Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 10.26.09 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGAME APPROVED MINUTES „ Monday, October 26, 2009 - 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Terrones called the October 26, 2009, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Terrones, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: None. Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Planning Manager, Maureen Brooks; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Cauchi moved, seconded by Commissioner Vistica to approve the minutes of the October 13, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: ■ Page 3, fourth bullet under "Further Commission comments",- replace "size" with "number" in reference to bathrooms. ■ Page 3, fifth bullet under "Further Commission comments",- revise to read: "Appreciate the larger porch that provides an outdoor space" ■ Page 5, first paragraph after item heading; revise first sentence to read: "Reference staff report dated October 13, 2009, with attachments, including memorandum from the City Attorney providing guidance regarding required variance findings that verifies that approval of the proposed property division is not a fundamental property right". ■ Page 8, third bullet from top of page; revise to read: "Given the complexity of the issues around parking and views; before making a decision regarding the lot division, there should be more information regarding the actual applications for development of the lots, prior to making a decision" Motion passed 7-0. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR None. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items for review. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 26, 2009 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. Item 1 (12 Vista Lane) was pulled from the Consent Calendar and moved to the Regular Action Calendar since action on the item requires a roll call vote of the Commissioners. There were no other Consent Calendar items. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1. 12 VISTA LANE — ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION MEMORIALIZING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S OCTOBER 13, 2009 ACTION RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE FOR LOT FRONTAGE AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP APPROVAL FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 12 VISTA LANE; STAFF CONTACT: WILLIAM MEEKER Community Development Director Meeker and City Attorney Guinan noted that the Commission is simply considering adoption of a resolution that memorializes its October 13, 2009 actions approving the requests for a Variance and Parcel Map. A public hearing is not required, nor has the matter been noticed as a public hearing; in fact, consideration of the resolution is not an opportunity for Commissioners to change positions regarding the actions, add additional findings, or solicit additional public comment; the Commission should only review the findings in the resolution and confirm the accuracy of the findings in support of the Commission's majority action. Reconsideration of the matter would require a new, duly noticed public hearing. Commissioner A uran moved to adopt the resolution memorializing the Planning Commission's October 13, 2009 action recommending to the City Council, approval of a Variance for lot frontage and Tentative and Final Parcel Map approval for property located at 12 Vista Lane. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a roll call vote on the motion to adopt the resolution. The motion passed 4-3 (Commissioners Brownrigg, Cauchi and Terrones dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. At the request of Mark Bender, 520 South El Camino Real, San Mateo; representing owners of 16 Vista Lane; the following public comments were accepted "from the floor" regarding the resolution memorializing the Commission's action regarding 12 Vista Lane: The findings do not provide an adequate explanation of the substantial property right demonstrated to support approval of the Variance from lot frontage requirements associated with the Parcel Map. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 26, 2009 The findings do not adequately demonstrate the existence of a hardship to warrant approval of the requested Variance; in fact, several Commissioners indicated that the applicant had created a self- imposed hardship. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. 2. 843 CROSSWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FORA FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (REBECCA AMATO, AMATO ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND WHITNEY AND DENIS MURPHY, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated October 26, 2009, with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Commission comments: Clarified the differences in the floor area calculations for the project; what is calculated as living space by the Planning Division is somewhat different from habitable space as determined by the Building Division. Rebecca Amato, project architect, 668 Fairmount Avenue, Oakland; represented the applicant. Are reducing the mass and bulk of the structure through removal of a portion of the structure and converting existing space within the building envelope into habitable space. Have made modifications to the design to reflect the Commission's direction from the study meeting; however, the Juliet balcony has not been expanded; the owners wish to maintain the privacy with their existing neighbors. Are attempting to restore the original architectural details of the home. Additional Commission comments: Clarified that the existing attic space is being converted to living space. On the east elevation, under the Juliet balcony; is there more detail available regarding the windows and doors? (Amato — all of the windows will be replaced in the structure; will be installing decorative, divided light windows. Grid windows will be provided at the top; owners want the windows to be kept fairly open to enhance views into the courtyard.) Is leaded glass proposed on the window on the east side elevation, near the front? (Amato — yes.) Concerned that the window will not be structurally sound; would like detail submitted to the Commission as an FYI. