Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2022.11.28BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, November 28, 2022 On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law AB 361, which allows a local agency to meet remotely when: 1. The local agency holds a meeting during a declared state of emergency; 2. State or local health officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; and 3. Legislative bodies declare the need to meet remotely due to present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. On November 21, 2022 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 135-2022 stating that the City Council and Commissions will continue to meet remotely for at least thirty days for the following reasons: 1. There is still a declared state of emergency; 2. The State recommends that individuals in public spaces maintain social distancing and wear masks; and 3. The City can't maintain social distancing requirements for the public, staff, Councilmembers, and Commissioners in their meeting spaces. Pursuant to Resolution Number 135-2022, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the November 28, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting. Members of the public may view the meeting by logging on to the Zoom meeting listed below. Additionally, the meeting will be streamed live on YouTube and uploaded to the City's website after the meeting. Members of the public may provide written comments by email to publiccomment@burlingame.org. Emailed comments should include the specific agenda item on which you are commenting, or note that your comment concerns an item that is not on the agenda or is on the consent agenda. The length of the emailed comment should be commensurate with the three minutes customarily allowed for verbal comments, which is approximately 250-300 words. To ensure your comment is received and read to the Planning Commission for the appropriate agenda item, please submit your email no later than 5:00 p.m. on November 28, 2022. The City will make every effort to read emails received after that time, but cannot guarantee such emails will read into the record. Any emails received after the 5:00 p.m. deadline which are not read into the record will be provided to the Planning Commission after the meeting. Page 1City of Burlingame November 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes To Join the Zoom Meeting: To access by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 851 9213 0685 Passcode: 705870 To access by phone: Dial 1-346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 851 9213 0685 Passcode: 705870 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Associate Planner 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi, and Assistant City Attorney Scott Spansail. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and TsePresent7 - 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. 6. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.3080 Arguello Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a second story addition to an existing single -unit 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. (Jack Tam, Team 7 International, architect; Hin Fang Tsang, property owner) (78 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi Page 2City of Burlingame November 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 3080 Arguello Dr - Staff Report 3080 Arguello Dr - Attachments 3080 Arguello Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Gaul noted that he met with the neighbor at 1618 Escalante Way and was able to view the story poles from his property. Commissioner Tse noted that she spoke to the neighbor by phone and met with her husband at the same Escalante Way address, located on the left hand side of this subject property. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Andrew Tang, designer and Hin Tsang, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >David Menke, no address provided: I just heard that an additional structure will be built on that lot . Can you elaborate how big that will be and how many people will be living in there? Is it a pool house or an accessory unit? (Kolokihakaufisi: Clarified that the detached structure is a storage shed.) >Bob (last name not provided), 3067 Arguello Drive: I am the homeowner across the street. They have paid good attention to the April Planning Commission criticisms. Unlike my own situation when 3051 Arguello Drive was approved, it does block a bedroom view to the bay even though there is a tree . This is a much finer design and they paid attention to the details. Since I look at it across the street from my living room window, I would not be opposed, but I will support them going forward with the project. >Public comment sent via email by Catherine and Andrew Wong, 1618 Escalante Way: We, the owners and occupants of 1618 Escalante Way, oppose the revised proposal to add a second floor. As shared in the April 2022 public hearing regarding 3080 Arguello Drive, our primary concerns have been the following:1) The impact to our existing view of bay waters, Mount Diablo /East Bay, airplane descent path, and the local Burlingame landscape. 2) The loss of privacy. 3) The inability for us to adapt to the changes given that we completed a 3-year renovation in 2020. With the erection of story poles on 11/12/22, we can now confirm that the addition of a second floor will in fact impact all of the above. With our renovation, we made major changes to the layout in order to create a family space centered around the back half of the house and to maximize enjoyment of the view. We added two large sets of floor-to-ceiling sliding doors /windows, and enlarged all other east -facing windows. To ensure privacy while preserving the view, we replaced the previous three foot fence between our property and 3080 Arguello with a six -foot metal fence. 