Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2023.02.13BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM OnlineMonday, February 13, 2023 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 January 17, 2023 the City Council adopted Resolution Number 004-2023 stating that the City Council and Commissions will continue to meet remotely for at least thirty days for the following reasons: 1. There is 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 004-2023, the City Council Chambers will not be open to the public for the February 13, 2023 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 February 13, 2023. 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 February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes To Join the Zoom Meeting: To access by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 825 4467 3970 Passcode: 111304 To access by phone: Dial 1-346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 825 4467 3970 Passcode: 111304 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, 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 a.Draft January 23, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft January 23, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item 9b (1420 Cabrillo Avenue) will be continued to a later date. 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 Page 2City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes a.2704 Hillside Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Dain Adamson, Thomas James Homes, applicant; Bassenian Lagoni, architect; SF 21G, LLC, Thomas James Homes, property owner) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 2704 Hillside Dr - Staff Report 2704 Hillside Dr - Attachments 2704 Hillside Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item for financial reasons. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Anna Felver, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Concerned about the hillside drainage, given the complexity of the site. Suggests to figure out how to effectively control the water flow and the movement of all the soil. > Beyond the blank wall, the design is very well done. The applicant listened to our previous comments . It is a significant change from the initial submittal. Appreciate the very detailed planting plan and good choices of landscape materials. >This project has taken longer. The time and effort put into it turned out to be a much better product. I appreciate the effort being put out by the applicant and their team to listen to us and put together a project that will look much better in this location. The hill slope and the drainage is a concern, but it is not something that stops here. It is something that needs to be resolved through the building permit process . I hope that both parties on either side of this project can work together on making sure that the changes made by the grading does not negatively impact the neighbors. The neighbor on the left has his garage on the property line, it may affect their garage when the grade in that area is changed. There is also about 2’ to 2-1/2’ grade difference between this property and the right side neighbor. I do not want to see soil being dumped into their property or that the existing cinder block wall be used as a retaining wall. These things need to be considered thoroughly so it won’t be a disaster downstream during construction. > I wanted to also acknowledge the applicant for listening to our comment thoroughly and how they were addressed. This is a really good example of how the design review process works. This house is going to fit so much better in that neighborhood, as my fellow commissioner has mentioned. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Recused:Comaroto1 - b.132 Occidental Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story Page 3City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes single-unit dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15303 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Anna Felver, Thomas James Homes, applicant; Bassenian Lagoni, architect; SF21A, LLC, property owner) (72 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 132 Occidental Ave - Staff Report 132 Occidental Ave - Attachments 132 Occidental Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item for financial reasons. Associate Planner Kolokihakaufisi provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Anna Felver, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > David Pockett, Bassenian Lagoni Architects: To explain further about the trim, the corbels are coming out from the walls itself. The trim is going from beam to beam which is why it is not continued around the corner. It cleans it up a little because if it did go around the corner, it cuts in to the double fascia. It is cleaner this way and the siding is all controlled in that space. >Public Comment sent via email by Jim Walsh, 128 Occidental Avenue: My wife, Denise, met with you yesterday to discuss the pending application regarding the property at 132 Occidental Avenue. I know that the topic of new fencing was part of the information you shared with her. For the record, I wanted to inform you of the existing conditions on our side of the property adjacent to 132 Occidental Avenue. Prior to moving into our home in 1993, the previous owner has replaced the single pedestrian door exit which leads to a concrete walkway which parallels our house from the street to our backyard. He replaced the single pedestrian door with a double sliding glass doors. At the same time, he also built a wooden deck walkway that you can step out onto when exiting through the new double sliding doors. That deck is approximately 22 feet long and 37 inches wide. It also has four down steps at both ends of the deck walkway. Those steps are both approximately 52 inches in depth. The reason I mentioned this is because the deck he built is anchored to both my house and to the existing fence which will be torn down. When the fence is taken down, it will eliminate the deck which now serves as the only means of exit from our house other than the front door, which is located on the other side of our house. As I ’ve said above, I wanted this information on the record as the permit approval process continues. Thank you for keeping us advised and updated. (Felver: We responded to Jim and Denise about this condition. I would like to hear this earlier but always before fence installation we coordinate with the adjacent neighbors and we want to make sure we're coordinating on if a new fence is going to be installed on the property line, and do they want to keep the remaining fence? Are there conditions that we need to lookout for? This is one that we definitely want to coordinate with them on and make sure we're not impacting their deck by any means. Also, their deck shouldn't be held up by the fence but that's neither here or there. We want to make sure we're not impacting their property by any means. We have reached out and continue to coordinate with them throughout this process and make sure we're not replacing the fence without their approval and without them being on the same page with us.) Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The horizontal band does not seem to continue the entire width of the elevation. It looks strange. It may look better if it is continued the whole way to the corners. Page 4City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes > I think the horizontal bands are fine. But, when you look three dimensionally at those corners, you will have a board with holes in it between the rafters going into the attic, you'll have a wood piece that's going into the piece. If you align the bottom of the band trim with the bottom of that piece, it will be your wraparound. It can probably work out either way but there's a way to finish that to the edge and not have it look like just a piece of wood trim between the knee braces. Other than that, I commend the applicant and the team again. It was another one where the original design didn't fit at all with where they were going . They listened well and made a good transition on this one and I find it very approvable. Good job. >I agree with my fellow commissioner. It's a nice 180 from what we were shown last time around. It will fit the neighborhood very nicely. Craftsman bungalow, I like that as well. Commissioner Lowenthal made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to approve the application. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Recused:Comaroto1 - 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.2615 Hillside Drive, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (1015 Laguna LLC, applicant and property owner; James Chu, Chu Design Associates Inc ., designer) (65 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 2615 Hillside Dr - Staff Report 2615 Hillside Dr - Attachments 2615 Hillside Dr - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. James Chu, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: > There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >The renderings help quite a bit. >Given that we are just looking at the house across the street and having the same issues of downhill slope, side-to-side, these drawings have handled it well. When you look at the elevations, they have clearly delineated the change in grade from side -to-side and show how they are addressing that. This is a good example of a hillside plan set that makes it really easy to see the challenges on the site. >I like how the architecture addresses the area and the way it is working dimensionally on the site. I have no issues with the height variance request. It seems very reasonable given how the site works. >It is a nice looking project and I’d like to see it move forward. >Suggests to look into the roof configuration to the left of Bathroom #4 to get rid of the nested gable. It may help improve the roof plan and the front elevation a little bit. >Look into giving the staircase some exposure to windows facing the street. Page 5City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Can understand the request for the height variance. Would really like to see the significant tree at the front as shown on the renderings. It should also be shown on the plans. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Comaroto, to place 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 - b.1420 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling and detached garage. (Barzin Keyhankhadiv, applicant and designer; Soumyadip Banerjee, property owner) (59 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi This item was continued to a future date. c.1114 Grove Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and attached garage, Special Permits for new attached garage, plate height, and declining height envelope, and Variances for lot coverage and floor area ratio . (Hillel Benizri, Level up Home Remodeling, applicant; Ramin Zohoor, Level Up Home Remodeling, designer; Vadim Antonov, property owner) (111 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia Kolokihakaufisi 1114 Grove Ave - Staff Report 1114 Grove Ave - Attachments 1114 Grove 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. Ramin Zohoor, designer and Vadim Antonov, property owner, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > On the elevation, your declining height envelope line doesn't intersect the second floor and if I ’m not mistaken, that's where the request for special permit or the variance for the declining height envelope encroachment is. If the plans have changed, the variance requirement might have still stayed on and there needs to be a correction on the application. >I have a lot of problem with all the requests. I go along with the idea that a two -car garage is not necessary. I find it very odd there's no living space on the first floor and there's a long wall between the ADU and the kitchen. Being that the ADU doesn't count towards FAR, to me as a builder it looks like a simple conversion. I’m not saying that's going to happen but it would be very simple for someone to make this house bigger. >I have problems with some of the elevations and with the application of the finished materials on the Page 6City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes outside. The project needs a lot of work. I feel if you have a smaller lot, you get a smaller house. That's the way it works. I've never bought into the argument that it's a substandard lot. There is no standard lot in Burlingame. They are all different sizes and different shapes. We're not a subdivision, so we're going to have different sized lots and different sized houses. That's the beauty in Burlingame. It makes us be creative and be very efficient with a smaller house because it is a smaller lot. I’m not supporting the request for variances and the plate height. This needs a lot of work. >I can understand the attached garage as an attached garage. There's plenty of examples on that street. So, I can support an attached garage. The attached two -car garage makes the elevation look horrible and it's at a sacrifice to the house itself. Given that it's a smaller lot, it's now sacrificing the living space of the house for the garage. Again, I can support the attached garage. I just don't think the elevation works. >I understand the flood plain. We've looked at a few of these houses in these streets recently and the flood plain is an issue. I totally get it, but I don't see the reason to have a 9’-6” plate height on the first floor to make it even higher. It doesn't even help the elevations proportionally at all. So, I don't support that. >I don't support the FAR request either. This house is over the FAR and it's adding an ADU. I agree with my fellow commissioner that looks to be a reason to breakdown the wall. I can't see that being a legitimate use. >Architecturally, there's nothing that I see here that works. I'm worried about the materials being on the front and not trying to wraparound or be integrated. This is a design review candidate for sure. And I hope the owner takes a hard look at this process. Doing these remodels are expensive and if you're starting out this way now, when you get the cost, it's going to be even harder. These are perfect examples of houses where they don't go through as they should, then they get in the middle and all sorts of changes need to happen because there's no money for it. It changes the whole design, which we're not really in support of . I would encourage the team to really understand the cost and implications of what they are asking for and what we're trying to promote with design, so that they can have a really good project and not have something that goes sideways. >(Spansail: Thank you all, commissioners. I know it is something that may be popping out at the floor plan, but we still cannot mention or talk about the ADU in any