Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1987.06.08CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 8, 1987 CALL TO ORDER A regular'meeting of the Planning Commission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Giomi on Monday, June 8, 1987 at 7:31 P.M. R OT.T. r A T.T. Present: Commissioners Ellis, Garcia, Giomi, H. Graham, S. Graham, Jacobs, Leahy Absent: None Staff Present: Margaret Monroe, City Planner; Jerome Coleman, City Attorney; Ralph Kirkup, Director of Public Works; Ken Musso, Fire Marshal MINUTES - The minutes of the May 26, 1987 meeting were unanimously approved. AGENDA - The Chair announced Item #6 (Variances, 1225 Capuchino Avenue) has been continued to the meeting of June 22, 1987; Item #8 (Special Permit, 1453 Benito Avenue) tabled until further notice. Order of the agenda was then approved. ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF PLANNING APPROVAL FOR AN 11 UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1221 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-3 Reference staff report, 6/8/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the item; extension of Planning approval is a discretionary action by the Commission, no public hearing is required. Discussion: Commissioner suggestion that a condition be added to require a certificate of occupancy be obtained prior to the close of escrow on each unit for the protection of anyone buying the unit; DPW Kirkup advised present typical procedure is that once the map is filed the subdivider can sell the units but a buyer cannot move in until a certificate of occupancy for that unit is granted. DPW saw no problem with the suggested condition. Mike Brosnan, son of the applicant, John Brosnan, was present and commented his father does not build to sell, he leases the units, and would have no problem with the condition. C. S.Graham moved to extend the Planning approvals for this condominium project to August 5, 1988 with an additional condition that a certificate of occupancy be obtained prior to the close of escrow for each unit. Second C. H.Graham; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 2 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1987 2. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 8, BURLINGHOME SUBDIVISION (1440 COLUMBUS AVENUE) Reference agenda memo, 6/8/87. DPW Kirkup reviewed the item. At the public hearing on May 26, 1987 one of the property owners indicated she did not sign the original map application; staff would note the original parcel map application had been signed; there has been no correspondence resolving this issue from the owners since the public hearing. The applicant, Robert Lehto, has requested action on the map be continued to the Commission's next meeting, staff supports this recommendation. CA Coleman advised that until the matter of signature on the parcel map application is resolved Commission cannot take action. Bertha H. Holub, one of the property owners of 1440 Columbus, was present and stated the application she signed was for the subdivision of the lots, not for demolition of the existing house; she heard of the demolition plans only a few days before the May 26 meeting when she received the notice of public hearing. CA advised if she were withdrawing her name from the subdivision application he would suggest Commission drop the item. Frank Holub, property owner, noted Robert Lehto is the applicant; they had agreed to subdivide with Lehto paying the fees, they did not agree to demolish the existing house. The Chair stated until Commission has a straightforward application they cannot act on the item. C. Jacobs moved to drop the application for the reasons stated, seconded by C. H.Graham, approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. This application will be renoticed if it is resubmitted. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3. TENTATIVE AND FINAL MAP TO COMBINE LOTS, LOT 24 AND PORTIONS OF LOTS 25 AND 26, MAP OF GLENWOOD PARK (45 EL CAMINO REAL) Reference agenda memo, 6/8/87, with attachments and CA's 6/2/87 memo, subject: parcel map actions. DPW Kirkup reviewed the item, noting no public hearing had been held on this application at the May 26, 1987 meeting. To be sure all concerns are heard Commission should hold a public hearing this evening with regard to the lot combination only; no planning approvals are needed for the proposed apartments on this site. Staff can find no basis for denial, map is complete and meets all city zoning and general plan requirements. It was recommended the map be referred to Council for approval. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Applicant, Jean Gorostiague, was present. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Jacobs moved to recommend this tentative and final map to combine lots to the City Council for approval. Second C. S.Graham; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Page 3 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1987 4. