Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes - 02.22.10 APPROVEDCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California February 22, 2010 - 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Terrones called the February 22, 2010, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Lindstrom, Terrones, Cauchi and Yie Absent: Commissioner Vistica Staff Present: Senior Planner Ruben Hurin; Associate Planner Erica Strohmeier; City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Cauchi to approve the minutes of the February 08, 2010 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: ■ Page 5, Item 3, last bullet from top of page; insert: "or some criteria from the City Engineer as to what we should be considering" ■ Page 2, Item 1 b, last bullet on bottom of page; insert: "Plans need to be corrected prior to building permit submittal to accurately show the transition between the garage and patio at the rear of the house. " Motion passed 5-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR No one spoke from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items for review. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. There were no consent items for review. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 22, 2010 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 1401 GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JAVIER CHAVARRIA, JC ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; DAN MULREADY, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated February 22, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission comments: Trellis was added above the garage door; however if roof above garage is extended further, would it create more FAR? (Strohmeier - yes, if roof eave extends more than 24 inches it will count towards FAR and lot coverage; as proposed the roof eave extends V-6" from the wall, could add another six inches and still be exempt from FAR and lot coverage). Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Javier Chavarria, 225 Rockaway Beach Avenue #400, Pacifica, represented the applicant. Summarized revisions made to project to address Commission's concerns. Trim and fascia detail now match existing details; provided color renderings of proposed project. Extended roof would require application for Variance; added trellis addresses blank wall above garage. Commission comments: ■ Like design, but concerned with trellis above garage; plans do not clearly show the details of the proposed trellis; trellis looks tacked on and out of place, looking for something more substantial and decorative to fill the void. ■ Adding few more inches to the roof eave would help, concerned that there will not be enough roof below the second floor bay above. ■ There will be no rafter tails, would like to see a 24inch roof eave above garage door. ■ Want to make sure windows will be wood, aluminum clad windows. ■ More articulation needed for trellis, should contain at least six braces to make it more substantial. ■ Extending roof above the garage to match that on the right side of the house would cut out light to door and window to right of garage door. ■ Nice looking addition, addressed the concerns of the Commission, nice job. Public comments: None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: extend the roof eave above the garage an additional six inches for a total roof eave of 24 inches; design of trellis above garage to be reviewed by Planning Commission as an FYI item; and windows shall be wood, aluminum clad simulated true divided lite: 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 22, 2010 that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 11, 2010, sheets A-3 and A-5; and date stamped January 29, 2010, sheets A-0 through A-2, A-4, and A-6; 2. that the roof eave above the garage shall be extended an additional six inches for a total roof eave of 24 inches; 3. that the design of the trellis above the garage door shall be submitted and approved by the Planning Commission as an FYI item, prior to building permit issuance; 4. that all new windows shall be wood, aluminum clad simulated true divided light; 5. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 6. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 7. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 26, 2009, and January 21, 2010 memos, the City Engineer's November 13, 2009 memo, the Fire Marshal's October 26, 2009 memo, the City Arborist's October 21, 2009 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's October 21, 2009 memo shall be met; 8. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Parking Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 9. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 10. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 11. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 12. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 13. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 22, 2010 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION: 14. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 15. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Division; and 16. that prior to final inspection, Planning Division staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Cauchi. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. Commissioner Cauchi indicated that he would recuse himself from participating with respect to Agenda Item 2 (1430 Palm Drive) since he has a business relationship with the applicant. He left the Council Chambers. 2. 