way, even about the prospective uses that it could be in the future. It's state law. We can't comment on that.) >The two-car garage is my main issue in the front elevation. It's not a good look. I'm usually supportive of 9’-6” plate heights when it's large open areas and that large open area would create the low ceiling feeling. The current layout of the first floor doesn't warrant a 9’-6” plate height and the fact the house is raised makes it worse and not better. I don't like windows; they are way too big in some cases. It's just a bit of a wacky design from my perspective, it needs some work. >I see enough examples of an attached garage in the neighborhood that could be acceptable, but the two-car garage, as was stated earlier, does take up most of that front elevation, so I do have some trouble with that. We know this is a limited lot size and there's a bonus of having added an ADU. You get the credit for that space which is nice, but looking at the floor plan there's a lot of areas where space is not being well utilized; large hallways, really large bedrooms and spaces that for a smaller lot proportionately could have room in relation to the size of this property. There should be a better effort put towards meeting the FAR than asking right off the bat for such a large FAR variance as well. >This is a candidate for a design review consultant for a number of the reasons we have talked about already. There's a number of inconsistencies even with the kind of window sizes, types and shapes. We could also get some assistance on that with the design review consultant. Additionally, the roof design could cohesively be pulled together in better format as well. >I would like to see direction given to the design consultant to work within the perimeters of what is legal and what is standard in this lot. Whatever the equation turns out to be, because they do exist and there are some nice homes that are large which were accomplished within our regulations. Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Pfaff, to refer the application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Comaroto, Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse7 - Page 7City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes d.1204 Mills Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for building height for a new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Adam Bittle, Architecture Allure, applicant and architect; Susan and Timothy Fisher, property owners) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit 1204 Mills Ave - Staff Report 1204 Mills Ave - Attachments 1204 Mills Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Anne Revizza, designer and Tim and Sue Fisher, property owners, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >Angela Stirling: Thank you Chair Gaul and Commissioners. We appreciate your time. My husband, Ed, and I are speaking on behalf of Martha Sterling. Unfortunately, she was not able to join us. She's a bit stressed out by this process and had a little anxiety. Martha has several points. Martha is very concerned about listening to the construction. She has no refuge or place to go and will be subject to the banging and construction noises; 11 hours a day, 6 days a week. The noise is one of her primary concerns. He would like to know what the construction time frame is, when do you expect demolition, when do you expect building and for how long? She's also concerned about the construction time frame at 1205 Mills Avenue. This project is directly across the street from the 1204 Mills Avenue project. Parking, dumpsters, noise, dirt, debris, are all concerns. Mills Avenue, when people are parked outside, it's a one -lane street at best. We want to ensure usage of her driveway and the ability to back out without being blindsided, like if a dumpster was in the street. We would like to ensure the parking in front of her house is maintained . When the Fishers told us of their desire to add a second story several months ago, that's all they said . They said it was a second story and didn't elaborate. We did receive a letter four days ago in our mailbox, if we had any questions to address with them, but there was no other contact on that subject. As the house is being demolished and a new home is being built, beyond the noise, and how this will affect Martha's quality of life, she is concerned about the lack of privacy. The level of the existing deck is very high. She sees everything in their backyard and kitchen. She stopped going out on her patio because she doesn't feel comfortable feeling watched. It's not to say they aren't nice; the Fishers are very nice neighbors. They've been very kind to Martha over the years. But there's several reasons that she has for her concerns. The reason that there are no bushes currently, with the exception than the ones posted, because they grew through the garage and had to be removed. Martha has repainted and replaced the siding. During the Fisher's construction of their backyard, they added a video screen on her siding without her permission. We want to ensure that's properly fixed during the construction. I have several other comments from Martha. I don ’t how you would like me to address these. (Chair Gaul: I believe your time is up, but you can always e -mail and we'll get those comments in our packet.) Do you have the video that I sent to the public comment inbox? On the video, most of the construction that recently happened in the backyard was some installation of artificial turf and the drainage didn't seem to be done properly. The Fisher's came to great lengths and did put in a French drain following the flooding of our garage. Martha has lived in her house for 58 years and never had such an issue. We think it is a direct result of the raising of the grade in the backyard during the installation of the artificial turf, although the French drain has minimized it. (Chair Gaul: The video apparently shows the water intrusion from the property line wall . You are representing the neighbor to the right as you are facing the street, is that correct?) Correct. (Chair Gaul: From the plans, that wall is from the neighboring accessory structure at the rear of the property.) Page 8City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > There are a lot of different materials that are being used. On the rendering that was sent, it's not clear how the transition goes between the wood -like material and the stucco. As far as design review, that can make or break a project, so it doesn't look glued on. >I can certainly appreciate the neighbor's concerns. That's always one of the challenges with any of these projects and the disturbance of soil and things that then change the way water moves. So, that's something I would hope that the design team will work with the neighbor on to try and make sure that the changes in the backyard don't negatively impact that accessory structure. >As far as the noise from construction, I'm sorry about that, that's the way it works here in Burlingame . Where I lived for a while, three houses on the same block over a two -year span went under construction and that's just the way our neighborhoods are going right now. We do have rules in place for hours of construction to try and minimize it, but we can't make it go away, that's what we have our rules and regulations for. >I like the design quite a bit. I appreciate the rendering that came through today because that really helped me