Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2012.07.09C % CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES Monday, July 9, 2012 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Gaul called the July 9, 2012, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:01 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Gaul, Cauchi, Sargent and Terrones Absent: Commissioners Yie and Vistica Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; City Attorney Gus Guinan; and Civil Engineer Doug Bell III. MINUTES Commissioner Cauchi moved, seconded by Commissioner Auran to approve the minutes of the June 25, 2012 regular meeting of the Planning Commission as submitted. Motion passed 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Vistica and Yie absent, Commissioner Terrones abstained). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED SL - APPLICATION FOR LOT SPLIT AND VARIANCES FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO, PARKING AND LANDSCAPING (1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY LLC, APPLICANT; KIER & WRIGHT CIVIL ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS, INC., CIVIL ENGINEER Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated July 9, 2012. Questions of Staff: None. Commission comments: Review the sign standards for this property; recalls a discussion regarding the existing pole sign that would remain following the lot split that advertises businesses on both resultant parcels. Suggested reviewing the minutes from that discussion. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 9, 2012 Clarified that the reciprocal agreement mitigates the variances for parking related matters; this agreement must remain in place permanently. Clarify that parking is available for both the restaurant and the hotel. Identify the inadequate back-up area and drive aisles on the plans. This item was set for the regularAction Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:09 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 Gaul asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 2a. 446 CHATHAM ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CATHERINE NILMEYER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GREGG TAYLOR, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner Cauchi 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 Sargent. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Yie and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 1561 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED RR (AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE OVERLAY AREA) — APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A RETAIL SHOWROOM IN AN EXISTING WAREHOUSE BUILDING IN THE AUTOMOBILE SALES AND SERVICE OVERLAY AREA OF THE RR ZONE (THOMAS HARMAN, BALSAM HILL, APPLICANT; E.A. DAVIDOVITS & CO., DESIGNER; FRANK EDWARDS CO.. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 9, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six (6) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Thomas Harman, 28 East Third Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 9, 2012 Commission comments: ■ What is meant by a seasonal basis? (Harman — perhaps part-time in the summer months and more often in the winter with clearance sales periodically. Will primarily operate October through Christmas.) ■ Is the applicant confident of the location and that it will work for the business? (Harman — have discontinued the "pop-up" shows in stores; are primarily an internet-based use.) ■ Asked about signage — assumes will conform to standards. (Harman — will likely replace the sign per the code requirements. And may do other advertising, but will not have a lot of advertising on the site.) ■ Are not manufacturing? (Harman — no.) Public comments: ■ None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Gaul moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the retail showroom/warehouse shall be limited to 2,506 SF of retail showroom area at 1561 Adrian Road, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped June 19, 2012; 2. that the retail showroom/warehouse business may not be open for business except during the hours of Monday through Friday from 7:00 am to 9:00 pm and on the weekends from 9:00 am to 9:00 pm; 3. that the number of people on site at 1561 Adrian Road at any one time, including the owner, employees and customers shall not exceed 37 persons; 4. that the maximum number of employees, including the business owner, in 1601 Adrian Road shall be limited to 8 persons; 5. that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; and 6. that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Yie and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:19 p.m. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 9, 2012 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS Commissioner Sargent indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Agenda Item 5 (1016 Balboa Avenue) since he has a business relationship with the project designer. He left the City Council Chambers. 5. 