangers to the nearby population. Uses that involve the storage of hazardous materials (e.g., gas stations)should be avoided in locations where aircraft may be operating at low altitudes, or where data has shown the risk of accidents to be greater. Specifically, locations where the manufacturing or bulk storage of hazardous materials should be avoided include safety zones one through five.” (Bold added)
Concerning the Handbook, the California Public Utilities Code, section 21674.7 (b), states:
“It is the intent of the Legislature to discourage incompatible land uses near existing airports. Therefore, prior to granting permits for the renovation or remodeling of an existing building, structure, or facility, and before the construction of a new building, it is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies shall be guided by the height, use, noise, safety, and density criteria that are compatible with airport operations, as established by this article, and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, published by the Division…”
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

290 of 345

Mr. Billy Gross, Principal Planner
August 26, 2022

Page 5 ends

Please note: The Division comments are to be included in the public record of any decision to overrule the ALUC.

If you have questions or we may be of further assistance, please contact me at email at [email protected] or call (916) 639-6298.

Sincerely,
Original signed by

TONY SORDELLO
Associate Aviation Planner
Division of Aeronautics
c: Suzy Kalkin, [email protected]
Joseph Carroll, Attorney, CA Department of Transportation, Legal Division, [email protected]
Matt Friedman, Chief, Office of Aviation Planning, Division of Aeronautics [email protected]
bc: Jean Finney, Deputy District Director Planning, District 4; [email protected] “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

291 of 345

DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS
P.O. BOX 942874, MS–40 | SACRAMENTO, CA 94274
(916) 654-4959 | FAX (916) 653-9531 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
October 28, 2022
Mr. Nestor Guevara Electronically Sent
Community Development Department
City of Millbrae
[email protected]
621 Magnolia Avenue,
Millbrae, CA 94030
Dear Mr. Guevara,
Thank you for notifying the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (Division), of the proposed overrule by the city of Millbrae (City). The Division has reviewed the proposed findings provided by the City and has determined the findings are insufficient to warrant this proposed overrule.

On September 29, 2022, the Division received an email notification that included City Resolution 22-XX and draft findings, declaring an intent to consider overruling the ALUC findings at the July 14, 2022, meeting, that proposed a Zoning Text Amendment to the Millbrae Station Area Specific Plan (MSASP). This amendment would allow, with a Conditional Use Permit, for hazardous uses classified as Biosafety Level 2 uses in the Transit Oriented Development Zone. This would affect the areas located north of Millbrae Avenue, south of the MSASP boundary, east of El Camino Real and west of the railroad. For public safety reasons, Biosafety Level 2 uses, are not consistent with the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport 2012(ALUCP).

The ALUC determined that the MSASP zoning text amendment, which would allow Biosafety Level 2 uses with a conditional use permit, inconsistent with the ALUCP based on the following:
i. The properties impacted by the proposed Specific Plan Amendments lie within Safety Compatibility Zone 2, the Inner Approach/Departure Zone
ii. The Specific Plan Amendments propose to include hazardous uses within Safety Compatibility Zone 2 to accommodate Biosafety Level 2 uses
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

292 of 345

Mr. Nestor Guevara
October 28, 2022

Page 2 ends

iii. The compatibility criteria for safety are established in Table IV-2 of the SFO ALUCP, which lists Hazardous Uses as incompatible within Safety Zone 2. Hazardous Uses are further clarified in Safety Policy SP-3, to specify that Biosafety Level 2 uses are considered Hazardous Uses iv. The Specific Plan Amendments are in direct conflict with the Safety Policies of the ALUCP and are not consistent with these policies.

The City’s findings cite the need for Biotechnology Level 2 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City’s desire to attract these types of uses to Millbrae, and the advantage of having such uses near a transit hub. The Division recognizes the importance of biotechnology, the jobs it may generate, the potential demand for biotechnology office and warehouse space, and the importance of locating people and jobs near transit hubs, however these matters do not minimize the importance of protecting the public safety from incompatible hazards uses near airports. Aircraft accidents happen infrequently, but the consequences can be severe and catastrophic. The concept of risk is central to the assessment of safety compatibility. The overall objective of safety compatibility is to minimize risks associated with potential aircraft accidents.

The City’s findings cite the risk associated with the low use of Runways 19 L/R, “which, according to the Airport are used for only 2 to 5% of landings.” ALUCP Policy SP-3 was adopted by the ALUC based on the potential impacts to public safety of an accident involving an aircraft using Runways 1L/19R or 1R/19L, and frequency of use does not negate the potential for such hazard.

Concerning hazardous materials, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook (Handbook)on page 4-30 states:
“Manufacturing, storage, or use of hazardous materials may warrant special consideration depending upon the specific materials and quantities. The concern is whether an aircraft accident could cause an explosion or release of toxic materials, thus posing dangers to the nearby population. Uses that involve the storage of hazardous materials (e.g., gas stations)should be avoided in locations where aircraft may be operating at low altitudes, or where data has shown the risk of accidents to be greater. Specifically, locations where the manufacturing or bulk storage of hazardous materials should be avoided include safety zones one through five.” (Bold added)
Concerning the Handbook, the California Public Utilities Code, section 21674.7 (b), states:
“It is the intent of the Legislature to discourage incompatible land uses near existing airports. Therefore, prior to granting permits for the renovation or remodeling of an “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

293 of 345

Mr. Nestor Guevara
October 28, 2022

Page 3 ends

existing building, structure, or facility, and before the construction of a new building, it is the intent of the Legislature that local agencies shall be guided by the height, use, noise, safety, and density criteria that are compatible with airport operations, as established by this article, and referred to as the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, published by the Division…”
The Division agrees with the following (from the letter addressed to the ALUC dated June 14, 2022, from Nupur Sinha, Director of Planning and Environmental Affairs, San Francisco International Airport), regarding this proposed Project’s incompatibility. “The Resolution first finds that allowing Biosafety Level 2 would facilitate hosting ‘life science companies battling the COVID virus and other maladies’ (Finding 2.e). This highlights the exact reason why Biosafety Level 2 facilities should not be allowed in an area of increased risk of aircraft accidents.

The release of pathogens in the event of an aircraft accident would increase – not minimize – public exposure to safety hazards.

The Resolution goes on to highlight that the proposed amendment would ‘greatly aid in the City’s economic development’ (Finding 2.f). Financial considerations are not germane to whether the amendment would increase the public’s exposure to safety hazards.

Millbrae’s finding to the contrary is not supported by any scientific authority, and its conclusory statements do not support that allowing Level 2 uses in Zone 2 would not pose an unacceptable risk to public safety.” Additionally, the Division agrees with the ALUC’s inconsistency determination. PUC section 21676(b) requires that if the local agency adopts an overrule, it must do so with a two-thirds majority vote by the local agency’s legislative body. Pursuant to PUC section 21678, if a local agency adopts of an overrule, the airport operator shall be immune from liability for damages to property or personal injury resulting directly or indirectly from the local agency’s decision to overrule.

SHEFA ARABIA SHIOMA
Aviation Planner
Division of Aeronautics
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

294 of 345

Mr. Nestor Guevara
October 28, 2022

Page 4 ends

c: Suzy Kalkin, [email protected]
Joseph Carroll, Attorney, CA Department of Transportation, Legal Division, [email protected]
Nupur Sinha, [email protected]
Gabrielle ‘Gabbie’ Sefranek, Associate Aviation Planner, Division of Aeronautics [email protected]
Matt Friedman, Chief, Office of Aviation Planning, Division of Aeronautics [email protected]
bc: Jean Finney, Deputy District Director Planning, District 4; [email protected] “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

295 of 345

DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS
P.O. BOX 942874, MS–40 | SACRAMENTO, CA 94274
(916) 654-4959 | FAX (916) 653-9531 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov
December 14, 2022
Ms. Darcy Smith Electronically Sent
City of San Bruno
567 El Camino Real,
San Bruno, CA 94066
[email protected]
Dear Ms. Smith,
Thank you for notifying the California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics (Division), of the proposed overrule by the City of San Bruno (City). The Division has reviewed the proposed findings provided by the City and has determined the findings are insufficient to warrant this proposed overrule.

On November 16, 2022, the Division received an email notification that included City Resolution 2022-112 and draft findings, declaring an intent to consider overruling the Airport Land Use Commission’s (ALUC) inconsistency determination of the City’s Draft 2023-2031 Housing Element Update (Project). The Project identifies 23 housing opportunity sites for areas of development or redevelopment for mixed use or residential projects. Two of the proposed sites, the Shops at Tanforan (Site 14) and the Pet Hospital (Site 19) are located within the 70-75dB CNEL noise contour as depicted in the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Francisco International Airport (ALUCP). The ALUC determined that these sites were inconsistent with the noise compatibility criteria outlined in the ALUCP as, with limited exceptions, residential land uses are not allowed in the 70-75db CNEL noise contour.

