HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2019.05.28BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersTuesday, May 28, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin and
Associate Planner, 'Amelia Kolokihkaufisi.
2. ROLL CALL
Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and GaulPresent5 -
Kelly, and LoftisAbsent2 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to approve.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Item 8b (1316 Capuchino Avenue) was continued to the June 10, 2019 meeting because of lack of
quorom.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.133 Clarendon Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt
from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section
15301 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Jesse Geurse, Geuse Conceptual Design, Inc .,
applicant and designer; Matt Rossen, property owner) (118 noticed) Staff Contact:
Michelle Markiewicz
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019
May 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
133 Clarendon Rd - Staff Report
133 Clarendon Rd - Attachments
133 Clarendon Rd - 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.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Jesse Geurse, represented the applicant.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Comments/Direction:
>Existing stone veneer is just applied to the front of the house. Suggest turning the stone veneer one
foot around the corner of the house on both sides.
>Applicant clarified that standing seam metal roof will be a dark bronze color.
>Window is really close to the chimney, will be hard to flash, may want to consider moving window over
more to the left.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the
application with the following amended condition:
>that the standing seam metal roof shall be of a dark bronze or general earth tone color.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Gaul5 -
Absent:Kelly, and Loftis2 -
b.1316 Capuchino Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15303 (a). (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc ., applicant and designer; 1316
Capuchino Avenue, LLC, property owner) (128 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
1316 Capuchino Ave - Staff Report
1316 Capuchino Ave - Attachments
1316 Capuchino Ave - Plans
Attachments:
>Item 8b (1316 Capuchino Avenue) was continued to the June 10, 2019 meeting because of lack of
quorom.
c.25 Arundel Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for changes to
a previously approved application for Design Review for a first and second story addition
to an existing split-level house. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019
May 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15301 (e)(1). (Channing
and Carrie Chen, applicants and property owners) (126 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine
Keylon
25 Arundel Rd - Staff Report
25 Arundel Rd - Attachments
25 Arundel Rd - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Sargent was recused from this item because he a financial interest in a property located
within 500 feet of the subject property.
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.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Channing Chen, represented the applicant.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Comments/Direction:
>Don't see justification for the changes being proposed. Remember going through the details on this
specific project. Many of the details were there to make the house fit in with the neighborhood and make
the design cohesive. Think the panels above and below the front bay window really add to the design, not
in agreement with the applicant that it improves the design.
>Don't see the smaller changes as a cost issue, including the removal of the belly band, corbels and
shutters. Think the corbels add a lot and belly band helps on the larger expanses of the walls, so am not
in favor of removing those elements.
>Don't think Hardi siding is a material that works in Burlingame, looks cheap, feel that it doesn't fit in
with neighborhood. When visited site, of the houses that have shingle and horizontal siding, very few of
them had corner caps, most had mitered corners. Not seeing Hardi siding as a viable option for this type
of a house.
>Steel doors for garage won't hold up as well as wood, so not in favor of changing the garage door
material.
>Design is fairly bulky, one of the reasons it was approvable before because the details that were
additive were helping to give some scale, break down the massing and add charm.
>Would consider eliminating the belly band above the garage door since there is a trellis feature above
it already.
>Removing the panels on the front bay window ends up making it look like a bay that was retrofitted
with siding.
>Wouldn't have approved this if project was initially proposed this way, would have asked for some
additional detail and articulation to bring charm to the proposed solution.
>Not so worried about the belly band, however am concerned with removal of the details at the front
bay window.
>Not opposed to removing shutters at rear of house, but think the other details should be retained.
>Added details, especially at the front of the house, do add charm to the home where there are a
number of elements that are protruding.
>Okay with removing the belly band above the garage and some of the details at the rear of the house
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019
May 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
since they will be less visible from the street and neighbors.