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, based upon the following findings: that floor area ratio (FAR) is an imperfect measurement used to constrain overly massive or bulky homes; in this instance, bulk and mass is being removed from the structure, existing attic space is being 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 26, 2009 converted to living space without adding to the mass; the existing below grade space which counts in floor area does not contribute to the mass, and also the rear elevation is being enhanced with the changes; will look less massive when complete; additionally, the lot coverage is being reduced. Approval shall be subject to the following conditions: that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped October 16, 2009, sheets A-3.0, A-3.1 and A-3.2, and date stamped October 2, 2009, sheets A-0.0 through A-2.0, A-4.0 and A-5.0; 2. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Floor Area Ratio Variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 3. 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); 4. 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; 5. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 24, 2009, July 22, 2009 and August 25, 2009 memos, the City Engineer's May 12, 2009 memo, the City Arborist's May 6, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 27, 2009 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's April 24, 2009 memo shall be met; 6. 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; 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 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 FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION Ir CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 26, 2009 11. 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; 12. 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 13. 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 Yie. Discussion of motion: The project does not increase the structure's footprint on the property. The slope of the lot creates an additional hardship affecting the areas that are counted towards FAR. The existing home is situated on a corner lot and was built prior to current FAR restrictions. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. 3. AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING CODE) TO INCREASE THE INITIAL TERM FOR LAND -USE APPROVALS GRANTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL FROM ONE-YEAR TO THREE -YEARS, AMENDING THE TERM FOR EXTENSIONS OF THE TERM FOR LAND -USE APPROVALS FROM ONE-YEAR TO TWO -YEARS, AND TO MODIFY THE APPEAL PERIOD FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPLICATIONS FROM SEVEN -DAYS TO TEN -DAYS. WITH RESPECT TO THE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE TERMS FOR LAND -USE APPROVALS (INITIAL TERM AND EXTENDED TERM), A TWO-YEAR SUNSET CLAUSE FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE AMENDMENTS IS PROPOSED. (NEWSPAPER NOTICE — SAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES 10/16/09) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated October 26, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Commission comments: Requested clarification regarding the impact of the sunset clause upon valid approvals. (Meeker — existing approvals would be permitted to run their term.) Would a two year initial term have caused the City Council to adopt the amendment without a sunset clause? (Meeker/Guinan — didn't appear likely.) Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 26, 2009 Thought that the initial term should be a two year period. The whole idea of the change is based upon economic conditions. Doesn't see a problem with the sunset clause. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Lindstrom moved to recommend to the City Council, adoption of the amendments to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Zoning Code) relative to time limits for land -use approvals granted by the Planning Commission, extensions of time limits for Planning Commission approvals, and clarifying appeal procedures for design review applications. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval. The motion passed 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:37 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 4. 107 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (UNA KINSELLA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DAVID AND DIANNE WILLOUGHBY, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated October 26, 2009, with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Commission comments: Where is the fourth bedroom? (Brooks — the den is considered to be the fourth bedroom.) David Willoughby, 107 Loma Vista Drive and Una Kinsella, 1033 Paloma Avenue; represented the applicant. Additional Commission comments: ■ Provide improved descriptions of trim details and finishing materials. ■ Nice design; appropriate for the neighborhood. ■ Wood -clad windows are called out; are they metal or vinyl clad? (Kinsella — has not yet been determined, depends upon the manufacturer and property owners' choice.) Vinyl -clad windows are strongly discouraged. ■ Having a master bedroom downstairs can be a problem for re -sale; has any thought been given to this? (Willoughby — have thought it through; is what he desires; plan to retire in the house.) W CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 26, 2009 ■ Is the semi -circle above the windows a stucco piece? (Kinsella — to keep the budget in line, have chosen square -top windows with an arched detail above the windows, in lieu of arched windows; could be a wood detail, would not be foam.) Call out the detail on the final plans. ■ What is envisioned below the water table? (Kinsella — likely to be a stucco band, and will return on the sides where visible from the street.) ■ Requested clarification regarding the cantilevered window seat