3080 Arguellos' proposed second story looms well above the new fence. It is obtrusive from every east -facing window and door in our home -- dining room, kitchen, family room, office and bedroom. Furthermore, its large profile is highly visible from the sidewalk in front of our property. Lastly, we would like to confirm that between the April 2022 public hearing and now, 3080 Arguello has not reached out to communicate with us regarding their plans for remodel. Thank you for taking the time to review our concerns regarding obstruction of view, loss of privacy, obtrusiveness and communication. >Public comment sent via email by Manho and Sha Lee Yeung, 3072 Arguello Drive: We have been residents in Burlingame and have lived at 3072 Arguello Drive for more than 30 years. We support the proposed project on 3080 Arguello Drive to remodel the existing first floor and to add a second floor. We attended an informational meeting hosted by Mr. and Mrs. Tsang last year. We have also noticed the story poles recently installed there. We understand the proposed project has been design to fit with our existing neighborhood which we appreciate. We also understand the proposed second floor addition is at the lower back section of the existing property to reduce visual impacts and view blockage. We support the proposed project. Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments. Page 3City of Burlingame November 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I was able to get into Andrew ’s house today and view the story poles from the family room, basically their living area. I appreciate all the work with the applicants but it absolutely is blocking the view that I saw of the bay and Mt. Diablo. I appreciate the changes in the design but I can ’t support the project simply based on the view blockage that I saw. If the applicant does choose to go forward with a similar project, I would also encourage them to look at the windows because the proposed aluminum windows would be a non-starter in my opinion. >The applicant has done a nice job of keeping a very low profile addition, only a matter of a few feet higher than the current one story home. It is unfortunate that they were not able to meet with the neighbor on Escalante Way. If that neighbor is listening to this meeting, if there ’s any future discussions about this project, it would behoove you to allow the 3080 Arguello Drive applicants to come and see how the views may be impact your home. After looking at the house today with the story poles in the distance, I too can see that there is a considerable amount of view blockage on the main floor. It is their views of Mt. Diablo in the distance that is now completely blocked and all they can see is sky if the second story is added on, that is in their family room space. Upstairs on the bedroom level of the house, one bedroom is being used as a home office and most of the water view is blocked. There is still some distant view remaining of the East Bay view, but a good amount of it is blocked horizontally. The other room, which is the current primary bedroom also serving somewhat as a home office, seems to have escaped the majority of any view blockage, just a tiny bit in the corner and I don ’t think that is an issue . The real issue is the communication between these two parties, not helping each other out to come up with a reasonable solution to allow one to add on to their house in a way that could minimize view blockage for the neighbor. I know this is not in our purview, but from the letter sent by the neighbor, there is some tree pruning issues brought up between the two properties. Encourage the applicant and neighbor to work together to find a reasonable solution. But as currently proposed, I cannot support the project as presented. >I was really hoping that when we did see the story poles it wouldn ’t be a significant view blockage as it is. Even not going in, just standing at Escalante Way looking through their side yard, all I saw was view blockage. To me, that is the big one from the living spaces right over the top of the fence, that is all gone. I don’t see that this particular solution addresses the view issues here for this particular location. I appreciate the work that was done on the design, it looks a lot better and a lot more cohesive than it did back in April. I also can appreciate that the second floor addition is as far away from the Escalante Way neighbor as possible. But that doesn ’t change the fact that it is about six feet taller than the top of the fence and making that view go away. A potential better solution would be a split -story because you can lower the right side of the house and almost keep the same roof height, but it is a considerably bigger project than you intended on doing. I’m not sure I see a solution in being able to add a second story without impacting the views given the way it works right now. Again, I appreciate the effort but I don ’t see us amenable to support the Hillside Area Construction Permit request. >I agree with my fellow commissioners. The new windows are an issue for me, they should be revisited. Visiting the project site and looking at the story poles, I could not see allowing this project to move forward. >Visiting the project site and looking on Google maps, it seems that the Escalante Way corner property has always been a two story home although remodeled. It looks to me that homes that were lining back by the eucalyptus trees, where no homes were behind them or on a corner, have minimal chances of view blockage compared with most of the ones located mid -block. We didn’t ever make a rule about it. Everybody is allowed to do a second story, but I think that is what happened in that location so I do understand the issue with the home on the corner and blocked views. The design is well done besides the window issue. It looks nice on its own. Wondering if it can make a difference if the addition remains the same but pulled down a foot or a foot and a half. Otherwise, I do agree that it is an issue as it is currently proposed. >The issue of the view blockage was there to begin with. Wish the applicant spent more time with the neighbor on that. