Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10.14.08 PC Minutes - APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES Tuesday, October 14, 2008 — 7:00 p.m. City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cauchi called the October 14, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Lindstrom, Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Senior Planner Ruben Hurin III. MINUTES Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Vistica to approve the minutes of the September 22, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: ■ Page 2, Item 3: revise "Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing" to read "Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public hearing". ■ Page 4, Item 3: delete "appeal procedures were advised". ■ Page 4, Item 4: revise "Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing" to read "Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public hearing". Motion passed 7-0. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR None. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. REVIEW OF PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE FOR THE BURLINGAME DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN Community Development Director Meeker introduced Downtown Specific Plan Project Manager Karen Kristiansson and Consultant Kevin Gardiner. Ms. Kristiansson and Mr. Gardiner provided the Commission with a summary of the preferred alternative. Commission comments: ■ Indicated there would be no increase in the development capacity over what is currently allowed within the highlighted areas, but other policies regarding parking, streetscape improvements, etc. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 14, 2008 would apply. ■ Asked if specific plan is to be limited to only focused development areas (Consultant - additional development capacity is available within highlighted areas, but other policies would affect remainder of area). ■ Asked about housing impacts. ■ Asked how the parking factor would be revised under the new scenario for mixed -use development. ■ Asked how a development cap would be set — look at market potential or base upon infrastructure capacity. ■ Could see broadening the scenario to see where additional development could go. ■ Appreciated work that went into developing the scenarios. Concerned about confusion regarding use of the term "mixed -use"; different intents for Anita Triangle versus Auto Row areas. ■ With respect to the Anita Triangle area; differing heights are reflected depending upon if mixed -use versus purely residential. ■ Ratios are somewhat misleading; ratios are not related to number of units. ■ Questioned incentives that will arise from plan as it proceeds; interested more in discussing the actual incentives. ■ Decision makers need to decide to either create additional housing or is it to preserve character of downtown; if housing is the priority, then cap may be appropriate. However, focused alternative may be appropriate in the event that changing character of Howard Avenue is more desirable. ■ Clarified that Anita Triangle will be affected by changes in heights; shaded areas reflect only areas where there are increases in development capacity; no increase in density. What would impact be of promoting more housing in this area; focus could have been to make it more of a link to downtown. ■ Auto Row and California Drive in general should be a target for future boulevard plan. Would hope that this is kept in mind as next steps are identified. ■ What are the next steps once we pass this hurdle (Consultant - policies will be discussed to address streetscape, building design, parking, etc... Plan is currently being drafted). ■ There is still a lot of development that can occur in non -highlighted areas. ■ Suggested creating incentives across all of the study area and let the market decide. ■ Suggested bringing developers into the discussions as policies are drafted. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue and Jennifer Pfaff, 625 Bayswater Avenue spoke: doesn't want a loophole created in the future that allows more development than was ever anticipated. Asked if we may consider parking in -lieu fees that will allow for consolidation of parking into structures. How much population do we want to encourage in Burlingame? We have a 2% vacancy rate for residential units in the City. The demand is here for more housing; how many more units do we want to build? The north end is ripe for development. 55' is as high as we should really permit; discouraged allowing at 75' limit on auto row. Anita Road area is envisioned as more of a transition area that permits a mix of uses that allows up to 55' height; idea was to bring it down to 45' in height; parking is difficult in the area. The CAC did discuss incentives; 75' is not really done that frequently in Burlingame; idea was to lower height with no conditional use permit requirement, but with clear guidelines for development; can provide a more attainable goal for development in the area south of Howard Avenue to Peninsula Avenue. Incentives for development; consider a "% for plaza" program to fund construction of the public plaza area. Need a workable plan. No action was required on this item. The concept will be presented to the City Council on October 201" for review and comment. 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 14, 2008 2. 