visualize it better and see the materials. To my fellow commissioner's point about the rendering, I see a couple of spots of transition that I worry about a little bit. Recommend showing in 3D the transition from the vertical wood siding to the stone porch. I had that transition on a house where the corner post was right on the corner and then what are you supporting it on? If that aligns with your material transition which looks like it does for the siding, how does the porch transition happen at that inside corner? Those are some great details to work on because if you wait until construction, it will be an ugly installation. I like the materials and the way this looks. I would also suggest looking into the wood siding as it comes down to the ground behind those bushes. Wood siding doesn't traditionally handle water and sprinkling very well, so that may be an issue to consider if you're going to have a planting strip there. It's a good project and I could see it going forward. > What concerned me is the vertical siding on the left side of the house going all the way to the ground . Consider putting a relief with some sort of stone veneer or a different material at the bottom to break that up. It seems like a long run of vertical siding. If we had a rendering straight on, it would change that. I agree with the design, it looks nice, and will fit the neighborhood. I can certainly find for the 31-foot special permit, especially given our flood zone requirements here. They are not requesting for special plate heights, and it looks very proportional. I don't think it's massive in any way, shape or form. They did well with the porch. I like the porch size; the whole thing flows well. I would be in favor of moving this over to regular action. >Overall, I like the project. It will fit in well. I like the traditional materials that are on there. However, some of the elevations and the perspective drawing look a little plain. I'm wondering if it can be dressed up a little bit with some knee braces at the gable ends or maybe some bigger window trim. I'm looking at the shingles to be more of a traditional craftsman style of the house. It looks a little plain. I'm glad you're mitering the corner and that's a classy touch but maybe do a little bit of passing on some of the trim. >As mentioned, you're going to have gutters and downspouts. That front corner where the columns are is very prominent and you're going to end up with a downspout on it or it's going to be on the other corner . Plan for it now or you'll have downspouts going to places you don't show right now and may not like . Suggests that you get on that sooner than later. I support the height variance request. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Horan, to place the item on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Gaul, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse6 - Recused:Comaroto1 - e.1200-1340 Bayshore Highway, zoned BFC - Design Review study meeting and Pre-Application Development Agreement study session for an application for Page 9City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Commercial Design Review, Special Permits for Building Heights and Development under Tier 3/Community Benefits for a new development consisting of three, 11-story life science/office buildings and two, 10-story parking structures. (DivcoWest, Burlingame Venture LLC, applicant and property owner; WRNS Studio, architect) (34 noticed) Staff Contact: Kelly Beggs/Catherine Keylon 1200-1340 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report 1200-1340 Bayshore Hwy - Attachments 1200-1340 Bayshore Hwy - Plans - Volume 1 1200-1340 Bayshore Hwy - Plans - Volume 2 1200-1340 Bayshore Hwy - Plans - Volume 3 Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioners Horan, Schmid & Tse had separate zoom meetings with the developer. Planning Consultant Kelly Beggs provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Gaul opened the public hearing. Virginia Calkins and Bryan Childs, represented the applicant and answered questions about the application. Public Comments: >John Coleman, CEO of Big Planning Coalition: We did send a letter to the commission on Friday in support of the project. I’ve been working with Virginia and others on this project for some period. I wish many projects that I worked on had the commitment to the community, the environment and planning for the future like it is, especially climate change. This is going to be a gold standard for future development in California, particularly the Bay Area. With what they have proposed for Easton Creek in bringing back literally the native species, the site will flourish. It would be a great education program for people in the area and students. I can't speak more highly of this project than what my letter says. I hope you move it forward so that this project can immediately -- and the projects that will be submitted to other cities and jurisdictions throughout the bay area in the near future. >Kevin Kretsch, General Manager of Hyatt Regency Airport: Good evening, I also submitted a letter to the commission on February 8th but I would like to take the time, in case you didn't get a chance to read that, to share that with you now and read through that. Dear City Planning Commissioners, Hyatt Regency Airport would demonstrate our support for the DivcoWest plan along Old Bayshore Highway and the Hyatt Regency San Francisco Airport is located directly across the street from this proposed project. This project will result in a substantial redevelopment of a significant parcel of land along the Burlingame shoreline. The proposed redevelopment will provide a much -needed enhancement to the south section of Bayshore highway corridor and will include the following: first, investment in the bayfront is vital to this community. The new bay trail and associated recreational areas will be a critical asset for the city, its people and for generations to come. A substantial investment to address sea level rise, which has been mentioned. This will help protect Burlingame ’s Bayshore business community. Three world class buildings as discussed that will promote both business and local community and they will accomplish a new design standard for the entire Peninsula. This is a gold standard project in our opinion. Next, the new employment base to support our room occupancy and special events, not only in our hotel, but in the surrounding hotels and community. And finally, a project team that engage us, meaning Hyatt, as neighbors and works collaboratively on developing a design with a broader community in mind. We want to continue the efforts to make Burlingame a premiere location for people to live, work and enjoy the amazing natural beauty of our shoreline. DivcoWest’s commitment to the Burlingame community will help us achieve that goal. They have been in constant communication providing updates to the Hyatt. It has been a great partner with us . We love what we see in the development and enhancements that have been needed in this immediate Page 10City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes area for such a long time. So, the benefits that this development would bring, we believe would continue to stretch the Bayshore corridor north and south and enhance the Burlingame community. Thank you so much for your time. >Gita Dev: Good evening, Commissioners. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on the project. I want to first acknowledge that we have worked with Virginia and her team earlier, as she has mentioned . We do appreciate you listening to some of our concerns, making changes to make the waterfront more natural, more adaptation to sea level rise and more welcoming to the wild creatures that live in the wetlands along our waterfront. There are a few items I noticed that I would like to bring to your attention and to Virginia’s team's attention. One is the trees. There are a lot of trees that are to be planted. The section showing the landscape along the waterfront indicates trees along the right edge of the bay. I want to remind everyone that what we need is to make sure that there is no space for predators where they can watch the shore birds and be predatory to them, so make sure the trees on the waterfront are appropriate . The other item is for lighting. I want to commend the lighting designer for the site lighting outside the building. They are well done and protected. They shine downwards and doesn't shine on the water. I do want to mention again, as I have mentioned this to the design team, that there is concern about the lights within the building. This would be true of any building along the waterfront, which we have brought up with other developers too. We do need a way for the lighting to be shaded at night so that creatures that feed at night have a night, that the wetlands do experience night and light at night is a problem. I have spoken before about this. Please do consider some way to require the lights to be shaded at night somehow. I want to mention one last thing, which is a more complicated issue, researching life sciences labs there are three different levels of labs; biosafety one, two and three. When you get to level three, the HVAC systems are quite extensive and noisy. Along the bayfront, noise might be an issue. We should come up with a way to mask them with concrete panels instead of metal doors. Thank you. >Kelly Sloane: Good evening, Commissioners. I’m a Burlingame homeowner and architect for 30 years with professional experience from homes to master plans. I reviewed the three drawings posted to the staff report and I don't know anyone on the developer or architecture team. On both personal and professional levels, I support this project. This area of Burlingame is severely run down. The buildings, the water ’s edge and roads especially when comparing the stretch of waterfront to those north and south of San Mateo. It will improve the water edge. I like what they did there, it's beautiful and wonderful gift back to Burlingame . In terms of the proposed architecture, the design is simple, slick, modern and not big boxes down so I appreciate that. All that said, I think there's too much parking. I wanted to suggest a couple of things . First, I would like the city of Burlingame to consider modernizing our codes to significantly reducing the required parking for this future development. The staff report notes one space for every four hundred square feet of office which results in most of the 2,600 spaces required. Even with the 20% call from the TDM, still results in 2,100 spaces. The project proposes 320 parking spaces which exceeded code by 800 spots and the developer should reduce parking spaces to the minimum required. I also think that the 11 story office buildings may be too tall. If the developer can reduce or eliminate a parking structure or parking, they could redistribute the building and make them shorter. I love the fact this design will daylight the Easton Creek and create green space all around it and along the water ’s edge. The emphasis of views and green space but ignore the building space and corridor parking spaces, another reason to reduce parking. The proposed shuttle from the Millbrae transit hub extends to the project site south of Broadway . I request the developer consider adding a shuttle stop at the downtown Burlingame train station, which might encourage people to stop by the Avenue to have meals before or after work. Finally, I think we need more renderings from the freeway overpass and from the hillside, so residents know what they are going to see daily. There's one I could find from the top of the overpass, but it doesn't show the entire development extending to the left. Multiple renderings over the water really don't help. To recap, I support the project . Burlingame should consider modernizing our code to reduce parking and the project should reduce proposed parking to the minimum required redistributed and lower the office building massing, add a shuttle stop at the Burlingame train station and provide more renderings. >Andy Go: As a resident of Burlingame for almost 30 years, I want to put some input into this 1.5 million square foot project. It is located at the Broadway interchange of 101 and Caltrans, which we know Page 11City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes is a major traffic congestion area. Broadway Caltrans crossing has been the scene of many train crashes and deaths as recently as last year. Building the Caltrans overpass is still not yet funded and years away . This project will further aggravate the traffic congestion for the thousands of workers commuting during this project. During lunch hour, many will head to restaurants using the Broadway interchange adding to the Broadway traffic jam. I'd like to note that there are two biotech projects under construction, totaling nine hundred thousand square feet and a total of 1.4 million square feet on top of this 1.5 million square foot project. I know the EIR is underway. For this project and other nearby biotech projects, I ’m hoping it will address the traffic impact on the Broadway Caltrans crossing. Now, this project being 11-stories and over two hundred feet tall, I feel is way oversized for this 12-acre wood fence parcel. As comparison, the waterfront Facebook project has 660,000 square feet on 18 acres of land, five to eight stories and about one hundred feet tall. I think better sizing for the project could be like the Facebook project, maybe a million square feet. Also, this project should be timed to be built when the Broadway Caltrans overpass gets built so that when this project comes online, the Caltrans overpass can handle the flow of the additional traffic caused by this project. In fact, this project could contribute to maybe one or $2 million into the funding of the Caltrans Broadway overpass since a lot of the work will be using the Broadway overpass. I’m not against this project. I think this project is a great project. But too massive and too tall for the location. With 12 acres of the waterfront land, the impact on the traffic could be severe and we'll find out more on the EIR. I hope the commission seriously take the concerns raised and citizens ’ suggestions. Thank you. >Public comments sent via email by Jane Montgomery, Burlingame resident for 30 years: Dear Planning Commissioners, help the proposed project for 1200 to 1340 Bayshore avenue. This is not in keeping with character of Burlingame. Traffic alone will be horrendous and 1.5 million square feet of office . Scale back this project immediately and don't let the tax revenue influence your decisions. This is a gateway to our city. We do not need more development to (indiscernible ) the view of the bayfront . Resources alone to manage this will be detrimental to the city's infrastructure. Please, please, please do not be persuaded by pretty pictures and think about