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to deny the application without prejudice. The motion carried by the following vote: Page 4City of Burlingame November 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - b.2105 Carmelita Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for second floor plate height and declining height envelope for a second story addition to an existing two -story 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. (Aaron Avelar, applicant and property owner; OXB Studio, architect) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 2105 Carmelita Ave - Staff Report 2105 Carmelita Ave - Attachments 2105 Carmelita Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Aaron Avelar, applicant and property owner, and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Public comment submitted by Gayle Etienne, 2115 Carmelita Avenue: The plans we reviewed shows modifications that enhance our neighborhood. They appear to be within the property lines. Jim and I are on board with the changes submitted. >Liz Schenk, no address provided: I live across the creek from the applicant and I am concerned that it is going to impose on my privacy. This house already extends out over the creek which concerns me because he can look right over my yard. If he extends, it ’s going to be quite intrusive I believe. My second concern is, with this project he already throws a lot of trash in the creek and I am concerned that there will be more trash in the creek. >Martin Lee, 2103 Carmelita Avenue: I live directly next to the property. I was present during the last commission hearing and I found out about the application at the last minute. The applicant didn ’t bother to contact me in person but I found out about it by chance. It was great to hear clear directions from the commission at the last meeting and the recurring comment about “punching down”, which is exactly my concern. I am an architect, I deal with the codes and controls everyday and we try to work within those controls. On some occasion instead of saving, with good reasons, justification and considerations, sometimes these things can be approved. Unfortunately, this development is significantly beyond the height control. Over half of the new proposal is exceeding the height control. My greatest concern, by trying to show roughly with the drawings I sent to the commission, with the development there will be the loss of light and overshadowing onto the side of my house. If you look from the elevation on Carmelita Avenue, my house is on the left hand side, the sun is on the right and during the day the development causes overshadowing. I have shown a possible solution of decreasing the side about five to six feet which reduces the amount of overshadowing and it does not undermine the integrity of the internal planning. I was trying to be as reasonable as possible. If I was being unreasonable. I would try to shove it up to the other side on the right hand side so all of the overshadowing will happen onto the roof. There was clear direction from the commission on the “punching down.” I am disappointed that very little has changed, almost no difference in the proposal. I would request a setback of five to six feet, I ’ve shown that this can easily be done to maintain some of the light and to reduce overshadowing. I would also request that the side windows be on a higher level and be translucent to maintain privacy. Thank you so much for your time. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Page 5City of Burlingame November 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commission Discussion/Direction: >I like the project; the architecture was well done. The homeowner is well within his rights to tear this house down and build a brand new house. I don ’t think that would be a better solution. I do see that changes were made. I am inclined to approve it. >I appreciate the pulling back of the pop -out, that was really the hardest part of the proposed design . I also can appreciate the showing of the declining height relative to the front and rear corners of the house which I believe emulates what we have in mind about the declining height envelope if we were on a flat lot situation. In most cases, we would probably approve a house that has its driveway and the second story that far back from the property line. When you consider what the declining height envelope on a flat lot looks like, this does not seem that egregious. I do however sympathize with the neighbor next door, now it really becomes a two -story wall. We are missing a bit of articulation because we ’ve asked him to push back the pop -out. So now we are back to more of a large flat wall. I can sympathize that the windows may be placed higher to provide some privacy, but that does not change the shading issue. The other windows in the front and the existing 80's renovation don ’t necessarily fit. If you are going to put some money on the roof and try to bring back that front elevation, it might be another area to consider although it is not a deal breaker. I’m struggling a little bit with it because I do sympathize with the neighbor, but it doesn ’t seem like it is overpowering like it did previously when it was definitely popping out over the driveway. >I like the project and that they made some adjustments. I like that they are keeping the charm of the home and trying to make it better than scraping it and starting new. I could see approving this project. >I appreciate that the previously proposed bump -out has been retracted. I agree with my fellow commissioner that the left wall was left very plain, solid and tall. I feel for the neighbor to the left. I like what the neighbor had proposed. I don ’t know if the applicant was able to review the proposed setting back of the upper floor on the left side of the house to provide some articulation to the left wall to reduce the overwhelming massing facing that neighbor. I feel that the bedroom and the bathroom are still generously sized. Obviously, the applicant is within their rights to that or the FAR limitations and such, but it would be something worth considering to aid in the design of that left wall a little bit with the neighbor. I also do appreciate that the applicant is trying to work with an existing home, trying to preserve