Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.02.11CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA February 11, 2002 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the February 11, 2002, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Commissioners Keele and Osterling Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Tech, Erika Lewit; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; III. MINUTES The minutes of the January 28, 2002 meeting regular of the Planning Commission were approved with the following amendment to format: Item #1 at 1137-1145 Paloma Avenue should be formatted with bullets to better illustrate points made by the Commission, particularly the importance of having affordable units as part of the proposal. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. CP Monroe noted that there was a request to continue Item # 8, 2669 Martinez Drive; since the applicant did not request a future date, the item will be renoticed when it is placed on the agenda again. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1460 DRAKE AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR FENCE EXCEPTION TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED FENCE HEIGHT ALONG THE RIGHT SIDE PROPERTY LINE (GEORGE LAWSON, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked the following questions: • is there a permit history for the deck and the fence; • how long has the fence been in place; • why is the fence before the commission for an exception when it is not new; and • if there were no fence and just a railing for the deck, would the railing for the stair be in violation of any zoning requirements. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:08 p.m. 2. 1225 CABRILLO AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR GARAGE SIZE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR GARAGE LENGTH FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (BRET BOTTARINI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked the following questions: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 2002 2 • where are the washer and dryer currently located; • cannot support any plumbing which would be large enough to accommodate a toilet or shower in the future; • what is the need for such a large garage; can it be reduced to 600 SF to eliminate the conditional use permit; • why is a sink necessary in the garage; • the 26' dimension is 6' longer than what the code requires for a 2-car garage; this dimension can be reduced to eliminate square footage; the garage is almost half the size of the house; • what is the need for so much paving on the site; • label the structure on the site plan that is shown extending from the fireplace; what is it and is it existing or new; • the garage doors are very wide; they make the front elevation awkward looking and my not be structurally possible to build, address; • like the stepped-back design of the garage which helps to reduce the massive appearance of the structure, but the garage is still too large. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:11 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS CONSENT CALENDAR - ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEY ARE ACTED ON 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. Chairman Vistica asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 3. 840 NEWHALL ROAD – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DETACHED GARAGE WIDTH FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JERRY DEAL, JD AND ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROBERT AND GERMAINE ALFARO, PROPERTY OWNERS) (48 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE C. Bojués 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. C. Keighran seconded the motion. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed on a 5-0-2 voice vote (Cers. Keele and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:13 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 1504 BERNAL AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BARRY AND MONICA EHLERS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; A.K. NGAI, ARCHITECT) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 2002 3 Reference staff report 02.11.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Barry Ehlers, property owner and applicant, was present to answer questions. The Commission thanked the applicant for asking for a design review amendment before the project was under construction, rather than waiting for the changes to be found during inspection. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission commented that the modifications proposed enhanced the project. C. Bojués moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the original plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 16, 2001 and approved by the Planning Commission on July 23, 2001, Sheets A1.0 through A5.2, site plan, floor plans and building elevations, as modified by the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 25, 2001, Sheet A.A and A.B, floor plans and building elevations, including (a)removing the living room, transom/ribbon window on the right side of the front elevation on the first floor; (b) changing two windows to one window in the front dormer in the master bathroom, on the second floor front elevation; (c)removing the living room, transom/ribbon windows above the windows on each side of the fire place along the south elevation; (d) reducing the size of the two windows in bathroom number two on the second floor along the south elevation; (e)changing 2’ x 24’ portion of first floor roof from a flat roof to a shed roof along the north elevation, with “fire free” quarry slate tiles to match the main roof; and (e) removing one of the two north elevation windows in the master bathroom, and slightly increase the size of the remaining window; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s and Recycling Specialist’s April 16, 2001 memos shall be met; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. C. Keighran seconded the motion. Chairman Vistica re-opened the public hearing. The applicant asked if it would be possible to make the windows for the project Marvin windows that were wood with aluminum cladding, rather than all wood windows. The Commission noted that this change did not contradict the proposed plans and the substitution is acceptable. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 voice vote (Cers. Keele and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 5. 1532 CYPRESS AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (KRISJON SWANBERG, SWANBERG ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ANNE HARRINGTON, PROPERTY OWNER) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report 02.11.