Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout Min - PC - 2011.07.25C CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES Monday, July 25, 2011— 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Vice -Chair Gaul called the July 25, 2011, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Cauchi, Gaul, Lindstrom, Terrones and Vistica Absent: Commissioner Yie Staff Present: Community Development Director William Meeker; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; Planning Manager Maureen Brooks, and City Attorney Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Approval of the minutes of July 11, 2011 was deferred until the August 8, 2011 meeting due to a lack of a quorum of Commissioners that were present at the meeting. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Auran moved and Commissioner Terrones seconded the motion to move Agenda Item 8 (Telecommunications Ordinance) to the beginning of the agenda. Motion carried on a voice vote 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie absent). Commissioner Gaul moved and Commissioner Terrones seconded the motion to move Agenda Item 9 (1032 Balboa Avenue) to fall immediately following Item 6. Motion carried 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie absent). V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items for review. 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. There were no Consent Calendar items for review. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 25, 2011 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 8. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 25.77 TO THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE LOCATION OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME STAFF CONTACT: GUS GUINAN Commissioner Cauchi indicated that he would recuse himself from participating in the discussion regarding Item 8 (Telecommunications Ordinance) since he has business relationships with telecommunications providers. He left the City Council Chambers. Reference staff report dated July 25, 2011, with attachments. City Attorney Guinan presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. He recommended that the Commission take public testimony, provide feedback and pose any questions to staff. The City Council has indicated that it wishes to conduct a study session regarding this matter in the upcoming weeks. Noted that the Commission will not be taking action upon encroachment permit applications pending before the Public Works Department. If any action of the Public Works Department is appealed, then the matter would be considered by the Planning Commission. Questions of staff: ■ Who will determine if an applicant has adequately responded to any concerns expressed by residents related to a particular installation. (Guinan — the Community Development Department — Planning Division would be responsible.) ■ Noted an error in a cross-reference contained within the draft ordinance. (Guinan — noted that the error would be corrected.) ■ Noted that most electrical and telecommunication is underground or at the rear of homes; placing these items in the public right-of-way, within public view is contrary to the City's policy. ■ What will happen when technology improves and makes all of these installations unnecessary. ■ Clarified that a copy of the City's current public right-of-way policies for such installations was provided. (Guinan — yes.) Vice -Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Public comments: Tom Shea, 2204 Easton Drive; Steven Lamont, 1915 Adeline Drive; Doug Luffman, 2615 Easton Drive; Mark Wilson, 1613 Ray Drive; Matt Mandel, 2515 Hayward Drive; Eric Huang, 1343 De Soto Avenue; William Sexton, 2540 Valdivia Way; Jessica Mullin, representing Extenet; Matt Oshinsky, 2505 Adeline Drive; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Barbara Kieri, 2408 Easton Drive; spoke: ■ Received a notice regarding an installation on De Soto Avenue that was near his house, then another one on Easton Drive, but didn't receive a notice for that item; was proper noticing provided? ■ How far does the signal transmit from these installations? ■ Six sites are planned on upper Easton Drive — why is so much extra equipment being installed when much of the service will be provided to Hillsborough and San Mateo. ■ All of the companies are rated — consider limiting the companies to those that are highly rated. ■ Major concern relates to the creeping incrementalism of what is being done by the utility provider to the utility poles — more guy wires, poles and other appurtenances will be needed to accommodate the installations. Will be an increasing eyesore. ■ What are all of the utilities going to be doing to the utility poles within the next few years? 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 25, 2011 ■ It may be time to require all utility lines to be buried. ■ This ordinance is a good start, but is the beginning of a longer process. ■ Have had some frustration in working with the City — often time the response is that there is nothing that can be done because the City is pre-empted by the Telecommunications Act — he has found full authority for cities to limit installations. ■ The City should be as aggressive and as complete in its regulatory approach as possible. ■ Concerned regarding the noticing process. ■ There is a lot of misinformation being disseminated. ■ Aesthetics is not the only issue — is the installation really necessary, must document the need. ■ Have looked at the matter from not only a resident's standpoint, but also from a legal standpoint. ■ The City is permitted to inquire why an installation should be in a specific area and/or not co - located. ■ Referenced two Ninth Circuit rulings regarding City authority to regulate the installations. ■ Applauds the use of the San Carlos ordinance as a model, but should also look at