Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - 2012.02.13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Monday, February 13, 2012 – 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers – 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Yie called the February 13, 2012, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Gaul, Lindstrom, Vistica and Yie Absent: Commissioners Auran, Terrones and Cauchi Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; Civil Engineer Doug Bell and City Attorney Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Yie moved, seconded by Commissioner Gaul to approve the minutes of the January 23, 2012 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change:  Page 2; Item 2 (712 Bayswater Avenue); add an additional bullet under “Commission Comments” as follows: “Vinyl windows are not acceptable.” Motion passed 4-0-3-0 (Commissioners Cauchi, Terrones and Auran absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Noted that Item 7 (2509 Easton Drive) is being continued to the February 27, 2012 agenda at the applicant’s request. V. FROM THE FLOOR Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue; spoke:  Noted that she had submitted written comments regarding the proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance and regarding the project at 1480 Broadway.  Expressed concern regarding the unattractive design of the building at 1480 Broadway; though the location of the building on the site is improved over the prior design.  Expressed general support for the proposed amendments to the Sign Ordinance. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 712 NEWHALL ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (NORMAN FLINDERS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; HYLAND DESIGN GROUP, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 13, 2012 2 Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated February 13, 2012. Questions of staff:  None. Commission comments:  Check the percent of pervious versus impervious surfaces; does it only apply to hillside areas? (Meeker/Bell – Applies everywhere. Will need to provide calculations.)  Assumes that the driveway concrete will be matched – if the driveway is being cut-up anyway, the applicant could consider providing more impervious surfacing.  Likes the entire project.  The eaves as shown on the front and rear elevation must match one another. The right side eave shows it extending into the side setback from the front elevation, but not from the rear.  Why was the item brought to study first? (Meeker – has been the policy of the Commission; however, staff could bring such items direct to action in the future.)  Would like to see details of the window design, outriggers, and other details.  Be certain that there is room for error in the window placement.  Bring back as a consent calendar item. This item was set for the Consent Calendar item when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:37 p.m. 2. PROPOSED ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLES 22 AND 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE (SIGN CODE AND ZONING CODE) – PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SIGN CODE WOULD ADD REFERENCES TO THE NEW ZONING DISTRICTS WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND ADD A MAXIMUM SINGLE SIGN SIZE IN CERTAIN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS; CHANGES TO THE ZONING CODE WOULD AMEND CHAPTER 25.33 TO CORRECT THE NUMBERING OF PERMITTED USES IN THE HMU ZONING DISTRICT. STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated February 13, 2012. Commission comments:  Consider limiting the height of signs to ensure that they don’t appear out of scale with the sign band above the door and window areas.  Can we regulate colored lighting on buildings such as the Chase bank lighting at Broadway and El Camino Real? (Meeker/Guinan – lighting is not regulated other than to ensure no negative impacts upon adjacent properties. Not possible to regulate the color of lighting. Sign regulations cannot interfere with “logos” for businesses.)  Can there be a means of counting interior graphics toward the maximum signage allowed so that they are not as glaring during the evening? (Meeker – it is not possible to regulate graphics/signage within the interior of a building.)  There should likely be a minimum distance between multiple signs on a building façade to ensure that they don’t appear to exceed maximum permitted.  Can materials be regulated? (Meeker – need to be cognizant of the fact that the City is limited in what it can regulate that impacts the corporate image of a business. When the Sign Ordinance was CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 13, 2012 3 crafted in 2007, there was a conscious effort to not regulate design for fear of conflicting with first amendment rights.)  Nice job on the ordinance.  Are there other areas of the ordinance that warrant further study? (Meeker – nothing at this time.) This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when ready for a public hearing. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Yie asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. Chair Yie made note of a typographical error in the applicant’s response letter to the Commission – she noted that the Commission wished to see more “pervious” surfaces noted on the plans versus “impervious” surfaces. 3. 