Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC- 2020.10.26BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, October 26, 2020 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, and City Attorney Kathleen Kane. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, and SchmidPresent5 - Sargent, and GaulAbsent2 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft September 28, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft September 28, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, and Schmid5 - Absent:Sargent, and Gaul2 - b.Draft October 13, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft October 13, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Tse, Loftis, and Schmid4 - Absent:Sargent, and Gaul2 - Abstain:Terrones1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no Public Comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 11/25/2020 October 26, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.16 Arundel Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Front Setback Variances 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)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Tim Raduenz, applicant and designer; Ashley Kline, property owner) (132 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 16 Arundel Rd - Staff Report 16 Arundel Rd - Attachments 16 Arundel Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There are no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, Form One, represented the applicant with property owner Ashley Kline. Commission Questions/Comments: > The small bay that's over the master bath at the rear elevation is showing as a hip roof that engages the main roof, but on the proposed roof plan, it's shown as a shed roof. Which is proposed, the roof as shown on the exterior elevation or what was shown on the roof plan? (Kline: That was the dormer we had to change to accommodate the request to reduce the roof pitch.) (Raduenz: There's an error on the drawing, the roof plan is not correct. We would have to change it to match the elevation. We’ve done that because we've decreased the pitch and the shed dormer would not work on a large side. I will make that a correction for FYI with the planner.) You can work that out with the planner. Don't know if it rises to the level of an FYI, but just want to verify what we're seeing on the elevation is correct. >At the right elevation on the driveway side, in the area of the dining room, there's a note that says “bay bumped out unit ”. If you look at the floor plan, it doesn't show any bay that's bumped out. Is that going to be a regular window or what's going to happen on that window? (Raduenz: What I wanted to do was just use 6” x 6” and just create a little bump -out. I can also make that a change in the plans.) It adds some nice texture to the elevation. (Raduenz: Yes.) (Kline: I agree. It looks very nice from the outside.) Then, if this moves forward, you can work that out with staff as to whether or not that needs to come back as an FYI. >On the second floor front elevation, the plan shows that there's a notch on the right side. But yet on the elevation, it looks like you're straight across and the notch is only on the lower floor. Was there a desire to continue that all the way up? In bedroom number two, there's a little 3’ x 18” notch on the second floor that doesn't show in your elevation and if you try to do the notch, it would mess up your elevation. So Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 11/25/2020 October 26, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes you're going to want to look at your plan. (Raduenz: We will make sure that's shown on the floor plan to correlate with A3.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Like the revisions that have been made. The gables are working nicely in terms of the window alignments and the asymmetry works nicely. >Can make the findings for the variance for the exceptional circumstances being the location of the house that's built, coupled with the fact that we encourage the porches. Integrating that porch it's and not moving further forward than it is now. Putting a new roof over that and giving it more presence so it integrates nicely with the rest of the front elevation. Can make the findings for both the variance and design review. >It's a lovely design. Was supportive of it last time it came through the study session. The second floor being at the same face as the first floor in the front is an appropriate solution. Can make findings for the variance on the front second floor setback. >Like the changes that you've made. Love the house, you did a great job with it. Also can support the findings in the staff report and approve those findings. >Can make all the findings that's recommended in the staff report and everybody else seems in support. Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, and Schmid5 - Absent:Sargent, and Gaul2 - b.1870-1876 El Camino Real, zoned NBMU - Application for Design Review, Density Bonus, Community Benefits, and Lot Merger for a new 7-story, 169-unit residential apartment development. The project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15183 of the CEQA Guidelines. (Bay Area Oil Supply Inc./Prime Plaza LLC, applicants and property owners; Studio T-Square Inc., architect) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 11/25/2020 October 26, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1870-1876 El Camino Real - Staff Report 1870-1876 El Camino Real - Attachments 1870-1876 El Camino Real - TDM Plan 1870-1876 El Camino Real - CEQA 15183 Compliance Checklist 1870-1876 El Camino Real - CEQA Appendix A - GP Policies 1870-1876 El Camino Real - CEQA Appendix B - AQ and GHG Assessment 1870-1876 El Camino Real - CEQA Appendix C - Historic Res Eval 1870-1876 El Camino Real - CEQA Appendix D - Hazards Tech Reports 1870-1876 El Camino Real - CEQA - Appendix E - Noise and Vibration Assessment 1870-1876 El Camino Real - CEQA Appendix F - Transportation Analysis 1870-1876 El Camino Real - CEQA Appendix G - MMRP 1870-1876 El Camino Real - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioners Tse and Terrones met over Zoom with the applicant and the architect on the project. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >When we get to the point of making motions on this project, is the recommendation to the City Council for the lot merger handled as a separate motion or is it not a motion but a recommendation? (Gardiner: It can all be one motion. Technically the lot merger is a recommendation, but the rest are actions since they are all part of the development entitlement package. You can reference the findings in the staff report or make additional findings when making that motion.) Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Check Tang, Studio T-Square, Inc., represented the applicant. Commission Questions/Comments: >The porte-cochere that you're talking about, you mentioned it is metal framed. Is it safe to assume that there's some kind of clear finish covering for weather protection from the rain? (Tang: Yes, we're looking at maybe an opaque glass, kind of a translucent glass so you don't see through all the dirt and grime that's on top and it's easily cleaned at that level with just a lift.) Great. It's important at that location. >Couldn't see from the elevations very clearly how the ventilation of those flexible work spaces on the second floor, are those exterior vented spaces or interior vented spaces. (Tang: They were interior mechanical ventilation. The reason we have this L -shape wraparound to the exterior skin is because we have operable windows on the outside, so you can open those windows like a residential unit. Not like a commercial office building where you're completely reliant on mechanical ventilation.) The plan for all of those spaces is to have exterior ventilation access? (Tang: Exactly. Well, it would be augmented by natural ventilation on the outside.) >Do you happen to know what the build -out volume of the adjacent site looks like? If that were to get filled in, how close would the nearest wall be to your closest walls to the property line? Do you have any sense of that? (Tang: We hope that the adjacent owner would respect the disposition of our site. Let’s say the most efficient way for them to build is like a mini L -shaped so their open space would be complementary between projects and the street facade based on the Burlingame plan, they're supposed to Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 11/25/2020 October 26, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes respect that street edge. That's the most reasonable way.) One would hope all of that's true. Do you have any sense what the by-right line is that they can build to there? (Tang: By code, they are required to have a ten-foot setback from the side yards, so at the minimum we'll have a ten foot. If they pluck it in, most likely the garages would adjoin with each other, but that's our hope and you don't have a five -foot gap like a no man's land. Above the podium, there will be a setback of ten feet.) At worst, you ’ll be looking at a wall that's 20 feet away. Your 10 foot setback and their ten foot setback. (Tang: Exactly.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The architect and the developer did a really good job of addressing the issues that we asked them at the study meeting. Very impressed with the presentation and with the design the way it stands now. We asked them to visit in a little more detail the plaza spaces and the open deck areas. They've done that . We've asked them to revisit the common areas, the meeting rooms, the workout rooms and areas of those sorts to see if they can give them a little more energy. They've done that. Like the way they've done that and added those to the project. >The pool cabana is a nice study and as the architect indicated, it adds another area for outdoor use for the residents. They did additional study and added more detail at the wall in the rear. They've addressed what we were looking for and the entitlements are straightforward based on what we put in place with the General Plan for the north end. >Looked at the material board today. Did have a little concern about the cement board siding, is there any chance to see a bigger version of that? It felt a little weird and don't understand the look. Don't know if they're going to get a bigger piece or an example of what projects you might have done it on before. Would like to see what that cement siding looks like on a building. (Tang: May I respond to that? Our intention is, while under construction, we'll be doing a fairly large mock up of the different materials and finishes. So I'm hoping that will give the commission and staff a final look at the system we're proposing. It's hard to see on that board. We gave you the system but without the panel and it's out of scale, so it's hard.) That would be great. >Feel that you've really taken to heart every comment that we've made at our last go around and over the years. We really appreciate that attention to detail. Making the whole development and the space really useable for the public, for the tenants, and enjoyable. >Appreciate the addition of the second roof deck, especially those flexible work spaces on the second floor. Can see all of them being put to good use. It's probably going to be a management plan on how to schedule time and use of those spaces. >Appreciate that you have made more EV spaces available and don't know if you were saying you would be making more EV ready spaces or just there would be the 18 EV spaces from the get go. (Tang: At this time, we're proposing 18. But it's having those 18 ready day one.) >Like