On January 25, 2022, the Division sent a letter to the City of San Bruno regarding the potential redevelopment plans for Site 14 as displayed in the City’s “Reimagining Tanforan Land Use Fact Sheet” adopted July 27, 2021. To summarize, the letter (included as an attachment) expressed Division’s concern for the City’s proposed plans to build a high-density residential development at Site 14. The letter cited safety, noise, and air space protection concerns including:
 Site 14 is approximately 1.2 miles from the departure of runways 28L and 28R at San Francisco International Airport (SFO). These runways are the primary departure paths for SFO
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

296 of 345

Ms. Darcy Smith
December 14, 2022

Page 2 ends

 Site 14 is in the 70-75dB CNEL noise contour, where ALUCP noise compatibility policies prohibit residential land uses
 “Pursuant to the California Code of Regulations (CCR: Title 21 CCR, §5006), 65 CNEL is “the level of noise acceptable to a reasonable person residing in the vicinity of an airport.” While construction practices can reduce interior noise levels to 45 CNEL, residents would not be expected to remain indoors continuously. When outside or when opening windows or doors, they would remain subjected to 70 CNEL from regular aircraft overflights”  Site 14 is in Safety Zone 4, where ALUCP safety compatibility policies stipulate limiting residential uses to low density
 Site 14 is located beneath a portion of airspace that has One Engine Inoperative procedures
The City’s findings cite that due the City having potential housing opportunity sites located near transit, including Site 14 and Site 19, the City was prescribed a high Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) obligation; the recommendation being that the City needs to plan for an additional 3,165 residential units to be built through 2031. As previously stated in the Division’s letter sent on January 25th, 2022, the Division recognizes that the City is facing affordable housing supply shortages and is looking for new areas to accommodate residential developments. However, environmental justice and equity concerns should also be reviewed for consistency with goals identified in the California Transportation Plan of 2050 and the California Aviation System Plan of 2020. The Division notes that new laws regarding the provision of housing do not supersede existing laws, including Section 21670 of the California Public Utilities Code, which require counties to establish ALUCs and compatibility plans to protect public health, safety, and welfare.

Please note: The Division comments are to be included in the public record of any decision to overrule the ALUC. If you have questions or we may be of further assistance, please contact me at email at [email protected] or call (916) 879-7213
Sincerely,
Originally signed by
Gabrielle Sefranek
Associate Transportation Planner
Division of Aeronautics
c: Suzy Kalkin, Transportation Program Specialist, San Mateo County Association of Governments, [email protected]
Joseph Carroll, Attorney, CA Department of Transportation, Legal Division, [email protected]
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

297 of 345

Ms. Darcy Smith
December 14, 2022

Page 3 ends

Nupur Sinha, Acting Director, Planning & Environmental at San Francisco International Airport (SFO), [email protected]
Matt Friedman, Chief, Office of Aviation Planning, Division of Aeronautics [email protected]
bc: Jean Finney, Deputy District Director Planning, District 4; [email protected] Attachments: SanMateoCnty_TanforanSFORedevelop_Ltr_012522.pdf “Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

298 of 345

2 6
1 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2024 - __

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN

BRUNO AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DIAGRAM TO

CHANGE CERTAIN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS TO TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, AND AMENDING THE U.S. NAVY SITE AND ITS

ENVIRONS SPECIFIC PLAN TO ESTABLISH A VERY HIGH DENSITY

RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION, AND AMENDING THE SPECIFIC PLAN

LAND USE DIAGRAM TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF CERTAIN

PROPERTIES TO VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
WHEREAS, to address the City’s housing shortage, State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires that the City adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to address local housing needs and accommodate its 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) of 3,165 housing units, comprised of 704 very-low- income units, 405 low-income units, 573 moderate-income units, and 1,483 above moderate- income units; and
WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law (Government Code, Section 65583 (a)(3).) requires that the City provide an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the city’s regional housing need (hereafter the “Sites Inventory”); and
WHEREAS, if the Sites Inventory does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the City’s regional housing need (shortfall), pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(h) and (i), the Housing Element must include a program or programs to identify sites with appropriate zoning to accommodate the regional housing need within the planning period; and WHEREAS, San Bruno’s RHNA strategy, as discussed in Chapter 4 of its Amended 2023- 2031 Housing Element, has identified a RHNA shortfall of 847 units, comprised of 25 lower income units and 822 above-moderate income units; and
WHEREAS, to address the RHNA shortfall, the City has identified three potential housing sites: (1) the Shops at Tanforan located at 1178 El Camino Real, including the overflow parking lot at 1292 Huntington Avenue (site 20), (2) the San Bruno Pet Hospital located at 1151 El Camino Real (site 21), and (3) Russo Dental located at 1101 El Camino Real (site 22) (collectively, the “Properties”) in the Sites Inventory as potential future housing sites that require General Plan and/or Specific Plan amendments (collectively, the “Amendments”) to accommodate housing units and established Program 3a to amend the land use and/or zoning designations concurrent with the adoption of the Amended Housing Element; and
WHEREAS, provision of housing near transit will reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by providing households more opportunities to live near where they work; and
WHEREAS, on January 24, 2023, the City Council adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element and an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse No. 299 of 345
ATTACHMENT 4
2 6
1 3
2022120217) which evaluated, among other topics, the land use designation, specific plan and zoning changes necessary to accommodate housing units on the Properties; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the City prepared an Addendum to the adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared for the 2023-2031 Housing Element, which showed that amendments to the adopted Housing Element and the related implementing actions, including the land use changes considered herein, will not cause any new significant impacts or other triggers that would require additional CEQA review, and that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance has been submitted; and
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2024, and prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-___, adopting the Addendum to the adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Amended Housing Element Project and related implementing actions, including the land use changes considered herein, and which is hereby incorporated by reference, and serves as the CEQA review for the land use changes considered herein; and
WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Sections 65353, 65453, and 65854, the Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing before making a recommendation on the adoption or amendment of a general plan or specific plan; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to take public testimony and reviewed the proposed Amendments and adopted resolution 2024-10 recommending that City Council adopt the proposed Amendments; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing for the proposed Amendments was duly posted in the San Mateo Daily Journal on Saturday, August 17, 2024, posted in a public place, and mailed to property owners pursuant to California Government Code Section 65090, for the City Council public hearing on August 27, 2024; and
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2024, the City Council conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing to take public testimony and consider a Resolution regarding the proposed Amendments for the Properties.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Bruno, based on substantial evidence in the staff reports, written and oral testimony, and exhibits presented, hereby finds as follows:

1.The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.

2.The proposed Amendments are consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan. The proposed Housing Element amendment to the General Plan clarifies and improves existing Housing Element policies and objectives to ensure internal consistency between the Housing Element and the Health and Safety Element. Further, the Housing Element amendment ensures consistency between the City’s General Plan and State law, and which achieve and satisfy General Plan

300 of 345

2 6
1 3
policies and objectives for equal access to housing, access to transportation improvement funds, and mixed use, transit-oriented housing opportunities.

3.The proposed Amendments are in response to the requirements of the California Government Code to update the Housing Element every eight years and identify enough sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA. Compliance with State Housing Element Law is critical to maintaining certification of the City’s Housing Element which itself is important for the City to preserve access to State funding sources and retain local land use authority.

4.The City Council, based on the evidence in the record, finds the proposed Housing Element to be in substantial conformance with State law and the General Plan of the City of San Bruno.

5.With respect to the Amendments, the City Council hereby finds they are consistent with the goals and policies of the San Bruno General Plan and will create a transit- oriented zoning district near the San Bruno BART Station.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby amends the General Plan Land Use Diagram and U.S. Navy Site And Its Environs Specific Plan as follows, based on the finding that the proposed changes were analyzed in the adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Addendum to the IS/MND:

A. Amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to change the designation of 11.28 acres at 1178 El Camino Real (APN: 014-316-330) from Regional Commercial to Transit- Oriented Development, and 0.57 acres at 1151 El Camino Real (020-013-100) from Neighborhood Commercial to Transit-Oriented Development, as shown in Exhibit A.

B. Amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to change the designation of 0.57 acres at 1151 El Camino Real (APN: 020-013-100) from Neighborhood Commercial to Transit-Oriented Development, as shown in Exhibit A.

C. Amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to change the designation of 0.40 acres at 1101 El Camino Real (APNs: 020-013-200, 020-013-170) from High Density Residential to Transit-Oriented Development, as shown in Exhibit A.