on the second floor. (Kinsella —will likely be a high window sill, rather than a window seat. Widened the wall to improve the proportion. The room is actually narrower.) ■ On right elevation, what can be done with the second floor closet? (Kinsella — was attempting to prepare an efficient framing plan; didn't want the room to appear wider than needed; though the symmetry of the windows on either side would work. Feels it is placed far enough back that it will not be seen from the street, particularly with the landscaping in place.) ■ On the master bathroom; could move the toilet closer to the wall. Would not have the shower door opening toward the toilet. (Kinsella — interior details will be worked out as the design is being finalized.) ■ Is the tree along the side existing? (Kinsella — will be a new planting.) ■ Perhaps install a small window in the closet; could enhance the design. ■ Call out the window materials and the material used for the decorative features above the windows. ■ Look at the staircase window; appears a bit large for the front elevation. ■ Provide details of finishing, particularly the trellis columns, porch columns, and other features. ■ Take the water table around the side elevations to finish off the design. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: The applicants have exhibited great sensitivity to the neighbors. Impressed that the remodel falls 250 square feet below the maximum FAR. Good looking project. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called fora 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 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 5. 1441 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION QUALIFYING AS SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JAY TRYGSTAD AND THERESA HEI, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes October 26, 2009 Reference staff report dated October 26, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Have totally redesigned the layout of the home, and provided a new look. The Special Permit requested is common for this type of home; the new home is only 2.5 feet taller than the existing home. Are intending to upgrade all electrical and plumbing. Commission comments: Where is the closet for bedroom one? (Chu — there is no closet.) There is a large row of Oaks trees in the easement behind the house; landscape plan proposes a couple of Laurel trees; doesn't think that massive planting is required if the Oaks are remaining in place. (Chu — the Oaks will remain.) Public comments: Angela Valles, 1437 Balboa Avenue and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ The proposed footprint will place the structure 4.3 feet closer to property at 1437 Balboa Avenue; the driveway will be placed against the fence. ■ The proposed six-foot fence will be unattractive and will obstruct views of the sidewalk and street when exiting the driveway; the fence should not extend past the gate on the adjacent property at 1437 Balboa Avenue. ■ The driveway will be narrower and less likely to be used by the property owner. ■ The proposed curb cut will extend past the property line into the property at 1437 Balboa Avenue. ■ The fire hydrant exists near the neighboring property; will it be relocated, or will no -parking area be extended? ■ The fence at the rear of the property, near the garage, needs to remain at its current location; the neighbor bought her property with this condition existing. ■ The larger home will impact light and sky views from the adjacent properties; the additional chimney is unnecessary and impacts light to the adjacent property. ■ The additional height will affect the character of the neighborhood. ■ The proposed home is "cookie cutter"; the design is not someone's dream home; is a spec home. ■ Will remove another affordable house from the market. ■ The second -floor balcony will affect the neighbor's privacy at 1437 Balboa Avenue. ■ Nice design; but needs a bit of work. ■ Impressed that the project falls below the maximum FAR. ■ Believes that once work begins there will be a lot of replacement of walls occurring due to deferred maintenance over the years; second floor walls will likely all need to be replaced. ■ For all intents and purposes, will be a new house due to the deteriorated condition of the existing home. ■ The fence adjacent to 1445 Balboa Avenue should be rebuilt exactly as it stands currently; the garage at 1445 Balboa Avenue is off -set by one -foot and the land in this area has effectively been used by the neighbors; and can continue to be used in that manner. ■ Prefer that there is no lattice on top of the fence; maintain the fence at a six-foot height. 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 26, 2009 ■ Have the six-foot fence extend along the driveway and stop at the existing gate post. ■ Requested that if the hedge is replaced; but not with a fence; replace with landscaping. ■ Beyond the hedge is a picket fence that was installed about 15-years ago; but was previously a shared piece of lawn; is willing to get rid of plantings in that area, replaced with a grass strip if the property owners wish. ■ The PG&E pole is on the property line between 1441 and 1445 Balboa Avenue; there is lawn to be maintained on both sides of the pole. ■ When rebuilding the fence; the finished side is normally facing 1445 Balboa Avenue; however, when rebuilt 10-years ago, the unfinished side faced 1441 Balboa Avenue. When the fence is rebuilt want the grape stakes to be salvaged on the 1445 side so that they can be reinstalled. ■ During the fence construction; when concrete is placed in the ground, install a two to three-inch collar above ground to protect the wood post against rot; should be a condition of approval. ■ The Laurel trees are not appropriate under the Oaks; the Oaks cannot be touched without City approval, since they are on City property; they also appear to be heritage trees; they are currently maintained by PG&E. The Oaks provide privacy to adjacent properties. ■ The Laurel trees can grow to at least 30-feet with a 15 to 20-foot spread; inappropriate for the area. ■ The Arborist