HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1998.11.09REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
November 9, 1998
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Deal called the November 9, 1998, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to
order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present:
Absent:
Staff Present:
MINUTES
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
FROM THE FLOOR
STUDY ITEMS
Commissioners Boju6s, Keighran, Key, Luzuriaga, Vistica and
Deal
Commissioner Coffey
City Planner, Meg Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson;
City Engineer, Frank Erbacher;
The minutes of the October 26, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved.
The order of the agenda was approved.
There were no public comments.
APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK AND HEIGHT VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WINDOW WITHIN 10' OF PROPERTY
LINE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SUBJECT TO DESIGN
REVIEW AT 404 PENINSULA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (ALAN R. & ENRIQUE
BOGDANOFF, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and the commissioners asked: could the front setbacks of
the houses on that side of the block be provided; is the required 10 foot setback for windows in
an accessory structure the same with the new code revisions. There were no further questions
and the item was set for public hearing and action on November 23, 1998.
APPLICATION FOR LEFT SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST STORY ADDITION
AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A TWO-STORY ADDITION AT 466 CHATHAM ROAD,
ZONED R-1. (JENNIFER BURROW, LYNN/LAINE DESIGN, APPLICANT AND PATRICIA
FISHER, PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and the commissioners asked: how would the applicant
defined a "sun room", how will it be used; Sheet A-3 of the plans show two property corners
to be 0'-0", indicating that the lot is dead flat which is not likely, correct elevations; check the
-1-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1998
clearance of the chimney from the structure; aware that this project has been reviewed by a
design reviewer but the project still looks like an addition on top of the house; the roof pitch of
the house in the field is different than is shown on the plans, will applicant remove the entire
roof and rebuild it; how were the front elevations shown at property line arrived at; elsewhere
notations show elevations of 9.5", how were they arrived at; the elevated deck at the rear is 4'-
4" off the ground, people seated on this deck will be above all the fences around the property,
why is this height needed; how does the dormer on the second floor fit into the architecture of
the building, could it be changed to fit; on the left side of the building from the street, how was
the 3' average floor above grade determined, how does it fit with the garage and sun room;
correct plans the sidewalk is not 10 feet wide. Provided all the information is available to staff
in time the item was set for hearing and action on November 23, 1998.
APPLICATION FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE VARIANCES FOR
A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 2714
EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1. (JOHN BUTTE, ALDEN HOUSE II, APPLICANT AND
PETER & SALLY BECKER, PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and the commissioners asked: at the rear on Alvarado
Drive it was hard to determine the rear of this house, could they add a street number at the rear
so could identify lot as one on Easton; there is a large tree on the east side, noted as "tree A",
will it be removed; there are a lot of dimension lines on the site plan which have no dimensions
on them, add all the dimensions; clarify on the site plan what is on the first floor and what is
on the second floor; the shed roof shown is very flat, this lack of slope seems to be driven by
one window, can you consider some other solution to the roof like changing the window and
increasing the slope. There were no further questions and the item was set for hearing on
November 23, 1998, providing that the information is available to staff in time.
APPLICATION FOR A SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A HOT TUB ADJACENT TO
THE LEFT SIDE PROPERTY LINE AT 1129 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (CHARLES
W. & S.D. EIGENBROT, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and the commissioners asked: plans show adding another
shed off the kitchen windows which will block them, is it the intention; will the applicant need
a permit for the electrical work proposed; 7.5' tall trellis is shown extending from property line
to the building, does the applicant need a permit to install this; elevations should be shown at
the corners of the lot. There were no further questions and the item was set for hearing on
November 23, 1998, providing that the information is available to staff in time.
APPLICATION FOR A CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR A 3-STORY, 3-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1459 OAK GROVE, ZONEI) R-3. (RON GROVE,
APPLICANT AND RON GROVE & JOE RAVELLA, PROPERTY OWNERS.
CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and the commissioners commented: C. Key noted that she
lived within the notice area so would abstain on this item; would like to see more detail on the
landscaping at the front of the building, what is being planted; do not see the guest parking space
-2-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1998
on the landscape plan, should be shown; how much storage is there for each unit and where is
it located; the architectural design, especially at the front, looks generic, would like more
architectural detail at the front and rear, such as ornamental stucco, tiles; the windows on the
right do not match those on the left; needs some detail at the middle since that area protrudes;
architecture of front facade, sheet A-5, looks too massive, needs to be broken up and put into
a scale that is more pedestrian friendly; the left and right sides of the front look awkward; would
have more flexibility with the roof if the ceiling height on the third floor was reduced from 10
feet; this project seems to have the same problems that others commission has seen on El
Camino have had, there are a lot of things wrong; no useable open space, heavy, extreme
cantilever is troubling, should be reduced; the applicant should consider reversing the project
putting the driveway on the eastern side of the lot, to reduce the impact on the single family
residence; landscaping seems to be in error, it is in back up area for parking, show pitisporum
on property line but also show area for backup -turn around; project shows excavation to be a
few feet off the site, how will excavation be handled at property lines; stucco, stucco, stucco,
need to add some interest, architecture lacks detail; agree design needs more attention to details,
more continuity less variance in style of the windows; building design seems to be driven by
setbacks; not show where the furnaces, water heaters or laundry will be put, should indicate;
suggest that parking be changed to reduce much of the cantilever which is over bearing; correct
notes occupancy referred to is R-1; staff report notes 552 SF of open space the plans shown 305
SF which is correct; label the guest parking; have an existing 8 inch Oak on the site, where is
it, show on site plan. There were no further questions from the Planning Commissioners. The
item was set for the November 23, 1998, meeting for action providing that all the information
requested is to staff on time, in this case that might be difficult and the item will be noticed in
advance of the meeting for which it is scheduled.
APPLICATION FOR A TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 3-STORY, 3-UNIT
RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1459 OAK GROVE AVENUE, ZONED R-3. (RON
GROVE, APPLICANT AND RON GROVE & JOE RAVELLA, PROPERTY OWNERS)
CE Erbacher presented the staff report noting that the setbacks on the map are unclear and that
there may be a problem with the utility pole. There were no questions from the commission and
the item was set to come forward with the condominium permit.
ACTION ITEMS
REGULAR CALENDAR
APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW DETACHED ONE -CAR
GARAGE TO REPLACE AN EXISTING ONE -CAR GARAGE AT 1424 EDGEHILL DRIVE,
ZONED R-1. (CAROLYN MULLIKEN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (77
NOTICED)
Reference staff report, 11.09.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the
request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested
for consideration. C. Deal noted that he would abstain on this item since he had a business
relationship with the applicant. C. Luzuriaga became chair. Commissioner asked staff to
-3-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1998
explain how an 18' wide (interior) garage would be considered in the future, staff responded that
after a year or so the 18' wide garage would be considered to be "existing", currently the code
allows existing 18' wide garages to be considered two car garages. So, if this garage were
widened to 18' and the access was adequate it could be considered, in the future, a two car
garage to support an increase in the number of bedrooms in the house. There were no further
questions from the commissioners.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Carolan Mulligan, 1428 Edgehill, stated that
she would be glad to answer any questions that the commission might have. There were no
further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Key moved approval, by resolution, of the setback variance for the proposed garage because
the lot is narrow, only 41' wide, and moving the garage forward increases the amount of useable
rear yard, moving it back on this narrow lot would have a big impact on the useable yard area
and with conditions in the staff report as follows; 1) that the project shall be built as shown on
the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 15, 1998, sheets G-1
and G-2; 2) that the left property line shall be surveyed to verify the proposed 1'-0" side yard
setback for the garage; 3) at the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building
and Fire Codes, 1995 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded
by C. Boju6s.
On the motion: do we need condition 2 requiring a survey, yes, required when close to property
line because the subdivisions in this area are very old and much has happened over the years.
There were no further comments from the commission.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-
1 (C. Deal abstaining, C. Coffey absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR LEFT SIDE SETBACK, RIGHT SIDE GARAGE SETBACK AND
PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO
DESIGN REVIEW AT 118 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (DANIEL BIERMANN,
APPLICANT AND JEFFREY C. & MOLLY M. LANE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (61
NOTICED)
Reference staff report, 11.09.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the
request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested
for consideration. There were no questions from the commission.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Dan Biermann, project designer, 1649 Laurel Street,
San Carlos, spoke. He offered to answer commissioners questions. Commissioners asked: can
you move the garage so that it does not affect the trees and meets the requirements, Magnolia
tree is the biggest problem, 2-3 feet away from garage; if move garage to rear can widen,
problem is then the oak tree at the rear and widening the driveway would affect the Magnolia
anyway, can't answer more fully since am not an arborist.
