HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2019.11.25BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, November 25, 2019
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Ruben Hurin and
Senior Planner Erika Lewit.
2. ROLL CALL
Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and LoftisPresent7 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Commissioner Loftis was recused from this item because he did not attend the October 15, 2019
meeting.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to approve the
minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Gaul6 -
Recused:Loftis1 -
a.Draft October 15, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Draft October 15, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting MinutesAttachments:
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments on non-agenda items.
6. STUDY ITEMS
There were no Study Items.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar Items.
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1516 Highway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Fence Height Exception to increase the
fence height within the front setback to six feet above grade. This project is Categorically
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 1/15/2020
November 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per
Section 15303 (e) of the CEQA Guidelines. (Yousef Shamieh, applicant and property
owner; Bergez & Associates, designer) (115 noticed) Staff Contact: 'Amelia
Kolokihakaufisi
1516 Highway Rd - Staff Report
1516 Highway Rd - Attachments
1516 Highway Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Thought the maximum allowed fence height at the front is three feet. (Hurin: The three-foot height
maximum applies to corner lots. On a standard interior lot, five feet is the maximum fence height at the
front; this lot is considered to be an interior lot.)
>Seem to recall that we approved a project on that property recently, right? What was the fence we
approved? Or was there a fence approved? (Hurin: Yes, a design review project was approved in 2018 and
was recently completed. However, don't know if the fence height was specifically indicated on those
plans.)
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Yousef Shamieh, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>It appears that there is approximately 40 feet between the rear of the house and the back fence, is
that right? (Shamieh: No, don't think it is 40 feet. The lot is 9100 square feet and the front yard is larger
than the rear yard. I never measured it, so I don't have the exact measurement.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Am sympathetic to the applicant's desire to maintain privacy, however I can't make the findings for a
fence of this sort. Understand this is not before us for design review, however the fence design is awful
compared to the rest of the neighborhood. There are other fences along Highway Road, but many have
openings or various areas of transparency that allow for views into and through the yard, and are
welcoming to the neighborhood or more neighborly as you walk along that street. What we have proposed
is a solid fence that's taller than what's allowed. In walking on El Camino Real, and the path along there,
cannot see how a reduction in one foot would create more visibility into the front yard.
>In visiting the property this afternoon, noticed that the front yard is not landscaped as shown on the
site plan. It doesn't have the area of existing lawn as shown to the left of the walkway; it's paved with
pavers as a motor court and the cars were parked in front of the house which is not allowed. You're
supposed to be parking in front of your garage or in your garage. Can't support argument for needing that
type of enclosure for a more private front yard when it is effectively an area for cars.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 1/15/2020
November 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>In visiting the site, the fence is six feet tall at the uppermost corner and as the street slopes down to
the other corner, it's well over six feet six inches in height. So think lowering that corner down to five feet,
it's still going to be mostly taller than five feet by the time you get cross the property and to the far lower
right hand corner.
>Don't see how this leads to a bridge and at a dead end; don't see how this property is any different
than any other property that faces onto a sidewalk of people walking in front of a house anywhere else,
particularly anywhere else on Highway Road or anywhere else in the city. Don't see the circumstances that
warrant benefit or granting an exception in this case.
>Think this would set a terrible precedent in closing properties and blocking them off from the rest of
the neighbors. There are plenty of houses in town located on corner lots near business districts that get a
lot of foot traffic and that's not a reason to block off the rest of the world. Agree that there are a lot of
existing fences on this block, however they contain gates you can see through. Can't find a reason for
granting this exception and can't support the project.
>Recall a similar project where we reviewed a request for a fence height exception on a busy street
which was denied unanimously, and the owner had the same concerns we're hearing here; this seems like
a similar case. Homeowner should carefully look at the landscaping between the fence and the sidewalk
to make sure it doesn't encroach in the public right -of-way, it's important to maintain a clear right -of-way
for pedestrians.
>Applicant can also consider planting other landscaping between the front setback and the house that
will give them added privacy without requiring an exception to the fence height rules.
>Large part of our job is to be as fair as we can in the application of the code. Am also sympathetic to
the location. However, don't think the fence fits into the neighborhood very well, it feels very out of place .