2828 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND FOR A BASEMENT WITH A CEILING HEIGHT GRATER THAN 6’-6”, FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY, SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND RUSS MASLENKO, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner Lindstrom moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioner’s comments and the findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-3-0 (Commissioners Cauchi, Terrones and Auran). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:52 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 4. 1108 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED BAC – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A NEW FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (ANGELA PACE, BLUE LINE PIZZA; LORENZ AND LOUISA KAO, PROPERTY OWNERS; SDG ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (38 NOTICED) STAFF PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated February 13, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eighteen (18) conditions were suggested for consideration. He noted that the applicant will be requesting the ability provide delivery services and that some additional suggested conditions related to alcohol sales will be read into the record in the event that the Commission approves the request. Questions of staff:  Why were elevations not provided? (Meeker – there are no changes proposed to the exterior.)  Does this application count as one of the new restaurant spaces? (Meeker – the space was previously a restaurant; the use is not taking up one of the new spaces.) CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 13, 2012 4 Chair Yie opened the public hearing. Angela Pace, 17421 El Rancho Avenue, Monte Sereno and Lance Crannell, 3361 Walnut Boulevard, Brentwood; represented the applicant. Commission comments:  What was the patio used for previously? (Crannell – occasional outdoor dining space.)  Will trash be handled the same as the prior use? (Crannell – yes.)  Is the restroom shared with “Barrel House”? Be certain that the restroom is ADA compliant. (Crannell – the new restaurant will have its own restrooms – they are designed to be ADA compliant.) Additional applicant comments:  Requested that the hours of operation be modified to allow the business to close at 1 a.m. rather than 11 p.m.  Noted that many of the bars in the area are open until 2 a.m.  Noted that they request the ability to provide delivery services – less than 5% of the business is delivery. Dedicated delivery drivers are not provided. (Meeker – noted that condition 7 of the suggested conditions in the staff report would need to be deleted if delivery is permitted.)  The business is more of a “dine-in” operation, but wish to provide delivery to regular customers as a service. (Commissioner – expressed concern regarding the lack of a parking area for delivery vehicles. Meeker – suggested that if delivery is approved, include a condition that “incidental” delivery is allowed and that if parking and circulation impacts related to delivery are observed, the Commission reserves the ability to call the conditional use permit up for review.)  Noted that the ABC allows servers under 21 to deliver drinks to patrons seated at tables. Public comments:  None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gaul moved to approve the application, including the provision of incidental delivery services, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that this shall be a full service food establishment, with no more than 1,535 SF of customer seating area (712 SF indoor + 823 SF in two outdoor patio areas) as shown on the plans date stamped January 24, 2012, sheets A0 through A4. It may change the food establishment classification only to a limited food service or bar upon approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit for the establishment; 2. that no portion of the 1,535 SF of customer seating area (indoor and in outdoor patio areas) defined on the plans and in Condition Number 1 shall be enlarged or changed in use without an amendment to this conditional use permit, and no food and/or drink shall be prepared in the outdoor patio area, except drinks only may be prepared at a single, small portable bar in the outdoor area; 3. that any seating on the sidewalk outside in the public right-of-way shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 13, 2012 5 4. that the food establishment at 1108 Burlingame Avenue may be open 7 days a week from 11:00 a.m. to 1:00 a.m.; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 27, 2012 memo, the City Engineer's February 2, 2012 memo and the Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator’s January 30, 2012 memos shall be met; 6. that because of fire occupancy enforcement concerns for each of the three areas on this site (1108 Burlingame Avenue, 305 California Drive and patio areas at the rear of these buildings), the patio area of the food establishments shall be closed to customers during inclement weather; during these times, the maximum combined occupancy of the food establishments at 1108 Burlingame Avenue and 305 California Drive shall be reduced by 140 to a maximum of 220 patrons at one time. Exceeding the maximum of 360 patrons during fair weather or 220 patrons during inclement weather shall cause this conditional use permit to be called up for review for revocation by the Planning Commission; 7. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of a property line; 8. that the applicant, prior to the sale or provision of any alcohol at the full service food establishment, shall apply for and obtain from the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, a license to serve alcohol. Applicant shall comply with all ABC conditions and regulations. The City's grant of this CUP shall not constitute a grant of any certificate of public convenience and necessity required by the ABC; 9. that if a certificate of public convenience and necessity as required by the ABC is granted to this business by the City in the future, the following conditions shall apply: a. that all identification shall be checked to verify that the person presenting the identification is of legal drinking age; b. that the sale of alcoholic beverages for off premises consumption is strictly prohibited. Consumption of on-sale alcoholic beverages shall be restricted to and within the confines of the building portion of the premises and on-site the patio(s) under contract for this business. There shall be no consumption of alcoholic beverages on the sidewalk area in front of or adjacent to the premise; c. that no noise shall be audible beyond the area under the control of the licensee(s); d. that the petitioner(s) shall be responsible for maintaining free of litter the area in front of (sidewalk and gutter) and adjacent to the premises over which they have control; e. that loitering (loitering is defined as “to stand idly about; linger aimlessly without lawful business”) is prohibited on any sidewalks or property adjacent to the licensed premises under the control of the licensee; f. that the interior lighting maintained therein shall be sufficient to make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons and patrons in that portion of the premises where alcoholic beverages are sold, served, delivered or consumed; and CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 13, 2012 6 g. that at no time shall the occupancy of the premise exceed the established lawful limit set by the Central County Fire Department. 10. that if the area used as full service food establishment as defined by this conditional use permit, or any portion of this area including the patio area is changed from any food establishment use to retail sales or any other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced in the area where the use has changed, and this conditional use permit shall become void; 11. that loudspeakers for the business shall be directed toward the interior of the business, shall not violate Section 10.40.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code regarding loudspeakers; failure to comply with the City's noise requirements as stated in the General Plan and Municipal Code including noise evaluation reports shall result in this conditional use permit being called up for review for revocation by the Planning Commission; 12. that the fire lane in the driveway at the rear of the site accessed from California Drive shall be maintained clear of storage and/or parked vehicles as required by the Fire Department; 13. that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacle(s) as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacle(s) at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 14. that the trash receptacles installed inside and on the street outside the place of business shall be maintained and emptied regularly and a trash area large enough to accommodate the daily accumulation of trash shall be provided on site and regularly maintained; 15. that no wiring, strings, lighting or other adhesive shall be attached to fire sprinkling piping to hang seasonal decorations or for any other purpose; 16. the business shall provide litter control and sidewalk cleaning along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 17. that the business shall regularly steam clean the sidewalk, curb and gutter in front of their premise, if the level of cleanliness becomes a problem to the City, the business shall clean the sidewalk on a more frequent schedule as required by the City Engineer; 18. that all deliveries to this site shall be made from the driveway at the rear of the site accessed from California Drive and shall be made between 7:30 a.m. and 10:30 p.m., and no delivery vehicles shall be stored in or parked overnight in this driveway area; and 19. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 13, 2012 7  None. Chair Yie called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-0-3-0 (Commissioners Cauchi, Terrones and Auran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:08 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5. 725 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TIM AND LINA REETH, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND WALDEMAR STACHNIUK, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated February 13, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  Does the existing condition violate the declining height envelope? Was the existing condition an “add-on” at some point? (Strohmeier – the existing condition violates the declining height envelope, as does the proposed addition. A special permit may have been approved previously, but it would have depended upon when the former addition was approved.)  If the City approved a special permit for declining height envelope for the original addition, would the new proposal fall under that approval? (Strohmeier/Meeker – the original approval was for that specific project; the current proposal requires consideration of a new request for a special permit.)  