Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1999.05.10MINUTES CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA May 10, 1999 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Deal called the May 10, 1999, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Bojues, Coffey, Keighran, Key, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Deal RESOLUTION OF COMMENDATION: Commissioner Deal presented Commissioner Key with a Resolution of Commendation in recognition for her five years of outstanding service to the community and the Planning Commission. Retiring Commissioner Key thanked the Commission. She also acknowledged those present and past Councilmembers and Commissioners in the audience and her daughter, Suzanne Griffith and thanked staff and her fellow commissioners for their support. INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMISSIONER: Commissioner Deal then introduced Martin Dreiling, the newly appointed Planning Commissioner who was seated. ROTATION OF OFFICERS: Chair Deal announced that it was the time for the Commission do the rotation of officers for the year. He noted that this was the first year that the rotation of officers had been formalized in the Commissions rules of procedure. Vice Chair Coffey stepped up to Chair and took the gavel. C. Luzuriaga became Vice -Chair. Since Commissioners Bojues, Keighran and Vistica were all appointed to the Commission at the same time the Secretary was selected by lottery. Commissioner Key drew a name from a hat, the new Secretary selected was C. Vistica. Chairman Coffey thanked the new officers and adjourned the meeting for a brief reception to recognize C. Key for her service. RECEPTION: There was a 15 minute recess. The commission was called to order again. at 7:35 p.m. ROLL CALL: Commissioners Bojues, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Luzuriaga, Vistica and Coffey City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 1999 MINUTES: The minutes of the April 26, 1999 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR: Cathy Baylock, 1527 Newlands, spoke regarding the FEIR prepared for 301 Airport Boulevard, she noted that the DEIR did not address the Housing Element's jobs/balance ratio or the impact regarding the FEIR of the additional residents on the schools. Peter Thorner, 390 Alcatraz Avenue Oakland, spoke on behalf of the San Francisco Board Sailing Association noting the he had sent letters of comment to the Commissioners addressing their concerns about the FEIR and wind. There were no further public continents. STUDY ITEMS APPLICATION FOR FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 716 ACACIA DRIVE, ZONED R-l. (BILL & DIANE BOURNAZOS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Dreiling noted that he would abstain from participation on this item because he was the design reviewer. CP Monroe briefly reviewed the project and the commissioners asked: this is a neighborhood of detached garages, this project has a two car attached garage, the applicant should address how the attached two car garage is. compatible with the neighborhood; what is the existing use of the accessory structure; there are some technical errors on the plans, the spot elevations are in the wrong place, these should be corrected; what is the justification for the side setback violation for the bay extension since this is a new house, applicant should address; would like to see the original plans submitted for the building permit for the accessory structure; the width of the house is a concern, separating houses from neighbors by a driveway is a pattern on this street, how does the applicant justify the proposed change; can't the one foot be removed so that the extension of the wall does not need a variance; would like to know the front setbacks of all the houses on both sides of this block; what are the hardships on the property to justify the exceptions requested with this new house. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on May 24, 1999, providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department in time. APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 7 KENMAR WAY, ZONED R-1. (THAD SHAFFER, REIF-SHAFFER ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND GENE & MIKE WEEKS, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly reviewed the project. The commissioners had no questions and directed that this item be placed on the consent calendar for action at the May 24, 1999 meeting. 2 City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 1999 APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION AT 2987 MARIPOSA DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (YING CHID LAU, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly reviewed the project and the commissioners asked: does the applicant intend to treat the skylights with tinting to address night time glow; would prefer that the eaves not be cut off, would damage the style of the house, better to ask for a lot coverage variance; what kind of furnace does the applicant have, if forced air where do the ducts go; should investigate if the garage width can be reduced from 26 feet to 21 feet in order to increase the width of the entry area to the house, would improve the entry; how will the new roof match the existing roof over the garage, provide a roof plan or diagram. Commission suggested that this item be brought back on the consent calendar including a lot coverage variance and the reduced garage. The item was set for the consent calendar at the meeting of May 24, 1999, providing