1430 PALM DRIVE, ZONED R-1/R-3 — APPLICATION FOR ANTENNA EXCEPTION FOR NEW WALL - MOUNTED ANTENNAS ON THE FAQADE OF AN EXISTING CHURCH BUILDING (T-MOBILE, APPLICANT; FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF BURLINGAME, PROPERTY OWNER; AND ZON ARCHITECTS, INC., ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated February 22, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public hearing. Greg Guerrazzi, P.O. Box 939, Glen Ellen, and David Ellias, represented the applicant: RF (radio frequency) engineer, consulting engineer and architect present to answer questions. Cell sites needed for underserved areas, only provide outdoor coverage in this area, proposed cell site would offer better cell phone service from within buildings. T-Mobile currently has cell sites at 1480 Burlingame Avenue, 777 Morrell Road, Mike Harvey Acura building and 1500 Easton Drive. M CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 22, 2010 ■ Heavy residential use in this area, not too many tall structures. Looked at 1500 Willow and 789 El Camino Real, both locations are not tall enough and would require 15 to 20 foot structure on roof. ■ Tall eucalyptus trees along El Camino Real affect signal to building; proposed site has an open area and is tall enough to accept signal. ■ 2'-10" tall antennas proposed, will be painted to match the existing building; equipment is inside, only visible elements are the antennas, weatherheads and conduit facing courtyard. ■ Proposing to install fence to screen power meter. Commission comments: Application seems to have gone backwards, this is the first time we're seeing the courtyard elevation, concerned with the exposed conduit in courtyard (Guerrazzi - welcome suggestions to hide conduit, thought concern was from public view, not in courtyard; plans were made available to church community). Want to make sure the church community is aware of proposed conduit in courtyard, the church bulletin didn't seem to provide much information regarding details if the cell site installation. Was redwood fence agreed upon by neighbor? Is there a landscape solution instead of a redwood fence? Depending on the discussion, could add as a condition of approval with regard to additional screening. Public comments: Juliana Fuerbringer, 824 Fairfield Road; Neil Murphy, 824 Fairfield Road; Patty Rossi, 820 Fairfield Road; Ellyn Freed, 815 Fairfield Road; ■ House faces west and has view of east side of church; concerned about antennas being proposed on bell tower at front of church; appears panels would extend down to arches; will be very visible and would destroy the feature of the church; have talked to neighbors about project, could also provide petition, this is a densely populated neighborhood. ■ Bell tower is a unique feature of the building; why is a correct profile of antenna not shown on building elevations? Plans don't accurately reflect extension from face of building, photographs in plans don't appear to be accurate; will be a change to appearance of building. ■ Understand need to provide coverage in neighborhood; were apartment buildings or commercial buildings considered as an option? ■ With regard to radio frequency, U.S. government is concerned with thermal effect on humans, E.U. has done a lot of studies, safety is still to be determined, radio frequency energy acts more like a lighthouse, ■ How did the applicant arrive at safety information for buildings two stories or higher? How was distance for safety determined? ■ Concerned with commercial venture at a church, it impacts narrow residential street; additional electrical equipment on Fairfield Road will require services, shouldn't have to take burden of utility trucks. ■ Live adjacent to church on Fairfield Road, it is very expensive to maintain landscaping, do not want landscape installed to screen PG&E power meter, would rather have a fence as proposed; retaining wall appears to be on property line; thanked applicant for including fence as part of project. ■ Policy in this country was to have churches located in residential areas to service community, not the case anymore, parishioners drive to church; First Baptist Church owns several properties in area, rents facilities out to outside groups, feel like am living next to commercial enterprise; leasing to T-Mobile to generate income; change in nature of use of property requires neighbors' time to oversee uses on these properties; church benefitted from development next door on El Camino Real. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes February 22, 2010 If necessary, would like to be able to provide a petition, requested item to be continued. Commission asked adjacent neighbor on Fairfield Road if fence addresses concerns with screening the PG&E power meter; yes. 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 22, 2010 Additional comments from Applicant (Greg Guerrazzi): Proposed design on the bell tower has a lesser impact than placing a tall structure on another building; considered apartment building across the street, but would not receive coverage because of its height and tall trees in area. The PG&E meter is an unmanned facility, there will only be one trip per month for approximately one hour to service the meter. Requested that the Commission approve the project with added conditions of approval to address their concerns. Additional Commission comments: It appears that the building elevations do not clearly show the antennas; proposed building elevations show antennas, but look more like corbels on the bell tower. Building elevations don't show extension of antennas from wall; plans need to more accurately show how the proposed antennas will look on the bell tower (Ellias — explained how antennas would be installed, noted that panel depth dimension on sheets A-3 and A-4 are incorrect, should be 3.15 inches instead of 7.8 inches; with unistrut, antenna would extend approximately 4-5 inches from wall). Could panels be located lower on the bell tower under eave in shadow line? (Guerrazzi — no, would lose too much coverage with the reduced height and trees in area). There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Good job making antennas discreet, antenna panels will be painted to match building. ■ Concerned that the plans do not show the exact details of what is being reviewed, not clear on unistrut mounting detail, plans need to be revised to clearly show how antennas will look like on the bell tower; inconsistencies need to be corrected on plans. ■ Plans need to show detail of eave overhang, proposed fencing and profile of antennas. ■ Would be helpful to see a sample panel antenna. ■ Could bring application back on the consent calendar? (City Attorney — yes, as long as applicant provides requested information). Commissioner Yie moved to place the item on the Consent Calendar with direction to the applicant to provide additional details regarding the installation and to correct inconsistencies on the plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. Motion passed 4-0-1-1 (Commissioner Cauchi recused; Commissioner Vistica absent). The Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. Commissioner Cauchi returned to the dais. 