D. Amend the U.S. Navy Site And Its Environs Specific Plan to establish a Very High Density Residential designation, as shown in Exhibit C, and amend the Specific Plan Land Use Diagram to change the designation of 0.57 acres at 1151 El Camino Real (APN: 020-013-100) from Commercial-Retail to Very High Density Residential, and the designation of 0.40 acres at 1101 El Camino Real (APN: 020-013-200, 020-013- 170) from Residential to Very High Density Residential, as shown in Exhibit B.

Exhibit A: Map of General Plan Land Use Diagram Amendment Exhibit B: Map of U.S. Navy Sites And Its Environs Specific Plan Land Use Diagram Amendment
Exhibit C: U.S. Navy Sites And Its Environs Specific Plan Text Amendments

301 of 345

2 6
1 3
-o0o-
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2024 - __ was introduced and adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on August 27, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:
_____________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk

302 of 345

EL CAMINO REAL

SNEATH LANE
INTERSTATE 380

HUNTINGTON AVE
Exhibit A
Proposed Land Use Diagram Amendment
NTransit-oriented Development
1292 Huntington Avenue
1151 El Camino Real
1101 El Camino Real
0 125 250
Feet
303 of 345
ATTACHMENT 4, Exhibit A
Newly Established Land Use
U.S. Navy Site and Its Environs
Specific Plan Area:

Amended Land Use Diagram
SFPUC R.O.W.

Specific Plan Planning Area
Interstate 380 El Camino Real
Sneath Lane
Road C
Commodore Drive
Road A
Cherry Avenue
Commodore Drive West
Tanforan
Park
Shopping
Center
Marine
Corps
Federal
Archives
Latter Day
Saints Properties
Vocation
Education
Center
Palos Verde
School
Golden Gate
National
Cemetery
Navy
Site
Commodore
Park
Peninsula
Place
Condominiums
Bayhill
Office
Park
Airport
Trade
Center
Caltrans R.OW.

Very High Residential
Exhibit B
304 of 345
ATTACHMENT 4, Exhibit B
2 6
1 5
Exhibit C
Proposed Amendment for the U.S. Navy Site And Its Environs Specific Plan:

1. Amend Table 1: Summary of Major New Land Uses and Development Standards to include a new row as follows:

Standard Land
Use
Maximum
Density
Maximum
Height
Proposed #
of Rooms
Proposed #
of Dwelling
Units
Proposed
Square
Footage
Very High
Density
Residential
Up to 120
du/acre
70 feet
(5 stories)
N.A. 100 units
Ground floor
commercial
encouraged

2. Insert Very High Density Residential description into text, as follows:

Very High Density Residential
(120 du/ac)
This designation allows for multifamily residential development at a density of one hundred twenty (120) units per acre, either as apartments or condominiums, and ground floor commercial is encouraged, but not required, based on the City’s transit-oriented development standards.
305 of 345
ATTACHMENT 4, Exhibit C
1 ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO

AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (P-D) DISTRICT CREATED BY ORDINANCE NO. 1087 TO ADD MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING AS A PERMITTED USE ON THE 11.28 ACRE SITE AT 1178 EL CAMINO REAL, AND TO AMEND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE P-D DISTRICT CREATED BY ORDINANCE NO. 1087 TO INCLUDE THE 1.40 ACRE PARCEL AT 1292 HUNTINGTON

AVENUE WITH MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING AS A PERMITTED USE
The City Council of the City of San Bruno ORDAINS as follows:

SECTION 1. The boundaries of the Planned Development (P-D) District established by Ordinance No. 1087 shall be extended to include that 1.40 acre parcel commonly known as 1292 Huntington Avenue (APN: 014-311-060), as shown in Exhibit A.

SECTION 2. Ordinance No. 1087, adopted by the City Council of San Bruno on January 10, 1966, and subsequently amended by the City Council, is hereby amended so as to change subparagraph A of Section 1 of said ordinance by adding the following:
“8. Multi-family residential uses shall be permitted on that 11.28 acre portion of the Tanforan site commonly known as 1178 El Camino Real (APN: 014-316-330), and that 1.40 acre parcel commonly known as 1292 Huntington Avenue (APN: 014-311-060), subject to obtaining a Planned Development Permit.”
SECTION 3. FINDINGS.

WHEREAS, to address the City’s housing shortage, State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires that the City adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to address local housing needs and accommodate its 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) of 3,165 housing units, comprised of 704 very-low- income units, 405 low-income units, 573 moderate-income units, and 1,483 above moderate- income units; and
WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65583(a)(3)) requires that the City provide an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the city’s regional housing need; and WHEREAS, if the Sites Inventory does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the City’s regional housing need (shortfall), pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i), the Housing Element must include a program or programs to identify sites with appropriate zoning to accommodate the regional housing need within the planning period (hereafter the “Sites Inventory”); and
WHEREAS, San Bruno’s RHNA strategy, as discussed in Chapter 4 of its Amended 2023- 2031 Housing Element, has identified a RHNA shortfall of 847 units, comprised of 25 lower income units and 822 above-moderate income units; and
WHEREAS, to address the RHNA shortfall, the City has identified portions of the Tanforan site (1178 El Camino Real and 1292 Huntington Avenue) (collectively, the “Properties”) in the 306 of 345
ATTACHMENT 5
2 Sites Inventory as potential future housing sites that require Zoning amendments to accommodate housing units; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the City prepared an Addendum to the adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared for the 2023-2031 Housing Element, which showed that amendments to the adopted Housing Element and the related implementing actions, including the zoning changes considered herein, will not cause any new significant impacts or other triggers that would require additional CEQA review, and that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance has been submitted; and
WHEREAS, on August 27, 2024, and prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-___, adopting the Addendum to the adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Amended Housing Element Project and related implementing actions, including the zoning changes considered herein, and which is hereby incorporated by reference, and serves as the CEQA review for the land use changes considered herein; and
SECTION 4. CONSTITUTIONALITY; SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective.

SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days after its adoption.

SECTION 6. PUBLICATION. The City Clerk shall publish this Ordinance according to law.

EXHIBIT A: Map of Tanforan P-D Amendment
______________________________
Rico E. Medina, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Trisha Ortiz, City Attorney

307 of 345

3 --oOo--
I hereby certify that foregoing Ordinance No. ______
was introduced at a regular meeting of the San Bruno City Council on ____________, 2024 and adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on _________, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

________________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk

308 of 345

HUNTINGTON AVE

HUNTINGTON AVESNEATH LANE

SNEATH LANE

NATIONAL AVE

COMMODORE DR

EL CAMINO REAL

PACIFIC AVE

ATLANTIC AVE

TANFORAN AVE

SCOTT AVE

BUENA VISTA AVE

HERMAN ST

MONTGOMERY AVE

DIAMOND ST

BAYSHORE CIRCLE
Tanforan P-D Boundary
Amend Tanforan P-D to allow multi-family residential
Proposed Addition to Tanforan P-D Boundary
Exhibit A
309 of 345
ATTACHMENT 5, Exhibit A
1 ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO

AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION OF

1.40 ACRES AT 1292 HUNTINGTON AVENUE FROM THE MEDIUM DENSITY MIXED-USE (TOD-1) DISTRICT TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (P-D) DISTRICT, AND 0.57 ACRES AT 1151 EL CAMINO REAL FROM

NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL (C-N) DISTRICT TO HIGH DENSITY MIXED- USE (TOD-2) DISTRICT
The City Council of the City of San Bruno ORDAINS as follows:

SECTION 1. The San Bruno City Council hereby amends the Zoning Map, as described in San Bruno Municipal Code Chapter 12.130, to change the zoning designation of 1.40 acres at 1292 Huntington Avenue from the Medium Density Mixed-Use (TOD-1) District to the Planned Development (P-D) District; and change the zoning designation of 0.57 acres at 1151 El Camino Real from Neighborhood Commercial (C-N) District to High Density Mixed-Use (TOD-2) District, as shown in Exhibit A.

SECTION 2. FINDINGS.