>Details at front of house and corbels that are visible from the side are nice additives.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto to approve the
application to only include removal of the belly band above the garage door and at the rear of
the house and removal of the shutters at the rear of the house, as amended in condition of
approval No. 1:
>that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date
stamped May 11,2017, sheets A0.0 through L1.1, with revised elevations date stamped May 2,
2019; and to only include removal of the belly band above the garage door and at the rear of the
house and removal of the shutters at the rear of the house;
Discussion of Motion:
>Does the motion include retaining the belly band at the rear of the house? Maker of the
motion clarified that the motion also includes removal of the belly band at the rear of the house.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Gaul4 -
Absent:Kelly, and Loftis2 -
Recused:Sargent1 -
d.834 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review Amendment for
changes to a previously approved project for a new, two -story single family dwelling with a
detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a). (John Nguyen,
Dulon, Inc., applicant and designer; Tony Leung, property owner) (130 noticed) Staff
Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi
834 Crossway Rd - Staff Report
834 Crossway Rd - Attachments
834 Crossway Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
John Nguyen, represented the applicant.
Public Comments:
John Nuttman, 830 Crossway Road: Live on a hill, concerned with water runoff from property. Previous
house had a concrete curb that ran along driveway from the front of the site to the garage at the rear, curb
was also part of the foundation for the old garage. Contractor graded the lot and the curb, which acted as
a water deterrent, has been removed. Water runoff from his property will affect other lots that are located
downhill. Have not seen anything being done regarding controlling the water on the site.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019
May 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission Comments/Direction:
>Appears that plate height on front porch is more than 8'-0", perhaps 8'-6" or 9'-0". Would like to see
plate height at front porch come down to 8'-0", would have better scale with the neighborhood.
>Encourage applicant to meet with neighbor regarding fencing and closure of the two properties.
>Have concerns that house was getting too tall and bulky for the neighborhood, but see that entire first
floor of house was brought down by 1 foot. However, have concerns regarding the height of the front
porch, which are encouraged in the design guidelines. There is a sense of scale with porches, lose scale
when porches get 8 to 9 feet or taller, and doesn't fit in with the neighborhood. Increasing height of
windows and porch is not acceptable.
>Increase in window and door heights is acceptable, but have concerns with increasing plate height on
front porch.
>Adding eyebrow roof above French doors is a good revision, adds scale to that elevation.
>Could consider approving the application with lowering the front porch plate height to 8 feet or lower,
with no change to the slope of the porch roof.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the
application with the following amended condition:
>that the front porch plate height shall be reduced to 8 feet or lower above finished floor, with
no change to the slope of the porch roof.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Gaul5 -
Absent:Kelly, and Loftis2 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.217 Channing Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and detached garage. (Rob Wehmeyer, RC Wehmeyer, applicant
and designer; Somrat and Sarah Niyogi, property owners) (140 noticed) Staff Contact:
Erika Lewit
217 Channing Rd - Staff Report
217 Channing Rd - Attachments
217 Channing Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Associate Planner 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Rob Wehmeyer, represented the applicant.
Public Comments:
David Harris, Howard Avenue: Seems to be a pattern of building houses to maximum footprint and FAR
and not taking into account adjacent houses, which are typically single story. Looks like an acceptable
design, can't read architectural plans but would hope that it fits in with character of neighborhood and not
another house on steroids. Overtime what's happening on the east side is that there are more large
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019
May 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
houses that are eroding the neighborhood character. It's an ongoing concern.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Comments/Direction:
>There is a large hedge along right side which fills in the area between the neighbors driveway and the
wall of this house. Will that hedge remain? (Wehmeyer: Don't know at this point. Client's concern is the
daylight coming into this side of the house, but also would like to protect her privacy. Because the house
was considered new construction, this side of the house was set back an additional 1'-6" to comply with
current code regulations. Client will discuss this with the neighbor.) Try to resolve prior to coming back to
Planning Commission.
>If hedge is removed along right side of house, consider bringing fence forward and extend stone
veneer to front of fence. Along left side of house, consider extending stone veneer to inside corner where
the houses changes planes.
