Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 04.26.10 APPROVEDC� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES Monday, April 26, 2010- 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Terrones called the April 26, 2010, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Gaul, Lindstrom, Terrones, Cauchi, and Yie Absent: Commissioner Vistica Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; Civil Engineer Doug Bell; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Cauchi moved, seconded by Commissioner Auran to approve the minutes of the April 12, 2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: ■ Page 12, second bullet under Commission Comments; add "and should be exempt from the fire rating" to the end of the last sentence. Motion passed 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). 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. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING CODE) -AMENDING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF SUBAREA A OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA. STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Senior Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report, dated April 26, 2010. Commission comments: ■ Clarified that the area to be added lies to the north of Burlingame Avenue and west of California Drive. ■ Not certain that additional bars should be added to the mix; may wish to limit to only full -service and limited food service. 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 26, 2010 ■ Requested clarification of distinctions between bars and food service uses. (Meeker— indicated that the primary focus of a bar would be alcohol sales, though there may be incidental food sales. Food services uses may have incidental alcohol sales. Noted that the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Board (ABC) also has control over issuance of alcohol licenses and the census tract that includes Downtown Burlingame already has more establishments than currently allowed without adoption of a finding of public convenience and necessity.) ■ Consider allowing additional bars, but include language that limits to no more than two additional bars to be permitted out of the five total establishments provided for in the amendment. ■ The market will determine the types of uses that will be requested. ■ Feels there are enough controls over the number of bars with the ABC's involvement; support as drafted. This item was set for the regular Action Calendar, as drafted. This item concluded at 7:19 p.m. 2. 2309 HALE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND NEW DETACHED GARAGE (JACK MCCARTHY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MICHAEL AND STELLA DAIRE, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Senior Planner Hurin presented a summary of the staff report, dated April 26, 2010. Commission comments: ■ If a reciprocal driveway easement is provided, would that not eliminate the need for the Variance? (Hurin — the easement would be mitigation for the under -width driveway; a Variance is still required since the driveway width on the subject property remains substandard.) ■ The narrow width of the lots supports approval of the Variance. ■ The porch size is being reduced with the design; is there any reason that the existing porch couldn't be retained? ■ The plans call for foam trims with stucco finish; this is typically not accepted. (Meeker — noted that since the proposal is not subject to Design Review, the applicant may or may not choose to alter the plans to reflect the Commission's design concerns.). This item was set for the Consent Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:26 p.m. 3. 1744 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A COMMERCIAL RECREATION FACILITY (INDOOR TRAMPOLINE AND DODGE BALL) (TIM AND KELLY MANNING, APPLICANTS; WINGES ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; MP BUILDING INVESTMENTS, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated April 26, 2010. Commission comments: Has visited the Sky High facility in Santa Clara; can corroborate the driving patterns at the facility; vans are frequently used. There should be some clean up done on the property as part of the proposal. Does the wood slatting in the fence and the barbed wire need to remain? 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 26, 2010 ■ Feels the driving pattern will be somewhat different; there will likely be more cars dropping off at this location since many of the patrons will likely be local. ■ Feels that the circulation pattern in the parking area should be reversed; also look at queuing of patrons driving to the site. • Clarify changes being made to the exterior of the building; appears that some windows may need to be replaced. ■ Will there be mechanical equipment present at the exterior of the property; if so, where? ■ Clarify the landscape plan; will the existing Junipers at the front of the property remain? ■ There is a possibility for the Variance for the compact spaces to be eliminated; could move the parking spaces back on the property and bring landscaping forward on the property rather than providing all landscaping proposed at the rear of the site. ■ The manner in which the operation works supports the request for a Variance; the number of patrons is limited by the facility; the business plan may support the Variance request; the applicant needs to bolster this argument. ■ Should possibly be a right -turn only exiting the property from the north. ■ The applicant could assist the Commission by providing information from the traffic consultant regarding the appropriate parking ratio for this type of use. ■ The parking study demonstrates that the parking demand is to be much lower. ■ Should provide some bicycle parking areas. ■ There could be some cross -usage with other recreational uses in the area. ■ Will not be a Burlingame -only facility; will draw from other communities. This item was set for the Consent Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:45 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 Terrones asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. Commissioner Yie indicated that she would recuse herself from voting on Item 4b (1121 Drake Avenue) since she resides within 500-feet of the property. Commissioner Auran indicated that he would recuse himself from voting on Item 4b (1121 Drake Avenue), since he has a business relationship with the property owner. 