WHEREAS, to address the City’s housing shortage, State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires that the City adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to address local housing needs and accommodate its 6th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (“RHNA”) of 3,165 housing units, comprised of 704 very-low- income units, 405 low-income units, 573 moderate-income units, and 1,483 above moderate- income units; and
WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law (Government Code Section 65583(a)(3)) requires that the City provide an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the city’s regional housing need; and WHEREAS, if the inventory does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the City’s regional housing need (shortfall), pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(h) and (i), the Housing Element must include a program or programs to identify sites with appropriate zoning to accommodate the regional housing need within the planning period; and WHEREAS, San Bruno’s RHNA strategy, as discussed in Chapter 4 of its Amended 2023- 2031 Housing Element, has identified a RHNA shortfall of 847 units, comprised of 25 lower income units and 822 above-moderate income units; and
WHEREAS, to address the RHNA shortfall, the City has identified two sites (1151 El Camino Real and 1292 Huntington Avenue) in the Sites Inventory as potential future housing sites that require Zoning Map amendments to allow housing units and established Program 3a to amend the land use and/or zoning designations concurrent with the re-adoption of the Housing Element.
310 of 345
ATTACHMENT 6
2 SECTION 4. CEQA. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Implementing Guidelines, the City prepared and adopted an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), dated December 2022 (State Clearinghouse No. 2022120217), to evaluate the environmental impacts of the project as part of the 2023-2031 Housing Element update. The analysis concluded that the Project, with the proposed mitigation measures, would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The City subsequently prepared an Addendum to the IS/MND which showed that later revisions made to the Project will not cause any new significant impacts or other triggers that would require additional CEQA review, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162; and
SECTION 5. CONSTITUTIONALITY; SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective.

SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days after its adoption.

SECTION 7. PUBLICATION. The City Clerk shall publish this Ordinance according to law.

EXHIBIT A: Zoning Map amendment for 1292 Huntington Avenue and 1151 El Camino Real ______________________________
Rico E. Medina, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Trisha Ortiz, City Attorney

--oOo--
I hereby certify that foregoing Ordinance No. ______
was introduced at a regular meeting of the San Bruno City Council on ____________, 2024 and adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on _________, 2024, by the following vote:

311 of 345

3 AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:
________________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk

312 of 345

P-D
P-D
P-D
C-N
P-D
U
TOD1
§¨¦
380

SNEATH LNC-N
P-D

HUNTINGTO
N AVE

SNEATH LN

EL CAMINO REAL
TOD2
0 125 250
Feet N
1292 Huntington Avenue
1151 El Camino Real
Exhibit A
Proposed Zoning Map Amendment
313 of 345
ATTACHMENT 6, Exhibit A
1 ORDINANCE NO. ______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO AMENDING TITLE 12 (LAND USE), ARTICLE III (ZONING) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO CREATE CHAPTER 12.245 – MULTI-FAMILY

HOUSING MINISTERIAL REVIEW, AND FINDING SUCH ACTIONS EXEMPT

FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
The City Council of the City of San Bruno ORDAINS as follows:

SECTION 1. Title 12 (Land Use), Article III (Zoning) of the San Bruno Municipal Code is hereby amended to create Chapter 12.245 (Multi-Family Housing Ministerial Review).

SECTION 2. FINDINGS.

The San Bruno Municipal Code is hereby amended to add a new Chapter 12.245 to Article III of Title 12 to read as follows:
“Chapter 12.245

MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING MINISTERIAL REVIEW
314 of 345
ATTACHMENT 7
2 Sections:

12.245.010 Purpose

12.245.020 Applicability; Mixed-Use Incentive

12.245.030 Ministerial Planning Permit Process

12.270.040 Action

12.270.050 Appeals

12.245.010 Purpose.

The purpose of this chapter is to establish a streamlined review process for qualifying multi-family housing projects to facilitate housing development to meet local and regional housing needs, consistent with Government Code Section 65583.2(h) and (i). This chapter furthers the production of housing in the City by establishing a ministerial planning permit process for qualifying multi-family housing projects. This chapter allows and encourages mixed-use components of multi-family housing projects, by allowing mixed-use to be included in a qualifying multi-family housing project while maintaining the ministerial process. This allowance supports the provision of jobs, activities and services in close proximity to new housing.

12.245.020 Applicability; Mixed-Use Incentive.

A. A multi-family residential development that complies with all of the following criteria shall qualify for a ministerial planning permit process and shall be considered a “qualifying multi- family housing project” for the purpose of this chapter:

1. The project site is located in a zoning district that allows multi-family housing;

2. The project complies with all City objective development regulations, except for any objective development standard that is rendered inapplicable pursuant to State law, including State Density Bonus law; and,

3. The project includes a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the units in the project as affordable and restricted to occupancy by very low income households, low-income households, or a combination thereof.

B. A mixed-use development that complies with all of the following criteria shall qualify for a ministerial planning permit process and shall be considered a “qualifying multi-family housing project” for the purpose of this chapter:

1. The project site is located in a zoning district that allows mixed-use development;

3. The project includes a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the residential units in the project as affordable and restricted to occupancy by very low income households, low-income households, or a combination thereof; and

315 of 345

3 4. A minimum of 50% of the total floor area of the project is used for residential uses. For the 50% total floor area calculation, total residential floor area shall include lobbies, indoor and outdoor common areas, hallways, utility rooms, and other similar above-ground level areas that are used solely to support the residential component of the project, as determined by the community development director. Above-grade parking area within the building shall be counted as non-residential floor area.

C. As an incentive, a mixed-use project that is also a “qualifying multi-family housing project” and is utilizing the ministerial process shall be required to pay the non-residential transportation impact fee only for non-residential floor area over 10,000 square feet. Further, the community development director is authorized to adjust the residential transportation impact fee based on a trip-generation analysis by a licensed transportation planner or traffic engineer demonstrating the proportionate reduction in residential trip generation due to the presence of the non-residential use(s).

12.245.030 Ministerial Planning Permit Process.

A. Submittal Requirements. Qualifying multi-family housing projects under this chapter shall require submittal of the same planning applications as a non-qualifying multi-family housing project based on the zoning district in which the project is located, the applicable regulations of the San Bruno Zoning Ordinance, and published application requirements by the Community Development Department. The City Council will establish a fee for ministerial versions of these applications.

B. Application Processing. The processing of the ministerial applications shall follow the City’s interdepartmental review process that is used for discretionary planning applications, including the application of conditions of approval, except that such conditions shall be based on objective standards only, there shall be no public noticing or public hearing requirements, and the community development director shall have the authority to render decisions on all qualifying multi-family housing project permit applications.

1. The community development director is authorized to render a decision on the following permits and approvals, if part of a qualifying multi-family housing project, as part of the ministerial approval process: architectural review permit, parking compliance permit, density bonus approval, lot line adjustment, temporary use permit, sign program or sign deviation, and other minor planning permits required by Title 12, Article III, that may be required for a qualifying multi-family housing project.

2. The community development director is not authorized to render a ministerial decision on a variance application, and projects that required a variance shall not be considered a “qualifying multi-family housing project” eligible for the ministerial planning permit process.

3. A proposed parcel or tract map associated with a qualifying multi-family housing project shall be processed pursuant to Chapter 12.32 or 12.36, as applicable, under a separate fee. The community development director is authorized to conditionally approve other permits for a qualifying multi-family housing project that includes a subdivision map, which approvals shall only become effective upon approval of the related subdivision map. Alternately, the applicant can elect to defer the director’s action on the related qualifying multi-family housing project permits and approvals until after the tentative subdivision map is approved.

316 of 345

4 4. Non-residential use(s) in a mixed-use project that require a conditional use permit shall be subject to the permit processed pursuant to Chapter 12.112 under a separate fee.

The conditional use permit process shall apply only to the proposed conditional use or uses, and not the balance of the qualifying multi-family housing project, however, any such conditional use permit shall not become effective unless and until the qualifying multi-family housing project is approved through the ministerial process.

12.245.040 Action.

The community development director shall approve the application or applications for a qualifying multi-family housing project upon finding that the project complies with this chapter, and the City’s objective development regulations, except where State law may override local regulations rendering an objective standard inapplicable. Conditions of approval may be placed on these applications. Except as otherwise stated in this chapter, all projects shall be subject to all applicable application fees, impact fees, and connection charges.

12.245.050 Appeal.

Decisions of the community development director on any permit or approval for a qualifying multi-family housing project may be appealed to the City Manager within a ten (10) calendar day period following issuance of the approval. Appeals must be in writing and clearly state the facts of the case and the ground for the appeal, which should be focused solely on whether or not the project constitutes a qualifying multi-family housing project, and whether the project complies with the objective standards applicable to the project. If the appeal is filed by any party other than the applicant for the project, the applicant shall be provided notice of the filing of the appeal, and shall be provided a ten (10) calendar day period in which to provide a written response to the appeal for consideration by the City Manager. The City Manager shall issue a written determination on the appeal within forty-five (45) calendar days of the City’s receipt of the appeal, and this written determination shall be final and not subject to any further appeal.

Notice of the City Manager’s decision shall be given to the appellant, and project applicant, if different from the appellant.”
SECTION 3. CEQA. The proposed ordinance has been reviewed according to the standards and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the San Bruno environmental review procedures and is determined to be exempt from the requirements of CEQA pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15378 (b)(5). Further, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162, the City prepared an Addendum to the adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared for the 2023-2031 Housing Element, which showed that amendments to the adopted Housing Element and the related implementing actions, including the zoning changes considered herein, will not cause any new significant impacts or other triggers that would require additional CEQA review, and that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance has been submitted.