>Concerned that 10-inch fascias with box ends add bulk to the house. Many of the houses in the
neighborhood contain simple rake barge rafters or fascias with simple terminations. Consider reducing
fascias and turn down eaves from 2x10 to 2x8. Look at other houses in neighborhood.
>Is there a reason you need to have corner boards on the shingles and siding? Can those be mitered?
(Wehmeyer: They can be mitered if we switch to wood. Originally, this project was supposed to be a
remodel, but turned into a different project now that it's being considered new construction, so had to
factor in cost and budget. Hardi material is difficult to miter, it just falls apart. Tried to work out a detail
with the boards that would work well the rest of the exterior siding and materials.)
>Consider widening the entry door to at least 36 inches, would be a more comfortable entry door if it
was wider.
>Concerned that stone veneer looks stuck on without any depth. Provide specifications and /or sample
of proposed stone veneer.
>Concerned with what mechanical equipment will be visible on outside of house; show on building
elevations.
>Consider adding chimney in between windows along right side or show cap on wall for gas fireplace.
>Concerned with use of Hardi siding and corner boards.
>Consider adding a window or windows in the kitchen to break up blank wall along right side of house
at rear.
>Important to look at the scale and relative delicacy of the details in the context of the neighborhood.
>Existing house has certain amount of charm and character that is contributing to the neighborhood.
>Project is well crafted, but revisiting the details will bring the proposed project back to be in keeping
with the character with the rest of the neighborhood in terms of scale, charm and detail.
>Revisit siding and cornerboards, mitered corners are softer.
>Proposed siding doesn't make house fit into neighborhood anymore. Blending in with the existing
neighborhood is a key consideration of the design guidelines.
>For single story houses of this era, the trend was to have raised floors, typically three feet above
grade. Adding a second floor raises the overall height to the maximum allowed. Creates a much larger
house than if the floor height were closer to the existing grade. Would encourage applicant to lower the
finished floor closer to grade.
Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place this
item on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Gaul5 -
Absent:Kelly, and Loftis2 -
b.1543 Cypress Avenue, zoned R-1- Application for Design Review for a first and second
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019
May 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
story addition to an existing single family dwelling with an existing detached garage .
(Christian Ruffat, applicant and architect; Alicia Sanguinetti, property owner) (130
noticed) Staff Contact: Sonal Aggarwal
1543 Cypress Ave - Staff Report
1543 Cypress Ave - Attachments
1543 Cypress Ave - Historic Resource Study
1543 Cypress Ave - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the subject
property.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul noted that he spoke to the adjacent
neighbor's mother.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Acting Chair Tse opened the public hearing.
Christian Ruffat, represented the applicant.
Public Comments:
Sherrie Petersen, 1541 Cypress Avenue: Applicant has not contacted any of the neighbors about the
proposed project. Being able to see the drawings before the meeting was very helpful. Concerned with
three windows looking directly into our backyard, this is not acceptable, already had to grow trees to block
the second story behind us. The side of the house now is not well taken care of. Last renter turned
garage into a drum studio, so it's not currently functioning as a garage. If garage will be used for parking,
will need to widen the opening. One side of garage is adjacent to yard and acts like a fence, want to make
sure yard is useable if garage is being replaced. Would like to see fence repaired or replaced. Competed
small addition on our house, did not need Planning Commission review, but were very careful to keep the
historic nature of the house. An Italian family lived in this house and they built our house for their
daughter, which was one of the first women who graduated from Stanford and first female superintendent
of Mills High School.
Unidentified speaker: House at corner of Barroilhet Avenue and Cypress Avenue used frosted windows to
provide privacy and still let in natural light, could be a consideration here rather than eliminating windows.
Acting Chair Tse closed the public hearing.
Commission Comments/Direction:
>Carport added something to the original character of the house. Will need to see what Page &
Turnbull says in terms of the historical evaluation and how much you're proposing affects the historic
resource. One potential mitigation might be to keep the carport, in which case you might ask that we
consider some variances for lot coverage and FAR because the extraordinary or unique situation that you'll
be faced with is this house being a historic resource.
