Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2023.05.22BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council Chambers/OnlineMonday, May 22, 2023 Consistent with Government Code Section 54953, this Planning Commission Meeting will be held via Zoom in addition to in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can observe the meeting from home or attend the meeting in person. Below is information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting. To Attend the Meeting in Person: Location: 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010 To Observe the Meeting via Zoom: To access the meeting by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 821 9315 8103 Passcode: 965377 To access the meeting by phone: Dial 1-346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 821 9315 8103 Passcode: 965377 To Provide Public Comment in Person: Members of the public wishing to speak will be asked to fill out a "Request to Speak" card located on the table by the door and then hand it to staff. The provision of a name, address, or other identifying information is optional. Speakers are limited to three minutes each, however, the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. To Provide Public Comment via Zoom: During the meeting, public comment may be made by members of the public joining the meeting via Zoom. Zoom access information is provided above. Use the "Raise Hand" feature (for those joining by phone, press *9 to "Raise Hand") during the public comment period for the agenda item you wish to address. The Zoom Host will call on people to speak by name provided or last 4 digits of phone number for dial-in attendees. Speakers are limited to three minutes each, however, the Chair may adjust the time limit in light of the number of anticipated speakers. Page 1City of Burlingame May 22, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes To Provide Public Comment via Email: Members of the public may provide written comments by email to publiccomment@burlingame.org to be read aloud during the public comment period for an agenda item. 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 Calendar. The length of the comment should be commensurate with the three minutes customarily allowed for verbal comments which is approximately 250-300 words. To ensure that 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 May 22, 2023. The City will make every effort to read emails received after that time but cannot guarantee such emails will be 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. 1. CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers/Online To access the meeting by computer: Go to www.zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 821 9315 8103 Passcode: 965377 To access the meeting by phone: Dial 1-346-248-7799 Meeting ID: 821 9315 8103 Passcode: 965377 The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Community Development Director Kevin Gardiner, Planning Manager Ruben Hurin, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and City Attorney Michael Guina. 2. ROLL CALL Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and TsePresent7 - 3. PRESENTATIONS a.Resolution of Commendation for Michael Gaul 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.Draft May 8, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Draft May 8, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments: Commissioner Horan made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to approve the meeting minutes. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Recused:Comaroto1 - Page 2City of Burlingame May 22, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 5. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA 7. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar items. 9. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS There were no Regular Action items. 10. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.1235 Cabrillo Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for second story balcony for a second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Form One, applicant and designer; Daniel Griffin, property owner) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1235 Cabrillo Ave - Staff Report 1235 Cabrillo Ave - Attachments 1235 Cabrillo Ave - Renderings 1235 Cabrillo Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Public comment sent via email by Gene Bordegaray: At the Burlingame Planning Commission meeting on May 22, 2023, an application for design review and special permit will be discussed for the subject property. My comments are minimal: 1. The design of the new front facade is well done and improves the architectural aesthetics of the structure. 2. The conversion of the existing lower -level bedroom to a JADU would isolate what appears to be the only bathroom on the lower level. My concern here is purely a practical issue. Guests would have to either enter the JADU or go upstairs to a bathroom. The half-bath accessible from the rear yard is a little impractical for guest use. The provision of a “Guest” bathroom is not a code requirement but might be beneficial for home value. (Raduenz: Just to clarify, there is a powder room underneath the stairs.) Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: Page 3City of Burlingame May 22, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Window details do not match the elevations. Please revise to show the design intent. >The proposed left elevation shows stucco finish but the rendering shows siding. Please clarify which material will be used. >This is a nicely designed proposal to create extra spaces from dead living space. Details were nicely handled and worked well with the existing home. >I have no problems with the rear and the front. It is well contained and will not impact the neighbors . Needs clarification if the property owner is intending to update the garage door. Because this is the main front of the house, it can be an opportunity to propose some nice architectural details on the garage door. >Overall, I like the project. However the cut out above the garage for the deck is a little troubling. As a contractor, I see this as a waterproofing nightmare. Please provide more details about where the roof line is hitting the stucco and the trim pieces behind that. Unfortunately, I ’ve seen these types of decks fail too often because water will go somewhere. >I very much appreciate the retention of the two lovely trees in the front. Commissioner Schmid 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, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - b.1557 Newlands Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permit for declining height envelope for a first and second story addition to an existing single-unit dwelling (considered a major renovation) and new detached garage. (Form One, applicant and designer; Brian Roche, property owner) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin 1557 Newlands Ave - Staff Report 1557 Newlands Ave - Attachments 1557 Newlands Ave - Historic Resource Evaluation 1557 Newlands Ave - Renderings 1557 Newlands Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item because she lives within 500 feet from the subject property. Commissioner Shores was recused from this item. Community Development Director Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Public comment sent via email by Yael Simonson, 1561 Newlands Avenue: The plan looks great. I am sure you will enjoy the extra space. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >It looks good. The massing works with the adjacent houses. I can support this application and the Special Permit for the declining height envelope. > I agree with my fellow commissioner, it is a very nice design. I love the gable end details. It is a nice improvement to update an old -style home. I too can find support for the Special Permit request for the Page 4City of Burlingame May 22, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes declining height envelope for the first and second story addition. >Generally, agree with the comments, but there are some items that are bothering me. On the front, consider beefing up the corner pieces to give the impression that the eaves are being supported by these. To me, they look very minimal, and a beefy molding will keep it together. At the rear on the right-hand side, consider removing the glued -on molding on the face of the main roof because it looks artificial. I don’t have a problem with the Special Permit either. Commissioner Tse made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Schmid, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, and Tse5 - Recused:Comaroto, and Shores2 - c.1460 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single -unit dwelling. (Form One, applicant and designer; Kali and Trevor Tileston, property owners) (88 noticed) Staff Contact: Fazia Ali 1460 Balboa Ave - Staff Report 1460 Balboa Ave - Attachments 1460 Balboa Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Tim Raduenz, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Sheet A2.0, the floor plan at the rear of the house has a stepping pattern that does not transfer to the left elevations on sheet A 3.2 and the rendering. The elevations do not show the nested gable which should be poking out at the back. Please correct drafting errors to be consistent. >Consider providing some architectural details on the stairs on the proposed right-side elevation. >The handrail/side wall angle can be enhanced by notching from 42” height to 36” height to make it more consistent all the way down the stairs. >Look into matching the direction of the sidings at the rear. Consider keeping the horizontal siding of the upper floor instead of using vertical at the lower floor. >The family room window has a horizontal grid. Consider changing the grids into 3 x 2 to match the others. >Regarding the cladding on the large shed roof, I ’ve recently seen a ton of buildings in this style, and it is really quite difficult to get away from the stucco with the cladding because nothing feels right. Look into using different patterns to make it look like brick or adobe, depending on how you might want to approach that, it can be a good alternative for the vertical siding. >I like the project. It is making the most of it. Most of the changes at the rear are not impacting the street view. >It is unfortunate that the three sides are already done, but you need to make it consistent and pulled together. Page 5City of Burlingame May 22, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 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:Comaroto, Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse7 - d.1528 Bernal Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for new, two -story single-unit dwelling and detached garage. (Rich Sargent, applicant and property owner; Chu Design Associates, designer) (67 noticed) Staff Contact: Brittany Xiao 1528 Bernal Ave - Staff Report 1528 Bernal Ave - Attachments 1528 Bernal Ave - Renderings 1528 Bernal Ave - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Commissioner Comaroto was recused from this item for financial reasons. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Rich Sargent, property owner and James Chu, designer, represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >There were no public comments. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >Consider extending the stucco from the lower floor up to the belly band on the second floor. Though it may not be nice to have three different materials. >The design looks great the way it was presented. You did a nice job. You have put everything in it correctly. >I can find no fault in this proposal. It looks very good. Your rendering is the best I’ve seen so far. >I like the detail of the extended header trim /belly band combination above the windows. Looking at the elevations of the garage /ADU, it has the trim detail that was placed a little bit higher and more in line with the fascia of the side of the roof. Consider doing the same application to the main house, which may then reduce the feeling of being a really tall gable end above the second story, to further improve the front of the house. The proportions might feel a little bit better. Otherwise, it is a very nicely designed home. Commissioner Schmid made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Lowenthal, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Horan, Lowenthal, Pfaff, Schmid, Shores, and Tse6 - Recused:Comaroto1 - e.1499 Bayshore Highway/825 Mahler Road, zoned I-I - Application for Commercial Design Review, Special Permits for building height and development under Tier 3 for a new 8-story research and development building with a 7-story parking structure. (King 1499 Bayshore Owner LLC, applicant and property owner; DGA, Inc. architect) Page 6City of Burlingame May 22, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (58 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon 1499 Bayshore Hwy - Staff Report 1499 Bayshore Hwy - Attachments 1499 Bayshore Hwy - Plans Attachments: All Commissioners have visited the project site. Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report. Chair Pfaff opened the public hearing. Peter Banzhar, Jacob Peterson and Mark Posnick represented the applicant and answered questions regarding the application. Public Comments: >Public comment sent via email by Leslie Flint: Dear Planning Commissioners, I am speaking on behalf of Sequoia Audubon Society, the San Mateo County Chapter of the National Audubon Society . You have heard me comment several times in the past year about the importance of bird safe building practices, especially as they apply to glass and lighting design. However, I ’d like to comment tonight on the height of this building and garage, and the specific location. This building is totally out of place in this location right next to Mills Creek and across the street from the Shorebird Preserve. As currently planned, the height of this office /life science building is 151 feet; over two times the allowable building height in this location. Even the planned garage exceeds the allowable 65’ height. This building and garage will negatively impact the creek and the preserve. The overly high building will adversely cast shadows over the creek and the lovely little bit of open space created where Mills Creek empties into the Bay. It is also worth noting that biolabs are often in use 24/7. Light cast at night will impact migratory birds and the value of the open space as a shorebird preserve. Mills Creek on the west side of Bayshore could definitely benefit from an upgrade; the planned plaza and walkway would be an improvement but with that brings increased traffic which would likely result in a loss of wildlife using the creek and the Preserve which would be an undesirable outcome. Steps to mitigate this would be highly recommended. Thank you for your consideration. >Public comment sent via email by Athan Rebelos: I noticed that page 30, figure 8 of the plans includes "Mills Creek Public Trail & Overlook". I am delighted to see this in the plans. I would like to be assured that, at a minimum, it will be included as a condition and completed as presented. I would ask to consider in the development of the "Mills Creek Public Trail and Overlook" the potential for a future pedestrian and bike trail along the creek, perhaps passing under the 101 freeway, connecting Rollins Road to the Shorebird Sanctuary, directly across the road from 1499 Bayshore. I also would like to see an obvious pedestrian and bike transition between the "Mills Creek Public Trail", the building's plaza, and the shorebird sanctuary across Bayshore. Landscaping, traffic calming (on Bayshore between the plaza and the sanctuary), pedestrian lighting, decorative crosswalks, and signage are some enhancements that come to mind. Last, prominent public art should be a condition, not an option. Chair Pfaff closed the public hearing. Commission Discussion/Direction: >To make the plaza truly a public benefit there's got to be something for the public to do other than to sit there. Consider making the café or an outsourced food service accessible to the public and engaging it both outside and inside as a benefit to make the plaza worthwhile. Otherwise, the plaza will just be tenant-use too. >The grand stair by the northeast corner of the property, at Bayhsore Highway and Mahler Road, will be a great location for a visual identity; it could be an art or something that is designed on the building itself to accentuate that corner. Consider providing something of a human scale to this corner that will feel more welcoming to a pedestrian and delineate arrival. > I agree about the café needing to be accessible to the public if we are having this nice community Page 7City of Burlingame May 22, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes benefit space outside. There needs to be something to give to those who arrive and use that space to enjoy themselves; something to drink, a retail, something that will make it more active while they view the bird sanctuary. >Some areas overlooking Mills Creek will be a great location to provide educational pieces for pedestrians; a nice plaque like what we have on the Burlingame Point east shoreline. >There are a lot of people who walk the bay trails, we need something to invigorate this area. >Right now, there is not a whole lot of things to walk to at the other end of Mahler Road. Because of developments like this and others, that is changing and there are a lot more things to do in the bay trail and it is becoming more popular. I like the other street frontages, especially the plaza and the forward-thinking on the public trail. The sidewalks on Mahler Road could be more comfortable for pedestrians to use, to get past this property to other properties. A six feet wide sidewalk works most of the time but when traffic starts to increase, suddenly it feels cramped, especially since it is sloped in this area. Consider to be more flexible with the sidewalk width and give a little extra breathing room for pedestrians who are egressing around the property. It can help improve the project and the way it connects to the bay trail and other properties around the area. >I am pleased that the garage is not too much favoring