Further, on August 27, 2024, and prior to the adoption of this Resolution, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2024-___, adopting the Addendum to the adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Amended Housing Element Project and related implementing actions, including the zoning changes considered herein, and which is hereby incorporated by reference, and serves as the CEQA review for the changes considered herein.

317 of 345

5 SECTION 4. CONSTITUTIONALITY; SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective.

SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days after its adoption.

SECTION 6. PUBLICATION. The City Clerk shall publish this Ordinance according to law.
______________________________
Rico E. Medina, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
Trisha Ortiz, City Attorney

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

________________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk

318 of 345

RESOLUTION NO. 2024 - 09

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY

OF SAN BRUNO RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AND
ADOPT AN AMENDED 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT AND

ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO THE CERTIFIED INITIAL STUDY/

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WHEREAS, the California legislature has found the availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the attainment of decent housing and a suitable living environment for every Californian is a priority of the highest order; and WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law ( California Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires each jurisdiction to prepare and adopt a Housing Element of its General Plan every eight years to address housing availability; and.

WHEREAS, to comply with State Housing Element Law, San Bruno prepared its 2023-2031 Housing Element and identified sites that can accommodate housing units meeting th Regional Housing Needs Allocation; and
WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Section 65350 et. seq., adoption of the Housing Element constitutes a General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, on January 12, 2023, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and adopted Resolution Nos. 2023-01 and 2023-02, recommending the City Council adopt an Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration, repeal its 2015-2023 Housing Element and adopt a Housing Element for the planning period of 2023-2031 with Findings of substantial compliance with State housing Element Law; and WHEREAS, on January 24, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing and repealed its 2015-2023 Housing Element and adopted its 2023-2031 Housing Element to comply with State Housing Element Law and on that same date adopted the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project; and WHEREAS, on January 31, 2023, San Bruno submitted its adopted 2023-2031 Housing Element to the California Department of Housing and Community Development

WHEREAS,
2023-2031 Housing Element, which stated the Housing Element satisfactorily addressed many statutory requirements; however, further revisions would be necessary to receive certification of compliance with the State Housing Element Law ( Government Code §§ 65580 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, City staff worked with HCD staff to address the comments contained in HCD's March 18, 2023 letter and subsequently resubmitted a revised draft of the 319 of 345
ATTACHMENT 8
Housing Element to HCD on March 21, 2024, for review pursuant to Section 65585(b) of the California Government Code. The revised draft Housing Element was posted on the City's website for public review prior to resubmittal to HCD; and WHEREAS, o -2031 Housing Element which stated the Housing Element satisfactorily addressed most statutory requirements; however, further revisions would be necessary to receive certification of compliance with the State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Government Code); and WHEREAS, City staff again worked with HCD staff to address the comments contained in HCD's May 16, 2024 letter and subsequently resubmitted a final draft of the Housing Element to HCD on July 7, 2024, for review pursuant to Section 65585(b) of the California Government Code. This final draft of the Housing Element was posted on the City's website for public review prior to resubmittal to HCD; and WHEREAS, because the sites inventory of the Housing Element utilizes nonvacant sites to meet more than 50 percent of its lower income Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation, the city must make a finding that existing uses on nonvacant sites do not constitute an impediment to additional residential development pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(g); and WHEREAS, to analyze the revisions made to the Housing Element pursuant to CEQA, the City prepared an Addendum to the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse No. 2022120217) that was -2031 Housing Element, which was adopted by the City Council on January 24, 2023; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing for the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update was duly published in the San Mateo Daily Journal on Saturday, July 27, 2024; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to take public testimony and consider this Resolution regarding the proposed Housing Element, reviewed the Housing Element and all pertinent maps, and oral and written public comments; and. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Bruno, based on substantial evidence in the staff reports, written and oral testimony, and exhibits presented, hereby finds as follows: A. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action. B. That the Planning Commission has independently reviewed and analyzed the Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, in

320 of 345

conjunction with the previously adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and other information in the record and has considered the information contained therein prior to acting upon or recommending approval of the Project. Based on all evidence in the administrative record for the Project, the Commission hereby makes the following specific findings: a. The Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. b. The Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Project contains a complete and accurate reporting of the environmental impacts associated with the Project. c. The Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration represents the independent judgment and analysis of the city as lead agency for the Project. d. The analysis in the Addendum to the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration shows the revisions to the Project will not cause any new significant impacts or other triggers that would require additional CEQA review, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162. i. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. The amendments to the Housing Element do not create any additional environmental impacts. ii. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted on January 24, 2023, and no substantial evidence has been submitted showing any change in the circumstances applicable to the project. iii. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted as complete, has been submitted to the City. e. Based on its review of the whole record before it, there is no substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment. C. The proposed General Plan Housing Element amendment is in response to the requirements of the California Government Code to update the Housing Element every eight years. Adoption of an updated Housing Element is

321 of 345

critical to address various requirements of State law and certification of the Because several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria, the proposed Housing Element Aattract new grant funds to improve transportation, infrastructure, open space, and housing. The Housing Element Amendment will help ensure that households seeking different housing types and affordable housing will have opportunities to find housing in San Bruno. D. Based on substantial evidence in the record the properties listed in the Sites Inventory are located in the Chigh quality transit, with existing uses that have low building to land value. Furthermore, the City has experienced increased development activity within the Transit Corridors Plan Area as a result of the 2021 rezoning. Chapter 4 of the Technical Background Report of the Housing Element, along with other evidence in the record, provides substantial evidence that sites in the inventory include obsolescent buildings, declining uses impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and related shifts in the commercial real estate market, low existing floor area ratio, higher development expectations, and as further evidenced by recent site development inquiries, support the finding that existing uses are likely to be discontinued during the planning period. For these reasons, and based on the additional evidence in the record, the Planning Commission hereby finds that the existing uses on the non-vacant sites identified in the site inventory to accommodate the RHNA are likely to be discontinued during the planning period and therefore do not constitute an impediment to planned residential development on the sites during the planning period. E. Based on factors such as proximity to commercial services, parks and amenities; and access to existing public water and sewer systems, and dry utilities, the 2023-2031 Housing Element concludes that the nonvacant sites identified in the sites inventory are suitable for residential development. F. The Planning Commission, based on the evidence in the record, finds the proposed Housing Element to be in substantial conformance with State law and the General Plan of the City of San Bruno. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED That the Planning Commission authorizes the Community Development Director to make final technical adjustments, if necessary, to respond to additional HCD comments and directs the Secretary of the City

322 of 345

of San Bruno Planning Commission to forward to the City Council a certified copy of this resolution together with an attested copy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that City Council adopt the Addendum to the previously adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration attached hereto as Exhibit A, adopt the Amended 2023-2031 Housing Element attached hereto as Exhibit B, find, pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(g) that the existing uses on the non-vacant sites identified in the site inventory to accommodate the RHNA are likely to be discontinued during the planning period and therefore do not constitute an impediment to planned residential development on the sites during the planning period. and authorize the Community Development Director to make any final technical adjustments as may be necessary to obtain HCD certification that the Housing Element substantially complies with Housing Element Law. Exhibit A: Addendum to the certified Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2023-2031 Housing Element update Exhibit B: 2023-2031 Housing Element Exhibit C: Technical Background Report Date Planning Commission Chair ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM Planning Commission Secretary City Attorney -o0o- I, Michael P. Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and

323 of 345

regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of San Bruno this 6th day of August 2024 by the following vote: AYES Commissioners: Biasotti, Harman, Kuhn, Madden NOES Commissioners: ABSENT Commissioners: RECUSED Commissioners Durazo, Johnson,Lethin

324 of 345

EXHIBIT A Addendum to the adopted Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 2023-2031 Housing Element update The addendum follows on the next page. The adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is available at: https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5889/Housing-Element-MND-web-for-Reso-2024-09

325 of 345

EXHIBIT B 2023-2031 Housing Element

326 of 345

EXHIBIT C 2023-2031 Housing Element Technical Background Report The Technical Background Report to the revised July 2024 Housing Element is available at the following link: https://sanbruno.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/5872/7A-Reso-2024-09-Exhibit-C-hyperlink