1016 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; 1016 BALBOA BURLINGAME LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 9, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Agrees with the removal of the tree in the rear; appreciates attempts to keep the other trees along the side. ■ Feels that the trees may hang over the garage — concerned about the root system of the tree impinging upon the garage. (Chu — an arborist will work with the contractor during construction and attempt to design the project in a manner that can protect the trees. ■ Likes the project, but don't come back with changes in the future. ■ The details need to come through during the construction. Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: None. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 9, 2012 Chair Gaul 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 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Yie and Vistica absent, Commissioner Sargent recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. Commissioner Sargent returned to the dais. 5. 145 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TIM RADUENZ, FORM + ONE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; LAURENCE P. AND LINDA DUGONI/GREGORY & GINA GAMBRIOLI, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 9, 2012, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: None. Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Tim Raduenz, 3841 241" Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Typically don't get into the interior design, but suggested switching the laundry and the den to allow the den to have access to the front porch area. (Raduenz — would look odd to have a bump -out at this location on the side of the house; would affect the symmetry. Also trying to keep the laundry room as close to the staircase as possible. Access from the den to the family room is desirable.) ■ Unclear about the height of the railing on the porch and the windows are missing the muntins in the laundry area. (Raduenz — the railing is lower because it is not required to be higher.) ■ Also consider moving the spindles in the rail closer together as was typical in Craftsman design. ■ The design fits well with the neighborhood. ■ Tucking the second floor under the eave effectively reduces the mass. ■ Missing an elevation on the plans that would show how the gate tucks up against the house. ■ On the double -hung windows, was the same divided-lite detail to be provided? (Raduenz — yes.) ■ Did the designer consider other options for the two small windows on either side of the gable? (Raduenz — could make them larger, but once the trim is in place, it may look out of place. The window actually is into a bathroom.) ■ Concerned about the laundry room at the front; will be more visible. ■ With respect to the attic spaces at each corner, continuing the roof line downward gives the appearance of more mass — could be reduced and provide more window area and character. ■ Doesn't like just having a bump -out for the fire arrestor for the fire place — would like some form of a chimney to be present. (Raduenz — is a budget concern.) ■ Could consider building a dresser or other furnishing into the attic areas that have less than five -feet of clearance. Public comments: None. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 9, 2012 There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: None. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Gaul 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 5-0-2-0 (Commissioners Yie and Vistica). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. 6. 1509 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-2 AND R-3 — ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR AN APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, REZONING OF A PORTION OF THE SITE FROM R-2 TO R-3, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW, FOUR-STORY, 15-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM WITH AT -GRADE PARKING (1509 EL CAMINO LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MOORE VISTICA ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 9, 2012, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: Asked how occupancy of the inclusionary housing units is monitored? (Meeker— indicated that the City has a third -party agency that is responsible for selecting tenants based upon applicable criteria and leasing/selling properties. Such properties are preserved as affordable units for 10-years.) Will the State Department of Fish and Game review the project given its proximity to the creek? (Meeker — this will be reviewed as part of the environmental analysis for the project.) Asked if the tree removal issue has been resolved? (Meeker — indicated that the permit has been issued by the City.) Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. Patrick Fellowes, 1008 Laurel Street; represented the applicant. Commission comments: The project came forward previously; is the Commission reviewing the item de novo? (Meeker — yes, it is a completely different project.) Public comments: M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 9, 2012 Cheryl Anderson and Emil Anderson, 1521 Balboa Avenue; Patricia Gray, 1616 Adeline Drive; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Kim Abbott, 1480 Highway Road; Mark Haberecht, 1505 Balboa Avenue; Allen Menicucci, 1529 Albemarle Way; Helen Dobson, 155 Jackson Street, San Francisco; Nina Wheel, 1520 Balboa Avenue; Paul Wallach, 1524 Balboa Way; Gordon Goettsche, 1524 Albemarle Way; Ann Wallach, 1524 Balboa Way; Miriam Hale, represented her aunt who resides at 1512 Adeline Drive; Samantha MacPhail, 1516 Balboa Avenue; Yan Ma, 1512 Balboa Avenue; Pat Johnson, 1518 Albemarle Way; spoke: ■ The project is too big for the area (too much square footage). ■ Concerned that the tree matter has been decided. ■ Concerned that there will be no buffer between the condominium building and the single-family residences on Balboa Avenue. ■ Concerned about parking impacts. ■ Concerned about impacts upon the waterway. ■ Concerned about the additional density in the area. ■ Was turned down previously; this larger project will not fit into the area. ■ If she were to be improving her property she would look at the neighborhood character. ■ There are two to three trees on the alley that should be pruned. ■ Feels the trees should not be removed; they should remain as a buffer. ■ More and more people work from their apartments; this impacts the privacy of neighboring properties. ■ If the project is approved she will be looking at the back of the condominium project. ■ Concerned about capacity of the sewer and water systems — her property is at the high point at the end of the system. Has had a lot of trouble with the sewer system; has frequently backed up into her basement. ■ Concerned about the height of the building; the roofs and towers will only add to the apparent height of the building. ■ Concerned about the affordable housing aspect of the project; where can low-income and middle- class people live? ■ Lives in a construction zone; there have been a lot of small homes that have been sold and then removed to accommodate larger and larger homes for people with a lot of money. Not enough housing for people who are not very rich. ■ Street parking is a concern given the proximity to Ray Park; particularly during girls' softball. The additional people living within the condominium project will only exacerbate the problem. ■ Who is the property owner; when it is an LLC who else is a part of the ownership? ■ Where is the property line going to be once the properties are combined; at the center of the creek or at the northern creek bank? Where will the setback be measured from? ■ What is the possibility in the future that the creek will be covered in the future? ■ Whatever happens; when the properties are combined there should be a condition of approval that the creek remains uncovered. ■ When did it become a priority to develop projects over the preservation of trees? Wonders what is happening when the Buna Buna tree (which is in good condition) can be removed — it is historical and is a heritage tree? Why is this any different from the discussions we have with CalTrans regarding protecting the trees along El Camino Real? ■ There is precedent about possibly saving the tree and possibly some of the Cedars — referenced a property on Drake Avenue where the developer was required to post a tree -protection bond to preserve Redwood trees on the property. ■ With respect to the zoning and general plan amendments and the conditional use permit request; the project discussion indicates that the project complies with development policies. Why is the project taller than any other building present in the area? Other projects running down to Broadway are three -stories and built to 35-feet or less. ■ Is this project visually what the City wants to see in the area? 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 9, 2012 ■ What is the actual setback of the existing building — feels that the project is closer to the street than other projects in the area. ■ Feels the design is elegant but is too big for the property. ■ The trees should not be removed for the project. ■ The presence of trees in the area contributes to the elegant appearance of El Camino Real. ■ The height is inappropriate for the area. ■ Access to the property will be dangerous — the only way into and out of the property is a right -turn into and out of the property southbound. Will impact the neighborhood with circulating traffic. ■ Lives in the next block beyond the development site. Parking will be negatively impacted by the project. Objects to people parking in front of her house. ■ Parking at his property at 530 El Camino Real is not sufficient; there will not be enough parking for residents of the project. ■ Concerned about non-residents of her neighborhood parking in front of her property. ■ The creek looks terrible; curious what the current property owner will be doing with the creek. ■ Disagreed with Commissioner's contention that the City's parking standards are proven to be sufficient. ■ There is already a significant parking problem in the area. ■ Not certain that the expectation that parking for two cars is realistic. ■ Why can't the parking be provided below ground; this would also lower the height of the building. ■ Encouraged a "real -world" parking study for the project. ■ Concerned about the proposed rezoning of the portion of the property from R-2 to R-3; why wouldn't a person with an R-2 lot apply for a rezoning on Albemarle to increase the density? If this occurred, it would