4a. 1596 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DANIELLE CAPONI BOLLA, APPLICANT; LAWSON WILLARD ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT; ALYCE M. DENKE, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER 4b. 1121 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES WONG, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DIANA KO, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 26, 2010 Commissioner Lindstrom moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-2-1 (Commissioners Auran and Yie recused on Item 4b, Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:46 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 5. 1117 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A BASEMENT AND DIRECT EXIT FROM A BASEMENT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JING LING LO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; LI SHENG FU, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER (CONTINUED FROMAPRIL 12, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated April 26, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Jing Ling Lo, 1117 Balboa Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Could the backflow device be placed elsewhere on the property? ■ Is "Heavenly Bamboo" proposed as part of the landscape plan; how tall will it grow? (Lo — approximately four feet.) ■ Questioned why direct stairs to the basement are not always proposed? (Hurin — the Special Permit approach is used to provide another layer of review to prevent an illegal second unit.) ■ Would not normally allow a second stairway to the lower level due to concerns regarding second unit conversion. ■ Are trying to allow extra space that does not add to the bulk of the building; the second stairway should be eliminated. ■ Concerned regarding details; particularly dimensions of the eave fascia, attic vents, and corbels; feels some of the details are too small. These elements are on the most prominent side of the house (the front); doesn't appreciate the scale. ■ Felt that the corbel details are appropriately delicate in the gable area. ■ Details are still lacking on plans; particularly the sizing of materials. ■ Provide better details regarding the muntin pattern in the windows; perhaps a cut -sheet for the Andersen Windows proposed. ■ Believes that the corbel could be a bit thicker near the gable on the front. ■ Clarify the gable details and sizes. ■ If fascia goes to 2" x 12", the "Stick" style is lost. ■ Information is provided in mixed locations on the plans; not consistently represented on the plans. ■ Not supportive of the exterior stair to the lower level; there is already a second stairway to the area from the interior. Light and ventilation can be provided by a light well. ■ There will need to be a ladder in one light well or the other for secondary egress from the lower level. M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 26, 2010 Public comments: Katie O'Brien, 2204 Poppy Drive; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ Remembers the discussion regarding the discussion regarding basement access; concern about second units or access from the side so close to the neighbor's property. Need to be consistent. ■ Noted a discussion regarding a house being completed at Hillside Drive and Columbus Avenue; the discussion on that project included concerns regarding access to the lower level so close to the neighboring property; the request was denied in that instance, as well as another instance later. ■ There is a lot of water below the ground in the area; if a basement is built, make sure that the sump pump is located in the rear yard, not the side, to ensure minimal impact upon the neighbors. The applicant should conduct a hydrology study. ■ Applicant should analyze the cost difference between true divided light versus simulated true divided light windows. (Terrones — either is acceptable.) Additional Applicant comments: Have had a soil engineer analyze the proximity to the water table. Will clarify the window style. (Terrones — will need to indicate clearly on the plans.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran moved to deny the request without prejudice. The motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Auran moved to continue the request with direction to the applicant to make changes as requested. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: Doesn't have a problem with denying without prejudice; the applicant has consumed a lot of time, new fees may be appropriate. Support continuance; has been to a design reviewer, additional details are needed. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-0-1. (Commissioner Vistica absent). This item concluded at 8:19 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 1349 DE SOTO 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, CHU DESIGN AND ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DANIEL J. STRAMBI, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated April 26, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 26, 2010 Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Have spoken to neighbors on both sides of the site; they seem supportive. Noted that the windows will be simulated true divided light windows. Wish to change from horizontal siding to shingle siding. Commission comments: ■ Appreciates the front porch. ■ How will the gable be finished? (Chu — will be horizontal siding.) ■ Difficulty understanding the need for the declining height envelope Special Permit; it is a new house, could be designed without the request. Likes the design, is a good looking house. ■ There is reduced lot coverage due to the design. ■ The house is only two square feet below the maximum square footage permitted; should prove that the declining height envelope request is warranted based upon the neighborhood character. Provide information to demonstrate that the declining height envelope request is warranted given the architectural style of the residence. (Chu — eliminating the request would result in a less desirable gable design.) ■ Demonstrate how much of the gable area encroaches into the declining height envelope. ■ The dormer seems oddly placed or dimensioned, results in an oddly proportioned room. (Chu — attic space is present above the foyer.) ■ The dormer looks a bit small compared to the gable end on the right. (Chu — will review.) ■ Asked if corners will be capped with the shingle siding? (Chu — yes.) Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Approval of a request for a Special Permit for declining height envelope can result in sky view impacts; what views will be lost by the neighbor? Need to be sensitive to granting deviations from declining height envelope for new construction. 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 Cauchi. Discussion of motion: Would like to see the area violating the declining height envelope delineated. There is more yard area left available by permitting the declining height envelope encroachment. Chair Terrones 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 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:37 p.m. W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 26, 2010 7. 1435 BENITO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND BASEMENT CEILING HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JACK MCCARTHY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND KIERAN WOODS, PROPERTY OWNER) (37 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated April 26, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Jack McCarthy, 5339 Prospect Road, San Jose; represented the applicant. ■ Met with neighbors and redesigned the house based upon their concerns. ■ The garage works on the lower side of the lot due to the natural grade; another location would require higher retaining walls; moving the driveway to the left would be difficult and would likely damage the neighbor's garage. ■ The neighbor feels that a rail should be provided adjacent to the window well, rather than the stone - faced wall on the left side. ■ The roofline was dropped about two feet. ■ The verticality of the home was reduced to make it blend better with the street. Commission comments: Entry now looks busy; liked the entry and shutters proposed previously. On the left side, is there a way to break up the wall; could a different profile be provided between the first and second floor near where the bathtub projects from the second floor. (McCarthy —could pull the wall back 8-12 inches and provide a continuous fascia line along the left elevation; could also fine a way to extend first floor roof eave across the projection.) Public comments: Tracy Borman, 1426 Alvarado Avenue; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; and Mike Reitsma, 1431 Benito Avenue; and Tim Henn, 1445 Benito Avenue; spoke: ■ Concerned about the height of the new structure; the new home will continue to impact view from property behind on Alvarado; the basement appears to be the reason for the additional height. ■ Project should comply with the 30-foot height limit. ■ The applicant has not really worked with the neighbors; didn't visit the home behind on Alvarado Avenue. ■ Be sensitive to the concerns of the neighbors and the context. ■ Is a spec home; need to be especially sensitive to the neighbors' concerns. ■ The brunt of the impact will be upon the property at 1431 Benito Avenue. ■ The second story of the new home has been set back two feet to address the neighbor's view concerns from that perspective; however, something similar needs to be done on the first floor. ■ Not as concerned about the absolute height of the structure, more concerned about the height closest to 1431 Benito Avenue. ■ The basement area is exempt from FAR, though it will have a height of 9'-3"; is this consistent with the intent of the basement exemption? 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 26, 2010 ■ Likes the open rail design for the window well, not the solid stone -faced wall. ■ Feels that the window well could be considered a covered projection that should be subject to the setback requirement; though staff indicated that it is exempt from the setback restriction. ■ Would like to ensure that the rear grade is below 1431 Benito's garage's wood siding. ■ Provided landscaping suggestions. ■ Footprint of the new design still impacts 1431 Benito Avenue. ■ The Special Permits for the basement height and overall height appear to be an attempt to increase square footage. The basement could be more deeply excavated. ■ Narrow the front of the house on the first floor by two feet. ■ Change basement window well back to open rail. ■ Install story poles to demonstrate impacts upon neighbors. ■ Implement landscaping suggestions from owner of 1431 Benito Avenue. ■ Applicant worked with owner of 1445 Benito Avenue; though he would appreciate story poles to demonstrate building impact. Additional Applicant comments: ■ If the lot were flat, the structure would only be 30-feet high; it is the City's method of measurement from average top of curb that causes the deviation from the height limit. ■ The rear of the house is only two feet above natural grade; will need to excavate to make the home fit to the lot. ■ Efforts have been made to minimize height relative to the grade of the lot. ■ Will consider reducing the roof pitch in an effort to reduce roof height. ■ Will look at adjusting the slope of the lot to reduce view impacts upon the home to the rear. ■ Noted that the Henns would like to see their garage reconstructed as a part of the project; the applicant will work with this neighbor to achieve this goal. Additional Commission comments: ■ Do the stairs at the rear of the home enter the patio at grade? (McCarthy — yes that is why a retaining wall is provided at that