-4-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1998
William Ward, property owner at 120 Occidental, expressed support for retaining a one car
garage because of the difficulty of widening it without destroying the landscaping especially the
Magnolia tree, support variance for garage. He lives on the north side of the new addition, is
not happy about the second story, it will make the house 6 feet longer; it will block light into
his house especially in the winter, would like them to change the steep pitch on the roof by
reducing the attic area, if the roof were more shallow then his property would get more light;
the highest point on the roof is at the rear, could this be reduced without destroying the
architecture.
Molly Lane, 118 Occidental, property owner spoke, noted that even if you moved the garage
back you would have to widen the driveway in order to use the garage and the pavement would
affect the Magnolia tree which she would not like to do; can put two cars in the garage now,
don't see point in building wider garage when able to put two cars in now plus 4 cars in the
driveway; it is difficult to get cars in and out of the garage now because the location of the
house blocks access, this would be worse if the garage were wider. There were no further
comments from the floor and the hearing was closed.
Commissioner comments: in lots of ways this is a good project, height and bulk are handled
well, respected the declining height envelope and the plan is well laid out, but not a good project
until it meets the aspects which affect the whole neighborhood, especially parking; went on a
site inspection, there seems to be room to relocate the garage by moving it back and to the side
property line, have available space do not see hardship; plans done well, from street looks great,
to reduce the pitch would affect the appearance of the house a lot; agree about the garage, have
read lots of arborists reports, in this case arborist could add a program to protect tree such a
feeding to help overcome the shock of additional paving, it is done successfully often; garage
could be moved back to provide the 24 feet at the back of the house closer to the oak, may cut
some of the root structure (tree does not look to be in that good a shape) can nurture it too with
fertilizer; this is a big house with 5 bedrooms it needs two covered off street parking spaces,
may be able to get two cars in now but it is 3.5 feet too narrow and have difficultly opening
doors of car to get out; also people store things in garage, no space if too narrow; think need
standard garage; especially like the front porch, charming from the street, concerned about
parking which has been an increasing neighborhood concern throughout the city over the past
few years, there is some room to move this garage back and to the side property line, feel that
it is a real option. CA advised that if commission were to want to have the garage relocated,
this item could be denied without prejudice but the applicant would have to return under the
rules in effect after Oct. 23.
C. Keighran moved to continue the project to the meeting of November 23, if revisions are
available in time, in order for the applicant to respond to the direction of the commission
regarding the garage, based on the commission's concerns that the project needs two off-street
covered parking spaces, there are options on the site to provide such parking, and that they
should have discussions with architect and arborist to see how best to implement the direction
with regard to the existing trees on site. The motion was seconded by C. Luzuriaga.
On the motion: would like to add a condition that water and sewer service shall never be
extended to the cabana; don't usually want to add more paving to rear yards in residential areas
511
City of Burlingame Panning Commission Minutes November 9, 1998
however this lot is not usual it is 160 feet deep, on a shorter lot there would not be a lot of
options but in this case because of the depth there are options; also should be conditions that the
cabana shall not be used for cooking or sleeping purposes, the redesigned garage should have
an electric garage door opener and the gate across the driveway should be removed and never
reinstalled as it is now, blocking access to the garage; should explore using turfblock for part
of drive way access, better for tree; as presently designed the existing garage structure fits well
into the scale of the neighborhood, new structure should not have higher plate line, should try
to keep to the same scale; commission will have to vote at the next meeting to implement
additional conditions; should ask arborist, if move garage back what do you have to do to help
the trees, how you ask an arborist that question is a factor in the answer you will get. There
were no further comments.
Chairman Deal asked for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to the meeting of
November 23, providing the revisions requested can be addressed in time for the staff to prepare
the needed report. The motion was passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Coffey absent). This item is not
appealable since no action was taken.
