Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2016.02.08BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 City of Burlingame Meeting Minutes Planning Commission 7:00 PM Council ChambersMonday, February 8, 2016 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ROLL CALL Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and BandrapalliPresent6 - DeMartiniAbsent1 - 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES a.January 11, 2016 Regular Planning Commission Meeting A motion was made by Commissioner Terrones, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to approve the meeting minutes as amended. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli5 - Absent:DeMartini1 - Abstain:Sargent1 - 4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS, NON-AGENDA There were no public comments. 6. STUDY ITEMS a.Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Scoping Meeting for a master plan encompassing 9.25 acres in the vicinity of Trousdale Drive and Marco Polo Way ("Peninsula Wellness Community Master Plan") (Peninsula Health Care District, applicant ; Pinto + Partners, Architect) (329 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >There will be no action tonight, correct? This meeting is to identify environmental issues to be studied in the EIR. (Gardiner: Correct.) >The public will be able to comment on the Draft EIR when available, correct? (Gardiner: Yes. Page 1City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016 February 8, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes Included in the EIR will be supporting studies including a traffic study. Should other issues come up in this meeting or through the study, there will be additional supporting information.) Vice Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Cheryl Fama, Peninsula Health Care District, represented the applicant: >District Board wants to ensure that its property will always be used for the health and wellness needs of its residents. >Proposed long-range master plan will define the buildings, open spaces, programs and services . Development partners will be identified to build and operate the programs. >Program EIR being launched with this meeting. Will allow environmental mitigations to be considered as a whole rather than on a case -by-case basis as future project EIRs come before the commission. Prakash Pinto, Pinto + Partners, represented the applicant: >Program of senior housing, health support and working spaces that support healthy aging. >Medical offices and health research facilities. >Open space is an important part: therapeutic gardens, emphasis on fitness and mobility for aging people. >Intergenerational programs. >Hetch Hetchy easement to be utilized as major open space that integrates the various uses. 2 acres of publicly accessible open space. >Majority of traffic will be from from Trousdale Drive accessed from hospital access drive. >Has evaluated options for Trousdale/Marco Polo intersection. >Lower scale towards residential buildings on Marco Polo Way, higher height towards the hospital. Joel Roos, Pacific Union Development Company, represented the applicant: >10-11 month review schedule. >Design guidelines being initiated in the coming month. >Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) and special studies will proceed through March. >March 19 Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. >EIR public review period in July-August, comments/response period in the fall. >EIR completed in the fall or early winter. Commission questions/comments: >20 year span for buildout? (Roos: Projected worst case. Depends on what the market brings.) That is a long duration in terms of the neighborhood and potential impacts. >When would the open space spine be built? (Roos: Has not got to that detail yet.) >Sections show parking on Marco Polo Way either underground or at grade. Is one of the sections out of date? (Pinto: Section in the master plan is the most updated. Only one area of parking is on grade, at southern part of site. Hetch Hetchy line goes up and down and want to make sure ground floors face that space. Small area where parking will need to be raised but majority will be below grade.) >Great opportunity for neighborhood -making on Marco Polo Way so uses other than parking will be important. Environmental assessment should look at ground level and neighborhood being created along the street. >Has there been consideration for larger gymnasium? Could allow cross -over uses. City lacks gymnasium spaces, could be used primarily for seniors but could have times for other ages to come in and interact with the seniors. (Fama: Tenant at 1875 Trousdale is a senior recreation program run by the hospital and hopes they will consider some space on the property in the future.) >Concern with traffic with three schools in the area: BIS, Franklin and Spring Valley. 1500 students in the morning traveling in the area. Wants to ensure thorough traffic study. >Concern from noise from project on nearby schools. Page 2City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016 February 8, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >If sea level continues to rise what would be the impact on this area of town? >Is goal to provide 600 parking spaces driven by zoning or from traffic engineer study? (Pinto: Number is generated from the traffic study, based on ITE numbers mixed with the city standards based on the program. Considering more aggressive TDM measures such as shuttles.) Wants to justify parking counts, see how it compares with what was done at the hospital. Hospital has a parking area that looks like it was put in to meet zoning requirement rather than demand. Would be good for the community to find the right number of parking spaces even if it does not match the zoning requirement if it can be justified. >What kind of step-down is