the impact to the traffic in our community, wildlife, flora, water, sewer and electrical systems. Help, we need to stop this massive development that's engulfing our city. >Public comments sent via email by Suzanne, President of Burlingame SFO Chamber of Commerce : Dear Planning Commission, over the past year, we, the Chamber of Commerce had the pleasure of getting to know the applicant team at DivcoWest and learning about the proposed project Peninsula Crossing which we believe have the potential to transfer the bayfront in a much -needed way. It includes landscaped public open spaces in conjunction with a critical new of bay trail and integrated public access path. All contributing significantly to the community and allowing a dilapidated area today. We believe the project will play an important role in the broader business community generating economic development for Burlingame and the region beyond. While creating a place that Burlingame can be proud to offer its citizens and visitors alike. Further, the project's proposed sea level rise protections will provide long -term critical new resiliency for the Burlingame community. We encourage the Burlingame Planning Commission to please consider advancing this project forward to help bring renewal and transformation to our wonderful bay front. >Public comments sent via email by Lisa Fong, General Manager of the Marriott SFO Airport Waterfront: Dear members of the city planning commission, the SFO Waterfront Marriott submits this letter in support of Peninsula Crossing. I had the pleasure of viewing revised plans and continue to be impressed by the project's commitment to our city and the conservation of the bay trail. I believe peninsula crossing has the potential to further transform the Burlingame bayfront in a much -needed way. It includes more than five acres of valuable open space connected by a critical new quarter mile section of bay trail and integrated public path contributing significant new amenities to Burlingame residents, workers and hotel guests alike. We believe the project will play an important role in the business community generating economic development for Burlingame in the region. The sea level rise protections will provide long-term critical resiliency for the Burlingame community and the project will be a center of -- by creating a best and class design, boosting business for nearby hotels and businesses while Page 12City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes generating millions of dollars to the city. In addition to my role of the general manager at the Marriott Waterfront, I also live in Burlingame and raise both my kids here and I ’m thrilled this project will fill in 1,475 feet of missing bay trail creating continuity along the city shoreline. Along with re -imagining the pathway, the project will prioritize pedestrian, bike path and adding green spaces and adding public spaces and utilizing the bayfront for visitors and residents alike. We support the applicant and welcome them to the community. Chair Gaul closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: > It looks like nothing has changed about the site plan. Regarding Phase 3, the north building and the north parking structure, there is close to no space between the sidewalk and the 200 foot building. There are only three trees that I can see on the north parking structure. I don't know how they have any room to grow, they are going to hit that wall. A few people called in about the excessive parking and I tend to agree. First, we're not sure how the Bayshore Highway is going to look because that plan is not done yet . But if these folks are responsible for determining where the sidewalk goes or what is happening to the roadway there, I would highly recommend that they figure out a way on these two buildings to make much more airspace. Maybe pull the building back on the Bayshore Highway side, so that some greenery can go in and shape that roadway that we were hoping would look better. I don't see it looking better at all. It's just too much “in your face”. I asked it before, but I can see there was no change, so that is a design flaw. I find that bothers me a lot. >I noticed that you have a lot of native plants everywhere and a shadow study has not been done which is going to be interesting. A lot of those bushes and native plants are going to need sunlight. You might want to look at how their growth would be affected if they are not getting sun for large portions of the day, which I expect because of the direction of where the sun is coming from. >I don't see a rhyme or reason and cohesion to the office buildings. They don't have harmony and they are very tall. Everything seems quite maxed -out. It's too much. It is acceptable to have some height if they were slender and have some beautiful relationship between the buildings. If they had something connecting them, like the ones at the Meta complex, those have some relationship. You can see they belong together. I’m having trouble seeing that here. >Further on the parking structures, consider giving some thought on using a green face rather than the proposed material, something that makes them blend better. >I haven't seen a view corridor looking towards the hills. I would like to see it in the future renderings . There are a few that look like someone is standing on the ground in the back and there are none from the Bayshore side looking the other direction, except in the green areas at the intersection where you may call them a plaza, but there's going to be a lot of traffic there. I’m not sure how pleasant that would be. I would really like to see some consideration on the ground or close to the ground, like a real pedestrian view, rather than a drone view over the bay looking at these bunch of buildings several hundred or thousand feet off the bay and then towards the west. That's not really what we're going to see unless we're hovering somehow. I would like to see more realistic views rather than a beautiful rendering. You've done a real beautiful job of renderings but being in the art world, I know renderings are for promotion. I would like to see views from the ground and real shadow studies. >(Childs: I'll try to address that succinctly. The massing of the project is relatively simple and intent . The site, as we have gotten to know it, has a lot of aspects we think are very interesting. There’s the bayside which seems natural and elemental. You feel very connected to nature. Certainly, needs to be improved. As Virginia pointed out, Bayshore Highway is somewhere between being urban and suburban, a street that's not exactly well -defined. Then there's the overall goal to grain the buildings from east to west . So, from Bayshore Highway to the bay, those are the primarily view corridors. The primary understanding of the site from the public realm standpoint, is that graining. The last thing we want to do is make any kind of wall that was parallel to Bayshore Highway or to the bay edge. The graining that you see, the long, thin buildings with the view corridors and the main public access from Bayshore Highway to the bay moving east to west or west to east, is the primary idea. This is really all about knitting together the public realm, knitting together this very special place in Burlingame where Broadway kind of hits the bay, hits Page 13City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Easton Creek. How we knit all of this together while keeping