HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2017.07.24BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
City of Burlingame
Meeting Minutes
Planning Commission
7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, July 24, 2017
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 7:01 p.m.
Staff in attendance: Planning Manager Kevin Gardiner, Senior Planner Catherine Keylon, and City Attorney
Kathleen Kane.
2. ROLL CALL
Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and ComarotoPresent6 -
GumAbsent1 -
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
There were no minutes to approve.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA
There were no public comments.
6. STUDY ITEMS
a.1818 Gilbreth Road, zoned IB - Application for a Parking Variance for a class use in an
existing office building. (Carol Chou, Ingenious Learning, applicant; George and Jenny
Chang Trust, property owners) (18 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit
1818 Gilbreth Rd 135 - Staff Report
1818 Gilbreth Rd 135 - Attachments
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Carol Chou represented the applicant, with Shu Yang of Ingenious Learning.
Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Where does the evening pickup occur? Do students meet parents in the parking lot? (Chou: Parents
typically go into the school and pick up the students. Not required to come in and pick up but choose to.)
>The summer camp is 9 am - 6 pm and is the equivalent to a school. Is there anywhere for outside
activity, or are the students in the classrooms the entire day? (Chou: Field trips once or twice a week. No
other facilities on the site are available to the students other than the classrooms.)
>What is unique about this building compared to others that would justify a variance? (Chou: The
parking lot has four access points, so is safe for drop -offs. Enough space for the van or cars to come in,
even allowing pickups without parking. There is a direct entrance on the side of the building.)
>Are pick-ups mostly all of the students at the same time? (Chou: Staggered from 1:15 to 3:30 pm.
Summer camp drop-offs are between 9:00-9:30 am.)
>How many students are in summer camp? (Chou: 30 this year. Not actively promoting the summer
camp this year with the variance application in process.)
>Familiar with the code enforcement complaint? (Chou: Thought it was only for the exiting, with there
being too many people. Not familiar with the parking complaint.)
>Would there be consideration to limiting the summer camp to a given number of students? Concern
that the total number of students approved for the tutoring would be applied to the summer camp as well .
(Yang: Will limit to two classes. Parents will drop off students between 8:00 and 10:00 am, and pick up
students between 4:30 and 6:00 pm. Will limit the number to two classes, each class 20-25 students, so
total under 50 students.)
>If there are only 50 students at summer camp would hope space could be made available for other
activities. (Yang: Currently utilizes one room for lunches, and clears desks from two rooms for
multi-purpose activity areas.)
>What was the code enforcement complaint? (Kane: The original complaint was under a different
owner, so there may be a lack of historical knowledge.)
>How can the numbers of students increase if the office building is mostly full? (Chou: Can arrange
relocation of adjacent tenants if the school needs additional space. The standard lease agreement has a
relocation clause.)
>Has there been consideration of a loading zone on Gilbreth for dropoffs and pickups? (Chou: No, not
in front of the building. Has considered designating two of the spaces in the lot for pickup and dropoff .
Has also considered making driveway one -way and then designate a loading zone next to the building .
Staff would greet the students when they arrive and take them to the classroooms.)
>The parking lot is already quite busy. (Chou: Depends on the day. There is a tenant that has a special
gathering once a month.)
>Will there need to be a bathroom added to accommodate additional students? (Yang: Currently there
are two bathrooms. Understanding is one bathroom is required for each 50 students, so can
accommodate 100 currently. If landlord approves will plan to add another toilet in the future within one of
the existing bathrooms. The other bathroom will be retained as disabled accessible.)
>Considered other locations instead of expanding here? Could be less expensive than expanding in this
location. (Chou: Has tried to find another location but has not been able to find a location that is more
suitable. Had looked at other buildings in the area, and also looked at retail buildings but they charge two
to three times more than this space.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Needs clarification on the summer camp operating from 9:00 - 6:00 being the equivalent of a school,
so would be allowed by right rather than requiring a CUP.
Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>Needs limitation on the total number of students in the summer camp and figure out how to condition
that. The summer camp is a different type of operation than what has been approved under other
applications.
>Concerned with the potential growth, with assurance there would be the additional vans and parking
spaces promised and the additional space in the building. If they do not get the additional vans there will
be more parents picking up and dropping off.
>Can there be conditions on the variance since there is no CUP? (Kane: Can specify limitations that
would allow for the variance. Can just grant what is supportable under the variance findings, not
necessarily what is requested.)
>Needs a clear definition of what is being approved and what is not being allowed.
>If the current objective is to request what needs to be approved to cover current operations, that may
make it easier to approach the application. (Kane: May want to anticipate some modest additional growth
so any change does not immediately trigger code enforcement.)
>Not sure 195 students can be accommodated in the current space. Should define what can be
accommodated now based on number of vans and parking.
>Would like to see a circulation diagram showing how it is going to work. Needs a clear and specific,
drop-off area, teacher parking, and the egress and ingress.
>Not comfortable with the premise of the variance, particularly the findings in relation to the uniqueness
of the property.
>Condition of approval that could limit it to this type of operation, but concerned the variance approval
would carry with the building regardless of how long the school lasts. This is an area of town that already
has parking issues.
>Wants more information on the code enforcement complaint.
>In the past has looked at the symbiotic relationship between a use and the building. Does not want to
see buildings left vacant when there could be a symbiotic use. Needs information on the other tenants in
the building and the appropriateness of the proposed use compared with the other uses in the building.
>Last school was approved because half of the building was uninhabited. In this instance, the building
appears to be occupied.
There are no actions on study items. This item will return as a Regular Action Item.