the location of the bike storage closer to the transportation mode. So many things that are really wonderful about this project. The recess back defines a strong element for the corner, but making that public plaza very accessible at a human scale that would be enjoyed by many. Want to thank you for working so hard on designing this project to great detail. Also can see it moving forward. >Thank you for addressing our comments and want to go on record saying how much I like this project . It does some really important things. These sites that have been recently designated for the growth of this city, need these kinds of catalyst projects as they start to grow. This is a very refined architecture that does all the right things that it needs to do with regard to urban design that sets the stage for the future growth of the area. >The project looks really good. It is a large scale project. It's really hard to get the fine detail in there and get all of that information in such a project and appreciate all the work you guys have done. The drawings were very clear and the process has been easy to follow. Really appreciate the effort that has been put in. Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 11/25/2020 October 26, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Chair Tse, to approve Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, and Schmid5 - Absent:Sargent, and Gaul2 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.29 Humboldt Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and detached garage. (Daryl Buckingham, applicant and designer; Arjun Dutt, property owners) (140 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 29 Humboldt Rd - Staff Report 29 Humboldt Rd - Attachments 29 Humboldt Rd - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. Daryl Buckingham, represented the applicant with the property owner Ritu Vohra and Arjun Dutt. Commission Questions/Comments: > Is the front porch an existing structure that's going to remain or is it getting a new roof or columns? (Buckingham: The porch is existing. The changes to the porch and the bottom part will be stone and there's a little bit more detailing in the gable end because it was quite blank. So there's a little extra trim in the gable.) >Is that a stucco surface that you're adding in the gable face or what is that center triangle going to be? (Buckingham: Yes, plaster.) It just seems like an odd sort of infill. (Buckingham: We have some plaster bump-outs in other areas. It's certainly not important, but we have some plaster in other areas.) >If the existing roof form is going to stay, then please revisit your drawings, because it is confusing to look at the side elevations. >If you look at the side elevation on sheet A .31, the columns at the front porch have a different character. It looks like you might have been studying a different character. If the existing smooth surface columns are going to remain, they wouldn't have that center large recessed flute area, correct? (Buckingham: The existing columns do have some recessed fluting on them.) Was there today, it looked like a flat surface on them. Looking at your front elevation, it shows them as a smooth surface. Are you talking about the base portion? (Buckingham: Yes.) But the column itself doesn't seem to have that recess? (Buckingham: No, you're probably right about that.) If you could just clarify that because it is confusing as to whether or not it was an existing or new porch. (Buckingham: I changed it too many times.) >The rake overhang is inconsistent from the right side elevation to the left side elevation. Just want to make sure that what we approve can get tracked through as staff goes out and checks things . (Buckingham: I appreciate your position.) The rake overhang is extending out about 1’ - 6” on the left side elevation, but if you look on the right elevation, it's tight to the front columns. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 11/25/2020 October 26, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >The window into the pantry on the left side elevation is not shown on the floor plan. It's a nice little square window that I assume you're going to want into that pantry. So if you can clarify and make sure it gets shown on the floor plan. We've seen things change like this often times after the fact once you get into construction, that's why am pointing out some of these things now. >The tall windows you have into the kitchen, at the left side elevation, the sill height might end up conflicting with your kitchen counter top. (Buckingham: That area is down two steps. It's lower. If you look at the plan, the addition at the rear doesn't have the same finished floor level.) >The front window that's into bedroom number one on the first floor, windows don't always have to be aligned and centered, but if you move that window to the left and center it under those windows up above, you might end up with a better chance for an optional bed wall in that bedroom. (Buckingham: That's where the window is, but I ’m glad to move it.) If it centers there, it would help compose this elevation a little bit. (Buckingham: Sure.) >On the rear elevation, sheet A 4, is there any reason why the windows in that bay couldn't be centered on the window on the second floor? (Buckingham: I can take a look at the plan. Like you, I also would tend to line things up so there probably is a reason. The reality is it's the center in the kitchen, and the bathroom upstairs, it's the center between the two sinks. It makes sense on the interior. I understand your desire to center things, but especially because the wall is wider at the bottom, I ’m not bothered that they don't lineup.) There are ways to work that out both on the master and in the kitchen. But will defer on that. >Adding to the discussion for the same window at the rear elevation, instead of centering the windows or aligning them through the center, if you shifted the window or size it differently so it's centered over the kitchen sink you might be able to align the left sides of the windows above and below, maybe that would make an improvement. (Buckingham: Normally I’m really amenable because I like team studies, but I think because the rear of that side is smaller on top and bigger on the bottom that the balance was still achieved.) Because it's neither centered nor aligned, it looks asymmetrical when other parts of the home looks so balanced. (Buckingham: I’ll try tweaking that a little bit and see what happens.