the revised plans and responses could be submitted to staff in time. APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 113 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (RON SHIMAMOTO, APPLICANT AND AKIRA & CAROL EEJIMA_ PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly reviewed the project and the commissioners asked: it is feasible to reduce the square footage of the proposal to less than "new construction" so that a parking variance is not required, show how this can be done; problem here is bulk -the dimension of the second floor- the walk-in closet for example is very large it could be reduced; this project is approaching the maximum size, has two family rooms, large living room, with all this work to the house why not add a two car garage; please address the design reviewer's comment about the large blank walls. The item was set for the consent calendar at the meeting of May 24, 1999, providing the revised plans and responses could be submitted to staff in time. APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW 620 SF DETACHED GARAGE AT 725 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (JACK MCCARTHY, APPLICANT AND TERRY DUNNE, PROPERTY OWNER CP Monroe briefly reviewed the project and the commissioners asked: the front door appears to be out of scale with the front facade, the windows on the right do not match the windows on the left, applicant should address this lack of consistency; would like more information on the windows and window trim; design seems to have clipped the top of the roof, have instituted a special permit so that people can have better design solutions than this, what would the applicant suggest; the potting shed shows a sink, the maximum sewer line should be 2 inches; requesting a 620 SF garage, recently increased the maximum garage size from 500 to a more reasonable 600 SF because 500 SF was not big enough, now everyone wants more, explain why 620 SF is needed, can 20 SF be removed; this structure looks too big for the proposed front porch which is only 2 feet deep; the mass of the building is fine, use the windows as a strong vertical which emphasizes the bulk, can this be addressed; what kind of windows will be used; the roof arrangement at the rear appears to be over articulated, should be simplified would work better; it 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 1999 would be easy to take a foot off the side of the garage to make it comply; clarify the over-all plate height at the second floor, working on this might help the flat roof problem. There were no further questions and the item was set for public hearing on May 24, 1999, providing all the information is submitted to the Planning Department staff in time. APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 1445 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (PAUL BROEKER. APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe briefly reviewed the project. The commissioners had no questions and asked that this be brought forward for public hearing on the consent calendar at the May 24, 1999, meeting. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE (HEALTH SERVICE) WITHIN AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AT 1220 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1. (PAUL BOLOGNA, D.C., APPLICANT AND DOMINICK & PATTI CRISAFI, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe briefly reviewed the project and the commissioners asked: Plans are very basic could the applicant make some improvements to the plans by adding the APN and address; they should also consider liberalizing their hours some to provide themselves some flexibility in the future say 8 a.m. to 6 p.m Monday through Friday and longer hours on Saturday. It was suggested that this item be brought back for public hearing on the consent calendar at the May 24, 1999, meeting. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR Commissioners requested the project at 1312 Castillo Avenue be called off the consent calendar for discussion at public hearing. APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FOR PARKING SPACE DIMENSION'S AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 744 PLYMOUTH WAY, ZONED R-1. (ROBERT AND KAREN HARRIGAN. APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) C. Bojues moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the: staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10. 1999 APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 1312 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R_I. (MR. & MRS. GREG FLOWERS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) This item was referred to the regular calendar. REGULAR CALENDAR APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 1312 CASTILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-l. (MR. & MRS. GREG FLOWERS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 5.10.