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP TO SPLIT ONE LOT, CREATING TWO LOTS, PORTION OF LOT 5, EL QUANITO ACRES NO. 2 (2740 EL PRADO ROAD) Reference agenda memo, 6/8/87, with attachments. DPW Kirkup reviewed the item. This is a tentative and final parcel map, splitting one lot into two. Applicant received a variance in August, 1986 to allow parcel 5B to have no street frontage but easement access to El Prado Road. Utility companies and County of San Mateo have been contacted for comment; study meeting questions are addressed in the staff memo. Staff advised the map together with the variance meets all requirements of code, requirements attached to the granting of the variance and all staff concerns with four recommended conditions. It was recommended this map be forwarded to City Council for approval. Drainage was discussed, staff found no problems. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. The applicant, Ronald Mosel, was present. Regarding condition #3 requiring installation of fire hydrant, he felt those hydrants existing were spaced to be sufficient and this request excessive. Regarding condition #4, requiring all proposed creek repairs be completed prior to issuance of a building permit for the site, he explained he was trying to use the fill as part of the construction on the new lot, it is a matter of construction scheduling for the foundation and they would need a building permit sooner, he would be willing to put up bond if the city wished. DPW noted there is a need to get the creek work done this summer and found no problem with issuing a foundation permit sooner. Estimated cost of a fire hydrant was discussed. Dermot Fitzgerald, 3003 Canyon Road on the lower side of this property, was in support of the application, examination of the parcel map has resolved his concerns about water draining up behind the property. He advised Mr. Lerner who owns property on the south side also supports the application. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussed the requirement for a fire hydrant; DPW suggested that if Commission wished to leave this matter open they approve it subject to approval of staff before it goes to City Council; Fire Marshal advised the Fire Department current standard is about 300' separation between hydrants. C. Shelley Graham moved to recommend this tentative and final parcel map to City Council for approval with the following conditions: (1) soils report shall be indicated on the final map, and all its requirements shall be met; (2) the access easement on this site shall be widened to obtain 14' minimum clear of the sloped area and paved for vehicular access; (3) the location of a fire hydrant shall be determined with the Water Department in accord with their requirements as approved by the City Engineer and shall be included in the Subdivider Agreement; and (4) all proposed creek rechanneling and riprap work shall be completed prior -to the issuance of a building permit for this site; however, a foundation permit may be issued before the channel work is completed if approved by the City Engineer. Plans Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1987 shall be prepared by the applicant and this work shall be included in a Subdividers Agreement prior to filing the final map. Second C. H.Graham; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. 5. FENCE EXCEPTION FOR 9' TRELLISES AND 8' FAN TRELLISES ON PROPERTY LINE AT 1400 LINCOLN AVENUE, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 6/8/87, with.attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Two conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. It was determined the lots at 1400 and 1404 Lincoln are basically level; a site inspection from the property at 1404 Lincoln indicated drainage goes from 1400 onto 1404; staff believed intent of applicant was to replace the existing 6' fence with a new 6' fence. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Ron Andreas, applicant, was present. His comments: there is an existing fence, he intends to extend this fence to the front of the house; no property line survey has been made, he felt his corner lot could be easily measured from an established point like the curb by a contractor and a fence constructed well within his property line; he explained that bamboo panel is merely decorative material and used as a privacy screen, clump bamboo is alive but does not spread; he prepared his landscaping plans himself; plans for the addition at 1404 Lincoln in the Building Department show a small window located over a washing machine, if this window is not placed, part of the lattice trellis will not be needed; trellises are located inside the fence. There were no audience comments in favor. The following spoke in opposition. Susan Bruschi, 1404 Lincoln Avenue: their external structure is complete, the small 3' x 6' window has been relocated to the west side, there is a 2' x 2' window in the corner of the new addition in what will be a laundry room with limited use; she expressed concern about extension of the existing fence to the front yard, there is only 3' between her house and the fence, applicant has 51; there will be only 18" between her chimney and the fence, barely enough room to walk through; if the trellises are put between the two houses in addition to a 6' fence their living and dining rooms will be darkened, the trellis