7. CONSENT CALENDAR
8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
a.1515 Carol Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to an existing single family dwelling. This project is categorically exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 15301 (e)(2). (Dale Meyer Associates, applicant and designer; Qi Chen,
property owner) (75 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1515 Carol Ave - Staff Report
1515 Carol Ave - Attachments
1515 Carol Ave - Historic Resource Study
1515 Carol Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
There were no questions of staff.
Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Dale Meyer represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Will the existing vinyl windows on the rear and sides be replaced? (Meyer: Still under discussion .
There will be new windows on the rear upper level. The existing vinyl windows will not be visible.)
>Where is the knee bracket in the entry positioned? (Meyer: It is further back, and would be a different
type of bracket, deeper.) There could be an arch or something that would allow the knee bracket to be out
like the others.
>Is the fireplace woodburning? There could be an issue with the chimney if it is woodburning. (Meyer:
The existing fireplace is woodburning but will be converted to gas. The chimney issue is partly why it is
being converted to gas.)
>Would like to see the downstairs windows matched if possible.
>The chimney looks like it just ends.
>The one window in the gable end looks out of place. Maybe just increase the height of the three
windows with a transom, or an arched window. There are tall windows on the lower floors, then the upper
floor windows look short. (Meyer: Does not have a problem with the concept.)
>Could eliminate the center bracket in the entry. Not sure how it works.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Changes are nice. The window in the front is a bit awkward, and is approvable as it is but encourages
the applicant to revisit it and bring it back in an FYI.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action
Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Gum1 -
b.1332 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to and existing two -story dwelling. This project is Categorically Exempt from
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section
15301, Class 1 (e) (Geurse Conceptual Design, Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer;
Brian Kearney, property owner) (57 noticed) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon
1332 Balboa Ave - Staff Report
1332 Balboa Ave - Attachments
1332 Balboa Ave - plans - 07.24.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex -parte communications to report. Commissioner
Sargent was absent from the study meeting but watched the video.
Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Jesse Geurse represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Has the transition in materials been moved to the outside corner of the upper floor? (Geurse: Yes.
Intent is to not have the two different materials together on the side. It's on the side and won't be seen.)
>Could take the siding around the side as a return, and terminate at the downspout.
>Is the wire cable on the balcony because the applicant wanted a new, contemporary look? (Geurse:
Yes. The wood and the metal together.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>The commission has not taken issue with the massing - the only issue has been the transition
between the materials.
>The siding detail is not a deal -breaker, but if the applicant and designer wanted to make revisions
they could come back as an FYI.
>Siding is like paint - if paint is going to be changed, it is going to be changed at the corner, not
mid-wall.
Commissioner Comaroto made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the
Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Gum1 -
c.702 Crossway Road, zoned R -2 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition. This project is exempt from environmental review per Section 15301 (e)(2) of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Michael A. Panciro, applicant and
designer; Maciej Gliwa and Sherry Wang, property owners) (79 noticed) Staff contact:
Catherine Keylon
702 Crossway Rd - Staff Report
702 Crossway Rd - Attachments
702 Crossway Rd - plans - 07.24.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Michael Panciro represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Has the roof pitch changed? (Panciro: Not much, about two degrees. It was not a standard pitch
before. 40 degrees is a standard pitch, and there are trim elements made for that pitch.)
>Is it still attic space above the ceiling of the second floor? (Panciro: Yes.)
>What is the purpose of the dormer on the back roof? Is it there to sculpt the back roof? (Panciro:
Part aesthetic.)
>Since the roof deck has been eliminated, what is the opening that used to lead to that deck?
(Panciro: It's a window.)
>Not sure the chimney needs to go past the second floor since it's a gas fireplace. (Panciro: Thought it
is a code requirement to extend past the ridge line.) With a direct -vent gas fireplace it does not need to. It
seems odd to have the chimney stepping back.
>If the chimney were to project out from the wall, could help provide some relief.
>The proportions overall are odd - the scale of the chimney may be throwing things off. It is awkward
how it steps back.
>The front door looks tiny on the face of the house, particularly compared to the chimney element. The
windows are very wide.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>The design review consultant process has improved the project. However there are still some
elements that need to addressed such as the dormer in the back and the fireplace in the front. Concerned
that even if those are changed, it still may not be ready for approval. Not sure it will fit into the
neighborhood.
>Having the application go through the design review consultation is not an automatic stamp of
approval when it comes back to the Planning Commission. It still needs to meet the design guidelines.
>The design review consultant letter notes that the applicant has addressed the comments from the
Planning Commission. However that does not mean they have been addressed in a satisfactory fashion .
The design review consultant does not state that the project is approvable.
>There are no examples of any shingle -style or clapboard style houses like this in the neighborhood .
There is a mass of house that has been adorned with scalloped shingles and gable vents, but otherwise
there are massive blank walls. Ordinarily a traditionally -styled house would have more windows and other
adornment. The elements are unadorned other than applied sidings, finishes and vents.
>The 2 x 12 fascias don't exist anywhere in the neighborhood. They evoke a tract home. Elsewhere in
the neighborhood are some 2 x 8s, and a lot of 2 x 4 fascias that are more refined, handcrafted and
human-scaled. This does not fit in.
>Typically the design approach is to try to make a home appear less massive, to fit into the one- and
two-story pattern of the residential areas. This feels like a two-story house trying to look like a three-story.
>The Oak Grove side looks OK, but then around the corner it is a bulky building with so much flat wall
surface.
Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>The house feels too big for the corner. The existing house is an Eichler -style and very unobtrusive,
but it will become such a big house.