being considered along Marco Polo Way? (Pinto: Looking at 5 stories, stepping down to 4, 3 and 2 next to the neighborhood but still provide critical mass of housing.) >Is there concern with the age of the Hetch Hetchy facility? (Pinto: Has met with the PUC, which stated that the pipes are in good condition. Assessment was done with the hospital project.) >Who will work in community gardens and who will manage it? (Pinto: Looking at a variety of programs that exist in the Bay Area for these kinds of programs. Community Gatepath has a program where people take care of the grounds as part of their work program. Looking to integrate seniors into that program. Wants the open space programming to be the "social glue" for the entire project. Looking at a wide range of programs focused on onsite residents, but may consider other programs that invite the public in as well. Hopes amenities such as the cafe will be open and used by others in the area.) >Where will the playground be? Will it be specific to Gatepath? (Pinto: Next to Community Gatepath at southern corner of the site - transition between the neighborhood. It will be specific to Gatepath, with issues of security and fencing for safety.) >Solar studies for March and June at 12 pm look very similar. >Would be good to have BIS students involved in community gardens. (Pinto: Familiar with edible schoolyard program in Berkeley.) >What led to access for shuttle drop -off from Marco Polo? (Pinto: Studied many options. Originally had the drop-off at the midpoint but it biforcates the public realm with the turnaround. Would create pedestrian conflicts. Moved it to southern end of site next to Community Gatepath, which is the major driver for the drop-off. Also where Clarise Lane cuts in would be cleaner to have a clear intersection for drop-offs.) >Could primary access be from hospital side of the site? (Pinto: Considered it, but can't perforate the Hetch Hetchy easement. Put senior housing with low parking demand on one side, higher parking demand uses accessed from hospital side.) >Can trees be planted on the Hetch Hetchy easement? Shade trees will make the space completely different. (Pinto: Can have tress in pots or raised beds. Is hoping to have trees for shade, is having landscape architect evaluate. Has also looked at wind, with buildings and plant materials to providing shield from wind.) >Anticipated maximum population at midday? (Pinto: Depends on tenants in professional offices and visitors. Will look into it.) Public comments: Kathy Smith spoke on this item: >Speaking on behalf of the Ray Park neighborhood. >Can learn from Mills Peninsula parking lot with increase in RV vehicles as a primary residence and means of transportation. Mills Peninsula parking lot has an increase in hospital staff using RVs as a means of transportation to get to work. >Patients and staff have parked RVs in parking lot from 10 days up to 3 months last spring. Over Labor Day weekend in 2015 an RV set up a camp with a barbecue pit and two motorcycles that took 15 compact spaces. >This past weekend an RV used 5 spaces and neighbors were disturbed by power generators. >Cost of homes and apartments will change where we live and what we drive over the next 20 years. >The health district's underground parking does not address RVs. It has an inadequate height for an RV to enter and exit. >Neighbors do not want to see a motor home camp develop over time. There is no water, power or sewage hookups. Page 3City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016 February 8, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >EIR should include a study on the growth of RV vehicles as a primary residence, and where to accommodate RVs for the health district's building and site. Question of staff: >Is that use permitted by code? (Kane: No. Staff has received one code enforcement complaint about an RV and it was resolved within three days of the complaint coming in. Neighbors should call in complaints if they are disturbed by RVs. There are some legal restrictions on the ability to enforce anti-camping ordinances as a constitutional problem with homelessness. However as a use it is not permitted under the zoning code.) Violet Guerra spoke on this item: >Owns home on corner of Marco Polo and Clarise. >Concerned with traffic in the area. >Driveway that goes into the parking lot does not currently have much traffic. Cathy Newell spoke on this item: >Sometimes underestimate the parking needs for seniors. Senior housing often doesn't have enough parking designed into it. >Drop-off needs to consider rediwheels and vans that seniors use to get to wellness programs including those coming in from the community. >Disabled parking needs to be considered. >Gardens should be designed for people with mobility challenges with wide enough paths for wheelchairs, walkers and scooters. Vice Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Sewer and water supply analyses should be studied for demand on infrastructure. >Consider 20-year duration and impact on neighborhood. >Traffic and parking, with seniors are more mobile and active. >Determine right parking ratio. >Assessment of impacts and benefits of location of 20,000 square feet of retail commercial space, how it can help with neighborhood-making. >Consider potential for gymnasium space. >Determine where parking along Marco Polo Drive would be, minimize impacts of portions above grade so there can be good street life. >Study how building heights on Marco Polo interact with neighboring apartments. >Determine how exterior community integrates with the internal community, specifically who manages the garden. >Traffic along Marco Polo is a primary concern. Signalizing at Trousdale Drive could make sense. >Assign timeline to the phases of the 20-year plan. Professional office buildings will be in the last phase. Are phases running in parallel or at the same time? >Program EIR can help the individual projects. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR 8. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS a.1516 Los Montes Drive, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Hillside Area Construction Permit for a new two -story single family dwelling and detached garage (Chu Design Associates, applicant and designer; Y&W Investment LLC, property Page 4City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016 February 8, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes owner) (61 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Gum noted he had met with the neighbors at 1523 Los Montes Drive, 1521 Los Montes Drive, and 3116 Cananea Avenue. Commissioner Gaul noted he had spoken with the neighbor at 1523 Los Montes Avenue. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. James Chu, Chu Design Associates, represented the applicant. Commission questions/comments: >The new ridge only 5 inches higher than the existing ridge? (Chu: It is 5 inches higher than the highest point.) Public comments: Joe, 1523 Los Montes Drive, spoke on this item: >Ridge height comparison is misleading. Current ridge is about 5 feet below. Will block view. >Chimney faces the street. Usually chimneys face the back yard or side yard, not the street. >(photos submitted from iPad)(Kane: Photos are documents that were not submitted prior to hearing, so applicant should have an opportunity to review them as well. If commission has questions about the perspectives where the photos were taken, it can ask for further clarification or a continuance if necessary to address the new information.) Question of speaker: >Where are photos taken from? (Joe: From front porch.) >Are rooms on same level as the porch or above? (Joe: Above.) Vice Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Question is whether the view is from the porch or the habitable areas of the house. >Photos are indicative of what is seen from threshold of the front door. Did not get inside the house. >Views of the Bay are obscured by trees more than anything. Story poles show blockage is not substantially more than the existing house. View being blocked is minimal and is already blocked by the house. The view is of trees, not across to the Bay. >Believes the flags on the story poles would block the view of the Bay. >Concern with the chimney. >Standing on porches at 1523 and 1521 Los Montes appears the view is already blocked from existing roof trees beyond. Was not able to access habitable space. >Uncomfortable supporting the project without seeing views from habitable spaces. >Neighbor should provide contact information to staff to coordinate access to interior of house. >Hillside ordinance considers views from habitable spaces, not porches and decks. Main living spaces such as living rooms, not bedrooms. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to continue the Action Item. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:DeMartini1 - Page 5City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016 February 8, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 9. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY a.223 Clarendon Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review and Special Permits for an attached garage and basement ceiling height for a new two -story single family dwelling (Chu Design Associates, James Chu, applicant and designer; Chris Bush and S. Jane Woolley, property owner) (66 notices) Staff Contact: Catherine Keylon All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioner Gum spoke with the neighbors at 228 Clarendon, 220 Clarendon, and 219 Clarendon.Commissioner Bandrapalli spoke with the neighbors at 219 Clarendon. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Christopher Bush represented the applicant, with designer James Chu: >Has lived in Burlingame for 2 1/2 years. >Purchased home 1 year ago, originally anticipated remodel expansion to the back. Split level and configuration on the lot made it a challenge to have a decent floorplan. >Sad to lose a Charles Hammer house. It is an historic and charming street. >Most houses on the block are split level. Variety of styles - 42% are not Mediterranean style. >Believes craftsman style would be aesthetically pleasing and add to the character with mix of styles. >Reached out to adjacent home owners. Sent flyers out, has met with neighbors. >There has been concern with the style so has proposed an alternative with stucco that is more in line with the materials that are used in the neighborhood. (rendering submitted to the Planning Commission) Commission questions/comments: >Shared the plans with the neighbors? (Bush: Shared plans with the immediate next door neighbors.) >Aware of Engineering comment that location of driveway may impact tree roots? (Chu: Yes, has been addressed.) >What does it mean to address the tree roots? (Chu: Narrowing in the driveway.) >Will basement ceiling height be 8 feet or 9 feet? (Chu: 9 feet) Why? (Chu: To match downstairs first floor, have enough room for coffered ceiling and accommodate plumbing.) >No apron on the windows. Oversight? (Chu: Yes.) >Is the stucco shown in the rendering what is now being proposed? (Bush: Prefers shingle but willing to consider stucco as a compromise if amenable to neighbors.) >Explore split-level designs? Since there are so many in the neighborhood, might be more compatible with the other homes. (Chu: No.) >Are there any concerns about rising sea levels? (Chu: Hired a soils engineer immediately after the survey. Ground water is 12-14 feet below grade.) Public comments: David Harris, 600 Howard Avenue, corner of Clarendon Road: >Property owner has been very gracious and taken a step towards compromise. >There is an integrity to this particular block of Clarendon. >Overall size of