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes February 22, 2010 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 3. 1117 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A BASEMENT AND DIRECT EXIT FROM A BASEMENT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JING LING LO, APPLICANTAND PROPERTY OWNER; LI SHENG FU, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated February 22, 2010, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Li Sheng Fu, 2920 22nd Avenue, San Francisco, represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ More design details needed on plans; need to pay close attention to the details. ■ Clarify type of windows on plans (Fu — will be aluminum clad wood windows). ■ Generally don't like to see foam trim; strongly consider using wood trim throughout the house. ■ Clarify all materials and dimensions proposed for all architectural elements, such as vents, window trim, etc. ■ Exterior light fixtures should be larger and proportional to the massing. ■ Massing and articulation works well. ■ Front door design not shown on building elevations; provide details of front door design. ■ Concerned with the porch and bump out at den, it doesn't make the porch useable; bump out at den should be eliminated. ■ On right side elevation, concerned with bump outs for closets; make the window in between the bump outs smaller or consolidate closets and place window on other side. ■ Consider adding another material to building, now stucco with trim on gable ends; perhaps two different types of stucco textures would help break up the massing. ■ Provide examples for proposed smooth and rough stucco at next meeting. ■ Clarify material for horizontal band, should be wood to match wood trim throughout house. ■ Double doors in den, would like to see it removed (den is already counted as a bedroom) ■ Does every bedroom need a bathroom? (FU — property owner desires it, provides additional privacy for occupants); concerned with how this affects the design, such as the two bump outs for closets, closets could be incorporated within the house if less space was taken for bathrooms, could also provide opportunity for a larger porch. ■ Consider using wood in gable ends, wood at front porch columns and reducing size of columns to achieve stick style design. ■ Concerned with two side elevations regarding massing, consider altering plate heights to eliminate "ring" around house. ■ Concerned with direct access from basement to exterior, need to review exterior access carefully. ■ Concerned with large paved in rear yard and that it would encourage parking in rear yard, cars can be parked in driveway; add more patio and landscaping in this area, would like to see it broken up; landscape plan should be looked at more closely. ■ Clarify on plans if proposed brick paving is permeable. ■ Add large tree in front yard to provide more landscape mass. ■ Work with neighbors on how fencing will be handled throughout the site. ■ Show side access door in garage on floor plan. ■ Garage door design needs more work; should consider choosing a garage door that has windows, would allow natural light into the garage. 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 22, 2010 Trim above garage door needs to be brought down further. Would like to see beam details on sides of porch; columns need to support beam, perhaps increase size of beam. Look closely where base trim starts and stops; shown only on left side elevation, should extend to right side elevation. Public comments: Barry Ongerth, 1111 Balboa Avenue; ■ Have owned house since 1980; subject house has been used as a rental for many years. ■ Don't think details of existing house need to be replicated in new house. ■ Concerned with second floor windows looking directly into bedrooms, would like to see them eliminated, offset or placed towards the front of the house; perhaps use clerestory windows or obscure glass, would still allow for sunlight and privacy. ■ First floor windows also look directly into house, would like to see fence (6 foot solid plus one foot of lattice) extended to front of house to provide privacy. ■ With basement house has a lot of FAR, concerned with drainage issues with basement, existing basement is very small and is for utilities. ■ When existing garage is demolished, a new fence will need to be installed immediately because we have small pets in yard. ■ There are no turnarounds in Burlingame for detached garages, don't want to see a turnaround in rear yard, there is an existing walnut tree in rear yard which could be affected. ■ Concerned with overall size of project, wished property owners contacted them to discuss proposed project prior to submitting. Additional comments from Applicant (Li Sheng Fu): All side windows have a 5-0" sill height, will considered raising the sill height more. Will discuss fence with neighbors and improve coordination with neighbors. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: Landscape plans need to clearly show the proposed fencing throughout the site. Applicant needs to communicate with neighbor regarding issues raised. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Action Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: Think this is a good candidate for a design review consultant; there are a lot of comments which need to be addressed, referring this project to a design review consultant will expedite process and result in a better project. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the Action Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion failed on a voice vote 2-3-1 (Commissioners Lindstrom, Terrones and Yie dissenting; Commissioner Vistica absent). 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 22, 2010 Commissioner Lindstrom made a motion to refer the item to a design reviewer. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Discussion of motion: Think design review process will be a big help to this project. Chair Terrones called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:02 p.m. 4. 1761 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR CHANGES TO THE FAQADE OF AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING (LARS ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; PUBLIC STORAGE, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated February 22, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commission comments: Is there any way to see if the 1980 parking study done for the self -storage facility is still applicable today? (Hurin — could provide parking study information at next meeting). Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Scott Mommer, 4694 W. Jacquelyn Avenue, Fresno, represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ What will happen with existing cell tower? (Mommer — will need to look at building materials and how that affects reception; antennas will either remain in place or be relocated on the roof). ■ Explain function of false roll -up doors. (Mommer — false roll up doors will not be functional; this is an elevation branding for Public Storage, a trademark). ■ Concerned with how the proposed design fits in with the context of the neighborhood, design looks post modern, has office park and big box look; existing buildings in area simple, modern 1960's style; what are you trying to achieve with the proposed design? (Mommer - Most buildings in area were built in sixties, tried to articulate building and comply with the design guidelines for this area, proposed design provide a more natural look to area). ■ Like awnings, provide human scale. ■ Heavy cornice at top of parapet provides big box look, but think some changes could be made to achieve a better design. ■ In looking at the northwest elevation and northwest partial elevation, is there no awning proposed along the right side of the building? (Mommer— unable to add an awning at this location because of the setback requirement). ■ Provide general idea of proposed signage and whether it meets sign code (Hurin — staff will provide allowed signage area for this zoning district). Public comments: 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 22, 2010 None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Commend applicant for making improvements to this old building. ■ Not sure if the articulation is appropriate, the design elements seem tall and top heavy. ■ Concerned with parapet, seems top heavy; consider reducing height of parapet to the point just above the top of the sign (shown on rendering). ■ Consider maintaining a strong horizontal line at the top of the building without the general strip mall look; can increase parapet somewhat, but not as much as proposed. ■ Like project as proposed, existing large mature trees and two additional trees will mitigate height; applicant is trying to get more visibility from freeway. ■ Appears that the increased parapet as proposed would also screen the existing roof curved roof behind the parapet which is now visible. Commissioner Cauchi made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: None. Chair Terrones called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 4- 1- 1 (Commissioner Terrones dissenting; Commissioner Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m. 5. 1801 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR AN APPLICATION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION WITHIN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING FOR A SELF-SERVICE STORAGE USE (LARS ANDERSEN & ASSOCIATES, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER: PUBLIC STORAGE, INC.. PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated February 22, 2010, with attachments. Senior Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. Is the Planning Commission being asked to take action on the request for Parking Variance tonight? (Hurin — no, the purpose of the scoping meeting is to provide direction to staff with regard to which additional environmental issues should be included in the initial study of the project; the Parking Variance will be reviewed at the study and action meetings). Ask applicant to provide trip generation information for self storage uses (Hurin — applicant has submitted trip generation study and will be included as part of the environmental document). Chair Terrones opened the public comment period. Scott Mommer, 4694 W. Jacquelyn Avenue, Fresno, represented the applicant. Public Storage previously used this building for POD storage, had containers stacked three high. 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes February 22, 2010 Commission comments: ■ Regarding the Variance application, argument is being made that the city's parking requirements for storage are too stringent for this unique use (self storage). ■ The existing corner of building is clipped, will it be kept? (Mommer— yes, need to keep the doors in this area to comply with exiting requirements). ■ Makes sense that this type of facility would have a lower parking ratio than a warehouse building. ■ Is this use a great demand in this area? (Mommer - yes, use next door is near full capacity; facility will serve a 3-mile radius, modeling finds that this facility will be filled). ■ If our parking requirement is so far off from other cities, we may want to consider changing the parking requirement for this type of use. Public comments: None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: None. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of February 16, 2010: The recommendation to approve the lot split at 12 Vista Lane was considered and approved by the Council. Council adopted an Ordinance to amend Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to rezone a portion of the site from the R-3 Zone District to the C-1 Zone District (related to Safeway project). FYI: 1441 Balboa Avenue — review of required changes to a previously approved Design Review project: Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Terrones adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Approved Minutes February 22, 2010 Respectfully submitted, Sandra Yie, Secretary 13