>Most of the houses in the neighborhood have lower-pitched roofs.
>There is nothing wrong with having a second floor, but here the elements are too big and it needs
refinement. The roof pitch, windows and front door are out of proportion.
>With this style of house would not expect to see a mansard roof on the garage. The garage would
have a simple gable, possibly with some knee braces at the corner.
>The design still needs a lot of work. It could be denied without prejudice, or referred to another design
review consultant.
>The bones of the design are here but it needs some detailing finesse. Things need to be proportioned
to one another. The chimney does not make sense, or the back dormer. The transition between the fish
scales and the clapboard needs to be improved, and the fascias are too big. The roof pitch needs to be
brought down to better fit with the neighborhood.
>Could be OK to go with something closer to the existing house, since it fits into the neighborhood
now. Since the existing house is an Eichler -style, why not keep it more of a modern type home that would
fit?
>There are some basic programmatic issues with how the house has been laid out. The two twin
gables on either side on the front facade work, but they create conflicts. For example, the lower gable
pushing up makes it difficult to fit windows on the floor above. The arrangement of the master bath does
not allow the types of windows that would ordinarily be seen on an exterior face. The bedroom on the right
gable only has one window; ordinarily on this style of house there would be more windows, but the gable
over the front entry is in the way. Perhaps instead have one larger gable that addresses both the first floor
and second floor and allows windows to be in plane.
>The attached garage can be OK, but not with a mansard roof.
>Needs to revisit how the attic space works. It is a large roof area. With such a large roof would expect
to see dormers that would allow light into the upper floor spaces.
>Not minor changes in trim sizes - sounds like a major redesign.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to refer the
application to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Gum1 -
d.810 Crossway Road, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second
story addition to a single family dwelling and a Conditional Use Permit for an accessory
structure. This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e)(1) (Jo Ann Gann, designer
and applicant; David R. Hunsaker Trust, property owner) (74 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika
Lewit
810 Crossway Rd - Staff Report
810 Crossway Rd - Attachments
810 Crossway Rd - plans - 07.24.17
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
JoAnn Gann represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>In the site visit, on the left elevation it looked like there are two small square windows different from
the plans. Are they shown correctly on the plans, and are they new or existing? (Gann: They are shown
correctly, and are existing.)
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Likes the massing, detailing and scale of the project.
>Glad to get a regular porch on this house.
>Is tight with the existing garage.
>OK with the nook on the first floor being opened up and not used as a bedroom.
>Good that the bathroom in the accessory structure has been revised to avoid special permit.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Loftis, to approve the Action
Item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Gum1 -
e.556 El Camino Real, zoned R-3 - Application for Environmental Review, Condominium
Permit, Design Review, and Conditional Use Permit for building height for a new
five-story, 21-unit residential condominium with below -grade parking (VMK Design
Group, designer; Roman Knop, property owner) (462 noticed) Staff Contact: Kevin
Gardiner
Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
556 El Camino Real - Staff Report
556 El Camino Real - Attachments
556 El Camino Real Revised Initial Study updated 7-21-17
Appendix A Shade and Shadow Analysis
Appendix B Construction Health Risk Assessment
Appendix C Tree Survey
Appendix D Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix D Geotechnical Supplement
Appendix E Traffic Queuing Analysis
Appendix F-1 Archaeological Literature Search
Appendix F-2 Historical Resources Compliance Report
556 El Camino Real - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
556 El Camino Real - Draft Resolutions
556 El Camino Real - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report, with Will Burns and Tali Ashurov of
David J. Powers and Associates in attendance for questions on the environmental review.
Questions of Staff:
>Is displacement of existing residents studied in the environmental review? (Burns: The review
considers the numbers of residents displaced and whether that would require additional housing to need to
be built elsewhere. In this instance more units will be provided than are currently on the site, so the
project would not create an impact requiring additional units to need to be built elsewhere.)
>Are rental rates or income considered in the displacement analysis? (Burns: The analysis does not
take into account economic issues. It is limited to environmental issues.)
>Is it within the purview of the Planning Commission to consider displacement of current residents in
the approval or disapproval of a project? (Kane: It is within the purview of the Planning Commission to look
at the overall compatibility of the project with the Council's stated goals, and its housing and land use
policies. However the criteria of each section of the application needs to be applied, such as Design
Review Criteria and environmental review criteria as stated, then apply those directly. While it is within the
general jurisdiction to consider, it is not one of the the criteria within the current ordinances. The issue of
the economic differential is not in itself environmental. The criteria of the environmental analysis as it
stands in the state currently looks at units and numbers of people in determining environmental
significance.)
>Were any shadow studies prepared for the existing conditions? There are some existing trees that
could effect neighboring properties. (Burns: Some of the existing vegetation is reflected on the shadow
study, but the analysis only looked at what impacts the project would have in the future.)
Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Jane Knop and Roman Knop represented the applicant, with Mike Brinck of Citylift and Vadim
Melik-Karamov of VMK Design.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>If the units are being used for families, how would someone be able to unload a child and groceries
Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
out of the car? What timeframe is there? (Brinck: In this project there is a drop -off space upstairs on the
surface for loading and unloading. Can also unload in the parking bay, since it's 25-feet and would be very
similar to unloading in a normal striped parking space. If it's during a peak period may choose to use the
loading space on the surface instead .)(Melik-Karamov: Can unload either on street level or below on
garage level, which is 8 feet down. If unloading from the garage space, person would then access the
corridor into the lobby where there is an elevator and staircase.)
