Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 06.14.10 APPROVED0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES 1.Monday, June 14, 2010 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Terrones called the June 14, 2010, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Gaul, Terrones, Vistica and Cauchi (arrived at 8:07 p.m.) Absent: Commissioners Yie and Lindstrom Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Planning Manager, Maureen Brooks; Associate Planner, Erica Strohmeier; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Approval of the Minutes of May 24, 2010 was deferred until the next regular meeting on June 28, 2010, due to the lack of a quorum of members present at the May 24t" meeting. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Terrones moved to revise the order of the agenda to move Item 7 (1352 Vancouver Avenue) to the beginning of the agenda. The motion was seconded by Commissioner A uran. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-3 (Commissioners Yie, Lindstrom and Cauchi absent). Commissioner Vistica Moved to continue Item 7 (1352 Vancouver Avenue) to the meeting of June 28, 2010, due to a lack of a quorum of members who can participate in the discussion (Chair Terrones and Commissioner Auran will need to recuse themselves from the discussion). The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-3 (Commissioners Yie, Lindstrom and Cauchi absent). V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: Encouraged members of the Planning Commission to suggest that the City Council require erection of story poles on City property to demonstrate the impacts of an aerial structure for high-speed rail; this could also be done near the Broadway crossing. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. BURLINGAME DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING TO COMMENT ON DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND SPECIFIC PLAN - STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION —Approved Minutes June 14, 2010 Planning Manager Brooks presented a summary of the staff report, dated June 14, 2010. Ms. Brooks introduced Kevin Gardiner of Metropolitan Planning Group, who provided an overview of the draft "Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan". It was also noted that Rachel Schuett of PBS&J, the environmental consultant for the plan, was present to respond to any questions regarding the environmental analysis for the document. Commission comments: ■ Noted that the process to prepare the plan was long; started the process in small steps; took a bit of time to get to the later stages of formulating recommendations that reflected the vision of the Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC). ■ The CAC came to realize that it is important for the City to "lay its cards on the table" to create a framework that facilitates development to occur. ■ Feels that the mitigation measures are sound. ■ Is the environmental document based upon full build -out or partial build -out? (Brooks — the analysis is based upon the "focused development alternative" that focuses development around Howard Avenue.) ■ In view of recent projects; particularly one in the vicinity of the 1200 block of El Camino Real; should provide opportunities for rooftop open space. (Brooks — this can be added into the implementation stage of the plan.) ■ Consider screening of rooftop mechanical equipment. (Brooks — can be dealt with at implementation.) ■ Encourage smaller parking space sizes. (Brooks — are currently considering small parking space sizes City-wide; this can be brought forward as part of the implementation package.) ■ Noted that the specifics will be dealt with during the implementation. (Brooks — will be brought forward within the next year). ■ Impressed with the amount of work that has been done on the plan; appreciates the effort to look at reducing the number of parking spaces. ■ Only concern is the cost of implementing the plan; be creative in identifying financing strategies. ■ Some of the burden can be placed on developers (particularly with respect to streetscape improvements) when there is clear policy and regulatory direction provided in the plan and the implementing standards in consideration of the fact that the entitlement process will be simpler for developers. Public comments: Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue; Andrew Wallace, 816 Howard Avenue; Dale Meyer, 100 El Camino Real; Jenny Lau, 816 Howard Avenue; Mary Hunt, 725 Vernon Way; John Root, 728 Crossway Road; Charles Voltz, 725 Vernon Way; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Bobbie Benson, 550 El Camino Real; Richard Sofos, 35 Genevra Road, Hillsborough; spoke: The CAC felt that the City "has a good thing going"; there was a focus to build upon the strengths of the downtown, without impacting what currently works. An asset of the downtown is the small parcel sizes; this ensures a "fine grain" for development in the downtown. On Howard Avenue, small lots were joined together in recent history, and the street was widened; is most concerned that as larger -scale development occurs, be mindful of the proportions of the historic development within downtown. (Terrones — emphasized the CAC's interest in ensuring that the plan "holds together" as it is implemented.) 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION -Approved Minutes June 14, 2010 ■ Likes that buildings are pulled forward to the curb -line; would hate for projects to be formulaic; look at the block within which development occurs for guidance. ■ Plan for light and open space; perhaps provide opportunities for pocket parks. ■ Is concerned about the 55-foot height limit; wants to be certain that the massing is handled in a manner that provides interest in the design and also provides for light and air. ■ The CAC did discuss "percent for art" and park programs; there should be a mechanism for funding for these purposes. ■ With respect to street trees; wants to be certain that more significant tree canopies are created; trees need to be sized in proportion to the scale of the street; ensure that the City's street tree policies continue. ■ Noted that there are problems with the transition between the 55-foot height limit and the residential areas outside of the plan area to the east of the Anita triangle to ensure a good transition. ■ Do we really need to remove all of the City's sidewalks; consider cutting a pattern to facilitate the installation of