people who are coming in via a car. For those arriving by bike, or pedestrians, you are not sacrificing access for auto users for other modes of transportation. >Consider adding more barriers between the parking garage and the sidewalk, whether that is moving the wall further away, adding more trees or a combination of both, that would be a big improvement . Understandably, there are not a lot of views from that perspective, but when you are walking from east to west past the garage to get to the building, it will be very noticeable when there is a giant concrete garage that you must walk past through all the time. That will make a huge difference to everyone who walks past this on both sides of the street and hopefully, more people will do that soon. >I do appreciate how intentional and specific all the layouts are and all the additional constraints that have come up from proximity to Mills Creek and the flood plain. I don ’t think it will be worth sacrificing the really cool public trail for a little bit of extra space from the sidewalk because it is great how forward thinking this is for other developers to pull off from. But just in case, you may rethink the parking requirements; a narrow garage might work. I understand that there's already interest in landscaping to buffer that to begin with. >I liked the idea of prioritizing the most used things towards the front. Do everything that you can to encourage the spaces that are closest to the windows being the most active, because seeing people in there is also very enticing. >The plaza, as a public amenity, is great in part because of the BCDC setback it creates a real plaza . In some projects that we've seen they're just tiny and they don't represent a public amenity to me. The raised plaza is also great as it overlooks the bay. I’ll reinforce what my fellow commissioners and former Commissioner Gaul on a restaurant or a caf é. Consider a bigger amenity than a cafe or a coffee shop, something that people can come visit from all over to go to and create a magnet for that type of development. The size of the plaza and the grand staircase would dictate at least two, if not three, public arts so we should be more specific about how many you're going to do and where you're going to do it. >I really like the project. We have some opportunities here that I don't want to miss. Maybe we don't see them right now but consider developing the overlook by the creek. Overall, I like what you've done. It is just so pretty out there, consider putting as many trees and greenery as you can. I like the project and can see making an argument for the Special Permit as well. >I really like the site layout, the plaza amenity, the landscape is working pretty well and how the site is developing. The building is really efficient but I ’m not feeling any design to it. It's got very minimal movement; it's very square and vertical. The penthouse can be an opportunity to do something fun rather than just shielding mechanical equipment. As you said, it's following Mahler Road but it's not really doing much else. The observation decks are okay but still very efficient and not putting a lot of design into them. I would like to see the design get to the next level. It is understandable that a lot of these developments just get massing in the early stages. Currently, it’s a lot of fairly flat glass. >I would agree to have a bigger caf é. There are restaurants around that are being displaced and then don't necessarily have a place to come back in here. If all we do is focus on the offices and the R&D and don't focus on the ground floor amenities, this is going to become downtown San Francisco with nowhere to go. The Financial District was somewhere you didn't want to go because there wasn't anything there but office buildings. If we create just an office situation down there, people aren't going to Page 8City of Burlingame May 22, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes go there. It is a huge opportunity to make it appealing for people to visit. >The programming is working great. I don't have an issue with the size and the layout of the garage, that all works. I appreciate that you're taking an active role in trying to keep the number of parking spaces manageable because it's very easy to end up at four parking spaces per thousand square feet and have a half a side of parking. I’d also like to see a little bit more go into the design of the building to try and make it more fun to be there. >It's a wonderful presentation, thanks for all the thought that's been put into the project so far and for welcoming our comments. I agree with my fellow commissioner about the design or shape of the building. Right now, it has some articulation that's basically dictated by setbacks and street frontage, but there could be something really creative that can come out of another round of design development; whether it's materials or some kind of visual interest at that northeast corner. There was a project that came before us that was very different initially, very efficient and just didn ’t have a lot of pizazz. Then we made some comments for them to consider, and they came with something beautiful and symbolic. It was a nice second round of design process and there is an opportunity here to do that. I support the height of the building. The purpose for the building's great, there's been a lot of thought put here. It just needs a little bit more on the design development side, architecturally. >Overall, I’m thrilled with the project. It really elevates this area of town. With a lot of these life science developments, it certainly adds a pizzazz to that area. I agree with regards to the design of the building, it doesn't bother me, but it also doesn't wow me. It doesn't have to be a wow factor but, maybe to their point, a little bit more interest in the building itself. More importantly, that ground floor non -tenant specific building frightens me a little bit. No one knows the potential of the economy and we're approving a lot of square footage on this Bayshore area. The worst thing that could happen would be to have a ghost town. If