location.) ■ What is the height of the existing house? (McCarthy — existing roof ridge is at elevation 169.4' or approximately 25 feet above average top of curb level.) ■ Wouldn't it be better to cover more of the lot to reduce massing? (McCarthy — Would only be possible on the left rear of the lot, unless the home is dug further into the lot.) ■ On the driveway on the right-hand side; what is the drop off from one property to the other? (McCarthy — will try to provide more of a level flow for the driveways leading to both garages.) ■ Likes the style of the house, but people need to explore different styles of architecture to better fit with the lot. ■ Flat roofs are present in many types of architecture; should not be completely discounted. (McCarthy — concerned about the view from above.) There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: The design isn't "there" yet; the design could be done without the exceptions; not pleased, could use another style. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 26, 2010 ■ Doesn't disagree that there may not be a different design approach; but this is not a view lot, need to consider the applicant's arguments given the character of the lot; there are no grounds for protecting views in this instance. ■ There is an argument for the Special Permit requests given the slope of the lot; the means of measuring the building height is a bit too simplistic in this type of instance. ■ The adjacent houses have first floors that are significantly elevated above the street; the floor of the applicant's design is brought down; the height for the full two-story design is only roughly five feet greater than the adjacent homes. ■ Reducing height further will require significantly more excavation of the site. ■ Not comfortable asking for design changes based upon view issues. ■ Views are not protected in this location; can't ask more of the applicant. ■ If the drawing provided by the neighbor is accurate, the new home looks bulky; is there anything that can be done to reduce the mass and bulk? ■ The roof pitch change suggested by the project architect will significantly reduce the building height. ■ The applicant has done the best he can to work with the criteria. ■ Attempt to reduce the mass and bulk by using more of the lot. ■ Change back to a rail at the front of the window well on the left side. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: Can support the motion; feels the project architect will respond to the concerns raised by the Commission. Feels there are special circumstances to allow the increase in height. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. 8. 2300 POPPY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AND REMODEL WITH A PLATE HEIGHT GRATER THAN 9'-0" (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BRAD AND SUZANNE CRAIG, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated April 26, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. The project was initially intended to improve the kitchen functionality. There is already an existing interior stair that leads to the basement; but had to be removed to accommodate improvements to the kitchen. There will still be an interior stair; the exterior stair is proposed to permit ease of moving items in and out of that space. E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes April 26, 2010 The change in the code in recent years resulted in the basement now being counted toward floor area; the home may have conformed prior to FAR restrictions. The deck removal reduces FAR. Commission comments: ■ Where is the reduction in floor area coming from? (Grange — comes from reducing the area under the new front door that reduces the basement area. Hurin —the Special Permit is not required for the stairway from the lower level, because it is not currently considered to be a basement, but is actually a lower floor.) ■ Need to clarify the calculation regarding the reduction in floor area. ■ There is support for the Variance application due to a reduction in the non -conformity with the maximum FAR restriction. ■ Commented that since the lower level is not considered to be a basement, bedrooms could be placed in the area. (Meeker — yes, this is true; restrictions applicable to basements do not apply in this instance.) ■ Feels the elevations are nicely done. ■ The hardship has been created by the change to the code in recent years. ■ Noted that the former City Arborist supported removing "Black Acacias". ■ The rear yard is quite small; the proposed trees do reduce the usability of the area. ■ Can't support the outdoor side stair; could promote activities that could impact neighbors. ■ Could widen the interior rear stair to improve access to the lower level. ■ Feels that taking up more yard area for the exterior stairs is impacts the usability of the lot. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Questioned the policy regarding posting of sites that are only substantial reconstruction and new construction; should be a policy discussion at a later date. 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 Lindstrom. Discussion of motion: Remove the exterior stairway. Chair Terrones 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 6-0-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:56 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes April 26, 2010 There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of April 19, 2010: ■ Noted that Commissioner Vistica was re -appointed to the Planning Commission. ■ A finding of Public Convenience and Necessity was adopted for alcohol sales at Walgreen's, 1160 Broadway. FYI: 814 Crossway Road — review of changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. FYI: Peninsula Hospital — change to exterior of building: ■ Schedule for public hearing particularly regarding the fire lane; though there will be some comments regarding the exhaust stacks. Clarify changes to the elevations as shown on the plans. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 9:59 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Yie, Secretary 11