Will help to have planting in front of it. Given our vote on the project that came before us some months
ago, find it very hard to support this request.
>Design of the fence is not necessarily design review item, however would like to note that the design
of the fence doesn't read or coordinate with the style of the home, whereas other properties along this
street have done a nice job of the selection of materials and style to draw the gate, fence and plantings
together with the home. This particular fence looks more like the fencing in the public area, along the
walkway beyond the creek and the bridge than it does with the home. Can't support this fence height
request.
>Don't think that the fence lends itself to be very inviting, it certainly doesn't give people walking by that
inviting, pedestrian feel that I think we try to encourage, it's more lending itself to becoming a fortress.
>What is the difference between a denial with prejudice and a denial without prejudice? (Hurin: In this
case, a denial without prejudice would allow the applicant to return to the Planning Commission with a
different design. A denial with prejudice would require the applicant to build a fence that complies with
fence height regulations.)
Commissioner Kelly made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to deny the
application.
Comment on motion:
>Would like to point out for the record that properties north of the bridge have taller fences
because these are backyard fences, which are allowed to be 7 feet in height, with the last foot
containing lattice.
>To the south of the subject on Highway Road, there are several houses that have seven foot
tall fences, but they are corner lots, believe those restrictions are different rather than being
considered in the front, they're considered side yards.
>Would suggest that when the house project was approved, think we would have had serious
comments about the fence, even if it complied with the fence regulations, because don't think it
fits in at all. Think we would have rejected the fence from the start.
>Was excited to see the design of the house, thought it was a pretty house and was excited to
see it. However, was disappointed when the fence was installed, felt like it was blocking the
beauty of the home and was not inviting the neighbors into your home, felt that the height of that
fence was way too high. Can't support the request.
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 1/15/2020
November 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis7 -
b.1335 Balboa Avenue, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a new, two -story
single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is Categorically Exempt from
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15303(a). (James, Chu, applicant and designer; Igor and Andrea Cerc, property owners )
(92 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
1335 Balboa Ave - Staff Report
1335 Balboa Ave - Attachments
1335 Balboa Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. Commissioner Sargent noted that he had a conversation
about the project with the applicant.
Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>There were no questions of staff.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
James Chu, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>See on the elevation that the landing is intersecting the lower two panels of the glass. Is there access
to that area or is there a need for those lower panels? (Chu: The staircase is going to be pretty open, so
there will be access, will be built with a steel beam.)
>Overhangs over the side door and the rear left patio door are not shown on the elevation, wondering if
they're the same depth as the one that you originally proposed at the very rear of the rear elevation? (Chu:
Yes, will have the depth, will make the correction on the plans.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Like the house, think you've done a really nice job with the changes, and think that it's a bit softer.
>Like the improvements to the design, think the reduction in the height of the roof area over the front
porch has made a large improvement on the approachability and the more residential feel of the home.
>Like that you reduced the amount of glazing on the stairwell wall and like the separated stairwell, so
understand the design intention there with the full height glazing. There are nice improvements on the very
front portion of the left side of the front elevation; thank you for taking our comments in mind.
>Wish I could support the project, but can't because of the stairwell, concerned with the stairwell with
the windows looking into the neighbor. Current neighbor might not have any problem with it, but that may
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 1/15/2020
November 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
not be the case in the future. It's a different kind of version of the side courtyard. In our house, there are
people going up and down the stairs all day long; there are activities and I think it sets a bad precedent to
allow large stairwell windows to be put at the side walls facing into close adjacent properties. The house
itself is nice, but wanted to be clear why I can't support the project.
> With my profession have been able to go into many homes and most of the new homes built in the
last five to six years have large windows in the staircases, we have allowed those to be built, maybe the
windows are not as large.
>Lower window panels will be mostly blocked by fencing between the two properties, so not sure how
much a neighbor will actually be able to view that lower section of the glazing at that stairwell.
>Like the project, don't see the problem with the stairs.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to approve the
application.
Comment on the motion:
>Appreciate the changes, think the house feels much more residential than it did before,
previously had issues in terms of the size and the proportions that made it feel bulky and
commercial.