as much of a sense of openness from Bayshore Highway, from Broadway to the bay as we can, so the armature of understanding of that public realm is really about city to bay. That's why the buildings are relatively compact in the north -south section and so we can get that over five acres of new public open space really connecting the town of Burlingame and Bayshore Highway to the bay.) >Mr. Childs addressed what my point was. The overwhelming public narrative is the size of the building being too big. Not necessarily my opinion, but I wanted them to speak to that. I think they've did a nice job explaining how the massing came about. That it was very intentional in not just gigantic buildings plopped arbitrarily. >Concern about the pedestrian scale of this development. I'm going to point out just maybe a couple of examples of where things could be maybe improved. If we look at Sheet ENTG 28, one of the renderings showing the aerial view from the bay trail looking south. It's the one showing the picnic lawn area. There are some tables over to the right -hand side sitting out in the sun. I know that there are some umbrellas around in some of the renderings, but this area where the tables are immediately below the podium level roof or deck balcony which is four -stories above, proportionately could be nice to have some built structure, some awning other than umbrellas. Something that can come out, similar to how you have your airport view. There's the rendering of the airplane viewing platform, how their sense of scale there where one is sitting on a bench, and you have the roof overhead. Just having something over your head while you're sitting and resting instead of sitting out in the sun with a four or five story roof up above. This is minor but it will help a lot in terms of having one feel like a sense of place and space. We're talking so much about all the public spaces and how one can enjoy it and use it. Recommends looking at some opportunities where you can think about that pedestrian scale. >The other thing that wasn't talked about very much tonight, something I brought up in my one -on-one zoom discussion with the team, were traffic patterns and crosswalks and how does that all work as one approaches this fairly tall and large development once it's built out. That current road, Bayshore Highway, currently leads to the 101 freeway. It's heavily filled with cars and multiple lanes of people getting on and off the freeway. I currently don't feel safe as a pedestrian to cross on that north side of the Broadway overpass. There's the pedestrian overpass, but to get over to the heart of your development there, I ’m concerned on how one would experience that; making their way over there with kids, with pets, bikes, strollers and such to enjoy this public space. I would like to see more attention to what will happen in terms of access to your development. I don't think we saw too much of it in today's presentation, hopefully, we'll see that in greater detail in a future date. It's a beautiful design. I would love for it all to be built sooner than later. But I'm a little bit concerned about the height of this development, the tightness of the corridors and how one, as a human, uses this space coming through in and around the development >I wanted to piggyback on the comment regarding this structure. Thinking about the umbrellas and some of the public areas where the cafes are going to be, we're going to have outdoor seating and eating areas. As I thought more about it, the umbrella sounds great in a residential scale, in my backyard. As you start to think about how many people you're going to have, seating, trying to shade and make comfortable, I would encourage that those outdoor spaces become opportunities. I'd love a great sunny day, but we don't have them every day, we have a combination of wind instead. Being able to provide an outdoor opportunity and bringing down that human scale, there are opportunities in those little individual pocket areas when you spend more time with it. I realize these are big buildings and I'm asking you to design a little space. But those are going to be opportunities as we go further down the line to refine the program and the outdoor space areas. The umbrellas look great in the renderings but it's a maintenance item downstream and a more permanent style of structure. It may play out as a maintenance piece but also providing more to the pedestrian user in that area. I'm aware that the cafes and those little places I ’ve discussed are not where you're making your money and selling rentable space. But those are going to be key areas that are great jewel benefits to our community which will make us want to go down there and use it and not just feel like it's a campus. That's a critical part of the project. >About those community benefits, like the retail space, I appreciate that you've got a couple of cafe spots in there, but I would encourage you to look at adding more retail space if you could. The people will come if you build something for them. It doesn't have to be a restaurant. You could have a retail space, maybe they are renting bikes, or a newsstand, something else to get people's interest to go there. I'm not one hundred percent convinced that people would go there because it's an open plaza, so just something Page 14City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes to look at. >I just can't even imagine designing this with half an Easton creek. I don't find developing half a creek beneficial. It's almost like offering half a creek. I find that a partial benefit. It would really be important to clean that up somehow. > I don't think it's half a creek. I think it's just the phasing. I'm uncomfortable with a 20-year phase. Maybe even just ten years contract then have an option for a few more years or something. I would like to see this move forward. That's why I wanted to know how long this is going to take. It's hard to say, but if you gave them two to three years on each phase, that gives you six to nine years. So, ten years is reasonable. I get that it's a big project and phasing are going to make it easier for them to build. So, if they want to phase it, I'm okay with that but 20 years is too long. >That's why I mentioned the possibility of having three different parcels. They don't have to do all three phases. They could sell off a phase or two of the phases and just do one phase. Now, that's up to them in how they want to proceed. It has nothing to do with us, but what we need to do is understand how long it takes to build one of these projects. Let's look at what we have already done and how those projects have moved forward. Obviously, the Facebook campus came out in 2012 which was during one of the economic downfalls that we had. Let's look and strategize something we've already done. We don't have to recreate the wheel. It has been created for us at some other level with other commissioners and other city council members. I would say phase it and give them seven years, then give them an option to add three more years, for a maximum of ten years. I wouldn't go straight to ten years and give them five more years. In my purview, they are always going to ask for more in the end. We must end up coming in the middle somewhere. I would really like to look at how we did the other projects to get some baseline of what it is . Then again, as my fellow commissioner mentioned, get a really good idea of how long these