Hillsborough and Glendale. ■ Has yet to receive a notice of installations within 300-feet of his property. ■ Provided a copy of a letter he drafted to the Commission. ■ Requested that the City consider a moratorium on approving installations until an ordinance is in place — referenced Glendale's approach to the issue — a moratorium was instituted. ■ This is the first that has been heard of the proposed ordinance. ■ Reasonable time, place and manner restrictions may be imposed by the City. ■ There is substantial evidence in the written record of capacity issues and aesthetics. ■ Are there gaps in existing service, or gaps in proposed service? ■ Clarify that the ordinance will require confirmation of gaps in existing service. ■ Suggested requiring a bond, looking at other health and welfare effects, look at height restrictions. ■ Suggested requiring installation of story poles to determine visual impacts. ■ There is serious competition amongst the telecommunications providers — referenced download speeds of different providers. ■ Come up with an ordinance that will fit with long-term goals. • Citizens of Burlingame should not be a victim of the companies. ■ Addressed a particular installation proposed near his residence on Valdivia Way. ■ Referenced the methodology for determining the appropriate location for installations — Extenet's installations are not as sensitive to location requirements — the company should have the burden of showing that the particular site is the least intrusive location for the facility. ■ Wireless providers must provide information showing that less sensitive locations have been considered. ■ On behalf of Extenet, agreed with postponing deliberations on the proposed ordinance. ■ Also agreed with completing processing of existing applications under the current City policies and procedures. ■ Noted that the City's staff report accurately represents the authority provided to the City for regulating such installations. ■ Extenet strongly opposes any moratorium — the current process provides adequate regulatory authority to proceed with current applications. ■ Time for the City to put the brakes on the process. ■ The City has a duty on behalf of the citizens to protect its residents. ■ The process to date seems like it has been on "auto -pilot". Inadequate noticing has been provided. ■ Someone in the City government needs to step back and re-evaluate the process. ■ If as a consensus in the City, the City must explain its legal strategy on how to approach this issue. ■ Must be certain that the City is on sound legal ground to battle the companies involved. ■ Thanked the Commission and the City Attorney for getting ahead of the situation early. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 25, 2011 ■ The Commission has been working on this issue and continues to do so. ■ Doesn't think that a moratorium is inappropriate — don't need to move full speed ahead on something that is not fully understood. Must make decisions with full information. ■ The City Council will likely schedule public hearings regarding the issue. ■ Has not received notification of the proposed installations. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments: ■ Asked for clarification regarding the method of notification for the current applications? (Guinan — Public Works used the regular 300-foot noticing radius. Meeker— not certain if the typical blue card notice was used since Public Works coordinated the noticing.) ■ Expressed concern about the increase in the number of telecommunications installations. Peoples' acquisition of the latest phone technology have contributed to the need for increases in infrastructure. ■ Is not certain that there is a consensus of opinion in the community — have a need to do what is right. ■ The City needs access to expertise in the field — something needs to be in the ordinance to provide for independent review of applications and for addressing the interests of neighbors. Should be part of the application fee and borne completely by the applicant. ■ What will the permit fee be for such installations — typical fees are related to the construction cost, but these installations have minimal construction cost. There needs to be some study of the appropriate fee for processing the applications. ■ The aesthetic issues and the addition of more installations must be adequately reviewed and considered. ■ This is a significant issue for the community. ■ Is it possible to consider a moratorium. (Guinan — will review and determine if it is possible. It would be a complete bar from allowing any installations during that period.) ■ How can the utility companies install the equipment at ground level when City policies require installations to be underground? ■ Can the League of California Cities be involved? (Guinan — has been involved in the past with some limited success.) Public hearing was reopened: Deirdre Shaw, 2536 Valdivia Way; spoke: ■ Provided photos of the proposed installations in her neighborhood. ■ Provided photos of the impacts upon the view from her neighborhood to demonstrate the potential impacts. ■ Has lived in the City since 1996 — bought their home for the view and the neighborhood. ■ Disturbing to see the proposed installations outside of her window. ■ Is a citizen that loves the City and feels like it is being sold out. ■ Supported a moratorium on the installations. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: E, CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 25, 2011 Noted that some of the residents concerns have been addressed in the draft ordinance.\ There remains a lot of discussion ahead on this topic. Commissioner Gaul moved to continue the public hearing to a future date. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: Is a moratorium still possible? (Guinan — will review and consider.) Will different neighborhoods be notified section by section? (Guinan — noted that the specific pending applications are not before the Commission this evening. The Commission may ultimately sit as the quasi-adjudicatory body making a decision regarding appeals. Sites that are the subject of pending application have been noticed. Know of no other applicants for other facilities coming forward at this time.) Vice -Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Yie absent, Commissioner Cauchi recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:18 p.m. Commissioner Cauchi returned to the dais. 1. 1037 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOSEPH IMBELLONI, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER (Item continued from July 11, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting) Reference staff report dated July 25, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: Noted that the lot was originally part of a larger parcel; were there any conditions of the subdivision that would have applied to the application? (Strohmeier — unknown.) Vice -Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Applicant has improved the design. ■ Encouraged inclusion of front porches on future projects as well. ■ Likes to see larger front porches and even using some of the FAR to accommodate that element. (Chu — encouraged the Commission to review the Zoning Ordinance limitations to increase exemptions from FAR for front porches.) ■ Noted that front porch exemptions were considered by the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee. ■ A front porch can provide the illusion of more room to use. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 25, 2011 A porch makes for a much softer relationship with the street — can also provide an "outdoor room" that is very useable space. Public comments: Anna Marianella, 1028 Cortez Avenue; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ Still a proponent of homes not being built to the maximum FAR. ■ The front of the home looks flat; the front door seems vulnerable to the sidewalk. ■ Older homes were built much higher up, perhaps because of the proximity to Sanchez Creek. ■ Hoping that the Commissioners are aware of the "flavor" of the prior Commission discussion regarding the project. ■ Curious regarding any conditions related to the prior subdivision of the property. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: The new home has a lower lot coverage calculation than the existing home. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 12, 2011, sheets A.1 through L2.0 and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 26, 2011 memo, the City Engineer's May 25, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's May 2, 2011 memo, the Parks Supervisor's May 4, 2011 and June 1, 2011 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's April 27, 2011 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 25, 2011 venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. Vice -Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:32 p.m. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 25, 2011 2. 2300 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND REMODEL (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BRAD AND SUZANNE CRAIG, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER (Item continued from July 11, 2011 Planning Commission Meeting) Reference staff report dated July 25, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Vice -Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Noted that the applicant is actually asking for two stairs down to the lower level — doesn't argue that the stairway wouldn't have ordinarily been allowed; however, the building exceeds the FAR limit. This application is unique because of how much is being asked for with the application. (Grange — definitions aside; the property owner would need to break the law to convert the space into a second dwelling unit.) ■ The house is large and not articulated well — the applicant is asking for more than what most people have. Others have only a stairway within the interior of the home, as this home currently has. (Grange — noted that the definition of a basement changed previously — the area would not have counted as floor area at that time.) ■ Are penalizing the applicant for a pre-existing condition. ■ Is not having two stairs to a lower level really a penalty? ■ Is still additional construction on a lot that exceeds the FAR. (Grange — how is the stairway associated with the FAR?) Is still pushing the envelope of the house further out to the limits. Public comments: Jess Myres, 2304 Poppy Drive; spoke: ■ There is an approved main entrance within the main building. ■ The lightwell was provided for fire exiting purposes. ■ What is the current setback; does the stairwell entrance exceed the setback? He had to build his addition to comply with the declining height envelope and other setbacks. (Strohmeier— noted that the sunken stairwell doesn't affect the side yard setback.) ■ Given the make-up of the addition, then what is the purpose of the already approved interior stairwell —why should another stairwell be added? Sounds like the applicant is attempting to create an in-law apartment. ■ He would be subject to the traffic of people moving up and down the stairs — if to be approved, then it should be moved to the Columbus Avenue side, it would eliminate impact upon his property. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 25, 2011 Additional Commission comments: ■ Doesn't see the need for a second stairway. • The home already exceeds the FAR — the change would add to a design that is already unacceptable. ■ Have been consistent in disallowing a second stairway to areas with bathrooms and bedrooms in the lower level. ■ Agrees with the opinions expressed regarding the massive design of the house, but can't find a reason for the stairwell given the interior stairs. ■ If it doesn't contribute to FAR, then doesn't know why it can't be accepted. ■ Not worried about the potential for a second dwelling unit. ■ Thinks the house is massive and bulky and the stair is not adding to the mass and bulk. ■ Doesn't know of anything in the Building Code or Fire Code that would prohibit a second access as proposed. ■ Originally approved with a light -well. ■ There is hardly anything left of outdoor space on the lot. Commissioner Terrones moved to deny the application with prejudice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Vice -Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the application with prejudice. The motion passed 4-2-1-0 (Commissioner Yie absent, Commissioners Lindstrom and Vistica dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 3. 1361 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FORA NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHELSEA MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 25, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Vice -Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments: E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 25, 2011 ■ Will the front hand rail require more intricate balustrades? (Grange — if more than 30-inches above grade, will require more intricate balustrades. Also provided examples of rooflines on other projects that have been more complicated.) ■ Suggested a spark arrestor on the chimney cap. (Grange — will actually be a terracotta pot.) ■ Encouraged building up the area adjacent to the porch to avoid the need for a guard rail. ■ Why is the home so close to the maximum FAR? (Grange — in order to achieve the desired look the FAR was needed.) Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 13, 2011, sheets Al. 1 through A3.3, A4.1, 1-1.0 and 1-2.0; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that a terra cotta pot will be provided as a chimney cap and the landscaping shall be revised to eliminate the need for a guard rail on the front porch; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 13, 2011 memo, the City Engineer's May 31, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's May 16, 2011 memo, the Park Supervisor's June 29 and May 16, 2011 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's May 16, 2011 memo shall be met; 6. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 7. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 25, 2011 venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 13. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 14. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 15. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 16. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 17. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. Vice -Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes July 25, 2011 (Commissioner Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:08 p.m. 4. 1360 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHELSEA MILLER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; TRG ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 25, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Vice -Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road represented the applicant. Commission comments: Noted that an error in the brick finish was noted as stone. (Grange — is an error, will be brick.) Why are garages being built at 427 square feet? (Grange — because of the space needed to allow for the finishing of the interior. The extra square feet come out of the house FAR.) Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Was under the impression that if a new home is being built, there would be a discouragement of special permits for declining height envelope. Assumes that there is some compelling reason for the special permit request in this instance. (Commissioners — noted that the special permit in this instance has less of an impact upon neighboring properties. The architectural style necessitates some special consideration in order to accommodate a "Four -Square" design on a 50-foot wide lot. Semi -reluctantly agreeing in this instance in order to promote architectural diversity. Does not mean that this type of style will always warrant a special permit for declining height envelope.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: The home is 400-feet below the maximum allowable lot coverage. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped July 13, 2011, sheets A3.1 and A3.2; and date stamped June 27, 2011, sheets Al. 1 through A2.2, A5.1, L1.0, L2.0 and Boundary and Topographic Survey; 2. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 25, 2011 Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 3. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 30, 2011 and May 13, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's May 26, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's May 16, 2011 memo, the Park Supervisor's May 17, 2011 and June 29, 2011 memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's May 16, 2011 memo shall be met; 5. that any recycling containers, debris boxes or dumpsters for the construction project shall be placed upon the private property, if feasible, as determined by the Community Development Director; 6. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 7. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 8. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off -site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2010 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the applicant shall provide a certification by the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, that demonstrates that the project falls at or below the maximum approved floor area ratio for the property; 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 25, 2011 13. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. Vice -Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:17 p.m. Commissioner Vistica indicated that he would recuse himself from the discussion for Item 5 (1395 Burlingame Avenue) due to a past business relationship with the applicant. He left the City Council Chambers. 5. 1395 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (KARIM SALMA, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; TIM RADUENZ, FORM + ONE, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN (Item continued from June 27. 2011 Plannina Commission Meetina) Reference staff report dated July 25, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Vice -Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Karim and Riyad Salma, 1105 Burlingame Avenue and Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road; represented the applicant. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 25, 2011 ■ Referenced letter responding to Commissioner concerns. ■ Noted that there doesn't appear to be a question regarding the appropriateness of the location for a restaurant. ■ Understands the Commission's concerns regarding tying up an approved conditional use permit for a period of three years without identifying a tenant. ■ Could be time for the City Council to consider a shorter permit timeframe for this type of permit. ■ Agreed to an initial permit term of one-year with the opportunity to request a six-month extension, if needed, prior to expiration. ■ Noted that the City Attorney has agreed that a voluntary acceptance of the condition by the applicant would be a binding commitment. Commission comments: ■ Noted the ordinance that extended the timeframe for permit approvals. Noted that extension of permitting timeframes was set for expiration two -years following the effective date of the ordinance. ■ Appreciates the applicant's good faith effort to commit to the limited timeframe. ■ If a restaurant can be made to work there, it would be a good location — much more satisfied as the application is currently presented. ■ There is no reason for the applicant not to find a tenant as soon as possible. Public comments: Angie Holman, Floribunda Avenue and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ Noted a prior moratorium regarding restaurant locations. (Meeker — noted that the same restrictions remain in place. This application takes the last space available.) ■ Had concerns previously, but appreciates the applicant's efforts to address the timeframe issue. ■ How will a restaurant moving into the space be vented and have its trash removed? ■ Will the space be improved as a restaurant then be tenanted? ■ Questioned what would happen to Aida Opera Candies? There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped May 20, 2011, sheets T1.0, A1.0 through A3.0, AND, E-1 and OL; 2. that the term of the conditional use permit shall be one year from the effective date of the Planning Commission's approval, pursuant to the consent of the applicant expressed on the public record; with the opportunity for one, six-month extension of the permit approval in advance of its expiration, if needed; 3. that this business location to be occupied by a full service food establishment, with 1,818 SF of customer seating (1,608 SF within the tenant space and 210 SF in the interior common courtyard of the existing building), may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service food establishment or bar upon approval of a conditional use permit amendment for the 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 25, 2011 establishment, and the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 4. that the 1,818 SF area of on -site seating of the full service food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; 5. 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; 6. that 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; 7. that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 8. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 9. that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 10. that any seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; 11. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 26, April 27, and January 27, 2011 memos, the City Engineer's May 31, May 3, and January 31, 2011 memos, the Fire Marshal's January 31, 2011 memo, the Parks Supervisor's February 1, 2011 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's January 26, 2011 memo shall be met; and 12. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 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 Cauchi. Discussion of motion: ■ There will likely be a design review application that may come forward on this space in the future. Is the first step to allow the building owner to move forward with the tenancy. ■ Feels that the approval will put other Sub -Area A property owners at a disadvantage. ■ There will need to be changes to accommodate the trash enclosure. ■ Won't know about the ultimate configuration of the tenant space until a tenant is selected. ■ This applicant is taking the last space, but is making an effort to move forward. ■ The applicant feels confident that a restaurant can be secured. ■ The City can always agree to open up more spaces. Vice -Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 4-1-1-1 (Commissioner Yie absent, Commissioner Vistica recused, Commissioner Gaul dissenting). Appeal 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 25, 2011 procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. Commissioner Vistica returned to the dais. 6. 1400 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (WHICH WICH? SUPERIOR SANDWICHES) (STEVE RYLKO, RYLKO BUILDERS, INC., APPLICANT; CURTIS ARCHITECTURE, INC., ARCHITECT; AND PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT CENTERS. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated July 25, 2011, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine (9) conditions were suggested for consideration. Questions of staff: None. Vice -Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Darryl Putnam, 1400 Howard Avenue; represented the applicant. Noted the elimination of the restroom, and hence the elimination of the concern regarding blockage of the window area. Added more seating in the area formerly occupied by the restroom. Commission comments: ■ None. 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: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped June 2, 2011, sheets A-0, EG-1, A-1, A-3, A-4, A4.1, A4.2 and SD1, sheet A-2, date stamped July 13, 2011 and revised floor plan date stamped July 18, 2011; 2. that the food establishment shall not exceed 1,228 SF including customer seating, kitchen and food preparation area; 3. that the food establishment may not be open for business except during the hours of 10:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days a week; 4. 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; 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 25, 2011 5. that 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; 6. that seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; 7. that any changes to the floor area, use or hours of operation which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 8. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 2, 2011 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 6, 2011 memo, the City Engineer's June 15, 2011 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's May 31, 2011 memo shall be met; and 9. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 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 Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Vice -Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 1032 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING. DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated July 25, 2011, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Questions of staff: ■ None. Vice -Chair Gaul opened the public comment period. James Chu, 1032 Balboa Avenue; represented the applicant. ■ Has lived in the home for the past 10-years. ■ Is in poor shape and is proposing a new Colonial -style home. ■ Special permit is requested due to the propose style — the neighbors have expressed no concerns. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 25, 2011 Commission comments: None. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke ■ Is asking for a special permit for a new house. ■ There is very little variation provided in Colonial -style architecture; very similar to other projects by the applicant. ■ Finds it humorous that the "Cape Cod" style is proliferating in the neighborhoods. ■ Burlingame has become a living textbook of various architectural styles. ■ Complimented the interior floor plan. ■ Now that he is designing a home for himself; is pleased to see that he is incorporating many of the suggestions of the Commission into the home design. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: Asked fora couple of homes at 1017 and 1021 Balboa Avenue to determine if special permits were approve for declining height envelope in those instances. Vice -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 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:52 p.m. Vill. REGULAR ACTION (continued) 7. DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AND HOUSING ELEMENT ZONING IMPLEMENTATION - PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 25 — AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING CODE TO INCLUDE NEW ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND A REFINED LIST OF USES ALLOWED WITHIN DIFFERENT AREAS; ADD REGULATIONS RELATED TO HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS TO COMPLY WITH STATE HOUSING LAW, AND AMEND THE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLES OF THE BURLINGAME DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report dated July 25, 2011, with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Commission comments: Are there restrictions for signage for corner store retail? (Brooks — would be restricted to the sizes that would be permitted in a residential area. Will review to ensure that there are no changes required to the sign ordinance. Illuminated signage would not be allowed in residential districts.) 19 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 25, 2011 With respect to financial institutions in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District; could there be a limitation on the square footage allowed? Doesn't like what is happening at Howard and Primrose with a concentration of banks adjacent to the core area. (Brooks — could make it a conditional use permit so that the vault location could be addressed.) Could see allowing small footprint financial institutions on Burlingame Avenue. (Brooks — could consider but would need direction from the Commission.) Could limit the size to perhaps 1,000 square feet. If there is a second dwelling unit allowed on a 6,000 or greater square foot lot, then the combined FAR would have to be within the code limits? Could there be an argument made by property owners of 5000 square foot lots that their income potential for their property is reduced because of the threshold? (Brooks — yes, the main house and the second dwelling unit would have to fall within the FAR regulations. Was more a concern regarding the limitations on the impact of second units on smaller lots upon the neighborhood. State law allows discretion in creating regulations that balance community impact. Guinan — as long as there is a rational basis for distinction, it wouldn't be considered discriminatory and the regulation can be justified. Brooks — other communities have applied similar standards.) The impact is all proportional given the overall limitation on