>Might not agree with all of the details in terms of window placement and some material
changes, but think it has a residential scale and the only thing they're asking for is design review
consideration, am in support of the a project.
>We talk about how privacy is something we consider, but it's not guaranteed. In this case,
the amount of glazing on this particular section of the house just feels excessive, and that paired
with the potential privacy issues for whoever lives next to this house in the future, are enough to
vote against the project.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Gaul5 -
Nay:Kelly, and Loftis2 -
c.730 Crossway Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Front Setback
Variance for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. This project is
Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a). (Wehmeyer Design, applicant and designer;
Leslie Macchia, property owner) (167 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
730 Crossway Rd - Staff Report
730 Crossway Rd - Attachments
730 Crossway Rd - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Hurin provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>There were no questions of staff.
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Rob Wehmeyer, represented the applicant.
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 1/15/2020
November 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission Questions/Comments:
>There were no questions for the applicant.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Appreciate the changes that have been made, including the brick base that has been added.
>Was in support of the variance application last time this came before us and am still in support of the
application; see the exceptional circumstances in that 20 feet of the rear of the property was lopped off
from the rear verses every other property on this side of the street, which is how they have to calculate
their setbacks, most houses are able to set back further on the lot. Am in support of the project from a
design standpoint. Appreciate the changes and think the project can move forward.
>Find the brick a little strange with the style of the house, but suspect it's the brick itself, the choice of
brick can be made to fit with the style.
>Think it's a good project and can make the findings for the variance based on the lot length having
been reduced in the back.
> Still having trouble with the variance request given that the entire house is being demolished except
for the front wall, it's taking advantage of a nonconforming wall. If this came to us as a new house with a
front setback variance, don't think it would be as well accepted.
>Understand that this a smaller house, but smaller lots get smaller houses. Don't think it's our goal or
role to make houses in Burlingame look the same. Think that what gives Burlingame charm is that we
have smaller houses and bigger houses, so not accepting that we need to grant a variance for a
nonconforming wall within the front setback variance because it's the only wall being kept. Don't think the
gabled roof at the new front porch is helping the situation at all. Think this house appears to be in your
face and is too close to the street. Can't support the variance request.
>Like the design. Have no problem making the findings for design review, but can't support the
variance request. This is a 6,000 square foot lot, there are hundreds of 6,000 square foot lots in
Burlingame and they all conform to the front setback requirement which is either a minimum of 15 feet or
the block average, whichever is greater. Would consider 21 feet to be a typical setback. Hope we won't
use this as precedent in looking at other projects throughout town.
>Would note that it's not a 6,000 square foot lot. it's 5,500 square feet. Because it's a smaller lot, the
floor area that's allowed is less than other typical lots and they're not asking for a floor area ratio
exception.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
application.
Comment on motion:
>Like the design and the brick element. Think preserving that element from the original house
is a cool way to capture that old character and it will give a nice story moving forward.
>Having trouble supporting the variance in this instance due to the size of the house and how
it will feel imposing on the sidewalk.
>Like the project and can make a finding for the variance, so am in support of the project.
The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, and Loftis4 -
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 1/15/2020
November 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Nay:Sargent, Kelly, and Gaul3 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.2225 Davis Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling. (Adam Bittle, applicant and architect; Jeffrey
Walker & Angela Fang, property owners) (87 noticed) Staff Contact: Michelle Markiewicz
2225 Davis Dr - Staff Report
2225 Davis Dr - Attachments
2225 Davis Dr - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Noticed that there are significant errors on the front elevation in what it's representing. Not sure if it
affects the areas of addition, but along the left side of the front elevation, there are a number of rooflines
and extensions that are not represented on the elevation currently. (Lewit: We'll have the staff planner
review that with the designer.)
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Ann Revisa represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>In visiting the property and looking at photos, the secondary gable that's pushed back contains Tudor
timbering, however the existing and proposed plans show plain stucco without the timbering. Am I correct
to assume that the existing Tudor timbering will remain? (Revisa: That's correct.)
>Would the board and batten proposed on the addition be similar or the same as the existing board
and batten that's over the garage area. (Revisa: Yes, that's correct.)