we have the public amenity on the ground floor, you still get the citizens of Burlingame to use it, which is important. >I know that you're stuck in between a rock and a hard place with the development of the Old Bayshore Highway, but I do think it's critical that the access from the bay trail to the site is elevated and enhanced. A little bit of thought should even go into the bay trail side of things. The bay trail there is nice, it's very minimalistic and there's not a whole lot more you do. Suggest adding a bench seat with a lamp or an interpretive piece that blends in with the with the site itself. It is important because people don't generally go on that side of Old Bayshore Highway and Mahler Road on a random walk. Whereas, they are on the other side all the time. You're going to get tenants from this building and the hotel occupants walking along this area. It's a beautiful design here. I really like the trail and the elevated view of the shorebird sanctuary, but I fear that it would get lost in the fact that most people don't naturally walk to a big office building and say, “hey let's sit there for a while and look at birds,” which is a good thing to do but it's not natural. The enhancement of how to get from the east side of the street to the west side is critical and that could all be solved with a little bit more retail /restaurant available to the public. To my fellow commissioners’ points, if there are things happening downstairs, you're going to be excited to go see what's going on even if it's just people sitting and reading or drinking coffee in the window. I’m very much in favor of the project. I echo the point of the attention to detail and the care here is really good, certainly something that other building groups could look at as a template for future developments. >I do agree with my fellow commissioners. It is minimal, but I really liked the very slight angle that goes along with the street. It's not huge, not trivial to build and it's quite nice. Consider adding screening materials, something interesting on one of the balconies of the parking structure to tie it all together with the main building. My fellow commissioner mentioned another project site where the breakthrough with that one really was it felt almost like a veil had been lifted because they made a commitment to the bottom, they have substantial columns, and the ground landscaping was kind of all interwoven together . It just opened the whole thing up and made it look like a different project and it really wasn't, it made such a difference. >I did want to thank you for having a big commitment to the landscaping. You've done a great job with dedication to future trees and hope they get in there with all the city’s planned development too. >The south facade of this building feels like there is a ton of attention to the experience of people who are using it as tenants and as citizens. It's great, I like that. The north side of the facade has an average amount of attention to the pedestrian experience, it is appropriate because there's a focal point on the south side that's supposed to be the difference. Additional care could be taken in, not just to draw people to the building but also to make people glad the building's there and it's part of their walk as opposed to an empty lot with the chain link fence. Page 9City of Burlingame May 22, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes This item will return on the Regular Action Calendar, as it includes environmental review. 11. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Chair Pfaff reported on a webinar she viewed addressing historic preservation. There was a panel of individuals all in the field of preservation from various cities. The notable ones were from Austin, Texas and Dade County, Florida. They talked about different ways to arrange preservation in cities from very minimalistic like what we have under the umbrella of the Planning Department all the way to separate agencies and of course that's often related to the size of the city bigger cities. One example was in Florida where there is an art deco district with houses from the 1930s and 40s that have not been kept up, and they integrate various trades to train people how to build historical windows and such. Over a period of just two weeks unskilled labor are trained and then they can be hired. The webinar was called "Planning, Preservation, & Change: Preservation - An Effective Planning Tool ." Community Development Director Gardiner will send a link to commissioners so they may view the webinar. 12. DIRECTOR REPORTS Community Development Director Gardiner reminded the commission that there will be Planning Commissioner training on May 31st. The emphasis will be on housing legislation in California. It's also a nice networking opportunity to meet other commissioners from other cities. All 21 jurisdictions in San Mateo County have been invited. At the May 15th City Council meeting the council continued its discussion of a summer event closure of Burlingame Avenue. A date has been decided, which will coincide with the Chamber of Commerce "Burlingame on the Avenue" which will have art and wine and vendors. The road would then continue to be closed through Labor Day. The intention is to have a celebration space particularly as people are coming back from their summer vacations and school is starting back up. It will consist of Burlingame Avenue between Lorton Avenue to Primrose Road, as well as the very end of Park Road between the Apple store and Peet's. a.1120 Summer Avenue, zoned R-1 - Review of changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 1120 Summer Ave - Memorandum 1120 Summer Ave - Plans Attachments: Accepted. 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m. Page 10City of Burlingame May 22, 2023Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 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, May 22, 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 May 22, 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 June 1, 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 11City of Burlingame