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. She noted that since the staff report had been prepared the Chief Building Inspector had returned to the office and noted that the trellis over the driveway extends the house to property line which is not allowed today under the CBC. Since the façade of the house on that side is proposed to be changed (added window on wall under the trellis and some sections of cantilever over the trellis) the nonconforming trellis must be removed as a part of this project. CP Monroe suggested an amendment to condition one to require removal of the trellis and to reduce the support post for the gate along the side property line to 7 feet. The four conditions in the staff report also were suggested for consideration. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 2002 4 Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Anne Harrington, property owner, noted that she had tried to address all the concerns of the Planning Commission and the neighbors in the project. Commission noted there is a little design tension at the front façade on the second floor because the window and door at the left side are so close together; can the window be shifted further from the door so that the left side appears more symmetrical with the right side of the front elevation; did the applicant consider changing out the windows which are original on the first floor. The applicant responded that she can agree to shifting the window on the left side to increase symmetry and that the windows on the first floor were not going to be changed because they were part of the original house. Dianne Condon-Wirgler, 1536 Cypress Avenue, noted that this is her third visit to the Planning Commission to discuss this proposed project; she feels as if her concerns and the Commission's concerns still have not been address by the proposed project; the design of the addition is boxy and the style of the house does not fit in the neighborhood; there are only a total of 13 houses in all of Burlingame with similar style architecture and they are primarily located near California Drive; there are no other cantilever designs in the immediate neighborhood; the proposed addition is bulky and will be visible from three blocks away. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: understand the neighbor's concerns; this house certainly doesn't match any others in the neighborhood; however, the design of the addition is consistent with the existing house and the Commission has no authority to ask the applicant to redesign the architectural style of the existing house when only a second story is proposed; the applicant has been through the design review process and made changes requested by the Commission, consultant, and neighbors; have toured the neighborhood and agree that the existing home is distinctive, however the addition is well-designed and fits the existing architecture; would like to see a condition added to ensure that the proposed gate across the driveway is electric so the covered parking will be more accessible; the applicant has removed one cantilever in the redesign, removing the second cantilever would result in a boxy and less-articulated addition; design would be enhanced if the first floor windows were replaced; applicant has extra floor area from the removal of the trellis and might consider going back to the drawing board with this design. C. Keighran noted she is familiar with this neighborhood, and this house is different from the norm, but the existing house is different and the applicant is not remodeling the first floor, if the applicant was altering the first floor, the commission would have more options to work with; the existing house is square, the applicant has done a relatively good job blending the addition into the original style of the house; it is too much to ask the applicant to redo the first story in order to add a second story, so the applicant must blend the second story into the first; the applicant needs the remaining cantilever on the second floor to break up the mass of the house; would like to amend the conditions to include the addition regarding removal of the trellis, to move the widow on the left side of the door on the front façade to increase the symmetry on that façade, and to require that the gate across the drive way be made electric so that it can be opened and closed from inside a car and inside the house; she also noted that changing out the original window on the front of the house so that they matched the new windows would improve the entire appearance of the project; she then 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 January 28, 2002, sheets A.1 through A.6, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; with the change that the trellis over the driveway shall be removed, the two support members at the front of the trellis which support the gate may be retained but these posts and any portion of the gate shall be lowered to a maximum height of 7 feet on or within 2 feet of property line; 2) that the inside window on the left side of the second floor of the east (front) elevation shall be shifted to the left, away from the door and closer to the outside window, so that the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 2002 5 left side of the elevations is more symmetrical with the right side of that floor's elevation; 3) that any gate or closure extending across the driveway between the front property line and the face of the garage shall have an electronic opener designed to be operable from inside a car and from inside the house; 4) that any changes to the size or envelope of the project, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, and changes to window/door placement or size, shall be subject to design review; 5) that the conditions of City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Recycling Specialist’s July 16, 2001 memos shall be met; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. C. Auran seconded the motion. Comment on the motion: does the maker of the motion want to include a condition that original first story windows be replaced; the maker of the motion noted that replacement of these windows is a suggestion only and not a condition of approval. If the applicant decides to replace first story windows during the course of the project, she can return to the Commission for a design review amendment. Chairman Vistica called for voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 voice vote (Cers. Keele and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:54 p.m. 6. 1369 BERNAL AVENUE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK AND HEIGHT VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GARY R. DIEBEL, DIEBEL & COMPANY, APPLICANT, ARCHITECT, AND PROPERTY OWNER) (61 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE KEYLON Reference staff report 02.11.02, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. It was noted that a letter opposing the project was before the Commission as a desk item. Commission asked: there was a project proposed at this location approximately two years ago, what height was proposed then? CP Monroe responded that information for past proposals is not included in the current staff report because if the projects are not built, they are considered terminated. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, representing the owner, and Gary Diebel, applicant, owner, and architect for the project, were present to answer questions. Mr. Hudak noted that the applicant has complied with the requests of the Commission by submitting a landscape plan, erecting story poles, and submitting the front elevation outlines of the neighboring houses. He feels the severe slope on the lot justifies the height variance. Patrick and Debbie Cunningham, 1365 Bernal Avenue; Charles Penner, 1364 Bernal Avenue; and Michael Carpenter, 1360 Bernal Avenue, spoke. They oppose the height variance for the proposed project; the addition will compromise the privacy, sunlight and air circulation on their property; the subject property cannot support a second story; the applicant does not have a right to a second story; the applicant did not approach any of the neighbors with his plans for an addition to get their input; applicant is an architect and he bought the house with the knowledge that a second story could not be added without requiring a variance; could support any first floor addition the applicant wanted to build. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: the applicant is allowed a certain floor area on this lot and to add a second story to the house, a variance is required; the existing house is already at 35'-2" (would require a special permit City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 2002 6 today) and a second story cannot be added in 10 inches; the slope of the lot is justification for the variance; the addition is well-designed and has the minimum plate height, 7'-6"; the second story setback from the street is significant and the addition has very little impact on the neighborhood; the story poles illustrate that the second floor will barely be visible from the street; the addition is minimal and not massive; the property to the south will be impacted, but the Planning Commission cannot insure privacy on 50' x 120' lots; the side setback variance is justified because the porch is an existing architectural feature and the design of the house will be enhanced by opening the porch up. C. Keighran 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 November 5, 2001, sheets A1.1 through A3.3, site plan, floor plans and building elevations, and sheet L-1 and A1.3, landscape plan and adjacent building elevations, date stamped January 30, 2002; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer’s and Recycling Specialist’s memos dated November 5, 2001 shall be met; 3) that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window (s), adding a dormer (s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 4) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. C. Bojués seconded the motion. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-1-2 voice vote (C. Brownrigg dissenting, Cers. Keele and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:33 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 1436 DRAKE AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (ALAN D. OLIN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DANIEL STRAMBI, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report 02.11.02, with attachments. ZT Lewit presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Commission asked: can the FAR calculations be double-checked since the project is right at the maximum allowable FAR. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Alan Olin, designer, was present to answer questions about the project. Nasser Momtaheni, 1437 Drake and Lou Brooks, 1432 Drake, spoke. The neighbors commented that they proposed house looks very massive, that the height should be reduced to the 30'-0" allowed without a special permit, and that the house would block a view. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: this house is not located in the hillside area and therefore, a permit for loss of view is not required. C. Keighran moved to set this project for the regular action calendar. C. Auran seconded the motion. The following suggestions were made to the designer and applicant: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 2002 7 • the design is elegant and well-done, but the house appears bulky; the proposed FAR should be reduced so that the house will be more consistent with the size of the other houses in the neighborhood; • the height of the proposed house is too tall; because it is a new house, the design could be adjusted to meet the 30'-0" height requirement; the second for plate height could be dropped to reduce some of the height; • label and provide information on the type of window and framing that will be used; • cross sections of the proposed house, as well as a comparison of the front elevations for the existing and proposed house, would be helpful in evaluating this project; • seven large trees are being removed on the site, while only 3 new trees are proposed; would like to see additional new, 24" box size trees of appropriate scale to help screen the two stories of the proposed house; • have 6 x 6 braces been considered instead of the 4 x 4 shown on the plans. Comment on the motion: would story poles be helpful in evaluating this project; story poles are not necessary because the project is not in the hillside area; the applicant should consider the benefit of not building to the maximum FAR because it will leave more open space for the property owners and the neighborhood. Chairman Vistica called for a voice 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 5-0-2 voice vote (Cers. Keele and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appeal able. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. 8. 2669 MARTINEZ DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, AND A FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHNNY DAROSA, DAROSA AND ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; LARRY AND GRACE NGAI, PROPERTY OWNERS) (42 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN (REQUEST TO CONTINUE) This item has been continued. Staff advised that the project will be re-noticed when it returns for a public hearing. 9. 1534 MEADOW LANE – ZONED R-1 – APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES, PARKING VARIANCE FOR SUBSTANDARD COVERED PARKING SPACE LENGTH, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BRIAN LILES, MICHAEL STANTON ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; STEVE ALMS, PROPERTY OWNER) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O’ROURKE CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission asked: are the front setbacks listed for the block correct; in viewing the neighborhood, it did not appear that the average front setback could be as deep as 25'-0"; can staff confirm the required setbacks, as well as the proposed setbacks and where the measurement for the front setback is measured to, is it the overhang at the front stoop or the dwelling face? Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Steve Alms, property owner, and Jim Cody of Michael Stanton architecture were present to answer questions. Mr. Alms noted that the average front setback measurement he provided is incorrect because he measured from the curb instead of the property line; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 2002 8 mistake can be rectified on the plans for the action hearing; he provided most of his neighbors with reduced copies of the proposed plans and submitted for the record a letter of support from one neighbor. Commission asked: what is the justification for the proposed variances; why will the mature birch trees on the lot be removed? The applicant responded that although the lot area is large, the lot has and odd shape and the variances are necessary to maintain a reasonable floor plan for the house; at least one of the birch trees is dead and the others are a safety hazard so they are slated for removal. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer. C. Auran seconded the motion. The following suggestions were made: • the south elevation has a towering effect that will be tough on the neighborhood because of its height and bulk; • the articulation of the west elevation should be carried to the remaining elevations of the project; • the windows on the lower floor of the tower structure do not blend in size or shape with the rest of the proposed windows; • the plans should be more detailed, showing materials and shading, so that the project can be accurately evaluated; • do not see a justification on the property for the second story setback variance; • the proposed second story addition appears bulky and lop-sided at the front of the house, the second story should be centered and pushed more to the rear of the house; and • submit a landscaping plan to demonstrate how trees will be placed to help screen the proposed addition. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item to the design reviewer. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 voice vote (Cers. Keele and Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:21 p.m. 10. 888 AIRPORT BOULEVARD - ZONED C-4 – SCOPING SESSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A PROPOSED NEW SINGLE-STORY OFFICE BUILDING (KIRK SYME, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; ELLIS A. SCHOICHET, EASA ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT (8 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented the project description and a summary of the items that staff had identified as being potentially significant for further environmental study. Commission asked if this portion of Airport Blvd. was planned for widening in the future, staff noted no; the location of the roadway right-of-way, the front property line, the BCDC jurisdiction line and the front setback line were clarified on the plans. There were no further comments from staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. Kirk Syme, property owner, and a representative from EASA Architecture were present to represent the project. He noted that they have been working on this project for almost a year, most of that time has been spent with the Design Review Board at BCDC since almost the entire site is in their jurisdiction. The BCDC DRB has put their stamp on this proposal, and now they would like the city’s review. BCDC required that the bayside of the new building be placed at the same location as the rear of the present building and that the existing bay shoreline trail be expanded from the present 9 feet to 12 feet, at its narrowest point. They also wanted the parking areas pulled away from the shoreline and a view corridor created through the parking stalls. This site has many limitations, including its shape. They wanted a pedestrian friendly building with an orientation to the street. They realize that this is City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes February 11, 2002 9 a gateway site for the city. They noted that they had completed studies of traffic, soils, grading and drainage. Commissioners noted in their questions and comments: • How does the proposed Bayshore access connect to the access along the Sprint Building to the south, are the widths the same; • What kind of trees will replace the vegetation that is on the public right-of-way and site now, why were these particular trees selected, how have you balanced the placement of these trees with protection of the views of the bay; • The city side walk at the front of the site, where the shoreline pathway connects to it, is very narrow, can this sidewalk on the public right-of-way be widened; • What is the plan for lighting the site, will the cones of light be contained on the site, will the lighting be such that the site will not “glow” either near-at-hand or from a distance; • Why was the front of the structure “bayed” off, why was it not round or square, either would have little effect on the square footage; • Will electrical service to this site be underground; • Where will the electrical transformer be for this building; • How did you arrive at the number of employees and visitors to the site, how many tenants do you anticipate in the building. There were no further comments from the floor or commission. The public comment was closed. Chairman Vistica directed staff to proceed with the environmental study. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of February 4, 2002. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of February 4, 2002. - Staff reminded Commission of the special meetings on February 19 (7:30 pm) and 23, 2002 (7:00 p.m.) and for the Safeway DEIR on March 6 (7:00 p.m.). Chairman Vistica noted that with the North End Specific Area Plan bidding process proceeding the Commission would need to appoint a subcommittee to act as a resource for the consultant. He appointed Cers. Brownrigg, Keighran, and Vistica with C. Auran as an alternate. He also confirmed the Safeway project subcommittee of Cers. Osterling, Vistica and Bojués. CP Monroe noted to Commission that they would be receiving, individually, an invitation from the New Development Subcommittee of the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP) to a workshop on Friday March 29, 2002. The workshop is to provide a program overview and summary of the changes anticipated under the new permit and how these will affect the City. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Joe Bojués, Secretary MINUTES2.11