Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2019.02.25BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, February 25, 2019 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin and Senior Planner Erika Lewit. 2. ROLL CALL Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and TsePresent6 - SargentAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES There were no meeting minutes to approve. 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments on non-agenda items. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR a.1328 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Special Permit for reduction of on-site parking. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (James Neubert Architects, architect; Hari and Depali Abhyankar, property owners) (163 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1328 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report 1328 Capuchino Ave - Attachments 1328 Capuchino Ave - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse5 - Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Absent:Sargent1 - Recused:Comaroto1 - b.250 California Drive, zoned CAR - Application for a One Year Extension of a previously approved application for Commercial Design Review and Conditional Use Permits for a new, four-story mixed use office building (retail and office). The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. (20 Hobart LLC, applicant and property owner; MBH Architects, architect) (71 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 250 California Dr - Staff Report 250 California Dr - Attachments 250 California Dr - Plans Attachments: Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Sargent1 - 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.Consideration of an Amendment to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the Zoning Code, to allow commercial recreation as a Conditional Use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial (BAC) zone within Downtown Burlingame. Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin Amendment to Title 25 Zoning - Staff Report Amendment to Title 25 Zoning - Attachments Proposed Amendments to Title 25 Zoning PC Resolution Attachments: Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Was there any discussion at the economic development subcommittee level in regards to hours of operation or would that be considered on a case -by-case basis as part of a conditional use permit application? (Hurin: That level of detail was not part of the discussion, however conditions of approval may be added as part of the conditional use permit application.) >Hours of operation for particular businesses could be of concern, such as fitness businesses operating in the early morning hours. (Hurin: Commercial recreation includes a variety of uses . Subcommittee focused on fitness uses, which could create concerns regarding noise; however these concerns could be addressed with conditions of approval limiting the hours of operation.) >What types of uses does commercial recreation include? (Hurin: In general, it includes athletic and fitness centers, gyms, art and dance studios, martial arts studios, bowling alleys, billiard halls, performance theaters, and activity /play centers for children and adults. Staff would evaluate a proposal and determine if it qualifies as a commercial recreation use.) >In the subcommittee meeting minutes, property owners made observations and suggestions including a minimum depth requirement for active retail at the front of the space. How was the 15-foot dimension Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes determined? (Hurin: Staff discussed the different businesses that are interested in opening in Burlingame, felt that 15 feet was an appropriate dimension to provide an active use so that it is visible from the street and to provide enough room for retail display or lounge /reception area. If the dimension is too short, then it will become left over space and not be used well. If the active space is too deep, the tenant may be concerned that it takes away from their primary business activity.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Conditional use permit process provides the level of protection in case an application presents possible negative impacts. Have no objections to the proposed ordinance. >At City Council and subcommittee levels, the issue has been vetted and discussed in regards to the changing face of retail, and the need to open ourselves up in terms of what types of uses are going to continue to make our downtown vibrant. We have to think about how downtowns are going to remain alive with e-commerce. Commercial recreation uses will continue to bring people downtown; don't see a reason not to allow it. >15-foot buffer is potential retail area, so will add to the retail feel on Burlingame Avenue. In support of proposed change. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to recommend to the City Council that the ordinance and resolution be approved as proposed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Sargent1 - b.1268 Cortez Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a project that was continued from a prevoius hearing for a new, two -story single family dwelling and Special Permit for an attached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Eric Nyhus, applicant and architect; GLAD Trust, property owner ) (103 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1268 Cortez Ave - Staff Report 1268 Cortez Ave - Attachments 1268 Cortez Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Tse noted that she had a phone conversation with the property owner. Commissioners Comaroto, Kelly, and Terrones noted that they had email exchanges with the applicant. Commissioner Terrones communicated with staff to get clarification on the process. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Eric Nyhus, project architect, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Windows on the left side wall of the garage are shown on the floor plans, but not on the left elevation . Can you confirm whether or not windows are proposed on the left side of the garage? (Nyhus: For cost reasons, decided to remove these windows. Also, noted the roof plan will be updated to match the roof pitch shown on the building elevations, from 4.25:12 to 4.44:12). Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Project has come a long way, applicant has made many changes requested by the Commission, is approvable at this point. >Applicant has worked really hard to address concerns. Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application. Commission Discussion: >Add condition of approval that requires the roof pitch to match the roof pitch shown on the building elevations, as opposed to on the roof plan. The maker of the motion and second agreed to add the following condition of approval: >that the roof pitch for the house shall be 4.44:12 as shown on the building elevations. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Sargent1 - c.1629 Howard Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and designer; Peter and Judith Cittadini TR, property owners) (99 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1629 Howard Ave - Staff Report 1629 Howard Ave - Attachments 1629 Howard Ave - Historic Resource Study 1629 Howard Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Adam Bittle, project architect, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >In response letter, you mention a 15-foot increased setback. Trying to understand where the extra setback was provided, can you explain? (Bittle: There is 15 feet between the stairway window and the neighbors' window, and horizontal alignment with the neighbors' window is off five feet.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >This is a good looking project. Like changes made and it blends in well with fabric of this neighborhood. >Lowering plate height settles second floor down more. >Like bolstered porch columns. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the application. Commission Discussion: >Suggest that downspout not be taken down the porch column, should find another solution, such as a hanging chain. Chair Gaul reopened the public hearing to allow a member of the public to speak. Property owner, 144 Occidental Avenue: Their existing garage abuts our driveway, proposed plans show garage to be removed and relocated to other corner of lot, which will leave a big gap. Existing garage is approximately 20 feet long and 15 feet tall, provides privacy in backyard. Concerned that they are not taking this into account. Would like to know how they plan to address that. >Landscape plan shows a new 6-foot tall wooden fence in the backyard and a Chinese tallow trees in the rear corner where the garage is currently located. >Suggest meeting with the applicant to discuss possible planting solutions to provide privacy. >Code allows a six-foot tall solid fence with one additional foot of lattice, for a total of seven feet. Can't suggest a taller fence since it would require a Fence Exception. However, landscaping can be taller. Bittle: New fence and tree will be installed along the rear property line. Could consider incorporating additional screening along the rear fence. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commissioner Terrones amended the motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to approve the Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes application with the following condition: >that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall submit an FYI to the Planning Commission that shows a revised landscape plan; that the revised landscape plan shall show a 7-foot tall fence that complies with Chapter 25.78 of the Burlingame Municipal Code along the rear property line and additional landscape screening along the rear property line; and that the applicant shall provide documentation to show that the property owner to the rear the subject property (at 144 Occidental Avenue) has reviewed and agrees to the revised landscape changes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Sargent1 - d.1628 Lassen Way, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Master SWU Associates, Steve Wu, applicant and designer; Jeff Park, property owner) (139 noticed) Staff contact: Ruben Hurin 1628 Lassen Way - Staff Report 1628 Lassen Way - Attachments 1628 Lassen Way - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Steve Wu, project designer, and Jeff Park, property owner, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: There were no questions for the applicant. Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Project has come a long way to address the concerns expressed by the Commission. >Project suffers from graphics, makes it difficult to tell what we're going to get. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Sargent1 - e.1448 Drake Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for a new, two -story single family dwelling with a detached garage. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Eric Bluestein, applicant and property owner; RDS -Residential Design Solutions, designer ) (121 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1448 Drake Ave - Staff Report 1448 Drake Ave - Attachments 1448 Drake Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. >Can staff explain what the applicant will need to do so that the workout room in the basement does not qualify as a bedroom? (Lewit: Could reconfigure the stairs so that they lead directly into the workout room or remove the pocket door into the room and open the wall so that it is 50% open.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Christian Ruffat, project designer, Julie Carlson, designer, and Eric and Allison Bluestein, property owners, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Didn't get a landscape plan in the revised drawings. Landscape plan will need to be revised to reflect the changes made to the project. For example, the location of the air conditioning unit will need to be updated because the exterior stairway was eliminated. (Ruffat: The air conditioning unit will now be located to left of rear deck. Will include all changes in the construction documents.