Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.27.07 PC Minutes APPROVED CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California August 27, 2007 - 7:00 p.m. 1 I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Deal called the August 27, 2007, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg (arrived at 7:05 p.m.), Cauchi, Deal, Osterling, and Vistica Absent: Commissioner Terrones Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; and City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Cauchi to approve the minutes of the August 13, 2007 regular meeting of the Planning Commission as mailed. Motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Brownrigg and Terrones absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame; spoke regarding the FYI item for 1353 Vancouver Avenue. She questioned why the framing error was made; the applicant is a contractor. In reference to her recent appeal of the Planning Commission’s action regarding the project at 2212 Hillside Drive, she commented that it is time for the Commission to consider reducing residential FAR and closing loopholes regarding basements, and other giveaways that increase the square footage of residences. She hoped that a subcommittee of the Commission will be formed to address the matter. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE R-1 ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR PLAY STRUCTURES ON CORNER LOTS (PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE) Community Development Director Meeker presented summary of the staff report, dated August 27, 2007. Commission comments: ƒ Perhaps the 100 square foot limitation is a bit small; should be consistent with the Building Code. ƒ Structures should be of a neutral color (earth-tones); though this could be problematic, since color is not regulated elsewhere in the City. Perhaps use natural colors or materials if visible from the street. ƒ Address the ambiguity between front setback and front yard on page 2 of the proposed ordinance. Clarify the method of floor area (footprint?) measurement in the ordinance. This item was set for the regular Action Calendar when the ordinance has been revised in accordance with the Commission’s direction. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 27, 2007 2 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 Deal asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the Consent Calendar. There were no requests. 2a. 2301 VALDIVIA WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FRONT PORCH ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAMES MCFALL, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND RALPH AND LINDA WONDRA, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Commissioner Auran moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts and findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff report, and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3. 62 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (JACK CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR. INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CHIN-SHUI CHANG, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN (RESUBMITTAL OF A PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE) Reference staff report dated August 27, 2007, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve (12) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Rico Huo represented the applicant. ƒ Was present when prior application considered by the Commission and heard comments from this earlier review. ƒ Brought a color elevation to better illustrate the proposed design. ƒ Described specific changes to project. Commission comments: ƒ Complimented the design. ƒ In bedroom 3, no window is shown on the front elevation. There is an error on the elevation as reflected on page A-4 of the plans (a window is shown); though would like a street-facing window in bedroom 3, with two windows (side-by-side or other arrangement) that are each of a similar dimension to the window over the entryway. ƒ Install a remote-controlled electric gate in the driveway. ƒ On the landscape plan, Australian Bushberry is not a good choice, can get diseased, should consider another species. ƒ Asked if a false stack is necessary for the direct vent fireplace. ƒ Discussed the second-floor plate height. ƒ Encouraged use of a permeable surface paving system for the driveway. ƒ On the south elevation, the corbels seem gratuitous; don’t necessarily add anything. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 27, 2007 3 ƒ Correct the notation regarding the corbels; the dimension should be 6” x 14”. ƒ Could perhaps consider an awning over the French doors at rear, without a covering a lot of mud could be tracked into the residence. ƒ Concern about the size of the house; larger than typically seen. Public comments: There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Given that there wasn’t consensus regarding placement of a window in bedroom 3, facing the street; Commissioner Vistica moved to amend the conditions of approval to require two windows, side-by-side, the size of the window over the entryway, on the street side of bedroom 3. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed 4-2-1 (Commissioners Auran and Brownrigg dissenting, Commissioner Terrones absent). Commissioner Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 9, 2007, sheets A.0 through A5, C-1, C-2 and L1.1, 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 a window at least twice the width of the window present over the entryway shall be installed facing the street in bedroom 3, though the window could be broken into two windows; 3. that the driveway shall be constructed of permeable paving materials; 4. that a remote-operated gate shall be installed at the driveway; 5. that the corbels shall be dimensioned 6” x 14”; 6. that the Australian Bushberry plant(s) shown on the landscape plan shall be replaced with another, more suitable plant material; 7. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 11, 2007 and March 17, 2006 memos, the City Engineer's June 11, 2007 and March 20, 2006 memos, the Fire Marshal's June 11, 2007 and March 20, 2006 memos, the Recycling Specialist's March 20, 2006 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 13, 2007 and March 21, 2006 memos shall be met; 8. 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; 9. that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 10. 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; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 27, 2007 4 11. 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; 12. 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; 13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 14. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 15. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 16. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and 17. 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 Brownrigg. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 4. 1528 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JEFF BAUER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND DUNLAP DESIGN, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Brownrigg recused himself since he lives within 300-feet of the project site, and left the dais. Reference staff report dated August 27, 2007, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten (10) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Jeff Bauer, 1528 Vancouver Avenue, represented the project. Commission comments: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 27, 2007 5 ƒ The 9’ second floor plate height may be too tall, should be reduced to 8'-1". ƒ The design of the residence looks top heavy. ƒ Detailing from original portions of structure are not noted on the plans. ƒ Bay window on the rear does not work with the design and appears tacked on, consider using a window with a rounded top similar to those on the front elevation. ƒ Plans are difficult to read; would like to see before and after views; though existing conditions plan will not be required. ƒ Correct discrepancies on the plans. ƒ Dimensions shown on site plan, related to lot width, do not add up, need to correct. ƒ Protect the existing Palm trees during construction; enhance shrubbery and plant street trees in the planter strip along the street. Public comments: ƒ Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame; asked if there was a basement, and if there is, what is the ceiling height, and will there be egress? There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica moved to continue the item with direction to the applicant to address the items raised by the Commission in its discussion The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioner Brownrigg recused). This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. Commissioner Brownrigg returned to the dais. 5. 3066 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MICHAEL MA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MIMI SIEN, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER (CONTINUED FROM AUGUST 13, 2007 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated August 27, 2007, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Michael Ma, 20660 Stevens Creek Boulevard, San Jose; represented the applicant. ƒ Would have no problem adding decorative elements, such as corbels and railings back to house. Transom window at rear would be very difficult and costly since it would require modification of the roof; it is not visible. Would like to keep stucco finish on entire house. Commission comments: ƒ Asked if the owner would be willing to install the wood trim as well as the decorative railings and corbels. Public comments: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 27, 2007 6 ƒ David Leung, 3066 Hillside Drive, Burlingame; is part owner of property. Submitted letters from two neighbors supporting the project. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ƒ Still concerned about original driveway and landscape plan. All information is not available that had been previously requested. ƒ There is a tremendous amount of hardscape at the front of the house. Whole area in front appears to have been paved. What changes were made to this area from what was approved. ƒ Wood trim needs to be installed along with other decorative elements, including wood siding, that have been eliminated. ƒ The transom window on the rear elevation is not necessary. ƒ Could be referred to a design reviewer to look at making it conform more closely to the approved plans. Commissioner Osterling moved to continue the item with direction to the applicant to address the items raised by the Commission in its discussion, otherwise, the application may be denied. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). This item concluded at 8:40 p.m. 6. Ordinance Establishing Parking Standards for Animal Shelters (Newspaper Notice, San Mateo Times, 8/17/07) Project Planner: Maureen Brooks Reference staff report dated August 27, 2007, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Commission comments: none Public comments: none There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to recommend to the City Council, adoption of an ordinance establishing parking standards for animal shelters, as presented by staff. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Additional Commission comments: ƒ Commissioners Auran and Osterling indicated that they would vote against the motion, as they feel that the parking requirement for open-air habitats should be the same as for the remainder of the animal shelter facility. Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval to the City Council. The motion passed 4-2-1 (Commissioners Auran and Osterling dissenting, Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 27, 2007 7 7. PROPOSAL TO ADOPT A POLICY FOR ON-SITE NOTICING Reference staff report dated August 27, 2007, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Public comments: ƒ Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame; felt that residents should be provided as much advance notice as possible. A lot of people do not know that anything is happening half a block away. The new policy would make the Commission a better commission. Commission comments in favor: ƒ Remain in favor of the policy. Honesty and transparency is advantageous. There is nothing wrong with people expressing opinions. More conversation regarding projects could result in better projects. ƒ The public would be better informed if they had a picture of what is to be built and when it would be on the Planning Commission agenda. For residents not in the building/realty trades, or who work outside of Burlingame, it is hard to know where to go to look at neighbors’ plans. The Commission should be encouraging a more informed public. ƒ Favors the policy, it set up as a pilot program (for one year). It may promote interaction between neighbors. He doesn’t favor more bureaucracy, but doesn’t feel that the policy would contribute to an increase in bureaucracy. It would be a help to the Commission. Commission comments opposed: ƒ Against the policy, would rather see a process where the property owner talks to neighbors in a friendlier setting. ƒ Have mixed feelings regarding the policy. It could be palatable as a one year trial program. People need to be responsible neighbors and reach out to present projects to them. People need to read the notices that are mailed to them. Don't think there is a situation that needs to be repaired, generally not in support of the policy. ƒ Opposed to the policy, not in agreement with the “design by committee” approach. Doesn’t want the City’s procedure to become onerous like those in other communities. Current noticing procedures are adequate. Objects to the residential component, but doesn’t have as much of a problem with the commercial component. Commissioner Vistica moved that the Planning Commission adopt the policy, but only for commercial Design Review projects. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Chair Deal called for a roll-call vote on the motion to adopt the on-site noticing policy for commercial Design Review projects. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Commissioner Brownrigg moved that the Planning Commission adopt the policy for residential Design Review projects. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Chair Deal called for a roll-call vote on the motion to adopt the on-site noticing policy for residential Design Review projects. The motion failed. 3-3-1 (Commissioners Auran, Osterling and Deal dissenting, Commissioner Terrones absent). City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 27, 2007 8 Staff was directed to place the matter, as it relates to residential Design Review projects, on a future agenda for discussion when all members of the Commission can be present. Community Development Director Meeker indicated that he would inform the City Council of the Commission’s action, prior to implementing the new policy. This item concluded at 9:14 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 118 DWIGHT WAY, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GEURSE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND PAT BURNS, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Senior Planner Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Deal opened the public comment period. Jesse Geurse, Geurse Conceptual Design, 405 Bayswater Avenue, Burlingame; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ƒ Complimented the applicant on the presentation of the plans. ƒ What is the “decorative gable vent”; provide detail. ƒ Columns on front porch need some wood detail to make it look like they are resting on something. ƒ Roof plan A-3 is missing the kitchen gable. Pop out dimensions for kitchen gable appears inconsistent. ƒ Encouraged to use skylights to add light. ƒ Solar panels on the roof would provide a lot of solar energy. ƒ Sheet A-5; are windows being replaced with larger windows? ƒ Articulation on left side wall, may not be of sufficient depth to break up the mass of the structure. ƒ Be more specific regarding landscaping materials. Be specific with respect to species of materials. Public comments: ƒ Ty Canniffe, 123 Dwight Road, Burlingame; stated that he is in favor of the project. It is a good upgrade to neighborhood. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment period was closed. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the regular Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular Action Calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. 9. 1315 EDGEHILL DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCES FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RAFI AND AIDA CHABO, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND FRED STRATHDEE, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 27, 2007 9 ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Deal opened the public comment period. Fred Strathdee, 147 Leslie Drive, San Carlos, represented the applicant. Commission comments: ƒ Complemented design. ƒ On landscape plan, look at shrubs and other materials. Taller materials would be beneficial to break up mass of addition. ƒ Require wood clad windows with simulated true divided lights. ƒ On the left elevation, the bedroom egress windows appear to be too small, need to revise on the plans. ƒ Clarify spacing on balustrade on front steps. Public comments: none There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment period was closed. Additional Commission comments: ƒ Stated that the Variance request could be supported because homes in the area look like they have been built to the property lines, the proposed design is consistent. To require differently of this property owner would deprive him of property rights. ƒ Noted that the size of the lot is also a factor in considering the Variance. Commissioner Auran made a motion to place the item on the regular Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Chair Deal called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular Action Calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m. 10. 