113 CRESCENT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH RECREATION ROOM AND BATHROOM AND SPECIAL PERMIT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ONSITE FOR AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GEURSE, GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, APPLICANTAND DESIGNER; AND TOM KIELY. PROPERTY OWNERI STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated October 14, 2008. Commission comments: ■ Clarify if carport next to garage will be removed. ■ Address the landscaping a bit more; looks like a lot of lawn; what will the landscape and hardscape be in the immediate vicinity of the structure. ■ Question about pool; have plans been submitted, timing for installation; there have previously been concerns regarding an accessory structure having bath facilities, lending to conversion to an illegal unit. ■ Concern about size of waste line; consider adding a bathroom to the house instead of in the accessory structure. ■ Questioned why we wouldn't simply identify it as a bedroom with bath. ■ What is the policy regarding toilets in the accessory structure. ■ Call out soundproofing on rear wall to mitigate noise impacts upon neighbor to the rear. ■ Would like to have plans modified to include construction of pool; include some sort of documentation that it will be installed. ■ Clarify that by converting the garage to one -car, future development (expansion) of the house will be limited. This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Division. This item concluded at 8:05 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 Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the Consent Calendar. There were no requests. Commissioner Brownrigg indicated that he would vote against item 3a; he felt that the project doesn't require a two car garage. 3a. 1008 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND ALVIN YANG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Auran 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 Yie. Chair Cauchi called for a voice 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 14, 2008 vote on the motion and it passed 6-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:07 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 4. 118 STANLEY ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (DANIEL AND SUSAN SCHOENTHALER, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated October 14, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten (10) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Michael Kaindl, JD & Associates, 875 Mahler Road; represented the applicant. ■ Due to the grading and keeping the garage slab at the level of the driveway, the doors must swing in unless further grading is required; also owners prefers doors to swing in due to narrow passage between house and garage. ■ Owner has a valuable vehicle that is a collector's item; further protection within the garage. ■ Tree is protected; not being removed. ■ Prefers garage to be two -car tandem garage. Commission comments: Asked if the garage door will hit the vehicle when parked in the garage (Kaindl - is a problem to be monitored by the property owner); questioned whether the structure is really a garage. Clarified that screened area will be installed past the first car to protect the collector car and keep children from getting to the car. Discussed grade difference and how it affects the swing of the door (Kaindl - if it were to swing out, would need to build a stoop). Public comments: Tom Bellucci, 114 Stanley Road; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; and Dan Schoenthaler, 1333 Bernal Avenue spoke: there are two trees that are close to his yard in the back -yard; they have grown significantly in the past 30-years and create a lot of damage to his yard. Three large roots enter his yard and are disturbing his fruit trees. Noted that cutting the roots will damage and weaken the tree, discouraged him from doing so; work with neighbor. Indicated that he will be moving back to Stanley property; purpose to store 1932 deuce coupe; is a narrower vehicle than current vehicles. Steve Porter looked at tree with him; is a healthy and beautiful tree; can't move the garage any further back due to tree. Will work with neighbor on the limbs and roots of the tree. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica 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 Department date stamped October 1, 2008, sheets G-1, G-2 and Boundary and Topographic Survey and that any changes to footprint or floor area of the accessory structure shall require an amendment to this permit; 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 14, 2008 2. that the waste line to the accessory structure shall be no larger than two inches; 3. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures as defined in the arborist report by Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. and date stamped by the Planning Department August 14, 2008; 4. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 15, 2008 memo, the NPDES Coordinator's August 18, 2008 memo and the City Engineer's August 22, 2008, memo shall be met; 5. that if the accessory structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Conditional Use Permit and Special Permits as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 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; and 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 motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:27 p.m. Commissioner Yie noted that she would recuse herself from participating regarding Item 5; she lives within 500-feet of the property. She left the Council Chambers. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes October 14, 2008 5. 1125 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND YANG MIN YANG, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated October 14, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, 55 W. 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: None. Public comments: Kathy Ward and Jim Ward, 1133 Cabrillo Avenue; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; and Tom Bellucci, 114 Stanley Road spoke: They live to the right of the property; feels that incorrect point is made for the height measurement. Asked if the Commission ever looks at volume, or just height. Be certain that existing old tree and a Cedar tree (on property at 1133 Cabrillo Avenue) are to be retained. Preserve stone wall from the 1940s. Happy that height was brought down. The block is defined by the trees; concerned about the two trees on the parkway in front of the house; how are these trees protected? Interested in being educated; what is City's interest in protecting trees at the front. Expand the protection to the Cedar tree and the street trees. The Beautification Commission has a policy that the sidewalks shall be altered to increase the size of the planting well to allow for tree growth. Could condition be added that if sidewalk needs to be replaced, then increase size of tree well. City of Burlingame has spent a lot of money on repairs to sidewalks due to tree root impacts; will continue to damage foundations. Applicant comments: James Chu, designer; agreed with neighbor's comments regarding the tree condition. Will comply with arborist requirements. Will also protect street trees; but does not know how fast trees will grow in the future; asked if the sidewalk will continue to be straight. Additional Commission comments: Questioned which part of the lot is to be excavated; questioned where the retaining wall will be located; are any problems anticipated with grading (Chu — no). The architect and builder value the trees. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 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 September 29, 2008, sheets A.1 through A.6 and L1.0; 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 14, 2008 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 July 11, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's and Fire Marshal's July 14, 2008 memos, the City Arborist's July 15, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 7, 2008 memo shall be met; 5. that a tree protection arborist report shall be prepared to ensure the preservation of the existing 24"- diameter oak tree on the property line between 1125 Cabrillo Avenue and 1133 Cabrillo Avenue, the existing Cedar tree (on property at 1133 Cabrillo Avenue) and two existing street trees in front of 1125 Cabrillo Avenue; the report shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist and the tree protection measures shall be installed before a building permit is issued; 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, 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 12. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 14, 2008 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; 13. 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; 14. 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 Department; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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: Nice project, style, size and scale works well with neighborhood. Leave sidewalk matter up to City Arborist and Public Works Department. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Yie recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:48 p.m. Commissioner Yie returned to the dais. 6. 1524 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JOHN STEWART, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DAVID AND DEBRA SPRENG, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated October 14, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: None. John Stewart, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos; represented the applicant. Public comments: Glen Kronewetter, 1525 Howard Avenue spoke: the project abuts the rear of his property; was consensus of neighbors that it was a nice project. Have the changes to the rear elevation satisfied the Commission's concerns from the prior meeting? The Commission indicated that the rear elevation of the structure had been sufficiently revised to comply with the direction provided. !3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes October 14, 2008 There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 14, 2008 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 September 17, 2008, sheets Al through A8 and 1-1; 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 June 27, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's June 27, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 30, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 30, 2008 memo shall be met; 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 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; 7. 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; 8. 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; 9. 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 10. 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; 11. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 14, 2008 roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and 12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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: None. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. 7. 1244 JACKLING DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES SKELTON, EDIT, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND COLAINE AND BOB ROEPKE, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated October 14, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. James Skelton, 3564 17t" Street, San Francisco; Bob Roepke, 1244 Jackling Drive and Mike Nilmeyer, 128 Pepper Avenue; represented the applicant. Considered shade and privacy impacts of neighbors; looked at these impacts and determined that there were no shade and shadow impacts. Commission comments: Asked if there was there an aesthetic study of the change in the roofline (Skelton — no, applicant's didn't want to make change). Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Rotation of the gable would create a more visual impact upon the neighbors; would add to mass along the Cockcroft's side of the property; can support as designed; still some concern regarding the balcony railing details. ■ Original proposal is the right way to go. ■ There was not a fair evaluation of the alternatives; the study that was done was not done in earnest. ■ No shadow evaluation of the rotated gable was performed; could have a lesser impact upon the neighbor; could be looked at a bit more closely. 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 14, 2008 Commissioner Lindstrom 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 28, 2008, sheets A1.1, A2.1, A2.2, A3.1 and 1-1.1, and date stamped August 13, 2008, sheets A3.2 and A3.3; 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 June 18, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's June 25, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 23, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 22, 2008 memo shall be met; 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 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; 7. 