327 of 345

RESOLUTION NO. 2024 - 10 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS, ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW FOR HOUSING ON FOUR SITES IDENTIFIED IN THE 2023-2031 HOUSING ELEMENT REGIONAL HOUSING NEED ALLOCATION (RHNA) SHORTFALL WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law (Government Code Sections 65580 et seq.) requires that the City adopt a Housing Element for the eight-year period 2023-2031 to accommodate its RHNA of 3,165 housing units, comprised of 704 very-low-income units, 405 low-income units, 573 moderate-income units, and 1,483 above moderate-income units; and WHEREAS, State Housing Element Law (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) requires that the City provide an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning pand WHEREAS, Amended 2023-2031 Housing Element, has identified a RHNA shortfall of 847 units, comprised of 25 lower income units and 822 above-moderate income units; and WHEREAS, if the inventory does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the subdivisions (h) and (i), the Housing Element must include a program or programs to identify sites with appropriate zoning to accommodate the regional housing need within the planning period; and WHEREAS, to address the RHNA shortfall, the City has identified Sites 20, 21 and 22 of the Sites Inventory that require General Plan, zoning, and/or Specific Plan amendments to accommodate 1,099 housing units and established Program 3a to amend the land use and/or zoning designations concurrent with the re-adoption of the Housing Element; and WHEREAS, said amendments will encourage the development and availability of housing opportunities within the City as mandated by State Law, and is essential for the public welfare; and WHEREAS, provision of housing near transit will reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions by providing households more opportunities to live near where they work; and

328 of 345

WHEREAS, San Bruno referred the Housing Element to all California Native American tribes on the contact list provided by the Native American Heritage Commission and to other entities listed and no California Native American tribe requested consultation; and WHEREAS, on January 24, 2023, the City Council adopted the 2023-2031 Housing Element and an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (State Clearinghouse No. 2022120217) which evaluated, among other topics, the land use designation, specific plan and zoning changes necessary to accommodate 1,099 units on Sites 20, 21 and 22 of the Sites Inventory; and WHEREAS, on July 12, 2024, the City submitted the current draft of its 2023-2031 Housing Element to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review; and WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA guidelines 15162, the City prepared an Addendum to the adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared for the 2023-2031 Housing Element, which showed that revisions to the Project will not cause any new significant impacts or other triggers that would require additional CEQA review, and that no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken, and no new information of substantial importance has been submitted; and WHEREAS, as provided in Government Code Sections 65353, 65453, and 65854, the Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing before making a recommendation on the adoption or amendment of a general plan, specific plan, or zoning; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Public Hearing for the 2023-2031 Housing Element Update was duly posted in the San Mateo Daily Journal on Saturday, June 27, 2024, posted in a public place, and mailed to property owners pursuant to California Government Code Section 65090, for the Planning Commission public hearing on August 7, 2024; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a duly and properly noticed public hearing to take public testimony and consider a Resolution regarding the proposed General Plan, zoning, and specific plan amendments for Sites 20, 21 and 22 Amended 2023-2031 Housing Element. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of San Bruno, based on substantial evidence in the staff reports, written and oral testimony, and exhibits presented, hereby finds as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.

329 of 345

2. The proposed General Plan Housing Element text, diagram and map amendments are consistent with the policies and intent of the General Plan. The proposed Housing Element amendment to the General Plan clarifies and improves existing Housing Element policies and objectives to ensure internal consistency between the Housing Element and the Health and Safety Element. Further, the Housing Element amendment ensures consistency between the City General Plan and State law, and which achieve and satisfy General Plan policies and objectives for equal access to housing, access to transportation improvement funds, and mixed use, transit-oriented housing opportunities. 3. The proposed General Plan, specific plan, and zoning amendments are in response to the requirements of the California Government Code to update the Housing Element every eight years and identify enough sites to . Compliance with State Housing Element Law is critical to maintaining certification of the Housing Element which itself is important for the City to preserve access to State funding sources and retain local land use authority. 4. The Planning Commission, based on the evidence in the record, finds the proposed Housing Element to be in substantial conformance with State law and the General Plan of the City of San Bruno. 5. With respect to the General Plan and Specific Plan amendments, the Planning Commission hereby finds the proposed amendments to the General Plan, U.S. Navy Site And Its Environs Specific Plan, and zoning are consistent with the goals and policies of the San Bruno General Plan and will create a transit-oriented zoning district near the San Bruno BART Station. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that City Council amend the General Plan Land Use Element, amend the zoning map, amend the Tanforan Planned Development zoning district, and amend U.S. Navy Site And Its Environs Specific Plan as follows, based on the finding that the proposed changes were analyzed in the adopted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Addendum to the IS/MND: A. Amend the General Plan Land Use Diagram to change the designation of 11.28 acres at 1178 El Camino Real (APN: 014-316-330) from Regional Commercial to Transit-Oriented Development, 0.57 acres at 1151 El Camino Real (020-013-100) from Neighborhood Commercial to Transit-Oriented Development, and 0.40 acres at 1101 El Camino Real (020-013-200, 020-013-170) from High Density Residential to Transit-Oriented Development, as shown in Exhibit A.

330 of 345

B. Amend the Planned Development (P-D) zoning district for Tanforan to (1) add multi-family housing as a permitted use on the 11.28 acre site at 1178 El Camino Real (APN: 014-316-330) with an 85 foot height limit; and (2) include the 1.40 acres parcel at 1292 Huntington Avenue (APN: 014-311-060) within the P-D zoning district and add multi-family housing as a permitted use with a 65 foot height limit. The P-D zoning shall not have a maximum density, as shown in Exhibit A. C. Amend the U.S. Navy Site And Its Environs Specific Plan to establish a Very High Density Residential designation, as shown in Exhibit B, and amend the Specific Plan Land Use Diagram to change the designation of 0.57 acres at 1151 El Camino Real (APN: 020-013-100) from Commercial-Retail to Very High Density Residential, and the designation of 0.40 acres at 1101 El Camino Real (APN: 020-013-200, 020-013-170) from Residential to Very High Density Residential, as shown in Exhibit A. D. Amend the Zoning Map to change the zoning designation of 1.40 acres at 1292 Huntington Avenue (APN: 014-311-060) from the TOD-1 district to the P-D zoning district of Tanforan, and 0.57 acres at 1151 El Camino Real (020-013-100) from C-N to TOD-2, as shown in Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the Secretary of the City of San Bruno Planning Commission is hereby directed to forward to the City Council a certified copy of this resolution together with an attested copy. Date Planning Commission Chair ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM Planning Commission Secretary City Attorney -o0o- I, Michael P. Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and

331 of 345

332 of 345

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-11 RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO AMENDING ARTICLE III (ZONING) OF TITLE 12 (LAND USE) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE WITH CHAPTER 12.245 (MULTI-FAMILY MINISTERIAL REVIEW) AND FINDING THE AMENDMENTS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, on October 10, 2023, the City Council and Planning Commission held a joint study session on the topic of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element, which included the introduction of a program to establish a ministerial review process for certain multi-family housing projects; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2024, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council adopt the revised Sixth Cycle Housing Element, which includes Programs 3f and 9a committing the City to ministerial review processes for certain multi-family housing projects; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to Title 12 of the Municipal Code, attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, establishes a ministerial review process for certain multi-family housing projects, fulfilling Programs 3f and 9a of the Housing Element; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Municipal Code amendments are consistent with the General Plan, as well as State Housing Law and Planning and Zoning Laws; and; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Bruno as follows: 1. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the staff report and proposed amendments to Title 12 of the Municipal Code related as shown in Exhibit A. 2. Based on the facts, analysis and findings contained in this Planning Commission Resolution, the Planning Commission finds that the amendments are not substantive in nature from an environmental perspective, and that it may be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the amendments would have a significant effect on the environment. Pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) and 15378 (b)(5), the consideration of this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that it is not a Project that has the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. 3. The Planning Commission of the City of San Bruno hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments and additions to Title 12 of the Municipal Code contained in the attached Exhibit A with any modifications to the

333 of 345

language required to clarify language, address any clerical errors, as approved by the City Attorney. 4. The Planning Commission further authorizes staff to make a report of the findings and recommendations herein, as required by San Bruno Municipal Code Section 12.136.030 and to send a copy of such report to the City Council and directs the Secretary of the Planning Commission to forward to the City Council an attested copy of this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby adopts the resolution recommending that City Council adopt the proposed amendments and additions to Title 12 of the Municipal Code. Dated: Planning Commission Chair ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Planning Commission Secretary City Attorney Michael P. Laughlin Trisha Ortiz -o0o- I, Michael P. Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of San Bruno this 6th day of August 2024 by the following vote: AYES Commissioners: Biasotti, Harman, Kuhn, Madden NOES Commissioners: ABSENT Commissioners: Durazo, Johnson, Lethin

334 of 345

City Council Agenda Item
Staff Report

CITY OF SAN BRUNO
DATE: August 27, 2024
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Alex D. McIntyre, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Peter Gilli, Community Development Director Eliseo Amaya, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Consider Introducing, Reading by Title Only and Waiving a Further Reading of an Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Bruno Amending Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) of the Municipal Code for Minor Amendments Related to Modifications, Temporary Use Permits, and Architectural Review” and Finding Such Action Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act BACKGROUND:

On March 12, 2024, the City Council considered Municipal Code amendments to improve planning permit processes and make other minor amendments.