the maximum FAR. Requested clarity regarding the number of restaurants (Brooks — the restaurants added and subtracted from the list are all existing restaurants, the change only reflects the change in boundaries of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District). Vice -Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Public comments: Nancy Dobson, 716 Burlingame Avenue and Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue; spoke: ■ Live in an area that is convenient to walk to Downtown — concerned regarding the inability to review the information. ■ Concerned regarding the safety of people that must cross the railroad tracks to access Downtown. ■ Concerned about adding more high -density housing to the area near the train station. ■ Staff for the summer camps use the on -street parking and prohibit the streets from being cleaned. ■ Noted that height limits were restrained in the Anita Road area adjacent to the prior speaker's neighborhood. ■ The new reduced parking standards will not apply to the Myrtle Mixed -Use Zone and Anita Road area. ■ Agreed with the 6000 square foot lot size threshold limit for second dwelling units. ■ Thanked Commissioners Vistica and Terrones regarding their review of the proposed amendments, particular regarding the setback on El Camino Real. Since the area is not residential, there is less chance for intrusions into the setback area and there should be adequate room for tree canopies. ■ Noted that elsewhere in the City there is a landscape requirement for 10% of the setback area, but for the few parcels on El Camino Real it doesn't appear to be included. Some type of landscaping should be required where there is a minimal setback. ■ Thought that there was a reference to minimizing egress onto El Camino Real where feasible, in order to preserve the trees and minimize curb -cuts. ■ Hopefully future work on signage will address El Camino Real issues. ■ With respect to corner store retail, doesn't believe such a business can survive without alcohol sales; is there a public process to allow public input. ■ It would be nice to allow a corner store within some of the small bungalows in order to preserve the structures. 20 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 25, 2011 Is the lack of a setback for corner stores a detriment for an adjacent multi -family residential use that may exist next door? Additional Commission comments: Appreciates the input from the residents. With respect to the alcohol matter, there is a public process. (Guinan — the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC) has sole authority to issue alcohol permits. As a practical matter, Burlingame is an area of overconcentration of licenses — in this instance, the local legislative body must adopt a finding of public convenience and necessity prior to permit issuance. If a location were to open in an area that does not have an undue concentration, then the ABC would be allowed to issue the license. Meeker — noted that the ABC determines overconcentration by census tract.) A new commercial building can be designed to be a good neighbor and an asset to a neighborhood. If the corner store is separate, it would be subjected to design review. Additional public comment: John Root, 728 Crossway Road and Neil Dobson, 716 Burlingame Avenue; spoke: The plan and the implementing regulations are intended to provide good direction regarding how development is to occur. Agrees with the policy direction of the Downtown Specific Plan. Was the area east of the railroad added to provide more opportunities for housing? (Brooks — was included to provide the opportunity to better accommodate the mix of uses that are currently present.) Asked about the emergency shelter mandate? (Brooks — noted that the designated area to comply with State regulations and the Housing Element is in the north end of the Rollins Road area near the BART station.) Further Commission comments: Thanked Jennifer Pfaff and John Root for their contributions to the Downtown Specific Plan process as members of the Citizens Advisory Committee. Clarified that the area east of the railroad tracks was added to improve the connection to Downtown. Noted that there are buildings in the Myrtle Road area that were converted to multiple units with no additional parking, and new projects with the current parking standards would have reduced parking impacts. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. More Commission comments: Noted that the matter of allowing financial institutions of limited floor area and landscaping in setback areas of commercial zones require further discussion. Noted that in commercial areas, want to use the build -to line to provide wider walking spaces and seating areas, landscaping would not be precluded, but might be best to review landscaping on a case by case basis as a part of the design review process (Meeker — could request staff to make the change regarding financial institutions and move it forward to the City Council with the revisions.) 21 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes July 25, 2011 Commissioner Terrones moved to recommend to the City Council, approval of the amendments, with the following revisions: ■ Add financial institutions of limited floor area as a conditional use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District with a report back to the Planning Commission on the final recommendation to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Vice -Chair Gaul called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval to the City Council. The motion passed 6-0-1-0 (Commissioner Yie absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:43 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 July 18, 2011: ■ None. XII. ADJOURNMENT Vice -Chair Gaul adjourned the meeting at 10:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Tim Auran, Secretary 22