would produce shadow in their backyard also; the neighbor's patio drains into their yard; her water heater is to be relocated inside. Mauro Bruschi, 1404 Lincoln Avenue stated with only 18" between his chimney and the fence it is almost impossible to clean the chimney; he felt a survey is needed to determine property line. Alan Horn, 1325 Paloma Avenue, speaking for his wife and himself and for Frank and Agnes Luque, 1329 Paloma Avenue, opposed the proposal because they felt there were alternatives to settle this issue. Dawn Blanken, applicant, discussed the project: if neighbors were concerned about limited maintenance space the fence extension could be made to give them more clearance on their side; a 6' new fence would come not quite to the bottom of their existing windows, vegetation Page 5 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1987 would not be tall or dense, there would be no shadow problem or blocking of light into the neighbor's house; if the 3' x 6' window shown in the plans is not to be there, they would consider dropping the lattice trellis from their proposal; the 9' trellis next to the proposed archway would not block anything, only shade a wall; the fan trellis as proposed in front of the new fence is not continuous; an existing gate by the archway would be replaced and a new gate installed in front. It was noted a 6' fence is allowed under the code; applicants are before Commission for the trellises. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Discussion/comment: when is a trellis not a fence; when is a fence exception required; have a problem treating a trellis as a fence; this trellis does come under code classification of a fence; applicant should be complimented for coming in with the proposal; addition blocks some light on the applicant's property also; doesn't seem an excessive request particularly since one trellis will be removed; do not believe this will set a precedent, people do this without coming to Commission; have trouble finding exceptional circumstances, why is this different than any other home which has 5' between it and the property line; a 7' bamboo panel would have to be classified as a fence; required setback on the next door addition is 31; this property has a 5' side yard setback from their structure, they are proposing the trellises 2' within their property. C. Jacobs found there were exceptional circumstances, there are not many homes in the city that are 2' apart, like living in Chicago; applicant has come to Commission in good faith, removing the trellis in the rear yard about which the neighbors were concerned also shows good faith; it will not be more detrimental than an addition where there once was a rear yard. C. Jacobs moved for approval of the fence exception with the following conditions: (1) that the fence and trellises shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 15, 1987 and elevation dated May 29, 1987, with removal of the lattice trellis in the rear yard; and (2) that no construction shall begin on the fence or trellis without a building permit from the City of Burlingame. Second C. S.Graham. Comment on the motion: think it would be prudent to amend the motion to include a property line survey for the fence; believe existing fence is on property line, applicant is proposing to move the new fence in, have no problem with that, do not see the need for a survey; separation between houses is 8' which is normal, don't find that to be an exception. Replying to a question, Fire Marshal stated he did not believe an 18" separation would be a hazard or a problem for Fire Department access to the back yard at 1404 Lincoln. Staff advised cost of a property line survey would be essentially the same for one side or two, an alternative might be to state in the motion the fence not be closer than 2' to the next door fireplace, therefore it would clearly be on the other side of the property line. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 June 8, 1987 Further comment: given the circumstances, believe it is prudent that a property line survey is made; if applicant is willing to agree to the 2' setback from the next door chimney suggested by the DPW, then a survey is not that important; this application seems overkill to mitigate impacts of the addition next door, the added window is small; applicant can put up a 6' fence without coming to Commission, Commission is considering an 8' trellis, the situation does not warrant the exception; requiring 2' from the -fireplace was suggested in order to give neighbors maintenance and clean-out space. Motion failed on a 3-4 roll call vote, Cers Ellis, Giomi, H.Graham and Leahy dissenting. C. Jacobs then moved for approval of the fence exception with the following conditions: (1) that the fence and trellises shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 15, 1987 and elevation dated May 29, 1987, with removal of the lattice trellis in the rear yard and that a 2' setback from the chimney at 1404 Lincoln Avenue be maintained; (2) that no construction shall begin on the fence or trellis without a building permit from the City of Burlingame; and (3) that a professional lot line survey shall be required. Second C. S.Graham. Motion passed on a 4-3 roll call vote, Cers Giomi, H.Graham and Leahy voting no. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. THREE VARIANCES - 1225 CAPUCHINO AVENUE Item continued to the meeting of June 22, 1987 7. USE DETERMINATION REGARDING WHETHER IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO A BASEMENT AREA AT 1611 WILLOW AVENUE CONSTITUTE A SECOND UNIT, ZONED R-1 Reference staff report, 5/26/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request and improvements to this property, staff review, applicant's comments, study meeting questions. Commission's determination should be made by resolution; a negative determination should include the four conditions listed in the staff report. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Joya De Ranieri, property owner, was present. Her comments: the basement area is used by the family, it is helpful in being able to leave dishes downstairs, party room existed when they bought the house, they have repainted and repaired it; cannot get to the backyard without going through this room; the service bar area was put in to help her since it is a long distance up to the other kitchen; the family eats in the backyard whenever possible. Responding to Commission question, Mrs. De Ranieri stated the basement improvements did not appear on the plans for the second floor addition because it was not until some point during construction that they decided it would be more feasible to do the basement at the same time; the service bar does not function as a kitchen for her, heating element has been replaced by a coffee machine; she does her cooking in the Page 7 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1987 upstairs kitchen; the basement area is used as a service room so she doesn't have to walk up and down stairs all the time; she has dealt with the same licensed contractor for all the work on the house, not with subcontractors; closet in the sewing room would be used for miscellaneous storage; the slab for the floor in the basement was put in but they did not plan improvements until later; construction for the addition began the end of May/first of June, 1986. Commission asked how the basement improvements which are beautiful could have been done on such short notice; applicant stated her husband bought the marble in a large package, she bought the tile, to use at a later date; their contractor is a cabinetmaker and built the cupboards. The following spoke in favor. Teresa Varo, 1607 Willow Avenue: she has lived here for 21 years and never had such pleasant neighbors, they are adding to the value of her property, there is no way the basement area could be rented, for anyone with three children it's a well done convenience. Raul Arriaza, 1614 Willow Avenue: they are good neighbors, do entertain a lot. Ron Gonzalez, architect for the property owners, discussed UBC definition of kitchen and living unit. He stated there is no cooking element in the basement area now, without cooking facilities there is a lavish wet bar which is used for entertaining, property owners are not using this area as a second unit and have no intention of doing so. He drew the plans for the second story addition and later those for the basement area, basement was not a part of the original project. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion/comment: do not think intent of the owners was a second unit, as long as the cooking top has been removed it's not a kitchen, have no objection; this is a code enforcement item, concern that it could be rented out as a second unit someday if not by the present owners; conditions for a negative determination would require removal/remodel of the sink and disposal, cooking element and dishwasher. Staff comment: there is a rear door into the side yard down steps from the upstairs kitchen or access to the yard out the front door and through a gate; this type of new construction would be limited on a building permit to a bar sink and small refrigerator, the appliances in this case go far beyond what the city has called a wet bar; as far as the UBC is concerned this is a kitchen; Commission determines what is a second unit. Further comment: if closet in the lower sewing room were allowed it would be considered a bedroom, this would not affect parking, there is an existing garage; have problem in making a decision about what someone might do with this space 20 years from now, all these appliances could be replaced in 20 years, taking them out doesn't make it less desirable as a rental unit; Commission has always looked at the potential for a second unit, this has very high potential and it would be easy to put a cooking top back. C. Jacobs moved by resolution that Commission determine this basement area is a second unit with the following conditions: (1) the basement Page 8 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1987 living area, in order to remain, shall be remodeled so as not to be classified a dwelling unit by the definition found in UBC -1982, that is, the area shall not contain a kitchen; (2) the service bar area shall be remodeled in order to limit usage to the level of a wet bar: the