During the meeting, Councilmember Medina raised concerns about the Temporary Use Permit process for construction yards. Staff recommended City Council defer that portion of the amendments to a future date, and act on the remainder of the amendments.

Additionally, since the adoption of Ordinance No. 1947, the Community Development Department has identified the need for minor amendments to two sections: Section 12.78.030 “Modifications” and Section 12.200.070 “Architectural Review Permits Required” of the San Bruno Municipal Code.

The proposed ordinance amending Articles III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) of the Municipal Code was considered by the San Bruno Planning Commission on August 6, 2024, at a duly noticed public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2024-09, recommending that the City Council adopt the zoning code amendments.

DISCUSSION:

The following is a summary of the proposed ordinance:

1. Modifications
Section 12.78.030 “Modifications” define the process for an applicant to request modifications to approved planning permits.
335 of 345
Item 7b.

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
August 27, 2024

Page 2 of 3 ends

•Minor modifications are applications that can be acted on administratively. They are intended for changes that “do not substantially alter character-defining design features or operational aspects of the project.”
•Major modifications are applications that require final action by the decision-making body that would otherwise act on the original application. This process is more likely to be a longer and more costly process to the applicant, because the changes go beyond a minor modification.

Currently, the regulations state that requesting a change to a condition of approval requires a major modification. Staff supports the concept of minor and major modifications, with major modifications going through a more significant review process. But staff believes there are common examples where a minor change to a condition of approval should not require the full major modification process.

For example, most projects have conditions of approval defining the timing of certain milestones in construction. Often, as the project proceeds, it is discovered that the defined order of those milestones causes cost or delay to the project. In cases where the applicant can demonstrate to staff that an alternative wording of the condition would not significantly impact any party, staff believes such changes should qualify as a minor modification that can be acted on administratively.

The proposed amendment to Section 12.78.030 would allow minor modifications to include minor changes to conditions of approval. The Planning Commission supported this amendment.

2. Temporary Use Permits
Following the March 12, 2024, City Council meeting, staff discussed the proposed Temporary Use Permit process for construction yards with the City Attorney’s Office and Police Department (Code Enforcement).

The process entails applicants for construction yards requiring a Temporary Use Permit, which can be granted by the Community Development Director for up to one year. The applicant can apply for extensions from the Director if the project takes more than one year. The Director can apply conditions of approval, which can be enforced by Planning, Building and Code Enforcement staff, and if the applicant does not comply, extensions would not be approved.

By having the authority at an administrative level, the City is in the best position to enforce conditions that ensure impacts (visual, noise, traffic) of the construction yard are addressed, up to the point of being able to have an administrative hearing to revoke the construction yard permit if the applicant consistently does not perform.

The topic of whether these Temporary Use Permits should be acted on by the City Council was raised to ensure these sites are operated in an orderly fashion. The result of City Council action being necessary for these Temporary Use Permits is that would add significant time and cost to the processing, which will include City projects, as well as significant time and cost to enforcement efforts, such as revocation.

Therefore, staff recommends City Council adopt the amendment to Section 12.84.030 “Temporary Uses” as presented in March 12, 2024.

336 of 345

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
August 27, 2024

Page 3 of 3 ends

3. R-1 Architectural Review Permits
Amendments to zoning regulations that took effect on July 1, 2024, included thresholds in Section

12.200.040 for an Architectural Review Permit when an R-1 new home or addition exceeded the base floor area ratio (FAR). The intent of the regulation originally presented to the Planning Commission in February 2024 was that modest requests to exceed the base 0.55 FAR would be administrative actions, and larger requests would require Planning Commission action. Based on the Planning Commission’s past experience, the threshold of 0.62 FAR was set as the threshold where Commission action was required.

However, the ordinance language staff prepared and was adopted, did not clearly convey that exceeding the base FAR of 0.55 up to 0.62 would still require an administrative Architectural Review Permit. The Planning Commission supported this amendment to correct the language to reflect the original intent. Since the Commission meeting on August 6, 2024, staff has further refined the language within the intent of the Commission’s recommendation, as follows:
“D. New structures or additions to existing structures that cause the floor area ratio to exceed the maximum permitted as defined in Section 12.200.040.G, H, and I. Projects that exceed 0.62 floor area ratio shall require approval of the planning commission.” FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:

These amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act based on Section 15061(b)(3) and 15378(b)(5), and therefore no further environmental analysis is required RECOMMENDATION:

Introduce, Read by Title Only and Waive a Further Reading of an Ordinance Entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Bruno Amending Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) of the Municipal Code for Minor Amendments Related to Modifications, Temporary Use Permits, and Architectural Review” and Finding Such Action Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act.

ALTERNATIVES:

1. Do not adopt the Ordinance.

2. Continue the item and direct staff to make modifications to the ordinance.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Ordinance

2. Planning Commission Resolution with draft ordinance

337 of 345

1 ORDINANCE NO. _____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO AMENDING ARTICLE III (ZONING) OF TITLE 12 (LAND USE) OF THE

MUNICIPAL CODE FOR MINOR AMENDMENTS RELATED TO MODIFICATIONS,

TEMPORARY USE PERMITS, AND ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW AND FINDING

SUCH ACTION EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Based on the facts in the Staff Report, written and oral testimony, and exhibits presented, the City Council hereby makes the following findings of facts in support of the proposed Municipal Code amendments:

A. The Legislature of the State of California has in Government Code Sections 65302, 65560 et seq., and 65800 conferred upon local governments the authority to adopt regulations designed to ensure the public health, safety, and general welfare of its citizenry; and B. The proposed San Bruno Municipal Code Amendments are consistent with the General Plan and Specific Plans of the City of San Bruno; and
C. It is in the public interest for the City to establish reasonable, up-to-date, and comprehensive development standards and regulations; and D. The proposed Municipal Code Amendments will not be detrimental to the health, safety, morals, comfort and general welfare of the Citizens of San Bruno.

E. The zoning code amendments were considered by the San Bruno Planning Commission on August 6, 2024, at a duly noticed public hearing. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2024-09 recommending that the City Council adopt the zoning code amendments.

F. A notice of public hearing was duly posted for consideration of this proposed Ordinance at the City of San Bruno City Council meeting on August 27, 2024, and on said date, the public hearing was opened, held and closed and the Ordinance was introduced.

Section 2. Editorial guidance. The following non-substantive editorial style is used. Words that are underlined are additions; words with a line through are deleted; and words in [brackets] are instructions for the Code publisher and which instructions are not to be published in the City’s Code unless worded as an “editor’s note”.

In addition, the Code publisher will arrange definitions and other changes alphabetically to conform to the Code’s current style and will, as needed, re-order numbering and lettering changes caused by these amendments. The City Clerk and the City Attorney are authorized to work with the Code Publisher to effectuate non-substantive amendments to ensure consistency as to form and style of the Code.

Further, the code publisher is directed to substitute the name of an office and/or position wherever possible rather than use a gender pronoun without further or formal amendments. 338 of 345
ATTACHMENT 1
2 Section 3. Section 12.78.030 (Modifications) of Chapter 12.78 (Zoning Administration) of Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“12.78.030 Modifications.

An applicant may submit a planning application for a modification of a previously approved planning application, prior to the issuance of building permits, a certificate of occupancy for the project, or after project completion. The community development director shall determine whether a proposed modification is minor or major.

A. Minor Modifications. The community development director may approve minor modifications to approved planning applications that are consistent with the original findings and conditions approved by the decision-making hearing body and do not substantially alter character-defining design features or operational aspects of a project.

B. Major Modifications. Major modifications include changes to character-defining design features, a one or more substantive changes in approved plans site plan or building plan that would affect a condition of approval, a one or more changes that would make the a project inconsistent with original required findings made by the decision-making body for the discretionary approval, or a request for substantive changes in conditions of approval.

Major modifications shall be reviewed by the decision-making body authorized to act on the application type being modified. The decision-making body may include reasonable conditions of approval deemed necessary to make the findings of approval. The decision- making body has the discretion to extend the expiration date of the original application based on the date the major modification is approved.

C. If additional planning applications are requested in conjunction with a request for a modification, the modification shall be reviewed by the decision-making body possessing the authority for final action for the planning applications.