>How would electric cars be accommodated? (Brinck: Each platform is enabled to have a Level 2
charging station. The driver would hook up the charger, and when the vehicle and platform is moved into
position the charger would be energized. It is a 4-hour charge, compared to a Level 1 charge which is 8
hours. It complies with Calgreen Title 24 which specifies Level 2 chargers.)(Melik-Karamov: Also a charger
in the parking area.)
>What is the standard for noise or vibration? Will neighboring condominiums or any of the residents
experience noise or vibrations? (Brinck: It is a freestanding system, designed to meet California seismic
standards. Not tied into the building or building columns, so there is virtually no vibration. It is
subterranean, which mitigates the noise. If standing next to it, the noise level is about 70 dBA which is
equivalent to someone talking. The motors are electric, and all of the components are 70 dBA or less.)
>Are there fire sprinklers? (Brinck: Will follow local fire requirements. Typically one sprinkler per
space.)
>How does the bicycle parking work? (Melik-Karamov: Front of building, and in the basement.)
>Has there been consideration of having space for a vegetable garden in the landscape plan?
(Melik-Karamov: There is a lot of space, so it could be accommodated.) Would applicant be willing to
build it? Would need planters and irrigation. (Melik-Karamov: Property owner would need to decide.)
>How would someone get back to garage after unloading in front of the building? Would they need to
go around the block to re-enter the parking queue? (Melik-Karamov: Yes.)
>Are there any completed examples of the parking system in the Bay Area? (Brinck: Yes, in Oakland
and San Francisco. Can host a tour if desired.) How long have they been active? (Brinck: The longest was
installed 2 1/2 years ago in Oakland at Broadway and Grand. There has not been any mechanical or
electrical issues.)
>How are motorcycles or vespas accommodated? (Jane Knop: The system is not designed for
motorcycles, but can allocate space in the basement.)
>Is there a backup generator? (Brinck: Yes. It can be a very simple backup generator.)
>Is the backup generator that's specified sufficient for this purpose? (Brinck: Yes.)
>Is there a code mandate that there be a backup generator? Having access to the car would not be a
life safety issue. (Brinck: From a developer's perspective it is desirable as a safeguard to be able to get
cars out. However has built a number of projects where there is not a backup generator.)
>Can it be required that the system be maintained? (Gardiner: There can be a condition requiring
maintenance.)(Kane : Could be reflected in the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs are reviewed as part of the project
approval. Also the marketability of the units would be significantly diminished if the sytem was not
working.)(Knop: Since this is a condominium building there would be CC&Rs as required by the
Department of Real Estate.)
>Water is a big issue on El Camino Real. There is an 18% slope ramp down to the garage. (Roman
Knop: There will not be an increase in impervious area. There will be underground stormwater retention
tanks to store water. It's a regular construction issue that will be dealt with during construction and after
construction. The parking system is very simple compared to an elevator in a high-rise building.)
>If the system fails, is there reimbursement for Uber or Lyft? (Brinck: It is part of the service program .
It has never needed to be used but has been included as a reassurance. Also, has not seen an instance
where the customer does not continue on with the extended maintenance.)
>Geotech report is dated 2013, updated 2014, and still mentions only one full basement level. The
garage depth is not consistent with plans - it shows a depth of about 20 feet but the plans show 30 feet.
>Specifies that the retaining walls would be required to be backdrained. Not sure Caltrans would allow
the water to be pumped up and discharged to the street. Needs to see documentation that Caltrans would
allow water to be pumped to the street. (Jane Knop: Caltrans has said it will not review the application until
there is an approval from the Planning Commission.)
>Groundwater was tested in 2013, but that was a drought year. Concern with the backfilled retaining
Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
walls needing to be drained. (Roman Knop: The construction is designed for 100-year average rain.)
Concern is with the ground water, not the rainwater. (Roman Knop: Garage would be designed like a
swimming pool, with water staying on the outside and not coming in.) Geotechnical report should clarify -
on page 10 it specifies that retaining walls should be fully back drained.
>Concern with the hard right turn off El Camino Real into the driveway. Other driveways on El Camino
Real come off at angles. (Melik-Karamov: It is a normal 90-degree turn to get into the property.)
>Concern that there would not be as much stacking space for cars lining up for garage as shown, since
people would maintain space between cars on the ramp.
>Does not believe the 20- and 24-foot driveway widths will conform to Caltrans standards. Does not
believe they would be allowed. The building next door has a 16- and a 14-foot driveway. (Jane Knop :
Caltrans has reviewed the application and has had an opportunity to respond with comments.) Should see
if a citation to the driveway width standards can be provided.
>Page 4 of the environmental study suggests clear signage at the top of the ramp.
>Envision Burlingame had considered a concept of reducing the lanes on El Camino Real to have one
travel lane on each side and a center turn lane. Is that something that can be considered when reviewing
projects? (Gardiner: The concept was considered early in the Envision Burlingame process but constraints
has prevented it from being developed further. Caltrans requires maintaining four travel lanes on El
Camino Real, so the assumption is that the current configuration will stay the same. The current
configuration should be factored as projects are evaluated.)
>How does right-turn in/right-turn out get enforced, and how to prevent left turns into the property from
El Camino Real? (Roman Knop: Signage. Left turns are not allowed currently and are subject to fines .)
(Gardiner: There are buildings on El Camino Real that designate where to enter and exit, and where
entering is not permitted.)(Jane Knop: The building next door has the same configuration, except with a
one-lane driveway. This project has a two -lane driveway. In theory people can make left turns into any
building on El Camino Real, it is not unique to this property. It is subject to traffic enforcement, and
residents typically respect these types of restrictions since it is in their best interests.)