2000 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (DII LEWIS, AZUL WORKS, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND CATHERINE WONG, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Senior Planner Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Deal opened the public comment period. Dii Lewis, 531 44th Avenue, San Francisco, represented the applicant. Commission comments: ƒ Asked if the applicant is selling the property. ƒ The property is for sale; the applicant will obtain approvals and sell them with the property. ƒ The staircase up to second floor does not meet current code requirements, will need to be revised (sheet A4.0). City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 27, 2007 10 ƒ Building Code minimums on other items such as the shower widths are not met. Check now before they affect the floor plan. ƒ Asked if all windows are to be replaced. ƒ Make the window grid patterns consistent. ƒ Generally, the mass and bulk of the structure are okay, but may need to change some of the massing. ƒ Mullion patterns need to be consistent. ƒ Align second floor windows with the dormers above. ƒ Barge rafters seems quite large, the rest of the house does not have such large elements. ƒ Carry through the wood battens throughout the design. ƒ Improve accuracy of drawings, show details for existing elements to remain as well as new elements. ƒ Add an attic vent. ƒ Second floor roof on north elevation does not look like it belongs on the house. ƒ Provide a modified and improved landscape plan. Taller shrubs and add trees to fill out the landscaping. Provide full automatic irrigation. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Osterling made a motion to refer the project to a design reviewer, with direction to review the comments contained in the minutes and review the recording of the Commission’s discussion. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Chair Deal 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 Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m. 11. 50 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA – APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A REMODEL OF AN EXISTING AUTO DEALERSHIP (DOUG ROBERTSON, APPLICANT; KENT PUTNAM, PROPERTY OWNER; AND PROTO INC., ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Chair Deal recused himself due to a potential conflict of interest. Vice-Chair Cauchi assumed the role of Chair. Senior Planner Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Vice-Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Kent Putnam, 345 Miramontes, Woodside, represented the applicant. He noted that the parking can be striped to eliminate the Variance, if desired. Commission comments: ƒ Noted lack of employee parking on the site. ƒ Clarified that the project just revises the appearance of the structures, but doesn’t change the use of the property. ƒ Asked about the color palette for the project. ƒ Asked about employees’ means transportation to work. Public comments: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 27, 2007 11 ƒ Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame: Transportation Authority may have programs to assist employees. In San Mateo on east side of street, lots of trees. Recommends that Putnam put in the street trees. Expense of irrigation system – could use hose or bucket of water during the first year to establish roots. Industrial uses have been required to put in landscaping. Would be a great for salespeople to catch some shade. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ƒ The City appreciates the Putnams and their businesses in Burlingame. ƒ Bring the item back on the Consent Agenda, but would like to see where the street trees would be placed. Need to work with the City Arborist to determine where the trees would be placed. ƒ No striping other than eight parking spaces as shown is sufficient. ƒ Look at the San Mateo side of California Drive (San Mateo Drive) to determine width of sidewalk and other factors that may weigh into the decision-making process relative to the installation of trees along the site. Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Vice-Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Chair Deal recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:30 p.m. Chair Deal returned to the dais. X. COMMISSIONERS’ REPORTS ƒ Subcommittee Assignments: Chair Deal made the following subcommittee assignments: Neighborhood Consistency – Commissioners Deal, Auran and Cauchi Downtown Specific Plan – Commissioners Vistica, Terrones and Auran Bicycle – Commissioner Brownrigg (and possibly Commissioner Terrones) Hospital – Commissioners Osterling and Brownrigg (Commissioner Vistica may serve as a substitute) Housing – Commissioners Brownrigg, Vistica and Cauchi XI. DIRECTOR’S REPORT ƒ Review of City Council regular meeting of August 20, 2007: Community Development Director Meeker noted that the City Council denied the appeal and upheld the Planning Commission’s recent action approving an amendment to the project located at 2212 Hillside Drive. He also noted that the City Council will conduct a study session regarding Economic Development at 6 p.m. on September 17, 2007. ƒ Commission Communications: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Approved Minutes August 27, 2007 12 Commissioner Brownrigg requested that staff look into contacting the owner of the former car-wash in the north end of the City and have the property cleaned up. Commissioner Osterling noted that the street frontage along El Camino Real between Bellevue and Floribunda needs to be cleaned up, it was noted that this property may be in Hillsborough. ƒ FYI: 1353 Vancouver Avenue – Requested changes to a previously approved design review project: The Commission did not request that the matter be scheduled for hearing. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Deal adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David Cauchi, Vice-Chair