infrastructure and incorporate the fill material in this area into the streetscape; could reduce cost and add interest to the streetscape. ■ Expressed concern with respect to the proposed 55-foot height limit along Howard Avenue; hopes that this will be subject to a conditional use permit. ■ Thinks that the opportunity for payment of a parking in -lieu fee should be extended beyond the "parking sector" shown in the plan. ■ City Council has indicated that it does not want high-speed rail to separate the community; but the 55-foot height limit proposed in the plan will do the same thing. (Terrones — noted that design review will be required for all projects within the downtown area; this will help to ensure that massing within the height limit is handled in a sensitive manner.) ■ Noted the rooftop garden at 1226 El Camino Real that is an example of a beautiful rooftop garden. ■ Supports the idea of the expanded level of design review. ■ Likes the emphasis on streetscape and open space. ■ Appreciates the emphasis on bicycles. ■ Supports the elements of the plan that create special places; like Hatch Lane. ■ Many of the measures identified in the plan will not require a lot of funding. ■ The plan will provide consistency and a lack of confusion for developers; also ensures continuity of policy direction in the future. ■ The "800-pound gorilla in the room" is high-speed rail; looking at the detail in the environmental document, could be dramatically changed with implementation of high-speed rail; coincides with the timeframe of implementation of the plan. ■ With respect to bicycle and pedestrian improvements in the plan; a good start, but more needs to be done. Need to look at the "Complete Streets Act"; requires compliance when significant updates to circulation elements of general plans are done; this will be effective in January 2011. ■ Is a great plan; the CAC worked very hard on the plan. ■ The plan brings greater density into the downtown as "transit -oriented development". ■ CalTrain is in a lot of trouble; not certain that it will be able to continue its operations in the upcoming years; there is no dedicated funding. If it is going to cease operation; an exit strategy should be created by the organization; all agencies undergoing transit -oriented planning efforts in the area should be informed of this strategy in order to be able to plan for it. ■ The 55-foot height limit by right is not in the City's best interest; the Planning Commission and City Council membership could change in the future. Projects that require a conditional use permit don't seem to come back for amendments. Should retain the 35-foot height limit for all of downtown, with the opportunity for a 55-foot height limit by conditional use permit. ■ On California Drive, Howard Avenue and Chapin Avenue; the stateliest trees that can be found should be used to work with the scale of the streets. ■ Agrees with the road -diet on California Drive; should be implemented as soon as possible. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION —Approved Minutes June 14, 2010 ■ Need to look at shadow -casting from structures; if all of the buildings were built like the Masonic Building, would change the character of the downtown. ■ Provide a community bulletin board within the downtown area. ■ Be certain that the City is in line to acquire the post office if it becomes available. ■ Need more four-hour parking spaces; we are losing patrons to other cities that have greater parking time frames. ■ Don't plant trees in raised planters; plant them in the ground. Provide irrigation systems that can be maintained by Public Works. ■ Need wider sidewalks on El Camino Real; existing sidewalks in the area are dangerous. ■ Need to provide opportunities for public art within the downtown. ■ News racks need to be of a uniform standard and maintained. ■ In favor of allowing 55-foot heights in the downtown area; the success of the design is dependent upon the designer's creativity. ■ Uphold the City Council's desire to require hose bibs on commercial projects. ■ Utilize the airspace above the City parking lots for development or open space; this would beautify the area south of Howard Avenue. ■ Seems that the taller mixed -use buildings get; the smaller the proportion of retail provided. Need to ensure that significant retail is provided with this type of development. ■ Retain the auto dealers. Chair Terrones closed the public hearing. Additional Commission comments: Asked if there is any flexibility in the proposed building height, or are developers allowed to build to the height? (Terrones — noted that the 55-foot height limit is not applied throughout the downtown; areas where this height is possible [R-4 incentive area south of Howard and Howard Avenue Mixed - Use Area] are still subject to design review by the Planning Commission.) Even at 55-feet by right; the intent is that the massing must be correct and reviewed and approved subject to design review. (Brooks — noted that the design guidelines chapter provides guidance to the Commission and developers.) This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when complete and ready for consideration by the Commission. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:27 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. 2a. 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: RUBEN HHRIN E, CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION —Approved Minutes June 14, 2010 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 Auran. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Yie and Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:29 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 1553 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ROSS A. JONES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DIANA C. JONES, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated June 14, 2010, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven (7) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Ross Jones, 215 Lena Lane, Petaluma; represented the applicant. Commission comments: Requested clarification of the need for the Variance. (Meeker — provided clarification that the request memorializes the existing substandard garage space as supplying the additional space for the additional bedroom.) Asked if the garage is actually used for parking? (Jones — noted that one car is in the garage, but one does sit on the street.) Public comments: Art Citron, 1579 Columbus Avenue; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Chris Knightly, 1365 Columbus Avenue; spoke: ■ The existing property cannot accommodate the needed parking; the garage has not be used for parking; opposed to the request. ■ Feels that the utility room will also be occupied as a bedroom as well; expects that any car will be parked on the street. ■ Believes there is probably an ordinance that prohibits parking of the vehicles at curbside. • In the past there was an ordinance prohibiting overnight on -street parking; it was no longer enforced and has since been stricken from the code. ■ Doesn't object to the Variance; most neighbors park in front of their own homes. Additional applicant comments: Noted that the utility room cannot legally be used as a bedroom; does not have adequate egress per the building code. Additional Commission comments: 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION —Approved Minutes June 14, 2010 Asked for an explanation of the reason for not modifying the garage to extend the length of the space. (Jones — the utility area provides the primary means of access to the rear yard from the interior of the home.) There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 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 May 21, 2010, sheets Al through A4, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 21, 2010 memo, Fire Marshal's May 24, 2010 memo, City Engineer's June 3, 2010 memo and Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's May 25, 2010 memos shall be met; 3. 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; 4. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date, the Parking Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 5. that demolition or 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; 6. 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; and 7. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: Vehicles are getting smaller, doesn't see a real problem with the substandard depth garage space. Have an obligation to look closely at the application; there is no interior space in the garage structure that is being altered; the existing home is squeezed on the property. The placement of living space and the structures limits the ability to expand the parking space. There is an exchange of space occurring to create the new bedroom; no additional square footage is being created. The garage is already too close to the front property line. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Yie and Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:42 p.m. 4. 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED AA — APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCE FOR A NEW WALL SIGN ABOVE 24 FEET ABOVE GRADE (PAUL SALISBURY, DWA ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION —Approved Minutes June 14, 2010 ARCHITECT; HARBOR VIEW HOTELS, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated June 14, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four (4) conditions were suggested for consideration. It was noted that staff suggests reviewing the matter this evening, including taking any public testimony; but defer action until the June 28, 2010 meeting to provide the opportunity to provide public notice to a broader noticing area that was defined when the matter appeared on the Commission's agenda previously. Commission comments: ■ Felt that the item should not be discussed this evening since additional noticing will be provided prior to Commission action. ■ Should have the City Engineer evaluate the difference in intensity between neon illumination and the proposed LED illumination. ■ Provide details of the sign that was present on the property prior to the former "Sheraton" sign. ■ Provide information regarding the color of the sign; the Sheraton sign was bright red; if the new sign were in a less intense color, could be more acceptable. ■ Since the applicant has not altered the proposal in response to the prior Commission discussion, it is difficult to move forward with the application. ■ Do not see why the signs cannot be smaller or located lower on the building. ■ The applicant only supports the request with statements that the hotel needs identity from the freeway; will open the door to similar discussions with other hotel uses. ■ Not something the Commission can move forward with until there is some change to the proposal. Commissioner Cauchi moved to continue the item to provide the opportunity for broader public notice of the item, as previously directed by the Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Gaul. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-0-2. (Commissioners Yie and Lindstrom absent). The Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:52 p.m. 5. 1160 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW ALCOHOL SALES IN AN EXISTING DRUG STORE (WALGREENS) (WALGREENS CO., APPLICANT; JEAN SCHULZ TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated June 14, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four (4) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Commission comments: 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION —Approved Minutes June 14, 2010 Asked if this was the typical sequence for this type of request. (Meeker— explained that this item is out of sequence; typically, the request for a finding of Public Convenience and Necessity would be presented simultaneously with the request for a Conditional Use Permit.) Asked about the number of alcohol permits in the area. (Meeker — noted that the number is included in the Police Chief's evaluation of the request.) Dan Kramer (Haas Najarian LLP), 58 Maiden Lane, San Francisco; and Chris Benson, Walgreens, 1160 Broadway; represented the applicant: ■ Limited sales are to be provided; no hard liquor sales. ■ Does not object to the proposed conditions. Commission comments: How is the control of alcohol handled by underage clerks? (Benson — will only permit 18-years old and older sell alcohol at the check-out stand.) Noted that the applicant indicates that the advertising will be kept to a minimum; how will this be handled. (Kramer — is a very ancillary use for Walgreens; will not dedicate a large portion of the window space for this purpose.) Noted that the entitlements for the store required visibility into the store from the sidewalk; this effectively limits window signage. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: With respect to advertising beer and wine; most of the signage is provided by the distributors. Typically there is minimal advertising of the alcohol products. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: that the Conditional Use Permit shall apply only to the Walgreen's drug store and shall become void if the Walgreen's drug store ceases, is replaced by a permitted use, is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; 2. ensure that any actual alcoholic beverage window displays be kept to a minimum to discourage theft; 3. the interior and exterior designs of the building should include camera monitoring and recording to assist local law enforcement in the suppression of crime and the identification and apprehension of violators of the law, in or outside of the business; and 4. the company shall support efforts of the ABC, the Burlingame Police Department, and local schools related to student education in the areas of alcohol awareness, danger and avoidance, and education awareness about the dangers of DUI driving in local high schools that have teenage students at (or near) driving age. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION —Approved Minutes June 14, 2010 Discussion of motion: Noted that if conditions are not complied with, the item could always be brought back for review. Noted that this is one of the smallest Walgreen's stores; anything that can be done to ensure the viability of the use is appropriate. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Yie and Lindstrom absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 2525 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ADRIAN HURIN, CHALK LINE DETAIL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND ALFRED AND NANCY JOE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (49 NOTICED) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER (CONTINUED FROM MAY 24, 2010 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — INCORRECTLY NOTICED AS 2525 POPPY DRIVE) Reference staff report dated June 14, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Commission comments: Noted that the justification for the variance was the fact that the parcel is a corner lot, and that the storage area adjacent to the garage door is counted towards the floor area; could this area be excluded from the floor area as basement space? (Strohmeier — will analyze this further.) Adrian Hurin, 317 North Delaware Street, San Mateo; represented the applicant: Noted that he had discussed the storage area adjacent to the garage with staff, but will review further. Commission comments: ■ Deck is shown at the first level, but there is nothing actually there; is this also included in the floor area; where did it go? (Hurin — the deck is being built currently; the original deck was simply a landing. The new deck is being built as a separate project with a separate building permit; shown as existing since it will exist by the time the project is approved. Strohmeier — will not add to the floor area, but does count toward lot coverage.) ■ There is a stacked stone wall shown on the landscape plan; is the patio in that area going to be extended, or will the patio be removed? (Hurin — the stacked stone is an elevation divider; will need to look at this element.) ■ Consider placing the rail on the Adeline Drive side of the lot further into the lot, and provide a planting area on top of the existing retaining wall. ■ Also on the Adeline Drive elevation; on the upper balcony, there is an existing wrought -iron rail; would prefer retaining the wrought -iron rail rather than what is proposed; will help to tie the design together. E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION —Approved Minutes June 14, 2010 ■ Will look closely at the massing of the house; so need to look at design features such as the railings to reduce massiveness. ■ Relocating the entry is a good idea; it works with the layout of the house. However, revisit the stone turret at the entry porch on top of the wood columns; it appears a bit abrupt; look at transitions in this area. ■ Thinks that the heaviness of the solid balcony rails along Adeline Drive should be reviewed; make the rails as light as possible. ■ Agrees that the entry stonework could be handled more gracefully to integrate it into the building design. ■ Provide a sample of the stone material. ■ With respect to the plate height; the proposed plate height is shown at 9-feet, 8-inches; clarify. (Hurin — needed to create a transition to permit the roofline of the structure transition properly. Provided coves and steps to permit transitions to occur. That height is proposed throughout the addition; the existing plate height will be maintained throughout the remainder of the house.) ■ On the southern elevation; the belly -band in the center is discontinued in the center section of the house; that change breaks up the mass. Perhaps consider at the lower elevation to break up the garage mass as well. ■ The heaviness of the stone and the asymmetrical shape of the columns makes the turret look disproportional and heavy. Public comments: None. 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 Regular Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Commissioners Yie and Lindstrom absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. 7. 1352 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (STEPHEN GARDNER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; RICARDO TERRONES/CARLOS ROJAS, DREILING TERRONES ARCHITECTURE, INC., ARCHITECTS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Continued to June 28, 2010 (see reference under "approval of agenda'). X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION —Approved Minutes June 14, 2010 XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of June 7, 2010: ■ The City Council introduce the proposed ordinance allowing up to five (5) additional food establishments within Sub -Area A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District. The matter is scheduled for a public hearing and adoption on June 21, 2010. FYI: 1365 Columbus Avenue — requested changes to a previously approved Design Review project: ■ Accepted. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — May 2010: ■ Accepted. ■ Suggested that staff send an advisory note to the hospital noting that the screen on the fence may be creating noise problems referenced on the complaint log. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 9:32 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stanley Vistica, Vice -Chairperson 11