the house compared to others on the block. Has a larger mass. Mary Helen Mcmahon, 215 Clarendon Road, spoke on this item: >Pleased applicant is willing to work with neighbors. Page 6City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016 February 8, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >House is vast, two stories, and has craftsman style on a block with nothing like it. >Stucco would not be an acceptable fix to solve the problem that it does not fit in. >Concern with 9-foot ceiling basement with with rising sea levels. Wants to see engineering report showing location of water table. Concerned what a hole that deep will do to the neighborhood. Mary Griffith and Richard Griffith spoke on this item: >Concerns with the design, being a craftsman home. Majority of houses on block are stucco, so this is not in keeping with the style of the neighborhood. >Mass will be imposing. >Concern with basement on surrounding properties. >Not sure about applying stucco to a craftsman house. >Looks like a house in North Berkeley, but not like the Lyon-Hoag neighborhood. Neighbor (name not provided) at 216 Clarendon Road spoke on this item: >Did an expansion project of original 3 Bedroom 2 Bath home 1997. Took more money and effort to build within the structure of the home. Concern from neighbors at that time about tearing down the original home. Out of respect worked within structure of original home. >Block is unique, does not represent the rest of Clarendon. >A new home would be welcome if it abides by what is already there. Craftsman is beautiful but not in this location. Diane Sibille spoke on this item: >Has lived next door for 43 years. >Sad that home is being knocked down but owners are being very accommodating. Has made changes to requests such as offsetting windows. >Owners really want to accommodate the neighborhood. Margaret Farney, 220 Clarendon, spoke on this item. >In agreement with the other neighbors. Concern with massing with two stories, and style. No arts and crafts in this neighborhood, particularly this street. Vice Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Beautiful home but not appropriate for the neighborhood. Counted 13 Mediterranean and another several Monterey split-level homes in the vicinity. >Stucco would be an improvement, but still looks like a craftsman style just with a different surface treatment. Still a craftsman surrounded by Mediterranean and Monterey style homes .Needs something that is more in keeping with the neighborhood. >6 out of 9 houses on the same side of the street, and 7 out of 9 houses across the street are Spanish/Mediterranean in that they have tile roofs, stucco finish, and an arched window or entryway . There is a clear style in this block; most of Burlingame is eclectic but this block is not eclectic. >Commission does not have a lot of leeway on the size of a house as long as it meets the design guidelines, and massing and articulation are handled well. This house could be even bigger if there was a detached garage. >Design guidelines do not talk about matching architectural styles. If saw a development proposed today with all houses the same style, not sure it would be supported, but now that it has become part of the fabric creates a precedent that needs to be honored. Changing to stucco could be an option - not all craftsman homes are shingle. >Block is very consistent. Do not have historic neighborhoods in Burlingame, but have potentially historic neighborhoods. Architecture on block is fairly consistent. Page 7City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016 February 8, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes >Nexus between massing, size and architecture. If Spanish or Monterey Revival style is embraced could help break down the massing inherently. >Shingle style would work elsewhere in Burlingame but not in this block. >Basement exemption was put in place to allow more living space with less mass and impact. There are strategies from a geotechnical standpoint can address engineering concerns. Taller basement can provide room for utilities since house would be built close to grade. >Size of house and massing could work with a different architectural treatment. >Would be well-served with a 3D rendering. >Does not meet design review criteria - does not fit into neighborhood. >Hesitant to dictate style. Fitting has to do with other things besides style. Building fills the site from side to side, makes it appear larger than everything around it. Changing style might allow breaking down massing in a different way. A broad 2-story house is different from narrower 2-story house extending from front to back. >Wants to see geotechnical report for location of water table. >Attached garage is consistent with the neighborhood. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Bandrapalli, to have the application return on the Regular Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:DeMartini1 - b.472 Bloomfield Road, zoned R -1 - Application for Design Review for a first and second story addition to an existing single family dwelling (J Deal Associates, applicant and designer; Salima Fassil, property owner) (48 noticed) Staff Contact: Ruben Hurin All Commissioners had visited the property. Commissioners Bandrapalli and Gum noted they had spoken with the applicant. Senior Planner Hurin provided an overview of the staff report. Questions of staff: >Is the second unit rentable? In effect a 2-unit building? (Hurin: Secondary Dwelling Ordinance allows the unit to be either detached or attached. There are limits on the size of the unit and a minimum lot area. The unit can only be a studio or 1-bedroom, and a parking space must be provided. >How can the secondary dwelling unit be separated from Design Review when it is part of the volume of the house? (Kane: The entire structure is subject to Design