indicated that the street tree is to be replaced; Balboa Avenue is going through a discussion at the Beautification Commission for a tree theme; Catalpas are being requested. Dogwood trees are inappropriate for the area at the front of the property; will also obstruct views when leaving the driveway. ■ The Magnolia tree at the other side of the front of the property is also inappropriate; can grow to 80- feet with a 40-foot spread; will ultimately block the sun to a number of homes. ■ Provide tree protection for the birch trees on the property at 1445 Balboa Avenue. ■ The porch should run the entire width of the front of the house; suggest that the front door remain at its current location. ■ A sidewalk through the front lawn is not necessary; most homes in the area gain access to their porches from the driveway; this approach should continue. ■ Remove the left side chimney; it is only a gas vented fireplace; perhaps extend the roof overhang in this area. ■ Questioned the need for four and one-half bathrooms, not sustainable; consider removing the'/z bath on the first floor; the space occupied by the powder room can be captured by the closet and the foyer. ■ The kitchen is far removed from the dining room; does not appear to be a practical flow; could switch the stairway with the dining room. ■ The nook off of the family room could be removed; could eliminate deck impacts from the second floor. ■ Ensure that the utilities are quiet, even though they are to be on the opposite side of the house. ■ A nine and one-half foot wide driveway is not enough; no one will park deeper into the driveway, people will not move past the gate. ■ The dumpster should be placed on the property during construction in order to protect the street; should be a condition of approval. Additional comments from the applicant: Sent the neighbor a copy of the plans prior to submitting to the City, but did not respond. ■ The driveway is 11-feet wide, where a nine and one-half foot wide driveway is allowed. ■ Concurs with the need to have the fence stop at the gate to permit views of street and sidewalk. ■ The balcony is small, less than 60 square feet; not intended for group gatherings; privacy issues work both ways; could be mitigated with landscaping. ■ Is almost a new home; are forced to replace all ceiling joists and replace with floor joists. E CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 26, 2009 Is a private residence; not being built for re -sale. Will try to work out issues with the neighbors; particularly with respect to fencing and landscaping. Additional Commission comments: ■ Nice project. ■ Work with the neighbors regarding fencing and landscaping details. ■ Be aware of any issues with the Beautification Commission; particularly regarding the street trees. ■ Regarding the nook in the kitchen; pretty small, not large enough for a table and chairs. Could it be extended, and create a sitting room on the second floor, could be a compromise to protect neighbor's privacy from a balcony upstairs? (Chu — will consider.) ■ If the porch at the rear is "pulled back", could result in changes that improve the usability of the rear yard. ■ Agrees with neighbor regarding extension of the front porch across the front of the house. (Chu — will look into this matter.) ■ Agree with the comments regarding the fence heights. ■ With respect to gates; should be automatic if provided; they never seem to work; usually impedes the use of the driveway. ■ Like the powder room in the front. ■ Neighbor's points are not insurmountable. ■ Regarding the balcony off of the rear; a concern if it invades neighbor's privacy; important to consider. ■ Consider neighbor comments regarding the trees, Magnolia and Dogwood may not be good choices in the front yard. • Look at using a permeable surface for the patio. ■ Might prefer a pocket door at the powder room. • Make sure that there is tree protection for the Birch trees on the neighbor's property. ■ Revisit the chimney on the south side of the home, adjacent to 1437 Balboa; doesn't appear critical to that elevation. ■ Provide more detail regarding the stone veneer. ■ Extending the porch across the front could better ground the house. ■ Landscape architect will need to review the plant materials in the rear given the presence of the Oak trees. ■ Appreciates the way that the mass of the home has been centered on the lot. ■ Like the front door at its current location. ■ Like having a walkway provided to the front door. ■ The Oak trees establish a scale for landscaping at the rear of the property; is a nice feature of the neighborhood. 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. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 26, 2009 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 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:44 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 October 19, 2009: The public hearing on the appeal of 349 Lexington Way was continued to November 2, 2009 at the request of the appellant (property owner). FYI: 1462 Burlingame Avenue — review of required changes to a previously approved Commercial Design Review project: Accepted, but requested an amended FYI clarifying the design of the "black -out" material to be installed on the lower portion of the windows. Miscellaneous Comments: Questioned the signage for the Hilton hotel; will a similar sized sign be placed on the side of the building like the Sheraton? (Brooks — staff has been working with the owner regarding signage, but nothing has been finalized yet.) Asked that noticing to the affected neighborhood (Burlingables) be provided if an item appears before the Commission. Asked when the Commission will discuss the historic property issue? (Meeker — a discussion will occur before the Planning Commission on November 9, 2009.) Asked when will subcommittee discussions be scheduled? (Meeker — indicated that the Chairman still needs to prioritize which matters should be agendized for discussion.) XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 8:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sandra Yie, Secretary 11