>Was any consideration given to eliminating the board and batten and making it stucco? Strikes me
as an odd addition. (Revisa: We were trying to break up the massing to highlight the second story,
because it was already there as a second story, and to continue that theme.)
>There appears to be two roof elements that are not reflected on the front elevation. There are other
details missing, such as the gable vents, decorative details and awnings. (Revisa: We are proposing to
remove the awnings.) Would help if you could take a look at the front elevation and see if it changes
anything in your floor plan.
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Existing house is quirky in terms of where the second floor elements are tucked under roofs and grow
out of the main roof, so what's before us is rearranging the quirkiness and adding a few additional
elements. Think it's still composed similar to what's there now. Not asking for special considerations in
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 1/15/2020
November 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
terms of of building height or declining height envelope. Am accepting of what they're proposing, seems
to be a nice rearrangement of those second floor spaces for better modern living. Like the application,
think it continues with the quirkiness growing out of the second floor roof space.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Tse, to place the item on the
Consent Calendar when the plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the
following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis7 -
b.1034 Morrell 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 family
dwelling. (Michael Boros, property owner and applicant; Mia Zinni, Mark Zinni Architects,
Ltd., designer) (84 noticed) Staff Contact: Fahteen Khan
1034 Morrell Ave - Staff Report
1034 Morrell Ave - Attachments
1034 Morrell Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the project site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Lewit provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of staff:
>Noticing in the staff report that the lot area is noted as 5,760 square feet, but it looks like it's 6,000
square foot lot. (Hurin: The lot dimensions are 50 feet x 120 feet, however because it's a parallelogram
the lot measures 5,760 square feet in area. The applicant will need to revise the plans to accurately
reflect the correct lot size.)
Chair Comaroto opened the public hearing.
Mia and Mark Zinni and Michael and Erin Boros, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Plans note aluminum clad exterior wood frame windows with integral dividers. What is meant by
integral dividers? (Zinni: We're going to have insulated glass which is good for acoustics, might even vary
one of the pane thicknesses to reduce reverberation. If you want to get a more traditional look or a
shadow line, we'll put a bar in between the panes so when you look at it, you get a true shadow line.)
>So it's a simulated true divided light, it's not integral as in between -the-glass or a snap-on grid, but it's
a simulated light. Please indicate the on the plans, it's what we like to see, so it's clear you're getting the
reflection as you're indicating, and you get that muntin on both the interior and exterior expressed external
to the glazing; it's a detail we look for because we typically don't allow muntins integrated in between the
glazing.
>You mentioned roaming around the neighborhood and looking at spanish -style details, what are some
things that you saw that you liked? (Boros: It's a house on Burlingame Avenue, it has a lot of arches at
the front and we really like that; there are details like the clay pipes and tile roofing.)
> Should consider adding weather protection over the door to the mud room, could be a tile roof detail
or something to protect one when coming in with groceries and little children. (Zinni: Great comment.)
>On the floor plan, the walkway leading up to the entrance appears to be lined up with one of the
double doors, but on the declining height envelope diagram the walkway is oriented more in line with the
front door. Is there one that you're choosing over the other? (Zinni: We could probably shift it to align with
the front door, was trying to give a little more green space.)
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 1/15/2020
November 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>With the existing house, you follow the walkway and it's very clear that you're oriented toward the front
door, and that seems more natural than walking up and having to move laterally to the front door, I would
like to see that preserved. Curious as to what the intention was. (Zinni: We'll discuss this point with the
property owners.)
Public Comments:
>There were no public comments.
Chair Comaroto closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion/Direction:
>Appreciate the embracing of this spanish style architecture, however am not seeing the detail and
charm one might expect to see on what's now a full two-story house.
>Don't necessarily agree that the existing house is truly a spanish revival or spanish style house; what
we have is an existing one -story stucco bungalow that has some spanish style elements on the front
facade, like the tile roof, but otherwise it's pretty much a typical Burlingame bungalow stucco house that's
inoffensive and plays well with its neighbors because it's a one -story house. But don't see the logic, or
can't make the leap of saying we're going to keep it simple and just stretch that into a new two -story box
with new spanish style and spanish tile roof, because what we end up with, particularly on side elevations,
is something that's flat and boxy.