Believes that there was an exemption for window enclosures that encroach into the declining height envelope – appears that one portion of the addition may have complied with this exemption. (Strohmeier – noted that one portion of the addition does comply with the exemption, but the applicant chose to seek a special permit for other portions of the addition.) Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Waldemar Stachniuk, 500 Airport Boulevard and Tim Reeth, 725 Crossway Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Are solid wood windows or wood-clad being proposed? (Stachniuk – will match existing wood-clad windows.) Need to note this on the plans.  Need more detail specifications – matching existing, but provide details and dimensions of all elements of the design.  On the west elevation, the two windows – the windows do not appear to be the same size; would be preferable to have them be the same scale. (Reeth – the new window is to be a bit larger than the existing window that is located in a bathroom. Can review this detail.)  Clarify details of the existing deck.  The west elevation is more visible given the orientation of the home to the street – is there anything that can be done to relieve the mass and bulk of the area of the addition.  The continuation of the addition will add to the stark appearance of the west elevation – consider treating this side similar to the front of the house. Can’t support the special permit because it will not comply with the City’s design criteria. Should create a design that treats the side elevation like a front elevation given its visibility from the street. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 13, 2012 8  Show where the furnace and water heater will be located – also show the stacks for this equipment. (Stachniuk – the utilities are to remain in the same location as currently.)  The declining height envelope request is likely not acceptable, there may be a means of designing the addition without the request.  There are means to design the interior of the space creatively to ensure usability while still complying with the declining height envelope restriction. Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Yie made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-3-0 (Commissioners Cauchi, Terrones and Auran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:27 p.m. 6. 516 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (TIM RADUENZ, FORM + ONE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND KARL WILEY, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated February 13, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff:  None. Chair Yie opened the public comment period. Tim Raduenz, 3841 24th Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments:  Regarding rear chimney – is it for a wood burning fireplace? Looks a bit “funky” with the flat roof. Is there anything that can be done with this element? (Raduenz – is not being changed. Revision of this area is a phase 2 project, need the bedroom first.)  Provide clarification of materials on the rear elevation.  Show the existing chimney down the left side on the rear elevation. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 13, 2012 9  Clarified that there is no change on the right-side elevation. (Raduenz – correct.)  Requested clarification regarding the brackets on the rear elevation come down too low near the French doors. (Raduenz – can change them to be less beefy, though with English architecture the brackets are typically larger.)  Will there be handrails on the deck? (Raduenz – existing deck railing will remain, was removed from plan for clarity.)  Noted that the door on the rear is not centered. Noted the posts are centered with the addition above. Could be made to be more symmetrical. (Raduenz – could revise to make it look more symmetrical.) Public comments:  None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gaul made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-3-0 (Commissioners Cauchi, Terrones and Auran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. 7. 2509 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR ATTACHED GARAGE AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO AND ONE-HALF STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (STOTLER DESIGN GROUP, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; EMPORIO GROUP LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) (44 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (ITEM CONTINUED UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 27, 2012 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT) This item was continued to the February 27, 2012 regular Planning Commission meeting at the applicant’s request. 8. 1480 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A NEW CANOPY AND CONVENIENCE STORE AT A GAS STATION (ROGER ABUYAGHI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; KATHLEEN WARMAN, WARMAN ARCHITECTURE + DESIGN, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated February 13, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 13, 2012 10  Is alcohol to be sold? (Strohmeier – already received approval for the prior store.)  Is the parking requirement driven by the convenience store or the pumps? (Strohmeier – by both the retail and the service station use. Parking variance requested for one parking space.) Chair Yie opened the public comment period. John Campanile, 205C Main Street, Pleasanton and Roger Abuyaghi and Mike Abuyaghi; represented the applicant.  