Public Comments:
Peter Chartz - Lives across the street, and submitted a letter previously objecting to the density and
height of the project. Those comments still apply. The project seems out of place design wise and height
wise. Other buildings in area are soft, welcoming. This design looks like it belongs in Vancouver - it is
loud and not soft. 530 El Camino Real and 550 El Camino Real are examples of buildings to scale. The
parking and circulation will not work - need to make a hard right to enter the lower level parking area. The
parking spaces for drop -off will be used for guests, and will not be available for deliveries so delivery vans
will have to block El Camino. Would encourage more space outside in front for bicycles to encourage
bike riding, not sure there is enough room in the basement for the residents. Motorcycles and scooters
are an afterthought. Over the years El Camino Real has become windier and nosier, and suggests there
can be sound-mitigating building materials and landscaping to mitigate wind and sound.
Tim Donnelly - There is a sister property a few doors up that is well maintained and looks lovely. How will
the parking structure be maintained given the maintenance of the existing building? Manages the structure
next door, understands that to receive a Conditional Use Permit there cannot be impacts to the neighbors .
The neighboring building has invested in solar panels, but they will be worthless if the building next door is
two stories taller. The pool area will be shadowed as well. There is a redwood tree on the property line but
the garage will require digging deep and will kill the tree because it has wide, deep roots. The basement in
the neighboring building goes down 5 feet and flooded several times this winter, and 25 feet is past the
water table. If they need a sump pump it will be noisy; across the street is a building with a sump pump
operating nearly 24 hours a day, and that garage only goes down one level. Doesn't like the displacement
of tenants. Guests will have a hard time finding a place to park.
Afaf Dudum - Came to first meeting, lives at 1515 Floribunda Avenue. Has understanding that there is a
creek running under the buildings. This year and in past years when there has been severe rain the grages
have flooded. Five stories doesn't fit in the area. Suggests coming and looking from back yard and see
Page 11City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
how the proposed building would obstruct the sun and overshadow the back yard. The noise and traffic
and parking are difficult in the neighborhood currently, and people cannot come visit because they cannot
find parking. Would like the commission to reconsider the building.
Felix - Agrees with the sentiment about the massive building that would be built. Lives directly behind at
1515 Floribunda Avenue. The traffic on El Camino will be a problem; the right turn from Floribunda has
already been eliminated because it is a huge traffic hazard. Introducing a large building with two cars per
person will create a dangerous situation on El Camino. Would like a traffic study done before approving
any plans. The shadow study shows that the direct sunlight will be obstructed by the five story building .
The swimming pool will be rendered useless, and the first and second floors of the building will get no light
all year. 3 PM is a time when people go out to the pool.
John Weiner - Only six people showed up to the applicant's meeting because nobody heard about it .
There was no reaching out from owner to neighboring buildings as far as could tell. In the photos of the
buildings in the presentation none are as tall as this building. 1515 Floribunda has underground parking
and has issues with water coming in through the walls. The underground water flow is really important .
Should not design a 30-foot hole full of cars the same way as a swimming pool. Perforated pipe
underground will not work - 1515 Floribunda has had issues with water flowing underground trying to
redirect the water flow, but the pipes usually get clogged. Has redwood trees on the property and ended up
killing some of the trees when trying to deal with underground water flow. If cars are lining up to park, what
happens when someone needs to leave the building at the same time? It does not look like there is
enough room for cars to pull to the side. Do they have to back out onto the street?
Alina Cherny - Owners at 1515 Floribunda are concerned about the project. Feb 22nd collected 35
signatures opposing the project from the neighbors. Two issues: the project is out of scale with no respect
for the adjacent neighbors. The height is out of proportion. The underground parking garage is a huge
concern - it is 30 feet below grade and the water is a huge concern. Citypark has not constructed any
underground parking garages in Calfornia; projects are in the works but nothing is constructed now. 240
Lorton is a commercial building, with different requirements for loading and unloading. Usually the garages
have two turning wheels, one for incoming traffic and one for outbound, but this only has one. The
underground water is a huge concern. The parking structure intersects the property line, close to
swimming pool at 1515 Floribunda a few feet away. There is no setback on the garage and it drops down
30 feet, so the swimming pool will have seepage immediately. Questions the credibility of the design
team, understanding is that the designer is not an architect so should not be referenced as an architect .
Not sure if the civil engineer has sufficient credentials or liability insurance. Liability is a huge concern.
Don Olechowski - Lives at 1515 Floribunda, unit is southwest back corner looking out onto this property .
The existing property at 556 El Camino Real is decrepid but only two stories, below some trees and fairly
unobtrusive. Those living around the back will get the full visual impact of the building. There has been
concern with pumping water onto El Camino, but what happens with coming onto 1515 Floribunda Avenue
from a retaining wall or water runoff, or water that already exists on the property? With a huge foundation
and underground parking the water will need to go somewhere else, possibly onto the adjacent property .
Tesla cars take longer to charge and take more power than the four hours mentioned for a Level 2
charger, only works for smaller electric cars such as Fiat.