sink and disposal shall be replaced by a standard bar -sink (no more than 16" in diameter); the cooking element area in the counter top shall be permanently filled in with marble tile or some other material; the dishwasher shall be removed; (3) a building permit shall be obtained and applicant shall pay any related fines for work performed without a permit; and (4) the basement area shall not be closed off from the main house by a door, wall or other closure which would encourage future property owners to convert this area to an apartment; clear access from the main house to the rear door leading to the back yard shall be maintained. Second C. Leahy.. Comment on the motion: it is an elegant kitchen the way it stands now but there is no guarantee it won't become a second unit; even if appliances are removed it is still going to be an elegant room and could be reimproved. Motion approved on a 5-2 roll call vote, Cers H.Graham and S.Graham dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. Recess 9:20 P.M.; reconvene 9:30 P.M. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT - ACCESSORY STRUCTURE - 1453 BENITO AVENUE Item tabled. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW A 176 SF SNACK SHOP AND TO ALLOW TARE -OUT FOOD SERVICE AT A GAS STATION IN THE C-4 ZONE, 1200 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Reference staff report, 6/8/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, Planning staff comment, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. Six conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Code requirements, Building Department concerns, parking/traffic concerns were noted. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. Larry Izzo, Robert H. Lee & Associates, applicant (architect for Mobil Oil Corp.) stated this operation is not a convenience food store, just a service for gas station customers; the sales area is small, formerly the transaction area, it takes the place of vending machines, it is supervised by the cashier who is there during the hours of operation; they applied to the Health Department and a required sink was installed; this was a minor conversion of an existing sales area. His company is an agent of Mobil Oil, Mobil is the property owner and made the snack shop improvements; the station is somewhat isolated from the rest of the city and has not been a problem. Sandra Tubbs, marketing representative, Mobil Oil Corp. discussed Mobil's concept of the snack shop, to give the dealer an opportunity Page 9 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1987 to supplement revenues from gasoline in this competitive business, it is not designed to be a 7-11 convenience type store, specifically it handles fast carryout items; Mobil has done studies at similar locations which indicate traffic flow is not increased because of the snack shop, there is no residential in this area, shop is designed for the motoring public. In this case there were no changes to the physical appearance of the station. She discussed the reason response to staff's code enforcement letters was delayed by being sent to dealer, Mobil was not aware of the correspondence, it is their policy to conform to all city statutes. Then there was a change in operator and the new dealer did notify Mobil in December, 1986 when he received a letter. When a dealer wants to add something like a snack shop his lease requires him to obtain written approval from Mobil Oil; Mobil relies on their dealers to notify them. Commission pointed out it is standard procedure in Burlingame to require a use permit for this type of operation; it seems the only person penalized in this case is the present dealer. Mobil's representative did not think a snack shop would occur with any other Mobil stations in the city, this situation occurred because of a change in dealership. John Ajluni, the present dealer at this station, discussed his former business in Mt. View, losing his lease and his efforts to find a new business; this site had Health Department license, city business license and the snack shop which was important to him to stay competitive. If the permit is not granted he will be the only one hurt. Snack shop profits are approximately $2,500 a month; there is a very narrow margin of profit from gas; very little snack shop business comes from Bayside Park users; most of their traffic is highway traffic (to and from the airport, California visitors, those passing by, lots of rental cars); regular customers are few. He bought the business from the previous dealer; if he had known the station was in violation he would not have purchased it. Speaking in favor, David Mostny, in business at 405 Beach Road: he is one of the few regular customers of this station, uses the station for gas and items such as candy bars and cigarettes. There were no further audience comments and the public hearing was closed. With the statement a snack shop in this location would not set a precedent for stations in the city proper near residential areas, C. Jacobs moved for approval of the special permit and for adoption of Commission Resolution Approving Special Permits with the following conditions: (1) that all required