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; 8. 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; 9. 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 10. 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 14, 2008 11. 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 Department; and 12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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 Auran. Discussion of motion: Commissioner Brownrigg agreed with Commissioner Vistica's comments regarding the lack of analysis of the alternatives; not in favor of application at this time. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-2 (Commissioners Vistica and Brownrigg dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:11 p.m. Commissioner Yie recused herself from participating regarding Item 8 since she lives within 500-feet of the property and is working with the applicant; she left the Council Chambers. 8. 1121 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, AND GLENN AND KIM BENTLEY, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated October 14, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: Like the half -sized plans. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 16, 2008, sheets A0.0 through A3.5 and Landscape Plan, sheet L-1, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Chief Building Official's December 14, 2007 memos and the Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's December 17, 2007 memos shall be met; 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 14, 2008 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the lot coverage and floor area ratio variances, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become null and void; 4. 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; 5. 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), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 6. 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; 7. 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; 8. 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; 9. 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 10. 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; 11. 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 Department; and 12. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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: 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes Rear Elevation is more attractive with the proposed changes. October 14, 2008 Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Yie recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:18 p.m. Commissioner Yie returned to the dais. 9. 1425 BENITO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (BG PACIFIC, APPLICANT; B & S BENITO, LLC, PROPERTY OWNER; AND JACK MCCARTHY, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated October 14, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen (14) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Jack McCarthy, 5339 Prospect Road, San Jose; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Asked to be shown how soffit detail adds to design. ■ Clarified that Laurel trees are to be replaced with shrubs with a maximum 10'-12' maximum height in order to preserve neighbor's view. ■ Asked if pervious concrete to be used for driveway (McCarthy — doesn't wish to use pavers; can look into pervious concrete or pavers on the flat area of driveway). ■ On front elevation, divided light windows don't have pattern, was it intentional (McCarthy — yes, felt it would add interest to the house); breaks up the rhythm. ■ Did the applicant consider installing a transom window in the bedroom above the kitchen (McCarthy — neighbors wanted no windows on that side). ■ Complimented the design of the house. ■ Asked if all neighbor concerns regarding privacy have been addressed (McCarthy — yes). ■ Questioned finished floor elevation of new house versus existing house. ■ Landscaping at the front of the house is important; don't see a detail in the landscape plan regarding the steps from the sidewalk; are there rails? (McCarthy — can provide details). ■ Stacked stone wall; is the same wall being placed at the front (McCarthy — yes). ■ Commended applicant on the manner with which the neighbor's concerns have been addressed. ■ Concern about left elevation and lack of windows; a clerestory window would add light without affecting neighbor's property. ■ Concern regarding the sidewalk realignment; drew attention to areas on Cortez where a lot of large trees exist, there are some areas where the sidewalk curves around; concern about realignment in front; will be faced with need to cross properties to realign sidewalks as development occurs; encouraged staff to look into it a bit more. ■ Regarding letter from neighbor to rear regarding limiting height of landscape materials; this has been addressed by applicant. Public comments: 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 14, 2008 Sue Weber, 1429 Benito Avenue; John Funghi, 1421 Benito Avenue; Tom Bellucci, 114 Stanley Road; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke: appreciated applicant's efforts to address neighbors' concerns. Windows being moved is an important issue for the neighbor. Appreciates efforts to satisfy drainage concerns. Encouraged approval with changes requested by neighbors. Pleased that applicant worked with neighbors; please refrain from modifying windows. (Funghi) Submitted documents to Commission. With respect to sidewalks; having all sidewalks relocated is not likely to happen; would be placed against the dry -stacked wall; not a realistic proposal; encouraged following the sidewalk transition proposed by the applicant. Impressed with demeanor of Commission. City has spent a lot of money redoing sidewalks. Surface roots must be cut. The design of the home is outstanding. Instead of moving the sidewalks completely back, cut the scalloped wells; sidewalk will consistently run straight. Encouraged solar tubes for bringing natural light into the home where windows are not possible. The use of the basement in this case is fine. Is the basement exempt from the total square footage of the residence (Meeker -yes)? There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: Concern regarding sidewalk; potentially a miscommunication, leave to the Public Works Department and Arborist to sort it out. Don't change windows or modify from the neighbor's requests. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application (includes all changes outlined in applicant's letter and revision to landscaping to the rear of the site to replace tree with low height shrubs), 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 October 2, 2008, sheets 1 through 8 and L1.0; 2. that the design of the front walkway/steps and railing design, as well as the paving materials for the driveway and patio, shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission as an FYI; 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 July 24, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's July 28, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's July 28, 2008 memo, the City Arborist's July 30, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 28, 2008 memo shall be met; 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; 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 14, 2008 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; 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 14, 2008 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, 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 12. 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; 13. 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; 14. 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 Department; and 15. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department 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: Clarified that driveway and patio paving are to be brought back to the Planning Commission as an FYI, suggest pervious material at flat portions of driveway and patio areas. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:59 p.m. Commissioner Brownrigg requested more information regarding the sidewalk re -construction policy. He asked if appropriate departments were consulted. Requested clarification of definition of "substantial development" IN CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 14, 2008 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 1221 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DAVID AND LAUREN ROSEN, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated October 14, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Randy Grange, TRG Architects, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. Attempting to improve circulation and appearance of structure. Commission comments: ■ Remarkable design solution. ■ On left elevation; bump -out at rear of garage does not appear on side elevation. ■ Provide detail of materials for railing and the paneling at the rear of the house to the left of the garage. ■ The gable vent is not centered on the elevation; though it is in realty; correct its placement. ■ Steps down from rear; if not wrapping around would leave more space for a table; a more generous rear deck appears possible. Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; happy to see a structure reclaimed rather than redeveloped. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Cauchi 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 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m. Chair Cauchi indicated that he would recuse himself from participating with respect to Item 11 since he lives within 500-feet of the property, he left the Council Chambers. 19 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes October 14, 2008 11. 712 VERNON WAY, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A BASEMENT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (KEN AND CECILIA MORKEY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND, ABBY WHITMAN, TOBY LONG DESIGN, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated October 14, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice -Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Toby Long, 665 Third Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ There are some elements of the existing home that can be re -used, but home will ultimately be removed. ■ Why is the living roof over the porch; what is planned for flat roof? ■ Questioned need for a two -car garage. ■ Asked what type of systems would be used to heat the house. ■ Asked about LEED category that will apply to the home. ■ Feels flat roof could be better integrated and could also fit better into the neighborhood. ■ Asked about rainwater and grey -water systems. ■ May need more solar panels. ■ Boxy design, could benefit from steeper pitch roof. Public comments: Susan Hamblin, 721 Vernon Way; Dan Anderson, 728 Vernon Way; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Don Lindstrom, 720 Vernon Way; David Whiteside, 732 Vernon Way; Mary Hunt, 725 Vernon Way; Nancy Fernandez, 705 Vernon Way; Mark Leininger, 716 Vernon Way; Soon Yu, 711 Vernon Way; and Sabina Middlemass, 708 Vernon Way spoke: expressed serious design concerns, though appreciates the efforts to build it green. Architect had no regard for the character of the area and other homes. All homes are architectural styles of the 1920s and 30s; everyone that has remodeled has respected the original styles. Will remove one of the most charming homes in the area. Applicant should take responsibility to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood. The design is out of character with the neighborhood. Though does commend for attempting to make it a green home. Mass and bulk are out of place. No curb appeal; big box with "sniper tower". The stair tower appears out of place with the design. Look at examples in area (e.g. 712 Concord) as a means of increasing the home size. Suggested being very careful of the type of terminology that is used; it is a tear down; against using a euphemism to describe as "deconstruction". How is a green roof maintained? Appreciates applicant's desire to live in the