Bobbi Benson - Has lived at 550 El Camino Real for 14 years. Tim is the new manager of the rental
apartments on the north side of 556 El Camino Real, and 550 is on the south side. The driveway is
nearest to the Floribunda intersection. It is too ambitious to fit in with the neighborhood, which is all three
story buildings. It will impact traffic on El Camino, and traffic already stacks up at Floribunda. Visitors
already have trouble finding parking within two blocks. If the project was scaled down to three stories with
14 units each unit could have two parking spaces on one grage level with spaces for vehicles in front. The
underground garage is too close to south property line, and the vibration of that much digging that close
could effect the structural integrity of the neighboring building with $1M condos. Can anyone guarantee it
will not be injurious to the neighboring building? Can a city inspector come to 550 El Camino Real before
Page 12City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
and after construction? Automated system is estimated to take three minutes per car, and one engineer
says there is room for four cars waiting on site to get in, while another says realistically there is only room
for three cars and recommends posting a sign to prevent cars from wating on El Camino - not realistic .
Requesting solid balcony walls on the south side of the project for greater privacy and tranquility for all;
1515 Floribunda and 550 El Camino both have solid balcony walls. Requests 4-foot high fence between
properties be replaced with a 6-foot fence. Concerned with toxic dust, requests 550 El Camino be
powerwashed after demolition before opening windows. The proposed project at this location near this
busy intersection has too many unknowns. For or five stories is too big, too massive, with two stories of
parking below. El Camino is a narrow artery and Floribunda is a busy intersection. 550 El Camino Real
gets water damage, and is currently dealing with the seepage from 530 El Camino Real in the underground
garage. The shadows will preclude the vegetable garden.
Cynthia Cornell, Housing For All Burlingame - 2015-23 Housing Element has several implementation
programs. Program H(A-4) is an 8-year objective to have no conversion of existing rental to
condominiums, to maintain the existing zoning controls which prohibit conversion of residential rental
projects with fewer than 21 units to condominiums. Would like to see the City respect the spirit of the
program, not just the strict text. Program H (A-6) specifies to ensure the affordability of existing units, the
8-year objective is to utlize funds to assist 20 units to achieve long -term affordability. Program H (B-1)
designates promoting equal housing opportunities for all Burlingame residents. 556 El Camino Real has
been neglected by its owner for at least 10 years; the people who live in the building have put up with
abandonment, neglect and uncertainty for a very long time. Owner first applied to demolish the building 5
years ago, and has since ignored the building and let it dilapidate further. Why would Burlingame reward a
negligent and careless apartment owner by allowing displacement of renters and demolition of an
apartment building to replace it with condominiums for its further enrichment? Violates the spirit of the
Housing Element programs, and makes the City complicit and an accessory to displacing renters in
Burlingame. 556 El Camino is an example of a building that could be renovated by a nonprofit housing
developer, upgrading the living circumstances of the renters who live there and putting the breaks on
displacement in the city. Cannot ignore the Housing Element to enrich property owners.
Kristen Parks, Housing For All Burlingame - Lives in an apartment on El Camino Real. If this was a condo
conversion, would be mandated to consider whether the proposal protects the interests of the tenants,
whether the displacement would be detrimental, the role that the existing structure plays in the rental
market, evaluation of the structure to determine whether it is serving low and moderate -income tenants or
elderly or handicapped tenants, and whether tenants will have substantial difficulty in obtaining
comparably-priced facilities. According to Code Section 26.32.100 if this was a condo conversion where
the existing structure would remain and be converted to condos, consideration of displacement of the
people would be mandated. However since this project would demolish the existing building, consideration
of displacement of people is not mandated, but is not precluded. A Conditional Use Permit requires that
the Planning Commission must find that the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience of the community.
Unidentified Speaker - The proposal in January was similar to the current one. Hoped the building height
would be reduced based on the input from all the neighbors at 1515 Floribunda Avenue. Does not see that
the concerns are being considered. The proposal would overshadow the building and diminish the value of
the property. Underground water and pumping to El Camino Real is a big concern. The geotechnical report
is over 18 months old, needs to be revisited. The two -story garage and building would be very close, and
would interfere with peaceful enjoyment. Hopes the building can be reduced so it fits in with the
neighboring buildings.
Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Concern that the geotechnical report is out of date, which could have implications for the
Page 13City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
environmental review. The report cites some specific problems that have not yet been addressed, though
they will be addressed by the Engineering Department
>Has concerns with whether Caltrans will approve the egress and ingress, and the water issues with
draining to the street.
>The height might be a bit too tall given the scale of the surrounding buildings. Although it is on El
Camino Real, the shadow study indicates it will have some impact on the surround buildings.
>What process for further review would be required from Public Works if the project were approved,
specifically regarding the basement? (Gardiner: Building permits would not be issued until all of these
issues that are being discussed would be resolved. There would need to be an updated geotechnical
report, and a structural engineer would review the structural plans for the building permit. In the comment
sheets from the various departments they have listed out the issues that would need to be addressed prior
to obtaining a building permit. The planning approval is one approval, and the building permit approval is
another, and is very rigorous.)
>The design has made tremendous progress since it was intially submitted. With regards to the
building height Conditional Use Permit, while it is a 55-foot tall building with five stories, because of the
stepping back it is going to appear more as a four -story building which would be more in keeping with the
neighborhood. The neighborhood is mostly three and four stories, but within a block is an 8-story building .
It would not be the tallest building in the neighborhood.
>Not sure how to interpret the shadows, in terms of determining whether it would make the project not
approvable.
>The design is handsome and is compatible with the design guidelines.
>Not sure how the circulation pattern works, and concerned given how close it is to a difficult
intersection.
>The parking itself looks like it will be OK, but not sure how the basement would be able to be built to
the property line and go down 30 feet without crossing the property line; it needs more investigation.
>When the building envelope is pushed as much as this, it loses the ability to do things like
conveniently leave space for loading beside the basement. Having to park in front if needing extra time to
unload and then circle the block again doesn't seem like a good program.