destroy the area. ■ The proposed building will be an eyesore; it belongs in a larger city. ■ Owns a property on Albemarle — objects to the proposed rezoning. ■ Requested a "zoning variance" in 1967 for a second unit, but was denied. Feels the rezoning will encourage others to make similar requests. ■ Concerned about soil quality in the area. Hired a soils engineer to evaluate foundation damage on her property. ■ The creek is not very stable; feels the project will increase the instability. ■ Feels that the project will impact the roots of existing trees in the area. ■ The project doesn't fit in the neighborhood. ■ Why is a new project being considered now five years after the prior project? Recalls that the Commission asked the developer previously to consider scaling the project down to respect the adjacent neighborhood. ■ The project is 50% larger than the prior proposal; the developer has totally ignored the prior direction of the Planning Commission. ■ Opposed to the proposed rezoning. ■ Feels that the noise factor from the project will be of concern and will impact her residence. ■ Lighting will impact the residents. ■ Concerned that the Acacia tree at the rear of her lot will be adversely impacted. ■ Concerned about the capacity of sewers in the area. • Not suitable for the area. ■ Referenced a drawing reflecting the retaining wall in the area; in 1993 a 60-foot segment of the creek wall collapsed and had to be re -supported. It rises no greater than four -feet above the water level. ■ Will the building be safe unless a geologic study is performed regarding the retaining wall impacts. • Would appreciate receiving notice more than ten days in advance. • Concerned about chemicals being released in the area during demolition. • Concerned about activities on the rooftop deck. • Concerned about traffic in the vicinity of the project. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes July 9, 2012 ■ Encouraged the Planning Commission to walk the area and assess the impact of the scale of the project upon nearby residents. ■ Encouraged the applicant to reduce the scale of the project. ■ Showed a graphic that represents how the project would look when set in context with the adjacent neighborhood. ■ Knows that the State has required all cities to look at the provision of housing units; this project would only increase the supply by four units. ■ Two of the parking spaces provided on the site are for guests; not enough. ■ Concerned about the increase in the number of new fixtures that will be draining into the sewer system. ■ Her sewer flows to the rear of her property; wants to ensure that her sewer is protected during construction; also wants to ensure that access to her sewer remains available. ■ Agrees with objections to the rezoning. ■ Asked the people at the adjacent market what they thought of the project; amazed that they did not know anything about the project. Noted that the market owner did not want the project to block the view of the commercial center. Seems strange that notice was not provided to the market owner. ■ Concerned about sewer impacts. ■ Surprised that the tree permit has already been permitted. The trees are important to her well being. ■ The project will increase the population on the site by 50%. Concerned about the rooftop open space. ■ Burlingame is beautiful because of its trees and architecture. ■ Building more condominiums in Burlingame is a bad thing for Burlingame. ■ Would prefer something of a much smaller scale. ■ Worried about the integrity of the creek. ■ Concerned about quality of life impacts. ■ Worried about water table impacts. ■ Concerned about privacy impacts upon her adjacent property. There would be no screening between the condominium and her property. Wants screening to protect privacy. ■ Concerned about light and noise impacts, particularly noise from air-conditioning units. ■ The garage will increase noise and lighting impacts. ■ Objects to changing the neighborhood. ■ Burlingame could lose its appeal to families with children. ■ The developers gain should not be the neighbors' loss. ■ Is a delightful neighborhood; removing the trees will impact the area. ■ Concerned about impacts upon trees on the other side of the creek. ■ Was present for the flooding when the retaining wall was installed. Additional Commission comments: Noted that a note from the City Arborist indicates that the tree removal permit will be held until a project is approved by the Commission. Additional applicant comments by property owners Pat Fellowes and Sherry Chou: ■ The building steps down in height from the tower element. ■ Noted that the step back of the building from the creek will ensure that trees on the north side of the creek will not be impacted. • The A/C units are on the rooftop, behind the mansard roof and will not impact the residents — will be assessed by an acoustical engineer. ■ Are connecting to a box -culvert in the street for storm water purposes. E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes July 9, 2012 ■ Note that his building at 1226 El Camino Real also has a rooftop deck — has not had problems with the deck at that location. ■ Indicated that there is a note in the packet from the adjacent market owner not objecting to