building, electrical and plumbing permits be obtained, all improvements brought up to current code standards and appropriate Building Department penalty fees paid for work already completed, within 30 days of approval of the special permit; (2) that the area for the snack shop shall be limited to 176 SF as shown on the plans date stamped April 23, 1987 and no other retail sales shall be allowed anywhere on this site without amendment of this special permit; (3) that no beer, wine or liquor shall be sold on the premises, and other items sold in the snack shop shall be limited to those detailed in Zoning Aide memo dated February 5, 1987; (4) that the proposed snack shop shall operate from 8:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. Page 10 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1987 Monday -Friday and 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. Saturday and Sunday with one employee manning both the snack shop and cash register; that it be an incidental use to the gas station and that the snack shop shall cease operation upon the termination of the gas station use; (5) that there be no A -board or other type of signage on the site advertising the snack shop; and (6) that this use permit shall be reviewed for conformance to its conditions in six months time (December, 1987) and each year thereafter. Seconded by C. S.Graham who stated her hope the penalty fees would be paid by Mobil Oil Corp. and not by the dealer. Motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY WAREHOUSE CLEARANCE SALE AT 405 BEACH ROAD, ZONED M-1 Reference staff report, 6/8/87, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed details of the request, staff review, applicant's letter, study meeting questions. CP noted DPW's concern about traffic exiting, he felt Commission should make sure applicant has permission of adjacent property owners or tenants to use their lots. Four conditions were suggested for consideration at the public hearing. Chm. Giomi opened the public hearing. David Mostny, applicant, was present. His comments: regarding traffic flow, they lease a 28' strip of land at the rear of their property which can be used during the sale for exiting to Lang Road; customers can exit onto Lang Road or Beach Road; they expect to have 10-15 people per day at the sale, their clientele is a limited market; the sale will be noticed to the general public; they hope to relocate their business in Burlingame on the same side of the freeway; this is a one time sale to clear out inventory and dispose of defectives and seconds; their hand cut stock is received in large crates and cannot be transported without damage once these crates are unpacked. CP thought the DPW (who was no longer at the meeting) would be satisfied with the applicant's plans for exiting the site. C. Leahy moved to grant this special permit with the following conditions: (1) that the sale of merchandise at retail from this site shall be limited to Thursday through Sunday, June 18-21 and June 25-28, 1987, from 10:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. each day and that normal warehouse activity will not occur during the sale days; (2) that signage for this sale shall be limited to a 9 SF temporary sign on site affixed safely to the wall or ground and shall be removed by the end of the business day on Monday, June 29, 1987; (3) that this use permit shall address only this one time sale period and shall not be extended; and (4) that the issue of traffic exiting shall be worked out with the Public Works Department. Second C. S.Graham; motion approved on a 7-0 roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. Page 11 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 8, 1987 FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. ITEMS FOR STUDY 11. SPECIAL PERMIT - TO ENLARGE AN EXISTING GARAGE - 1525 BERNAL AVENUE Requests: will garage have utilities other than electricity; is this a legal garage, will it increase the parking in the garage; does applicant have any plans at this time to add on to the house; clarify drainage. Item set for public hearing June 22, 1987. 12. SPECIAL PERMIT AMENDMENT - 1730 ROLLINS ROAD CP noted FM's notations regarding items previously required which are not completed and which he felt must be completed prior to undertaking the work for this special permit amendment. CP suggested the item not be set for public hearing until these matters are taken care of. FM detailed his requests. CA advised that Commission set hearing and review items not completed as conditions of special permit amendment action. The item was set for public hearing June 22, 1987 if revised clarifying plans are received by the Planning Department by 5:00 P.M. Thursday, June 11, 1987. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - May 1987 letter to All Broadway, Burlingame Business Owners, from Charles W. Rothenbuecher, Broadway Stationers for The Broadway Merchants Association, re: parking problem PLANNER REPORT - CP Monroe reviewed Council actions at its June 1, 1987 regular meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:55 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Harry S. Graham Secretary