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. This item was called off the consent calendar for public hearing by C. Deal, noting that he had asked that the plate height be lowered on this project and it has not been. There were no questions of staff on the staff report. Chair Coffey opened the public hearing. Greg Flowers, property owner had no comments but responded to questions. Commissioners asked: understand that the addition is at the gear and not visible from the street but you have an opportunity now to make the rear have the same look as the rest of the house, am happy with the way it looks; want the addition to blend into the house -reduce the plate line difference at the rear would accomplish this, wanted higher plate- 9 foot- in family room have already lowered it two times in the review process; you could grade out for the family room. and lower the floor, have a patio at existing grade that I want to install, I want a nice ceiling height in the new family room- the proposed is only 16 inches above the existing; why did you not blend the overhang with corbels instead of stucco mold -there is no stucco mold on the house now; you need to find 16 inches so that you can lower the plate at the rear and harmonize the parapets- you can get it down to 8'-8" without difficulty, can't see this from the street, nice to have a higher ceiling -the rest of the: rooms have 8'-6" ceiling; a house has 4 sides -the neighbors will see this, it's OK with the neighbors; can you make the parapet detail on the addition identical to the existing parapet detail and will the windows with stucco mold and wooden sill match existing, yes; the match is not shown on the plans. There were no more questions from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that the applicant is missing a valuable opportunity to tie the addition together with the house so that it looks like it belongs, since the parapet roof is 9 feet high it could be reduced some to blend with existing plate, windows in the addition should be changed on the plans to show that they match the existing, on the basis of these findings and direction move to deny this application without prejudice because the floor area ratio is all right and the cosmetic changes will not take much effort to make. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. 5 City ojBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 1999 Comment on the motion: the project is almost there, commission is trying to blend the addition into the house; should take the stucco trim off the cantilever and use a corbel to blend in the overhang. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A LOT COVERAGE AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST - FLOOR ADDITION AT 1256 LAGUNA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (DONNA SLOTS, APPLICANT AND DONNA AND ROBERT SLOTE, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 5.10.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions from the commission. . Commission commented; needs an encroachment permit and a rear property line survey. There were no further questions of staff. Chairman Coffey open the public hearing. Donna and Emma Slote, 1256 were present to answer questions. Small bungalow, would like to make small addition and stay in the neighborhood. Covered patio, 250 SF, contributes to lot coverage, proposal creates a new front facade; new chimney, where is it inside; on center - east wall; larger front bay reduced from Tto 6', single horizontal mullion, aligns to others, same height; gable end should be extended; there appears to be a break in plane which doesn't really occur; no, it is only a trellis. There were no further questions or comments from the public and the hearing was closed. Commission comments: do not find a request of a 219 SF variance detrimental; bay window can encroach in front setback 18" - this is 6" beyond, okay; nice eave overhang, addition has none; would like to see application come back with redesign of window and large bay and a reduced plate height; proposal diminishes facade's existing character; existing steps back and turns the corner well, addition is straight along Lincoln, adds bulk to street; small lot, difficult to maintain integrity. C. Deal commented; limited by lot coverage, small lot, need to do something to maintain existing character, he then moved denial of the project, without prejudice. Direction given the applicant to redevelop the facade so it relates better to the street; overhangs should match. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The vote passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT TO ADD AN ATTACHED SINGLE -CAR CARPORT AND A DETACHED STORAGE SHED AT 1827 HUNT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 OBERT ALFARO APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 5.10.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Deal noted that he has had a business relationship with the applicant in excess of $250 in the past year and he would abstain from the action and step down from the dias. Commission asked 0 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 1999 if the Municipal Code prohibits parking commercial trucks on residential property, yes, not via zoning but through the police department or code enforcement officer. Zoning also prohibits parking any vehicle on site except in the driveway. A letter in opposition from Ruth Agnello, 1807 Hunt Drive, was submitted for the record. There were no further questions of staff. Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. Robert Alfaro, 1827 Hunt Drive, applicant indicated he was present and would answer questions. Commission asked about the construction equipment, only had trucks on site from September to February while was doing heavy construction on site, have a storage yard for equipment in San Mateo. Because of neighbor complaints during construction kept some trucks on property and some nearby in Millbrae. Drive a one ton pick up as personal vehicle. Would this construction require heavy equipment, no. Commenting on the project: Ray Moss, 1837 Hunt; Ruth Agnello, 1807 Hunt; live next door, Alfaro purchased property in 1998, it was a shambles, 16 people had been living in the house, had torn out plumbing fixtures and thrown them in the swimming pool, windows were all broken out; has done a good job restoring and improving the property, including a new fence all around, new driveway and security gate. Lived adjacent for 36 years, want to know the use of the shed and car port, hope the beauty and tranquility of the area is not hurt by project, am very disturbed by the past problem of the trucks. There were no more comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: seems that the friction which occurred between the neighbors had to do with construction which has been completed and will not be on going, favor project; issue is Hillside Area Construction Permit which addresses blocking views of neighbors, no views are obstructed by this project, the vehicles concerned about were located on the site during previous construction and were temporary; applicant does not anticipate such equipment with the storage shed and car port construction; upon complaint can code enforce if trucks stored more than 3 days. C. Keighran moved, based on the findings stated by the commission and the facts in the staff report, approval of the hillside area construction permit with the following conditions from the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 19, 1999, sheets 1 through 3; 2) that any changes to the footprint, building height, window placement or building envelope shall require an amendment to this Hillside Area Construction Permit; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the hillside area construction permit. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 1999 APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND -STORY ADDITION AT 18 DWIGHT ROAD, ZONED R-1. (WESSEL ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND JAMES SHANNON, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 5.10.99, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Coffey opened the public hearing. Jim Shannon, 15 Dwight Road, property owner of 18 Dwight, noted at study C. Vistica had asked for a "water table" to be installed 2 feet below the bay window, decided to put it 28 inches below parallel with the existing plate, not a big difference, did add the detail; feel water table detail would look better if it was lowered to parallel the exiting "sole plate", yes; would be good to add texture at the second floor to relieve the appearance of a box, why do you need 8'-9" plate on second floor, have a desire to retain the plaster mold ceilings on the first floor in the living room and dining room, need an extra 3 to 4 inches on the second floor- to do that; yes can do that but could give back by lowering second floor plate line; would you consider lowering the bow window plate, no problem. Commissioner asked what a "water table" was, it was explained that it is a board or sill placed on the exterior at floor level in order to shed water from the upper to the lower area where building materials change. Commend application preserves the "old world" appearance while making addition. There were no more comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran charming project, regarding the front setback, like the bow window, it matches the first floor and preserved the internal architectural style, aware of need to compensate at front and include the commissioners comments in the findings; move for approval of the front setback and declining height variances with the five conditions in the staff report as follows: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 20, 1999, sheets A1, E1, E2, and A3, and date stamped May 3, 1999, sheets A2, A2.1 and A6, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit, and the second floor plate shall be 8 feet and the plate for the bow window shall be 8'-9"; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, 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 design review; 3) that a "water table" detail shall be added horizontally around the building below the first floor window sill line and that its placement shall be reviewed and approved by the project design reviewer prior to issuing a building permit; 4) that the requirements of the City Engineer's March 2, 1999 memo and the Chief Building Official's April 15, 1999 memo shall be met; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga. Comment on the motion: would like to amend the conditions to note that the second floor plate is 8 feet and the plate for the bow window is 8'-9". Maker of the motion and second agreed to the amended condition. For the declining height envelope exception, the exception is needed to retain the style of this City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 1999 house, with the design review we may not even need declining height any more. Discussed the meaning of condition 3 and the location of the water table, concluded that leaving the decision about the proper location to the design reviewer is appropriate; encourage applicant to take a look at architecture books which describe this type of building, lots of interesting details which could be incorporated into this building which would increase the character and reduce the mass. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the two variances. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. APPLICATION FOR A FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 4-UNIT CONDOMINIUM AT 1408 EL CAMINO REAL. ZONED R-3. (RON GROVE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 5.10.99, with attachments. City Engineer and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. The final condominium map is complete. There were no further questions of staff. Chairman Coffey open the public hearing. The applicant was not present and there were no further comments from the public. The public hearing was closed. C. Luzuriaga recommended approval of the Final Condominium Map to Council. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. The motion was passed on a 7-0 voice vote. CERTIFICATION OF ADEQUACY OF FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 636,000 SF OFFICE PROJECT, IN FIVE BUILDINGS ON A 16 ACRE SITE AT 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. (CARL DANIELSON, GLENBOROUGH REALTY TRUST, APPLICANT AND GLENBOROUGH PARTNERS PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe reviewed the staff report noting the additional technical memos: the meaning of FEIR certification of sufficiency, regional transportation plans for US 101, certification of trip generation assumptions for build -out of the proposed project, traffic and phasing of the project, design of the proposed office project to address wind shadow effects, and turbulence as a criteria of significance. She also reviewed the commission's action options on the FEIR as well as the required findings for compliance with CEQA. Chairman Coffey opened the commission discussion by pointing out that experts from ESA were in the audience and while this is not a public hearing they are considered an extension of staff and can be called on to answer questions on the technical portions of the FEIR; purpose this evening is to clarify any concerns the commission has about the FEIR to determine if it is adequate in identifying the negative effects of the proposed project, the EIR is a disclosure document finding of sufficiency with CEQA is not an action on the project. Two issues were identified as needing further discussion after the public hearing: traffic and wind. Suggest that each be discussed individually and see if commission can arrive at a consensus. 0 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 10, 1999 Discussion on the traffic issue: after reading the DEIR not happy, as reviewed the document further with additions of this staff report am more comfortable that the traffic section is in compliance and sufficient with appropriate mitigations where items are not identified as unavoidable impacts; agree, can make additional conditions on project based on information here if want to when act on project later. There was general consensus that the traffic section was sufficient. Discussion on the wind issue: does mitigation k.2.b mean that all future development in the AnzaBayfront area will have to do a wind tunnel test as a part of its environmental review, this mitigation is in effect an amendment to the Bayfront Development Plan and means that the City Planner will have to consult with a wind expert to determine if additional study of wind is required as a part of an initial study for any future development in the bayfront area, all projects may not require additional study or wind tunnel tests, it depends on their relative location to prevailing and important winds; if not have mitigation would staff still need to evaluate winds for any future development, yes -but if you adopt the mitigation it becomes a statement of city policy that such evaluation. will occur; wind impact is identified as "less than significant", this project will be built over time in phases, what if find a problem as progress with development; if new information is identified during development it will need to be reviewed for impact. C. Luzuriaga noted that he feels that the FEIR with staff report is well prepared, every issue is identified and addressed; some issues are easily mitigated; would move to find that the FEIR prepared for the proposed project at 301 Airport is sufficient/adequate in compliance with CEQA. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Chairman Coffey called for a voice vote on the motion to find the FEIR is sufficient. The motion passed on a 5-2 (Cers. Dreiling and Vistica dissenting) vote. It was noted that the project would be placed on the commission agenda for May 24, 1999, for study and the applicant would provide a model for public review at that meeting. Commissioner noted that the public hearing on the FEIR was 3 hours long and extended the commission meeting late into the evening; would commission consider a special meeting for action on this project; Chairman noted that commission should discuss that at the study meeting; would like more information from sailboarders about discussion with developer at study. Comment on the vote: two commissioners dissented, would like to know reason why; did not understand why discussion was limited to traffic and wind, feel visual quality is a significant issue, concerned about recreational resource, can that be dealt with in future action, yes; not opposed want to understand and deal with effects of project at EIR level before go to construction, feel wind is significant because of the way it affects the park; if do not say effect on wind is significant then do not have to mitigate, do not want to deal with wind surfers delaying the project later. PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed the planning related actions at the May 3, 1999, City Council meeting. 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes ADJOURNMENT Chairman Coffey adjourned the meeting at 10:08 p.m. NUN5.10 11 May 10, 1999 Respectfully submitted, Stan Vistica, Secretary