>It appears that some of the details on the detached garage have been removed from the drawings,
including existing braces at the ridgeline and at the eaves. Are you proposing to remove those or are they
just not shown on the drawings? (Ruffat: Didn't think to add them on the drawings.) Think it's important
that you shown them on the drawings if these features will be retained, because it's one more indication to
the historic resource evaluator that you're not altering this existing resource.
>Is there any reason why the proposed new garage door couldn't be of the same character as the
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019
May 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
existing half crossbuck door that is on the garage now? May help with the historic resource evaluation and
what you need to do in order to mitigate potential impacts. Crossbuck design translates to the crossbuck
design that is in the carport and side gate. (Ruffat: Don't see any reason why it could not.)
>Proposal includes replacing the shutters and front window, which has a lot of character. Is it critical to
the design? (Ruffat: It's a fixed glass window, had to make a decision to maintain that pattern of glass or
have a one-off element. Chose to have new operable windows instead of a pane of glass.) Would
encourage you to consider retaining the window, suspect that historic evaluator will look at the large
picture window with the details and muntins and deem that that element is one of the contributors the
house being a potential historic resource.
>What is slope of existing roof? (Ruffat: Think it is 7:12). Please confirm on plans.
>Consider reducing the size of some of the rooms to reduce lot coverage, would make it easier to
justify a variance.
>Retaining the carport would really add to the design.
>Clearly show all architectural details at front of house on existing and proposed front elevations .
Specifically show elements cited in the historic resource evaluation on front elevation.
>Front window combines with other architectural elements on the front of the building that helps to hold
the design together.
>Carport is strong element of design of existing house and think there is a way to retain it by reducing
other areas of the house.
>Consider mimicking the existing chimney cap on the new extended chimney.
>Front elevation notes that existing roof is to remain. However, it's not reading similarly on the right
elevation; please revise accordingly.
>Design is fairly well crafted, massing generally follows what we encourage in the design review
guidelines. Plate heights at 9 feet and 8 feet are not grandiose and fall within the limits of what we
encourage.
>Since the main roof is proposed to remain at the front of the house, strongly encourage retaining the
carport and length of existing house. Would be willing to consider a variance for lot coverage, perhaps for
floor area, in order to keep the existing carport. The stretch of roof, front facade, front window and perhaps
keeping the existing dormer would go a long way towards maintaining the existing historic resource that
may allow them to better convince the historic evaluator that the historic resource is not being impacted to
the level of significance that would require further mitigation.
>Encourage applicant to re -evaluate and closely look at the details before review by the historic
resource evaluator.
>Can consider variance for lot coverage and/or floor area ratio for maintaining historic resource.
>Work with neighbor on issues that affect the property in terms of fences and plantings.
>See justification for variance for lot coverage since it is significantly being reduced. However, may be
more hard pressed to make findings for floor area ratio since there is a significant increase in floor area
with this project, would have a negative impact on the surrounding houses.
>Strongly encourage retaining the existing carport and long expanse of roof at front of house, cited in
historic resource report as contributors.
>Would like to see existing architectural details shown on existing building elevations and those to be
retained on the proposed building elevations.
>Encourage compliance with lot coverage and floor area ratio regulations. Floor plan is quite generous,
some area can be trimmed down to comply with lot coverage and floor area ratio requirements.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place this item
on the Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed.
Comment on Motion:
>There are many ways that could allow the project to move forward with the historic resource
evaluation without coming back with negative findings that say the resource is being impacted
too significantly.