>The parking system is innovative and improved over what was seen before. Doubts there will be four
cars queuing; having lived in an 18-unit condominium, found it surprising how rarely neighbors would see
each other leaving or arriving home. Thinks it will work here.
>The scale presents itself as a four-story building with a penthouse.
>The Downtown Specific Plan requires the Planning Commission to consider shade and shadows on
public spaces and streets, and the analysis from the environmental consultant has determined there would
not be a substantial impact relative to CEQA based on what the ordinances require.
>In downtown there are transitional areas and spaces, with three -story buildings next to two -story
buildings, and four -story buildings next to one- and two -story buildings. Some areas are in transition .
When 550 El Camino Real was built as a three -story building, it cast shadows on 556 El Camino Real - it
is the nature of projects and the evolution of neighborhoods.
>While the difference in height is two stories, there is also the difference between 14 units and 21
units. Threre is a need for more housing in Burlingame, and it needs to be well-crafted and well-designed.
>Having the basement right to property line requires tie -backs and permissions from adjacent
properties, and will not be very easy to obtain. There are ways to do this type of basement when there are
two or three feet for shoring, and so the basement is built within the property lines. The Planning
Commission does not have the purview to require the level of detail needed for the building permit, but still
needs to be assured it will be able to be constructed.
>While there is a need for more housing units, affordability is still a concern. The applicant should
consider below-market units on a voluntary basis to address affordability concerns, as other applicants
have done.
>Does not have an issue with the architecture. It is nicely scaled, detailed, and finished.
>Concerned about the turn from El Camino Real; it is a difficult turn.
>Concern with loading and unloading, for example families with children and groceries.
>Concern with the water table and drainage, but confident in the Public Works review with the building
permit.
Page 14City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
>OK with the height. Presents itself as a four -story building. It is a nicely articulared and proportioned,
well-crafted modern building. Considerably nicer than much of what is on El Camino Real.
>Concern with the functional load that it places on the site. The functional requirements of the building
are substantial, and it is a particularly difficult site. There seems to be a high risk for failure, and if one
element does not fit just right the whole thing comes apart. Feels like it is "bursting at the seams," trying
to be as big as it possibly can.
>Not adequate recognition of the constraints of certain technical aspects of the project - concern they
have not been throught through very carefully. Hard to support the project until there is a better sense that
the technical issues have been reasonably addressed.
>It is a nice design, and is comfortable that the City's Building and Engineering department would not
allow this to be constructed if it was not going to work.
>The environmental review indicates most categories have either less than significant or no impact with
mitigation measures. This is the information that is used to make the decision, based on a lot of time and
analysis put into the study.
>Concern with the shadows, particularly impacting the pools on the neighboring properties since that
will prevent them from enjoying a reasonable property right.
>Supports the parking system as a good use of space. If the parking company has experience with
these systems and believes it will work here, they should be given the opportunity. This seems to be the
future for the city and the rest of the country.
>While the design allows for a four-car queue, only 2.5 spaces are required per the traffic study.
>The entering and exiting of the driveway is similar to every other apartment building on El Camino Real
and has been working this way for a long time.
>Solid balconies and a higher fence would be simple middle ground solutions.
>The location justifies a taller building; other tall buildings have been approved in Downtown that are
next to shorter buildings. Burlingame Towers is taller and is less than a block away. Should allow taller
buildings if they are built within the rules.
>For the project to be further evaluated, requests:
-More information from Caltrans to determine if the driveway and drainage can be allowed;
-Assurance from the geotechnical engineer that the report is still legitimate;
-Further consideration of the traffic flow;
-Ingress/egress from El Camino Real;
-Assurance that the basement wall will be able to be built, particularly whether there will be tie -backs.
They do not need to be shoring drawings, but there needs to be a sense that they have figured out how it
will be built;
-Assurance in the drainage of the garage;
-Solid balconies - small concession to make. OK with open railings on the front, but not on side.
>There appears to be consensus on the Design Review, Conditional Use Permit for height, and the
Condominium permit. The concerns are with the technical matters described, which impact whether the
environmental review can be approved.
Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to continue the
item. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Gum1 -
9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY
a.1615 Ralston Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Design Review for a second story
addition to an existing single family dwelling (Thomas A. Saviano, Saviano Builders,
applicant and designer; Henry and Jaclyn Eng, property owners) (57 noticed) Staff
Page 15City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Contact: Ruben Hurin
1615 Ralston Ave - Staff Report
1615 Ralston Ave - Attachments
1615 Ralston Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. There were no ex-parte communications to report.
Senior Planner Keylon provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
There were no questions of staff.
Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Bijaya Shrestha, Saviano Builders, represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>Was the portion on the back a previous addition? (Shrestha: Yes, it was already there.)
>The existing one -story house has a little bit of detail - simple brackets at the ridge and eaves at the
front porch. Would you consider doing something similar on the upper two gables since there is a lot of
blank stucco space? (Shrestha: Yes, can do that, similar to the existing ones.)
>Is it necessary to have a 9-foot plate height on the second story? It makes the second story look
taller, particularly with all the stucco. (Shrestha: Could consider bringing it down to 8 feet on the second
floor.)
>Is there a carport on the west elevation? (Shrestha: Yes.)
>The original windows have window grids but they are not included on the drawings. Plans should show
where the existing ones are, and whether they are carried through the new addition. It would add some
detailing that would be helpful.
>The detailing is very plain.
>The roof plan is confusing, and seems like it would be more complicated than taking the simple
shape and imposing it on the complex roof form below.
>The roof plan seems to be missing some ridges.