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Not a fan of the large windows on side facing stairs against property lines. When you're walking up and down the stairs you're looking out the windows, especially if they're large windows, directly into something in your neighbor's property. Will register my objection and that's a practical matter. >Finding the stucco bays very odd because stucco is a cementitious material. Conceptually, this stuff has gravity. It has weight, and gravity is a lens through which architecture has always been read. It makes architecture legible. It's not a deal killer, but it's a bad design decision because it's saying something that's not true. It's just like flying in the face of gravity. The stair makes sense because it's on the ground and the cementitious material with this conceptual gravity makes sense. Other than those two objections, it's a nice house. It's well articulated and massed well. >Finding the plaster in the front gable pediment odd. It starts to feel like an infill or a retrofit of something that had to get repaired and a contractor found it easier to put stucco other than some siding or ornament. It's an odd occurrence. Understand tying it into other areas where there ’s plaster, but it feels odd in an area that would have a refined ornament other than plaster. >Agree that the stair element works as a piece, not only because it's grounded, but because it has some depth and dimension where on the upper floor it turns back to meet that side wall. >We're at a point where we're refining a project that's a nice project. So what this tells me is the massing is working nicely, the plate heights are working nicely and setbacks are fine, et cetera. On the rear elevation, that two -story gable piece is a nice element with its asymmetry, and again, would say the same thing with a similar project. The asymmetry of the kick -out on the lower right side works because of the strength of the center of the gable, from the point of the gable on down. Would find a way to work that Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 11/25/2020 October 26, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes long vanity that you have in the master bath that could easily have adjustments in terms of the cabinetry, the layout and sinks and make that window work as a centered element. The bay at the kitchen level can work and be centered as well. It organizes that elevation. Looking at this rear elevation where the rear elevations are nice compared to the front elevations. All of those things said, again, we're refining things on what is otherwise a fairly nice project. >The overall scale, the massing and every -thing feels good. It’s just really about the materials pieces that we're discussing. Struggling with the stucco in the front. Looking at the drawing elevations with the siding and the size of the siding chosen seems like that's going to scale well. Look at the rendering, it has just larger exposed pieces of siding which makes it look chunkier. Would hope you stick with what you have in the drawings so it will be tighter and refined in its application. But overall, it has some great potential. Chair Tse re-opened the public hearing. Buckingham: I did not do the renderings. Vohra: Thank you. I wanted to respond to commissioner ’s comment about having stucco in front. We can put MDO (Medium Density Overlay) that is consistent with wood siding. It would look pretty nice. I wanted to run that by you that if we propose an MDO board that you see in traditional homes. Regarding the windows on the side, we have a 12-foot driveway on the side. On the left when you're facing the property, we have an apartment complex which has the open yard area. In considering privacy, we had to think twice about putting those windows in there to avoid violating the privacy for both the neighbors and ours. We feel comfortable keeping the driveway distance, the fence, as well as the open space that the neighboring property has, it was okay to do. I wanted to let you know that we considered it thoughtfully. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. >In terms of the refinements and the revisions, would leave it to the owner to work with the designer on what the solutions are. There's a number of different possibilities for the materials that they're looking at whether it's a smooth finish or whether it's some other texture or there's very different gable treatments and bay treatments so would leave it to them to come to some resolution and bring that back for action. >Just wanted to follow up on the idea of doing an MDO on the end panel there. Would be careful that there's some level of detail to it. The hard part right now is looking at the rendering, that stucco looks like a flat surface and it's not really doing you any justice at the moment of what detail might be there. Would think about what kind of detail goes in there to make that panel look like a panel and not just a big piece of wood. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to bring the item back on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, and Schmid5 - Absent:Sargent, and Gaul2 - b.708 Newhall Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single family dwelling and Special Permit for an attached garage. (James Chu, Chu Design Associates, Inc., applicant and designer; Nejasmich Developments LLC, property owner ) (91 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 708 Newhall Rd - Staff Report 708 Newhall Rd - Attachments 708 Newhall Rd - Plans Attachments: Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 11/25/2020 October 26, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Schmid visited the site and had a chance to talk with the neighbor at 712 Newhall Road on the left side, who had no real objections to the project, only support. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There were no questions of staff. Chair Tse opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant with property owner Matt Nejasmich. Commission Questions/Comments: >There is no objection to what looks like a shed roof on that front porch, but it has a kink and flattened out to tuck under the window up on that second floor. Did you look at a solution that had a simple gable at that front porch or is this something you and the owner are latched on to? (Chu: We tried to make that window above the entry porch a little bigger and that ’s why we have flattened the roof, but we definitely can revisit that.) >On the right side elevation, the bay at the garage that's right next to the door was drawn straight flush, but all of the other little bays have a rake overhangs. Would it be the same as all the others? (Chu: Correct. It should be. Can fix that.) >On the front elevation between the window and the garage door, it seemed like there's a design opportunity there. It's a fairly tall two story surface. Have you've given thought to any kind of wood piece or something that would create a bit of a cover for the garage and an eyebrow? (Chu: We could definitely look into it.) Just as a thought. It's not a big deal. (Chu: I think one time we had a trellis over the garage door. We can revisit again, maybe something as simple as a planter box.) >On the right side, there's a lower bay and upper bay, they intersect into what looks like a very small but complicated area with a roof coming into the side of a belly band or a trim at the bottom of the bay. It seems odd and it looks like it is messy. Have you looked at that at all or is this is preliminary? (Chu: We can definitely re -work the details. The belly trim somehow matched the trim of the eave. But again, it's on the right side elevation with very minimal setback, so no one would see it.) Wanted to make sure it wasn't a mistake because it looks like when they're building it in the field, it will seem like a mistake. (Chu: I understand.) >On the same detail or area, it looks like the bay upstairs is protruding further than the bay below at least from the side elevation, but the front elevation looks to be the opposite in at least that the roof and the gutters protrude or is there something there? (Chu: Correct. Maybe a drawing error that we need to fix.) Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Tse closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >It's a nicely articulated project and it has good scale and it's an interesting building. It's a good project. >Can also make findings for the special permit with the attached garage. It’s a nice project and there's a pattern in the neighborhood not just with the existing house, granted it's going away, but it's consistent with the dominant characteristics of the block or that area in general. >Can agree with the findings for the attached garage which seems appropriate with the neighborhood Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 11/25/2020 October 26, 2020Planning Commission Meeting Minutes that's there. The only comments would be the areas we did just hit on the right side and the roof over the entry do seem a little odd in the drawing and probably just need some more exploration. Otherwise, good and ready to go. >Agree with my fellow commissioners. Don't have anything else to add. >Objection about the large stair windows looking into the neighbor's property. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to bring the item back on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Loftis, and Schmid5 - Absent:Sargent, and Gaul2 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the Planning Commission's role as the Historic Preservation Commission. On November 2nd, the City Council will be reviewing a resolution that will establish the Burlingame Local Historic Register. From there, the Planning Commission acting as the Historic Preservation Commission will review a request from the 220 Park Road applicant to have the property listed on the local register. Staff will provide guidance on the steps. City Attorney Kane mentioned that this has been her last meeting as Burlingame City Attorney. She emphasized that it has been great to work with the commission. The Burlingame Planning Commission is well respected, and she appreciates the good work the commission does. Community Development Director Gardiner mentioned that in the October 19th City Council meeting, the Council adopted the modified construction hours ordinance, which provides for some slight variations in how requests for exceptions are reviewed. The ordinance also allows earlier starts in the Rollins Road Bayfront commercial and the industrial areas. The City Council also reviewed the 1766 El Camino Real application because it involved a code amendment. The item should return at the next council meeting for final action. 12. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:41 p.m. An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on October 26, 2020. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on November 5, 2020, 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 $1,075.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 11/25/2020