>Architects mentioned that there are arches and decorative elements at the rear of the house, and the
only decorative element I see is a wrought iron railing, but I'm not seeing the clay vents, wood timbering,
and the types of elements you often see in the spanish style homes from the 1920's and 1930's. A lot of
those homes have great scale for different reasons, but if nothing else, they continue the spanish style
around the house, particularly when you get to a two -story box. It has to go further in materials of breaking
down the massing and adding detail and the types of elements that then allow the project or cause the
project to adhere to our design guidelines in terms of the charm and the scale.
>Would suggest looking at other roof forms, because using hip roofs is a default to minimize impact
and scale. If you look at the true 1920's and 1930's spanish style homes, they had gable roofs which
allow you to keep that form simple and get the barrel roof tiles and gable vent tiles for additional charm
and detail. They also add roof elements over porches and clay tile awnings that give it texture and detail
that break down that massing and again, allow us to make the interpretation that it's adhering to and
embracing the design guidelines.
>Think that this project needs an additional pass. Generally understand and accept the logic on the
declining height exception because the house is skewed on the property, but what we typically allow for,
and accept is declining height exceptions where the architecture has a purity to it. It might be a straight up
craftsman-style gable house that wants to stretch across the width of the property, and in order to be that
pure 1920's craftsman style house, it wants to continue that gable, and if you lopped it off, it doesn't have
that purity of architecture. Can be pure if the architecture were right, if the massing were being broken
down properly, and there was a little more of that spanish style in terms of the detailing and the charm.
>Concerned with the left side elevation, with the second story it is a very flat facade, the only
articulation is the stairwell. If you're crafting a new two -story on this home, you can carve out spaces, allow
recesses to some elements of the second floor so you can pop out another roof element, to add some
articulation to bring the scale of the home down a little bit.
>Adding exterior lighting on the elevations would add charm and detail to the front and rear elevations.
>At the front and at the rear of the house, there are a pair of patio sliders that are quite wide. Not an
ideal detail to have patio sliders at the front of the house, patio sliders are operating on two different
planes and if you're trying to create a true architecture style, this house would probably call for French
doors so the doors would be on the same plane and would look nicer from a curb appeal perspective. Can
understand having them at the rear of the house, it's not as visible there, but in terms of a true
architecture detail, you may want to consider a French door.
> Think it needs more enrichment of details around the house.
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 1/15/2020
November 25, 2019Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Could also consider incorporating balconies with roofs over them, flat and sloped roofs, you can mix
those things up.
>One of the more troubling elements of the design is the two -story bay for the stairwell, it doesn't seem
to fit the spanish style. More windows are needed in the stairway, because the one single window seems
lost there.
>Think a little more study of spanish style and the examples around town are going to be real good as
far as how you can deal with the eaves and the flatness of the walls. Think the recessing of the windows
on the front helps, but don't see it anywhere else.
>There are some things that just aren't credible here. Arches, especially the large arches, are not
credible, they're bearing on spindles and you never see that. If it got that thin, you would see a column
instead of a wall surface. Typically, if you saw a big arch you would see a smaller arch to one side.
>Concerned with long blank elevations.
>Stairwell bay seems odd, out of place.
>Windows seem properly sized, but with very little detail.
>Proposed northeast side facade is largely blank with no detail and it's incredibly disorderly, there
seems to be no ordering principal, think that facade needs help.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Kelly, to refer the application
to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Sargent, Kelly, Comaroto, Terrones, Tse, Gaul, and Loftis7 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
There were no Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
a.1515 Los Altos Drive - FYI for requested changes by the Planning Commission to a
previously approved Design Review project.
1515 Los Altos Dr - Staff Report
1515 Los Altos Dr - Plans
Attachments:
>Accepted.
12. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Note: An action by the Planning Commission is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the
Planning Commission's action on November 25, 2019. If the Planning Commission's action has not
been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on December 5, 2019, the action
becomes final. In order to be effective, appeals must be in writing to the City Clerk and must be
accompanied by an appeal fee of $1,045, which includes noticing costs.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection during normal business hours at the
Community Development/Planning counter, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 1/15/2020