>There does not seem to be enough fenestration /windows on the front. It is a big blank wall with small
windows; two of the windows are bathroom windows that will be obscured. (Shrestha: Could take out the
closet in the bedroom so there can be a window. The bathrooms are lined up one above the other so
would not want to relocate.)
>There is a fundamental massing problem. Does not believe it works, particularly as seen coming east
down the street.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Would benefit from a design review consultation.
>Consultation should provide a legitimate roof plan, revisit the second floor plate height, better define
the massing.
>The 3D model should look down at street level, which could reveal some of the issues with the scale
Page 16City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
and the windows.
>There is a mix of window styles, including those proposed to remain and the new ones. The applicant
should consider replacing some windows so there is more consistency.
Commissioner Loftis made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to refer the Discussion
Item to a design review consultant. The motion carried by the following vote:
Aye:Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Gum1 -
b.1810 Barroilhet Avenue, zoned R-1 - Application for Environmental Scoping and Design
Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling and new
detached garage (Nancy Scheinholtz, applicant and architect; David and Rodhelen Liao,
property owners) (40 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin
1810 Barroilhet Ave - Staff Report
1810 Barroilhet Ave - Attachments
1810 Barroilhet Ave - Proposed Project Analysis (Page & Turnbull)
1810 Barroilhet Ave -Historical Resource Evaluation (Page & Turnbull)
1810 Barroilhet Ave - Plans
Attachments:
All Commissioners had visited the site. Commissioner Gaul spoke with the neighbor at 1809 Barroilhet
Avenue, and Commissioner Sargent asked the owner to walk around the property but did not discuss the
application.
Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report.
Questions of Staff:
>In terms of the CEQA action, is the Planning Commission being asked to accept the determination
that the revisions have satisfied the Secretary of the Interior standards? Or is the commission expected to
question that? (Gardiner: It is in the purview of the commission to make the determination, based on the
ten criteria from the Secretary of Interior standards.)
Vice Chair Gaul opened the public hearing.
Nancy Scheinholtz represented the applicant.
Commission Questions/Comments:
>What is the issue with the setback from the Page & Turnbull report? (Scheinholtz: It was always set
back, and further increased the setback from the original proposal, but not as far as the report
suggested. It seemed sufficient, based on the 3D model - can only just barely see the top of the second
floor.)
>Why do the west and east facades look so different from each other? (Scheinholtz: The west side
cannot be seen because it is so close to the neighboring house. Had originally had dormers on the west
side but it seemed like a lot of money to put into something that nobody would ever see.)
>Is the upper floor on the west side recessed instead of having dormers? (Scheinholtz: No, it is set by
the Declining Height Envelope.)
>How is the east elevation influenced? (Scheinholtz: The addition is shaped by the Declining Height
Limit and the overall height limit. It has been designed to fit within the height and setback envelope.)
>What is the issue with the garage? (Scheinholtz: The garage is very dilapidated, and with the family
Page 17City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
room added it was too close so wanted to move it to the back of the property. The comment in the report
was to recreate the old garage, but on the other hand new elements should not be made to look historic .
There is nothing historic about the old garage, so it did not make sense to recreate it. It would not be
practical to pick it up and move it back.)
>If the garage were relocated, it would still not meet regulations for size.
Public Comments:
There were no public comments.
Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commission Discussion:
>Likes the project. The applicant has done a great job with what they've had to work with.
>Although supportive of historic preservation, struggles with the notion that the addition needs to be so
distinct. It is not out of character to add a second story to a tudor house, as it might be with another style
like an Eichler. Nevertheless this application has taken steps to adhere to the standards.
>Handsome project that has had to be watered down to meet the Secretary's standards. However can
be supported.
>House has been contorted by the Secretary's standards, and the outcome is not very good. The
existing house is a very simple structure with ornament on the front, and the sides are very straightforward.
>The west side works fine, but the east side has a lot going on that doesn't have a lot to do with the
building itself. There is a bunch of different roof pitches.
>Likes the design, particularly given the constraints. The east side may look better in three
dimensions. It is an up-sloping lot so some of it will disappear.
>On the east elevation would support exploring taking the gables from the back of the house, and if
they were 11/12 pitch like the gable in front it would be a well -composed elevation on the side. Could apply
for a Special Permit for height for top gable; a steep pitch is appropriate for Tudor Revival architecture and
does not have the same scrutiny as a Variance. If all the roofs were 11/12 pitch it could solve the issues
with the elevation.
Vice Chair Gaul reopened public hearing:
>Scheinholtz: The whole ridge that runs the length would have to come up, not just one piece.
>The findings could be made for a Special Permit.
>Scheinholtz: Page & Turnbull might not approve it if it is too close to the original design.
>Does Page & Turnbull trump the Planning Commission decision? (Gardiner: Page & Turbnull's
recommendation is advisory. The Planning Commission serves as the historic preservation authority for
the City and makes the ultimate determination. The solution can be iterative as well.)
>This house retains more of its character than the house on Douglas that is being relocated and added
to.
Vice Chair Gaul closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item
on the Regular Action Calendar when revisions have been made as directed. The motion carried
by the following vote:
Aye:Gaul, Terrones, Sargent, Loftis, Kelly, and Comaroto6 -
Absent:Gum1 -
10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS
Page 18City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017
July 24, 2017Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
No Commissioner's Reports.
11. DIRECTOR REPORTS
No Director Reports.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Meeting adjourned at 11:46 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 July 24, 2017. If the Planning Commission's action has not been
appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on August 3, 2017, 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 $533, 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 19City of Burlingame Printed on 8/30/2017