the project. ■ Confirmed that the neighbor has an easement for her sewer line that will remain. ■ Trees on that property are 60 to 70-feet tall. ■ The building is setback from the creek and will be built on piers. ■ The building itself will be built upon the main lot — back in 1945 half of the creek was given to this property, but the zoning was not made consistent; are correcting this discrepancy now. • With respect to subterranean parking; are able to leave more yard area and will not flood adjacent properties — vehicles are parked in a smaller space. ■ The property line is in the middle of the creek — nothing can ever be built on the creek. ■ There will be no Section 8 housing on the property. ■ If improvements are needed to the sewer lines; then they will be required to do so. ■ The only 55-foot section of the building is the tower element. The architect felt that the proportions of the building would be off if it is not provided. The majority of the building is only 46-feet in height. ■ The prior project wasn't approved; just chose not to redesign the project at that time and withdrew the application. ■ There is plenty of parking provided. ■ The only trees being removed are the trees on the left-hand side of the project. The trees will not be removed until a project is approved. ■ Heard the same "too big for the area" comments with the prior project. Is the project appropriate for El Camino Real? It is not a Balboa Avenue project. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: ■ Requested clarification regarding the tree removal permit. (Fellowes/Chou—only for the trees at the front of the property; nothing is being removed from the rear of the property. No work is being done in the creek. Have cleaned up the area and eliminated debris that has been an eyesore. Will take measures to preserve and protect trees that are not subject to the tree -removal permit. Are aware of the flooding issues in the area; but the City has required compliance with State storm water measures to mitigate storm water impacts. Have designed the project to comply with applicable standards. The building at 1226 El Camino Real was the first to have rooftop open space — normal open space in the rear yard is typically not too useable — have received compliments regarding the deck area.) ■ Asked if the other project has an outdoor kitchen? (Chou — yes it does. Have rules in place to regulate tenant behavior. Intend to build this project in a similar manner. Have provided a variety of units within the project.) ■ How is the roof deck oriented? (Fellowes/Chou — is oriented towards El Camino Real; is not the entire roof.) Was the other project similarly built? (Fellowes/Chou — yes; there have been no complaints received. Residents cannot look down into adjacent yards.) ■ Feels that the trees along the alley provide screening for the neighborhood. ■ Provide detailed descriptions of the trees that are provided along the alley, on the property? How tall do they grow? Have a visual impact study prepared to assess impacts; perhaps even erecting story poles to adequately impact neighborhood impacts. • Doesn't see any other area that could appropriately changed from R-2 to R-3; a unique condition exists in this instance that is being corrected. Provide a better description of why this type of rezoning is not likely to apply in other instances. ■ Should be an analysis of sound impacts from the rooftop garden and equipment. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 9, 2012 ■ Provide a more detailed description regarding the restrictions on the use of the rooftop garden. ■ Assess sewer impacts. ■ Want to be certain that the retaining wall remains secure adjacent to the creek so that the outdoor area remains useable. Look closely at this design. ■ Require that story poles be installed to assist in an assessment of the effectiveness of the existing trees in screening the property from the adjacent low -density neighborhood. (Meeker — confirmed that this is within the purview of the Commission) Provide the rear, the north and the sides. Fellowes — Could be problematic.) ■ Noted that the three Black Acacias will not be removed as they are not on the property. ■ Provide an analysis of the potential parking impacts of the project. Look at existing parking supply versus new project's supply; take into account comparative unit sizes as well. ■ Look at potential impacts upon the intersection of Adeline/El Camino and Oxford/Cambridge. ■ Is a handsome building. Wants to see details regarding the window installations to review insets, etcetera. No action is required by the Planning Commission; direction was provided to the applicant, staff and environmental consultant as outlined in the public hearing discussion. This item concluded at 9:22 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: None. Actions from the July 2, 2012 City Council Meeting: The meeting was cancelled. FYI: 1361 Drake Avenue — review of requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: Accepted. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — June, 2012: Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Gaul adjourned the meeting at 9:23 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Rich Sargent, Secretary 11