the character of it and along the way improving it as well. I am also stuck in the middle. I don ’t fully support it as proposed. I would like to see a little bit of improvement on that left wall. >On the one hand, I agree with the comment that when we get new projects they could very well be in the declining height envelope, they encroach a lot and we usually let it go because it is the style of the house. Here, we have someone who is trying to save what they have which is very cool. I do see that the driveway is narrow. I think it is a large addition. Wondering if an additional pull back is possible. You don’t have to do what the neighbor has proposed, but there as some interesting ideas in there to consider. Even if it is not pulled back as much it may help with the articulation. I am also having some problems with the lack of articulation and size of that wall. >I really like this project. I am a big fan of trying to save our old structures in Burlingame. It is a give and take that we have to play here, otherwise we are just forcing people to tear down homes. I don ’t think that is a good direction. If you are going to have an issue on the left side wall, you have to have an issue on the wall on the other side. That is a two -story wall on a very narrow driveway. We are talking about the small side on the neighbor at 2103 Carmelita Avenue, but we have the same issue on the other side. That part of the house obviously is not being touched which is why we are not addressing it. I like what they have done to pull back the bump out. I certainly sympathize with the next door neighbor, but I don’t think it is a better alternative for the neighborhood to tear it down and potentially get a much more underwhelming house. I am inclined to approve the project. They have done a nice job and it fits the neighborhood well. >I would agree. It is a good looking addition to the house. We typically see flat walls on the driveway side where you try to break it down with a belly band or some window sidings. Regarding the window in the bathroom between the two sinks, you might find a window not to your liking. I'd encourage you to put a higher window, maybe about six feet in height, and make it a longer, horizontal window. I know you want to get light in, but I am looking at that wall and seeing a long mirror or something. The window in that spot will be in a bad place, however it goes along with the rest of the windows in the wall. That can easily come back as an FYI if it is something of interest. I am glad that you were able to do the declining Page 6City of Burlingame November 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes height envelop projection from the street level because that was the problem I had with how much was going on with the declining height envelope in the original application. The point of departure was very low and not realistic to what the house will look like from the street and that is mainly our concern. I can support the project as well. Commissioner Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.2517 Easton Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Chris Spaulding, architect; Michael Liu, property owner and applicant) (92 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 2517 Easton Dr - Staff Report 2517 Easton Dr - Attachments 2517 Easton Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Michael Liu, property owner, represented the applicant. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >This project is straightforward; it is beautifully designed. >The second floor windows at the proposed Rear (East) Elevation are somewhat big and out of proportion. Otherwise it is a nice looking project. >I would agree. The addition blends in well and it is not intruding on anyone ’s privacy. The project is well done. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - b.732 Vernon Way, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for a second story balcony and declining height envelope for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Tim Raduenz, Form One Design, designer and applicant; Shabana Ravi and Sukhendu Chakraborty, property owners) (109 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz Page 7City of Burlingame November 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 732 Vernon Way - Staff Report 732 Vernon Way - Attachments 732 Vernon Way - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the project. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Provide a planting irrigation plan to avoid potential damage to the balcony. >Clean up drafting errors. Make sure all windows match and are more cohesive between the first and second floor. >Clarify intention for the garage door, existing to remain or proposed new. Consider adding an arrow on the address for the ADU if the Fire Department allows the existing garage door to remain. >Suggest looking at alternatives or adding decorative pieces for the thin post on the front porch to make it a little bit more attractive. >Make sure that the plants in the planter on the second floor deck are raised and you have a place for the water to go. Make an effort to channel it for a better solution. The plants are a great idea. I agree with my fellow commissioner to ensure that they are maintained. It is a good solution to provide some privacy. I would like to see this go forward. >Work with staff on the JADU and update the front porch. >For this house, the look of the garage door is really important. Suggests doing a different type of door that is something similar to the existing that will function and work for the Fire Department. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Chair Gaul, to place on the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - c.1116 Rosedale Avenue, zoned R -1- Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling and Special Permit for a second story balcony. (Audrey Tse, Insite Design Inc, applicant and architect; Sanjiv and Deepti Sinha, property owners) (127 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz 1116 Rosedale Ave - Staff Report 1116 Rosedale Ave - Attachments 1116 Rosedale Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Tse was recused from this item because she is the architect for the project. Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Lauren Lee, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Page 8City of Burlingame November 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Public Comments: >Norm Bennett, 1112 Rosedale Avenue: I am the next door neighbor. I just want to let you know that my wife and I support the project. Deepti and their family need the room. They worked really hard to come up with a really good design. I just want to add my support. >Public comment sent via email by Ramon Durham: We are the resident owners of 1113 Hamilton Lane, Burlingame, a single story dwelling with existing solar panels adjoining the dwelling at 1116 Rosedale Avenue. We appreciate the applicant ’s desire to add space to their home. We wanted to mention a couple of concerns regarding the changes to the rear, right side of the property where the shed currently exists. One: The second story balcony on the rear, right side of the home will offer a direct view into the bedroom of our child, dining areas, and backyard. This is a major privacy concern for us. Two: It looks like the right, rear side of the second story projects further out from the rest of the second story along with the larger windows. Given the direction of sunlight, we request the Planning Commission and the applicant to consider the larger windows and the projection view to be a part of this on our single story dwelling. Thank you for your time and we look forward to a constructive discussion. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >I can appreciate the comments from the neighbor at the rear. In looking at Google Earth, I am not sure which one is which. I would agree that the trees that might be replaced in the area of the shed might provide some shading against that balcony and the upper windows. Suggest looking at the rear fence area again and a little bit more coordination with the rear neighbor. Reach out to the neighbor, show them where the trees will be located, and have that discussion. I can appreciate the neighbor not wanting this property to be looking over their yard and the balcony does that. The windows are on the larger side at the rear; the window at the stairwell is quite large. I know people want to have more light to come into the stairwell, but that is a huge window looking to the side and mainly looking at the neighbor . Similarly, on the other side, a couple of windows could be 5 feet high in the primary bedroom instead of being lower windows looking at the side. Some work with the neighbors on the windows and on the back would make this a great project. Otherwise, the finishes and everything look good. I could see it going forward. >I like the project overall, but I was struck when I visited the site that it is a neighborhood of single story homes. I am not saying to not do a second story, there are some that exist, but this one is going to tower above the rest. In looking at the front elevation, consider reworking the roof. The upper roof of the front elevation looks so big and the renderings didn ’t help. The plate heights are fine, but the roof needs some modification to try to bring it down. The front door looks tall and the garage door looks tall and skinny, maybe that is what ’s giving me this vertical idea of it. Maybe in 15 -20 years they are all going to be two story houses and it won ’t seem so big, but right now with all those other single story homes, I am afraid what this might look like sitting in that neighborhood all by itself. >I had the same exact perception when I saw the front elevation. It almost looks like the first floor at the front door is being squashed by the weight of the upper floor. I do think that the size of the roof may be compounding that. Chair Gaul made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place on the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, and Schmid6 - Recused:Tse1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. Page 9City of Burlingame November 28, 2022Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.1327 Benito Avenue, zoned R -1 - FYI review of as-built changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 1327 Benito Ave - FYI Memorandum 1327 Benito Ave - Attachments 1327 Benito Ave - Plans Attachments: >Pulled for further discussion. Commissioners expressed concerns with the as-built changes noted in the FYI Memorandum. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS > Commissioner Comaroto suggested that in the future the Commission discuss exterior lighting and concerns with brightness levels. >Commissioner Schmid suggested that in the future the Commission discuss the process for ensuring that design review projects are built as approved, and how to address projects that deviate from the approved design. 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Notice: Any individuals who require special assistance or a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, or who have a disability and wish to request an alternative format for the agenda, meeting notice, agenda packet or other writings that may be distributed at the meeting, should contact Ruben Hurin, Planning Manager, by 10:00 a.m. on Monday, November 28, 2022 at rhurin@burlingame.org or (650) 558-7256. Notification in advance of the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting, the materials related to it, and your ability to comment. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for inspection via www.burlingame.org/planningcommission/agenda or by emailing the Planning Manager at rhurin@burlingame.org. If you are unable to obtain information via the City's website or through email, contact the Planning Manager at 650-558-7256. An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the Planning Commission's action on November 28, 2022. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on December 8, 2022, 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 $745.00, which includes noticing costs. Page 10City of Burlingame