area. Likes having garage in the rear; a positive element. Expressed concern about having a design (the "green" roof) that will encourage more crows in the area. The fagade of the house is not true "Craftsman", but feels strongly that a lighter color may help; it is a big, bulky house. (Fernandez) has lived in area for over 20 years. Charming atmosphere in the neighborhood; others have made a conscious effort to maintain that character of the area. Should incorporate softer elements to improve design. Why would they want to change the neighborhood? Expressed concern regarding the garage being at the rear of the property at the property line. Concern about impacting solar panels in the future if he (Leininger) wishes to improve his property. Wants to guarantee his options for the future. Suggested a gable over the front left corner to soften the appearance. (Yu) gets a lot of pleasure with the character of the neighborhood. 20 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 14, 2008 Additional Applicant comments: Toby Long, 665 Third Street, San Francisco; and Ken and Cecelia Markey 1120 Hamilton Lane spoke: they don't want to hide neighborhood context under the green banner. Not trying to create a vernacular Craftsman design. Explained green roof material. Felt that most of the homes were quite different; doesn't understand why it doesn't fit in. Look at how different each home in the area looks. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Design needs more work; candidate for design reviewer; could be most expedient way to get the project through the process; can balance with sustainability desires. ■ Sustainable design may affect aesthetics of an area. ■ Lacks charm of original home. ■ The existing house is substantial; but most of it will be discarded; would like to work with the existing design; encouraged preservation and enhancement of existing home. ■ Looks like a box on top of a box. ■ Staff needs to research future development impacts from solar panels. ■ The special permit application has not addressed need for taller basement. ■ Not fond of the green roof as a token feature; would rather see a green roof installed with some design benefits; would be open to design accommodations if there is a functional reason for them. ■ Stairwell seems to be the feature that is most off-putting. ■ The design guidelines seem to guide one to the architecture of the 1920s and 1930s; need a design that looks like it has been in the area for a long time; northeast elevation is unfortunate; try to bring a one-story elevation to the front; steeper roof pitch at front; generous porch is a plus. ■ FAR and lot coverage are maxed out; are they trying to get too much on a small lot. ■ Look at incorporating one-story element at the front of the house. Commissioner Vistica made a motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of motion: None. Vice -Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Cauchi recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:13 p.m. Chair Cauchi returned to the dais. 21 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 14, 2008 12. 1625 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR BUILD -TO LINE AND LANDSCAPING FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR AN AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE FACILITY (GEOFF BURNS, APPLICANT; WAGNER ARCHITECTURE GROUP, ARCHITECT; AND, WILLIAM SPENCER, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated October 14, 2008, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Corrected parking space requirement to be 67 spaces, not 69 spaces. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Commission comments: Suggested looking at consistency between the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and the arborist's recommendations regarding street trees. Geoff Burns, 5202 Kearny Mesa Road, San Diego; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Encouraged making area near guest parking more pedestrian friendly by increasing the landscape area and adding modest trees, even if it means removing a few parking spaces; bring the landscaping percentage up a bit. ■ Could soften the front fagade a bit with more landscaping. ■ Asked how traffic flow would work on the site; reduce guest parking and fill-in with landscaping on the left side so that circulation is not confusing; make circulation intuitive. ■ Welcomed the use. ■ Good trade-off to spend more effort on landscaping in the swale at the rear of the property; would be a mitigating factor for the Variances; use bioswales along rear and possibly sides of the property as part of the drainage of the site; include as a condition of approval. ■ Applicant should address how site drainage will work on the site and how impact on stormwater will be addressed. ■ The building design is acceptable. ■ The City may need to re -visit the standards for the Auto -Overlay zone; the guidelines are being tested with this application. Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have 22 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes October 14, 2008 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 11:42 p.m. Commissioner Brownrigg requested that the applicant identify any LEED design elements incorporated into the plan. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ "Greening Your Burlingame Home" Open House — Saturday, October 18, 2008: 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. — Burlingame Recreation Center. ■ Don Weden (former Santa Clara County Principal Planner) to provide presentation: "Winds of Change: Adapting Our Communities to the Changing Realities of the 21 st Century" — Wednesday, October 29, 2008: 7 p.m. — Lane Community Room, Burlingame Public Library. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of October 6, 2008: Determined that City will not fund underground parking at the Safeway property. Scheduled appeal hearing for 917 Larkspur Avenue for October 20, 2008. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — September, 2008 Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 11:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stanley Vistica, Secretary 23