Feels the new plan is more appealing.  Have spoken to merchants on Broadway – appear to be supportive of changes.  During the project, the site will be cleaned up by Unocal – new tanks and removal of contamination.  Fuel truck deliveries would occur in the evening; preferably after hours. Commission comments:  Clarified the vehicle circulation – ingress from the east from Broadway with egress onto El Camino Real. Makes the circulation much clearer.  Likes the layout, but not fond of the building design. Is there a second-story? (Campanile – no, just mimicking the second-story buildings that are present on Broadway – will be spandrel glass on Broadway, could add on the El Camino face if required.)  Has any thought been given to providing office-space on the second floor? (Campanile – yes, but there is no room for additional parking.)  Is there room for a bike-rack? (Campanile – can see if it can be accommodated.)  Questioned the monument sign elevation – not fond of the design. The sign looks out of proportion. (Campanile – not the final design, will require CalTrans input.)  Asked if there is a way to provide a bench or something similar near the monument sign? (Campanile – there is possibly a location for a bench under the south overhang area of the building.)  What is the sign material that is to be used? (Campanile – proposing an LED pricing sign that follows the Conoco/Philips “oasis” program.)  Would like to see the spandrel glass placed on the west façade at the upper level as well.  Appreciates that the canopy is being tiled.  Perhaps provide more tile-work on the building to blend better with the canopy. (Campanile – could provide more of a tiled mansard feature.)  Could consider dropping down the height of the building to be closer to the height of the adjacent building.  Struggling with the traffic flow. Doesn’t know how to mitigate the traffic flow concerns.  Perhaps do a bit more work on the ingress and egress. Congestion could be alleviated by the additional pump. (Campanile/Abuyaghi – have worked on several arrangements to accommodate fuel tankers, etc. If all pumps are full, there is still circulation space. The additional pump will reduce stacking needs. New dispensers pump faster – people go in and out more quickly. Convenience store patrons are short term visitors. Meeker – the traffic flow can be reviewed by the City’s Traffic Engineer.)  Noted that there would be no employee parking with the parking variance.  Could another tree be placed on the El Camino side? (Campanile – if CalTrans will allow happy to provide.) Could another tree be planted on the Broadway Side? (Campanile – will look into it.)  Could the building be lowered? (Campanile – can look at attempting to match the neighbor.)  The brick finish is a good choice for the building – could possibly add more Spanish tile to the building as a reference to the other buildings in the area. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 13, 2012 11  A bench on the corner could be a nice feature if allowed.  Concerned about the sidewalk and the interior pavement being the same color – would prefer a distinction made between the paving types. (Campanile – the path of travel will be better defined. Broadway sidewalk will be matched to the existing sidewalk.)  What is the timing for the improvements? (Campanile/Abuyaghi – everything is ready for submittal. Will likely take two weeks to clean the site. Attempting to complete the project in 120-days. The process for clean-up has been occurring for some time.)  Could geo-thermal be used? (Campanile – not possible.)  Will the building be LEED certified? (Campanile – Will be certain that all features are high- efficiency.) Public comments: Pat Fellowes, 1226 El Camino Real; spoke:  Supportive of the project – the existing service station is an eyesore. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Lindstrom made a motion to place the item on the Regular Action when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion:  None. Chair Yie called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-3-0 (Commissioners Cauchi, Terrones and Auran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:13 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS There were no Commissioner’s Reports. XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT Commission Communications:  None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of February 6, 2012:  Noted that the Wireless Communications Ordinance was formally adopted.  The City Council authorized the commencement of negotiations with developers interested in pursuing development of Parking Lot E (Grosvenor) and Parking Lots F and N (Equity Residential). FYI: 1108 Cabrillo Avenue – review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review Project: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION – Approved Minutes February 13, 2012 12  Accepted. FYI: 1410 Howard Avenue – review of requested changes to a previously approved Commercial Design Review project:  Accepted. FYI: 2008 Davis Drive – review of modification to window installation for a previously approved Design Review project:  Requested that a public hearing be scheduled to consider the changes. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Yie adjourned the meeting at 9:16 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mike Gaul, Vice Chair