Review as a unit, however compliance with the second unit criteria that staff has reviewed is not.) >The staff report mentions that review of the secondary dwelling unit is administrative only. How does that work? (Kane: Staff reviewed the criteria established by the City's Secondary Dwelling Unit Ordinance and State Law to determine whether this application met this criteria as a technical matter . However the whole structure is subject to Design Review because the portion attributable to the secondary dwelling unit cannot be severed from the rest of the structure. Staff has reviewed the unit for the technical aspects as it applies to the Secondary Dwelling Unit Ordinance, which is usually done with a free-standing unit in the rear of a yard and it is easier to sever from the two issues.) Vice Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. Jerry Deal, J. Deal Associates, represented the applicant with property owner Salima Fassil: >Burlingame Resident since 1999, and resident at 472 Bloomfield since 2011. >Twins born in December, needs more room for the family. >Not a typical Burlingame lot - it is a pie -shaped lot, so there is more frontage that might typically Page 8City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016 February 8, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes happen. Expanding to the back would have devastated the yard. There is already an existing garage similarly. The second unit would be above the garage. Commission questions/comments: >Staff report comments mention a sewer lateral? (Deal: Sheet A-1 notes an existing sewer lateral to be abandoned. New sewer lateral will be placed on the property.) >Will the lateral be abandoned in place and not removed? (Deal: That will be up to Public Works . They will provide direction.) Public comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >It is an odd-shaped lot with a broad face across the front. The existing house is broad - a typical low-slung ranch house. The addition and massing is handled nicely, plate heights are modest at 8 feet on both levels. The rendering helps, shows it will be a nice addition to the neighborhood. >Although there is a broad frontage there are not a lot of options given the narrowness of the back yard. >It is a good transition between the apartments on the left and the residential dwellings to the right. >The project fits well with the odd-shaped lot. >Rendering greatly helps with understanding the design. Commissioner Sargent made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Terrones, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Gum, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli6 - Absent:DeMartini1 - c.722 Crossway Road - Application for Design Review for first and second story additions to an existing two -story, single family dwelling. (Jo Ann Gann, applicant and designer; Jeannie and Noah Tyan, property owners) (76 noticed) Staff Contact: Erika Lewit Gum was recused from this item for statutory reasons, having a financial interest in a property within 500 feet. All Commissioners had visited the property. There were no ex-parte communications to report. Planning Manager Gardiner provided an overview of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Vice Chair Loftis opened the public hearing. JoAnn Gann represented the applicant: >Existing one story house. Adding dormer to the back to keep the massing down. >Add to bay to make it wider and add to the proportion. Commission questions/comments: >What are the plate heights? (Gann: 8'-6" on the bottom, 8'-0" on top.) >Will the addition have simulated true -divided lites? (Gann: Yes. Back already has simulated Page 9City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016 February 8, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes true-divided lites.) >What will happen to pop -up dormer on the front? (Gann: Will matched existing windows, which are true divided.) >Will chimney be continued in brick? (Gann: Yes.) >Clapboard siding below, stucco above, shingles in the gables. Why three types of siding? (Gann: Horizontal siding on bottom. Trying to break it up, didn't want to put stucco at the top. Could have horizontal siding or stucco.) Seems like one too many elements. Could have a bigger grate or a lattice or gable vent. (Gann: Could consider a triangular vent with stucco below.) >Shared plans with neighbors? (Gann: No.) >No changes to landscaping? (Gann: No changes.) >Can drawings be crisper? Hard to tell what is proposed for the siding. Public comments: There were no public comments. Vice Chair Loftis closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: >Can be placed on the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Terrones made a motion, seconded by Commissioner Sargent, to place the item on the Consent Calendar. The motion carried by the following vote: Aye:Loftis, Sargent, Terrones, Gaul, and Bandrapalli5 - Absent:DeMartini1 - Recused:Gum1 - 10. COMMISSIONER’S REPORTS Staff is working with members of the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee to schedule the next meeting. 11. DIRECTOR REPORTS a.50 Loma Vista Drive - Reveiw of as -built changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Pulled for a public hearing. Concern with removal of two windows on the right size of the house, and change in size of columns. 12. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:24 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 February 8, 2016. If the Planning Commission's action has not been appealed or called up for review by the Council by 5:00 p.m. on February 18, 2016, 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. Page 10City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016 February 8, 2016Planning Commission Meeting Minutes 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 11City of Burlingame Printed on 3/22/2016