>Encourage applicant to closely look at the guidelines from the Secretary of the Interior,
because one of the things we're often asked to consider as mitigation for projects like this when
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019
May 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
we have a historic resource is that the addition sets itself off from the existing house, so they
could look at the materials that are used on the addition and that often times is what allows the
historic resource evaluator to determine that the original architecture is clearly delineated.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Terrones, Tse, and Gaul4 -
Absent:Kelly, and Loftis2 -
Recused:Comaroto1 -
c.2617 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review, Special Permit for
Declining Height Envelope, and Front Setback Variance for a second story addition to an
existing single family dwelling. (Alicia Ader, Dreiling Terrones Architecture, applicant and
architect; Tricia and Darren Tayama, property owners) (89 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika
Lewit
2617 Easton Dr - Staff Report
2617 Easton Dr - Attachments
2617 Easton Dr - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Terrones was recused from this item as his office is the applicant.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Tricia Tamaya and Alicia Ader, represented the applicant.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Comments/Direction:
>Clarify if there will be an increase or decrease in declining height envelope encroachment with revision
to the project.
>Include list of existing front setbacks of neighboring houses. Generally accept argument that this is a
unique situation and that average is based on a large number of houses. In reviewing neighborhood it
appears that many houses have similar setbacks to this house, but would be helpful to see numbers.
>Overall this is a nice design and it fits in with the scale of houses in neighborhood.
>See justification for Front Setback Variance for rebuilding the porch in its place.
>This is a unique situation with the sloping lot, see justification for Special Permit for declining height
envelope; house on right is located very close to this property and house on left will not be impacted to a
great extent.
>Regarding central window on second floor in master bathroom facing the street, would like to see
privacy protected in master bathroom. Consider repeating same size window on either side and adding a
transom window above it; would help to break up the pattern and create opportunity for window treatment
or some other type of window operation to provide privacy in master bathroom.
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019
May 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place this item on the
Regular Action Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed.
Discussion of Motion:
>Calculation of declining height envelope is difficult on steep lots like this one, consistently
consider this type of special permit on this type of lot. Although this is a special request, it's one
that we typically give favorable consideration to.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Tse, and Gaul4 -
Absent:Kelly, and Loftis2 -
Recused:Terrones1 -
d.12 Valdivia Court, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area
Construction Permit for a first and second story addition to an existing single family
dwelling. (Audrey Tse, applicant and designer; Douglas Solomon & Lauri Pasch, property
owners) (54 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
12 Valdivia Ct - Staff Report
12 Valdivia Ct - Attachments
12 Valdivia Ct - Plans
Attachments:
Commissioner Tse was recused from this item as her office is the applicant.
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Terrones noted that he had a discussion
with the property owner at 12 Valdivia Court and the housekeeper at 16 Valdivia Court.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Lauren Le, represented the applicant.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Comments/Direction:
>Confirmed that the proposed project was shared with the neighbors.
>Massing is handled nicely and fits in with the neighborhood; second floor integrates well with the first
floor.
>Confirmed that all windows will be replaced.
>Need to determine whether or not story poles should be installed. Hard time seeing where there are
distant views that could be impacted; was not able to access the second floor at 16 Valdivia Court, but
what would be in the distance would be trees. Would like to know what other Commissioners think.
>Don't see the need to install story poles, given that it is surrounded by existing trees at the rear and
the site is in a flat area within the Hillside.
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019
May 28, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Sign was posted on the site and public hearing notices were sent; public hearing notices will also be
sent for action meeting. If neighbors have concerns with the potential view blockage, they will make sure
their concerns are heard.
>See no issues with proposed deck at rear of house since it is located within two projecting rooms and
backs up to the creek and Mercy High School.
Commissioner Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place this item on
the Consent Calendar as proposed.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, and Gaul4 -
Absent:Kelly, and Loftis2 -
Recused:Tse1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
Planning Manager Hurin reported that at the May 20th City Council meeting, the Council continued
adoption of the zoning code amendment to allow commercial recreation as a conditional use in the BAC
District for further discussion and refinement. The ordinance will be re -introduced at the June 3rd City
Council meeting.
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 May 28, 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 June 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.
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 11City of Burlingame Printed on 6/27/2019