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Originally noted that the project looked too two -dimensional and flat. Like changes made to project and staggered look at front of house. >Concerned with grid pattern on living room window at front of house. All panes in other windows in house are in a vertical orientation, while the panes in the living room window are more horizontal. Suggest adding one more vertical grid line so that there would be five vertical sections by four horizontal sections. >For the added condition of approval to address the potential bedroom in the basement, will compliance with the condition be reviewed at staff level? (Lewit: Yes, that is correct. Assumes that there are no associated exterior changes that would trigger an FYI or amendment.) >Would like to see landscape plan revised so that it is consistent with current design. (Lewit: This can Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes also be reviewed at staff level.) >Believe there is a lighting ordinance which requires that exterior lighting be kept on the property and not extend beyond the property line. Have seen many lights on houses that don't comply with this ordinance. The light fixture proposed at the front of this house suggests that there will be bright glow and therefore not comply with the lighting ordinance. Suggest that the applicant look at this carefully. We need to pay more attention to this in general. (Hurin: Correct, ordinance stipulates that exterior lighting cannot be located more than nine feet above finished floor and that the cone of light must be directed downward so that it does extend beyond the property line.) Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the application with the following conditions: >that the living room window at the front of the house shall contain a five vertical pane x four horizontal pane pattern. >that the landscape plan shall be consistent with the site plan, showing light wells without stairs along the left side of the house and an air conditioning unit that complies with the regulations of Chapter 25.58.050 of the Burlingame Municipal Code. >that prior to issuance of a building permit, Planning staff shall review revised interior plans for the project to confirm that the project has four or fewer bedrooms; and that Planning staff shall evaluate any exterior changes that may result from the interior revisions to determine if an FYI or amendment is required. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Sargent1 - f.1505 Sherman Avenue, zoned R -1 and R-3 - Application for an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit to add twelve additional students for a pre -school use at a church. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Rev. Schufreider and Dan Ionescu, applicants; Trinity Lutheran Church, property owner) (257 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1505 Sherman Ave and 1248 Sherman Ave - Staff Report 1505 Sherman Ave and 1248 Sherman Ave - Attachments 1505 Sherman and 1248 Balboa - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Rev. Jeffrey Schufreider and Dan Ionescu, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >What types of activities and users have been using, as part of the youth group program, the 1248 Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Balboa Avenue portion of the site? (Rev. Schufreider: Used on Sunday mornings for events, Wednesday afternoons for children, and during the summer for Vacation Bible School. During the summer, there are up to 20 participants.) >Will these programs then go away with the proposed preschool use? (Rev. Schufreider: Will be working around these programs. Participants in the Vacation Bible School were in the preschool, and they may also have siblings.) >How would the students in the two buildings be separated? Are they different age groups? Do they play together during recess? (Rev. Schufreider: Would probably have difference recesses.) >Would the students at the 1248 Balboa Avenue site use the outdoor play area immediately next to that building? Or would they cross over the traffic lane to use the other outdoor play area? (Rev. Schufreider: Children would use the play area on the same site, and the site is fenced in during recess, so there would be no cars driving through the site.) Public Comments: >Resident, 1217 Balboa Avenue: Have children that attend the preschool. When purchased home, didn't realize there was a school there. Appreciate that the pastor and staff have been so inviting and welcoming to all of the events at the school. Have brought a lot to the community. In support of the application. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Was here for the original amendments to the conditional use permit and various amendments along the way. Glad to see operation is going well and that the City traffic engineer has made specific observations to see that there is no congestion. >Encouraging to see that it is a good neighborhood resource and would like to see them continue to thrive. >Believe that preschool is well run, based on the original application and given the number of neighbors expressing concerns at that time. Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Sargent1 - g.988 Howard Avenue, zoned MMU - Application for a Conditional Use Permit for a real estate office on the third floor (Urban Compass, Inc., applicant; Vocon, designer; Opus One Properties, property owner) (82 noticed) Staff contact: Catherine Keylon 988 Howard Ave - Staff Report and Attachments 988 Howard Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. >We've processed conditional use permits for real estate offices in downtown, correct? (Hurin: Yes, that is correct.) >Have we had any issues or complaints filed with real estate offices? (Hurin: No, there have been no complaints filed regarding real estate offices or parking associated with real estate offices.) >Don't understand bias against real estate offices. (Hurin: Traditionally, there was a potential for Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes impacts due to the number of agents reporting to the office to complete transactions. However, the way real estate offices operate has changed over the years. In the upcoming zoning update, we will be looking at considering real estate offices as a general office use.) Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >Am I correct in recalling that there has been some coordination with the other tenant and that they're in support of the application? (Hudak: Building owner knows who the other tenant will be and wants to make sure these businesses are complimentary. Feel that during the two hours per month where we will use more parking, we will not use that much parking for the remainder of the time.) >Staff reports indicates 39 spaces are proposed for the real estate use, but there are 29 dedicated spaces. So one is by calculation and the other by contract. (Hudak: If you were to calculate the required parking based on the 1:300 SF parking ratio for traditional office use, you would need 39 spaces. This was the basis for the required parking for the building as a whole. But because you have one shared space and therefore some reduction credits for this building, you don't really have the right number of parking spaces for the formulas if you had the office on the second and third floors and other use on the ground floor. So there has to be some sharing. We'll have first call on the 29 spaces, but won't need 20 of those spaces most of the time, so that's why it should work out for the building.) Public Comments: >No name provided: Compass moving to the east side will take burden off of real estate offices located on west side, and in this way will highlight the east side and all of its attributes. In support of project. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Work for real estate company, in our office Morning morning meetings are packed, with 70-75% of agents attending the meeting. Find that agents are having to park on the street. Also looked at how conference rooms are being used, estimate conference rooms are used 50% of the time throughout the week. So there is a lot of fluctuation and constant use of the rooms. >Like that there will only be two general meetings per month, will help to reduce impacts. However, still believe that there will be a high volume of people and cars coming to the site. >Concerned about how it will impact the neighborhood, do believe that more than just a handful of agents showing up at any give time, especially for the Monday morning meetings. Would like to discuss issue further with applicant. Chair Gaul reopened the public hearing. Hudak: Did consider it, also considered the timing relative to the elementary school located down the street. Will have a proving out period where we see whether the Compass agents follow the traditional model or a different model given that they are more technology oriented, so there could be fewer agents coming to the site. Office manager and broker will work with the agents; if we sense that there is a problem, will give strong instruction that they cannot park in the neighborhood and will need to park in a commercial district if there is no parking available on site. Property owner has made it clear that he does not want to impact the neighborhood.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Further Commission Discussion: >There will be a new public parking garage built in the downtown area just a few blocks away, would encourage company to direct agents to use those spaces. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application with the following condition: >that that one year after the real estate business opens, the applicant shall provide a written update regarding the parking and vehicle circulation patterns associated with the real estate business, as well as any traffic or parking complaints associated with the real estate business and received by the business owner, property owner, or by the City of Burlingame; the written update shall be presented as an FYI item to the Planning Commission. Comment on the motion: >In regards to that neighborhood, Washington Elementary School operates well because it has three street frontages, so the intensity is focused right at the school. If the real estate company does not park in the residential areas, the school should operate just fine. >Area is being impacted by development and don't want to see residents getting upset with regards to parking impacts in the area. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Sargent1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1425 Bernal Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Raymond Wong, property owner; Chu Design Associates (applicant and designer) (123 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 1425 Bernal Ave - Staff Report 1425 Bernal Ave - Attachments 1425 Bernal Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. James Chu, project designer, represented the applicant, and Eric Wong represented the property owner. Commission Questions/Comments: >In the rear left corner, where the garage is going to be located, is there an existing two -foot diameter tree that is being removed? What kind of tree is it? (Chu: Yes, that is correct. The arborist report notes it as a Catalina ironwood.) Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Composition at the front of the house is fairly traditional, but because the house is raised to meet grade at the rear of the house, the left elevation towards the front of the house is tall and flat. Besides the four windows in this area, there is no articulation. Is there anything you can to articulate this wall better? (Chu: Sure, will look into it.) >The house seems very traditional, proposed modern cable railing doesn't match the style of house . (Chu: Was trying to do something different, but will revisit the railing material to better fit the house, perhaps a wood material with a different patter.) >Is there a reason why the doors at the front porch don't include grids? (Chu: No reason, we can add grids to match the windows. Can also add grids to the doors at the rear of the house.) Public Comments: There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion: >Very well designed and articulated house. >At first wondered why house was lifted so far off the ground, but understand now that it is due to the upward sloping lot. >Needs to address left side elevation and cable railing material as discussed. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Gaul, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar. Commission Discussion: >Regarding left elevation, the landscape plan just shows low lying shrubs in planter in front of wall. Would benefit to have a small specimen tree like a Japanese maple. Don't think it's the only solution, there still should be some architectural articulation on that wall, but it would help. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Kelly, Comaroto, Gaul, Terrones, and Tse6 - Absent:Sargent1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS There was no Director's Report. 12. ADJOURNMENT Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on February 25, 2019. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on March 7, 2019, the action becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be accompanied by an appeal fee of $551, which includes noticing costs. Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019 February 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 3/12/2019