projects take to build. We have some certainty that DivcoWest is a very exceptional development company, they know what they are doing. Suggests that we look at how long the Park Road project has taken. We're all in the community looking at how long that has taken. > I like the project a lot, the design and the public amenities. My concern is about the phasing as well, not so much about the phasing of the buildings themselves, but of the community benefits. I would propose they figure out a way to deliver all the community benefits as part of Phase 1, the full bay trail and Easton Creek rehab. Otherwise, we may never get it. If the economic conditions don't allow the phases to be complete, we will be stuck with a half -finished public amenity. I would be willing to trade -off on the airport viewing amenity. It concerns me from a safety and security standpoint to have that on top of the parking garage. Maybe there could be some negotiation for that. I am also concerned about the traffic. I know we'll have a separate study on the traffic, but the 3,400 cars are a lot. It means 23 cars a minute for two and a half hours each morning and 23 cars a minute for two and a half hours each afternoon. That's a lot of cars going through intersections in addition to what's already there. The overall project is really good . It just feels ten percent too big. If the buildings were ten percent lower, ten percent less square footage and ten percent fewer cars with those amenities, it's a fantastic project. >I like the project a lot too. With the sea level rise, the amenity, the restoration, the bay front, and the path. There's a lot going into this before we even get our first building. I do agree with the phasing. It's just the fact that it's a cut and dry diagram at the moment. The line needs to move further, not on the edge of the creek, but a little further into Phase 3. I don't want to be standing on the Phase 1 side looking at an unfinished other side of the creek for ten years. So, they are going to have to knockdown the existing buildings. They are going to be spending months with trucks going in and out bringing dirt to raise that up 7 to 10 feet. It's going to take time for that 7 to 10 feet of dirt to settle in to then be useable and buildable. There's a good amount of time where those are going to be empty lots. If they can work on both sides of that Easton Creek restoration as part of Phase 1. It's still going to be a fence on the other side while we wait for the building to happen. At least if we can get up over the edge a little bit and get the plantings going, both sides will mature in age in a similar fashion instead of being totally different. The path on either end is going to be a work in progress, regardless. The path to the north is not a nice path, it's just there. They, too, need to do the sea level rise remediation at some point. They are not going to suddenly raise their land 7 to 10 feet so Divco's path can be done 100%. It could take years before that connection point finishes up. Similarly, I don't think we have the connection point on the city's side on the south. Regardless, those two on either side are going to take time and a couple of different iterations before they get finished. But the promise to open it up as early as possible so that we can use the bay Page 15City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes trail, even if it's not in its finished state, does bring community benefit. If they do the restoration of the Easton Creek early on, that gets us a good -looking benefit for quite a while too before the buildings go in . So, there's a lot to be said here in these benefits, more than we've really seen in some of the others . When you look down the street by the Marriott, we're not getting near the same community benefits out of that project because it doesn't have touch points with anything. They are providing a little restaurant too and a plaza in the middle of the street. This project is really providing a top -notch project and five acres worth of open space that in a prime spot. It's not in the middle of nowhere. It's going to be a good project . I hope that they can keep the momentum going. I would love to see it done because those properties out there are dilapidated, and they are sitting there waiting to be done. >I'm mostly concerned about the length of time of the project. My gut instinct is that this is going to be a good benefit to our community. I'm concerned this is one parcel but split in three separate ownership groups as you see that on the diagram. I'm concerned of things stopping. To my fellow commissioner's point, the development agreement needs to be capped but maybe it's commissariat for each phase. You get three years for each phase and after you complete one, you get another three years. I'm concerned, you develop the first phase and we're staring at dirt lots for 12 years. Even with the public benefit, I love to go on the bay trail, but walking by that southern section of the bay trail that opened was bad for a long time. I'm concerned it could be similar. The development agreement and capping that at a much more conservative level, maybe having it tied to the actual construction phases is more to our best interest as a community. >The point has been made is that those are just three simple sections and three simple blocks. My fellow commissioner had a good point, maybe the whole bay trail becomes the whole bay trail in Phase 1. That's a good idea. The problem is, usually hardscaping and soft scaping are the last things that happen because you've got so many debris over the whole job, heavy equipment, and everything gets destroyed . So, we'll leave that up to the applicant. I trust they can come up with a good plan, but we're all in agreement that 20 years is too long. It needs to be scaled back somehow whether by phase or overall project. This item will return on the Regular Action Calendar because it includes environmental review. 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS Director Gardiner reported that at the February 6th City Council meeting there was a discussion item to consider a smoking ban pilot program in the Broadway commercial district. It's something that the merchants group had suggested and requested, so the City Council has given direction to develop a pilot ordinance to test it out. a.1549 Los Montes Drive, zoned R -1 - Review of changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 1549 Los Montes Dr - Memorandum 1549 Los Montes Dr - Attachments 1549 Los Montes Dr - Plans Attachments: This item was pulled by the Planning Commission for further discussion. Concern over the number of changes and the cumulative effect of all of them together. b.1144 Balboa Avenue, zoned R -1 - Review of changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Page 16City of Burlingame February 13, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 1144 Balboa Ave - Memorandum 1144 Balboa Ave - FYI Attachments 1144 Balboa Ave - Plans Attachments: Accepted. 12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS No Future Agenda items were suggested. 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:57 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, February 13, 2023 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 February 13, 2023. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on February 23, 2023, 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 17City of Burlingame