D. Appeals shall be as set forth in this chapter. (Ord. 1898 § 3, 2021)” Section 4. Section 12.84.030.D of Chapter 12.84 (General Provisions, Conditions and Exceptions) of Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“D. Community development director actions. The community development director may grant temporary use permits for any temporary use lasting for a period of three months or less.

In addition, the director may grant a temporary use permit for up to one year for a yard, staging or parking related to a construction project within the city limits, and such temporary use permit may be extended for up to one year at a time until the project is completed, if the applicant provides the director with satisfactory evidence that the construction project is proceeding in a timely manner.

1. An application for a temporary use permit shall be made under this subsection shall conform to the requirements specified in Sections 12.76.060 (Payment of fees required), 12.78.010 (Planning application completion and close out due to inactivity), and 12.112.020 (Application and plans), and the application shall be made at least sixty days in advance of the intended commencement date of the temporary use.

339 of 345

3 2. Upon receipt of a complete application for a temporary use permit under this subsection, the community development director shall approve, deny, or conditionally approve the application within one month.

3. At least ten days prior to approving a temporary use permit under this subsection, the community development director shall ensure that written notice of the proposed temporary use is: (a) posted in at least three conspicuous places on utility poles on both sides of the property frontage and across the street from the subject property; and (b) is given through the United States mail, with postage prepaid to all persons (including businesses, corporations, or other public or private entities) owning real property within three hundred feet of the exterior boundaries of the property for which the application is being considered, and using addresses from the latest equalized assessment roll, or alternatively, from other records of the assessor or tax collector that, in the opinion of the secretary of the assessor or tax collector, contain more recent addresses. The notice shall specify the type and magnitude of the application to be considered, the place where copies of the application may be reviewed, the timing of approval, and a statement indicating the ability of any interested party to submit comments to the community development director.

4. The community development director shall grant a temporary use permit under this subsection D only if the director makes the findings required by Section 12.112.050(B).

5. The applicant or any other interested party may appeal the community development director’s action on the temporary use permit to the planning commission. Appeals shall be made in writing, accompanied by any required fee, and filed with the city clerk within ten days after the final action of the community development director. The appeal shall clearly state the facts of the case and the grounds for the appeal. Upon receipt of the appeal, the community development director will schedule the appeal for a planning commission hearing within thirty days after the filing of the appeal.

6. The community development director may revoke a temporary use permit granted pursuant to the provisions of this subsection if any of the conditions or terms of such approval are violated or if any law is violated in connection therewith. At least ten days prior to revoking a temporary use permit under this subsection, the community development director shall ensure that written notice of the proposed revocation is given to the permittee, and is given through the United States mail, with postage prepaid to all persons (including businesses, corporations, or other public or private entities) owning real property adjacent to the property for which the revocation is being considered, and using addresses from the latest equalized assessment roll, or alternatively, from other records of the assessor or tax collector that, in the opinion of the secretary of the assessor or tax collector, contain more recent addresses. A permittee or other interested party may appeal a revocation decision to the planning commission, as provided in subsection (D)(5) of this section.”
Section 5. Section 12.200.040.D of Chapter 12.200 (Development Regulations for the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts) of Article III (Zoning) of Title 12 (Land Use) of the Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“D. New structures or additions to existing structures that cause the floor area ratio to exceed the maximum permitted equivalent of 0.62 as defined in Section 12.200.040.G, H, and I.

Projects that exceed 0.62 floor area ratio shall require approval of the planning commission.”

340 of 345

4 Section 6. Pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15061(b)(3) (common-sense exemption) and 15378(b)(5) (activities excluded from the definition of “project”), consideration of this Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Section 7. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion or sections of the Ordinance. The City Council of the City of San Bruno hereby declares that it would have adopted the Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional.

Section 8. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force 30 days after its adoption.

Section 9. The City Clerk shall publish this Ordinance according to law.

Rico E. Medina, Mayor
ATTEST:

Lupita Huerta, City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM
Trisha Ortiz, City Attorney
---o0o---
I, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No.
was introduced at a regular meeting of the San Bruno City Council on ____________, 2024 and adopted by the San Bruno City Council at a regular meeting on ___________, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
___________________________
Lupita Huerta, City Clerk

341 of 345

RESOLUTION NO. 2024-12

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN BRUNO

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLE III (ZONING) OF TITLE 12 (LAND USE) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND FINDING

THE AMENDMENTS EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, being authorized to do so, the City of San Bruno (“City”) seeks to make amendments to the Zoning Ordinance under Title 12 of the San Bruno Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for the City to update standards related to architectural review permits and modifications to planning applications under Title 12, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance amendments are intended, and should be applied, to protect and promote public safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the Zoning Ordinance amendments are consistent with the General Plan, as well as State Land Use Law and Regulations; and
WHEREAS, on April 9, 2024, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1947, which took effect on July 1, 2024, which ordinance updated Title 12 of the San Bruno Municipal Code, and the amendments contemplated herein would clarify provisions as adopted through Ordinance No. 1947; and
WHEREAS, on August 6, 202 4, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment s and on said date the public hearing was opened and held; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Bruno as follows:

1. The Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the staff report, and proposed amendments to Title 12 of the Municipal Code attached in Exhibit A.

2. Based on the facts, analysis, and findings contained in this Resolution, the Zoning Ordinance amendments will not have a significant effect on the environment.

Pursuant to Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15378(b)(5), the consideration of the proposed amendments are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that they are not a Project that has the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

3. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Title 12 of the Municipal Code contained in Exhibit A.

Docusign Envelope ID: 9877F006-E909-4403-9391-0B0C61610A46 342 of 345
ATTACHMENT 2

4. The Planning Commission further authorizes staff to make a report of the findings and recommendations herein, as required by San Bruno Municipal Code Section 12.136.030 and to send a copy of such report to the City Council.

5. The Planning Commission directs the Secretary of the Planning Commission to forward to the City Council an attested copy of this Resolution.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby adopts this Resolution recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments to Title 12 of the Municipal Code.

Dated: Planning Commission Chair

ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Planning Commission Secretary City Attorney
Michael P. Laughlin Trisha Ortiz

-o0o-

I, Michael P. Laughlin, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of San Bruno this 6th day of August 2024 by the following vote:

AYES Commissioners: Biasotti, Harman, Kuhn, Madden
NOES Commissioners:

ABSENT Commissioners: Durazo, Johnson, Lethin

Docusign Envelope ID: 9877F006-E909-4403-9391-0B0C61610A46 8/13/2024
8/13/20248/13/2024
8/13/2024

343 of 345

Exhibit A

12.78.030 Modifications.

D. Appeals shall be as set forth in this chapter.

12.200.070 Architectural review permits required.

Approval of an architectural review permit by the community development director is required for the following project types in the R-1 or R-2 districts, as set forth in Chapter 12.108:

A. New structures or additions to existing structures that encroach into a side or rear setback by up to 2 feet beyond what is permitted by Section 12.200.040.D, except that in no case shall less than a 3-foot setback be allowed. Encroachments into side or rear setbacks greater than 2 feet beyond what is permitted by Section 12.200.040.D shall require approval of the planning commission.

B. New structures or additions to existing structures that cause the lot coverage to exceed the percentage defined in Section 12.200.040.E., but not to exceed one-hundred and ten percent of the total floor area allowed by this section. Projects that result in lot coverage greater Docusign Envelope ID: 9877F006-E909-4403-9391-0B0C61610A46

344 of 345

than one-hundred and ten percent of the total floor area allowed by this section shall require approval of the planning commission.

C. The addition of impervious surface that exceeds the percentage defined in Section

12.200.040.F. Exceeding allowed impervious surface by 10 percent or greater shall require approval of the planning commission.

D. New structures or additions to existing structures that cause the floor area ratio to exceed the permitted floor area defined in Section 12.200.040.G, H, and I., but not to exceed a floor area ratio equivalent of 0.62 as defined in Section 12.200.040.G, H, and I allowed by this section. Projects that result in equivalent floor area ratio above 0.62 shall require approval of the planning commission.

E. New structures or additions to existing structures with building heights that exceed the allowed heights in Section 12.200.040.J by up to 3 feet. Projects that exceed allowed heights by more than 3 feet shall require planning commission approval.

F. New or modified second story front decks that exceed the allowances defined in Section 12.200.040.K.

G. New or modified second story windows, openings or decks that do not comply with Section 12.200.040.L.

H. New or modified third stories, where any part of the three stories lie within the same vertical plane as defined in Section 12.200.040.M. This provision applies whether the third story is created for a new home or for an addition to an existing home.

Docusign Envelope ID: 9877F006-E909-4403-9391-0B0C61610A46

345 of 345

San Bruno City CouncilAugust 27, 2024

San Bruno City Council
August 27, 2024