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
AT 1008 MORRELL AVENUE, ZONED R-1. (GEORGE W. McCRACKEN, APPLICANT
AND PROPERTY OWNER) (59 NOTICED) (CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 14, 1998)
Reference staff report, 11.09.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the
request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested
for consideration. There were no questions asked of staff by the commissioners.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. George McCracken, the property owner, represented
the project. He noted that he was there to answer any questions that the commission might
have. Commissioners asked: this went back to the project designer and she made some
corrections, but some were missed, are you aware of the problems remaining such as errors that
would not allow the project to be built as shown on the plans, most of the problems are with the
roof plans, the way it is drawn the front of the building will not look as it is shown when the
building is completed the double window on the left will not be able to be there because of the
roof line; on the front elevation the far left is drawn like a small dormer, in fact the entire roof
plan is raised so that there will be no dormer (top left second story window); problem with the
plans, the roof plan needs to be corrected, aware you have been here a number of times, but
designer's errors persist, we need to speak clearly to the designer who is not here; there is also
a problem with the way the roof intersects with the vertical part of the chimney, roof plan shows
a gable at the rear, but other plans show a hip roof, applicant noted that this was an error not
corrected; squared off the garage created dead space, you might want to put a door into the
garage wall to allow you access to this side yard area; on one elevation you show an overhang
at the chimney, this is an error; one elevation showed the planes of the roof inconsistently with
the right elevation eave line on one plane and the front elevation on right side stepped up at rear,
elevations should be drawn correctly; should show declining height envelope drawn correctly
on plans relative to the second floor otherwise commission does not know if it is alright, one
dormer seems to extend into the declining height envelope, don't know if this extension is 35
SF or less. There were no further questions and the public hearing was closed.
M
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1998
C. Deal commented that it is hard to watch this application since the project designer does not
take care of concerns expressed, but it is not prudent to approve this many unaddressed issues;
move to continue this item to the November 23, 1998, meeting or in a timely manner after
complete plans are submitted. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s.
Comment on the motion: CA noted that the commission could refer this to the consent calendar
when the questions are all addressed if they wished. Commission asked when the applicant
intended to build, he noted that when the approvals were complete and, now, depending on what
kind of winter we have.
Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item until complete plans
are submitted to the Planning Department. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Coffey absent).
Chairman Deal directed that the item could be brought back on the consent calendar when it has
been revised sufficiently. This action is not appealable since no action was taken by the
commission.
APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND A
TAKE-OUT PERMIT FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AT 1251 BROADWAY, ZONED C-
1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA. (ALENE BRISBANE, APPLICANT AND KWOK
LEUNG & CHUI FONG WONG, PROPERTY OWNERS) (70 NOTICED)
Reference staff report, 11.09.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the
request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Nine conditions were suggested
for consideration. Commission asked if the disabled restroom which was located at the rear of
the first floor of the building had been converted into an office as these plans indicate, if so are
disabled accessible requirements met on this site or does it need to be converted to a bathroom
again; this site has an existing parking variance for a food establishment of this size at this
location, yes; the issue we can consider here is the hours of operation, yes. There were no
further questions from the commissioners.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. Alene Brisbane, 1163 Banyon Street, Pacifica,
represented the project, she handed out a menu from their Castro Street store to give an idea of
what kind of food was served before lunch. They are now located in the Castro District of San
Francisco and there is never any parking and it has not been a problem; the store does not
provide an atmosphere where people will want to sit for a long time, they want to be
neighborhood oriented and friendly, they provide traditional Mexican food, all employees wear
a uniform, bus boys clean up tables right away and move people along; provide quality food at
a reasonable price. Commissioners asked: want to be open at 7 a.m. but do not show breakfast
items on menu, sell burritos with eggs in them, no special breakfast menu. CA pointed out that
this request is to extend the current hours from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m.; will start cooking at 7 a.m.
will not serve until 10 or 11 a.m.
Philip Piserchio, 1620 Claremont, San Bruno, partner in this business, we are asking for these
extended hours because it is easier to scale back the hours after we're in operation than to extend
them, so want the parameters clear now; do not want a limit on having breakfast items in the
future if we decide we would like to change the business. Where is your business now, on the
-7-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1998
corner of Castro and 18th. There were no further comments from the floor and the public
hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment: concerned about the impact of extending hours from 7 pm to 10 pm.
CA noted that there is no evidence presented here that there is a parking problem on Broadway
between 7 p.m. and 10 p.m. weekdays and 5 p.m. and 10 p.m. week -end days; don't think
extending hours will be detrimental, there are places to park, lot of people there in the 5-6 p.m.
time, but no problem after that to 10 p.m.; operator needs that late to function as a restaurant;
nice for that area to be vital until 10 p.m.; parking is a problem. CE noted that past 7-8 p.m.
not much problem parking in that area, there is a public lot near by.
C. Deal moved to amend the conditional use permit and approve by the extension of the hours
of operation, by resolution, with the conditions in the staff report, as follows: 1) that the
restaurant shall be remodeled as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date
stamped October 8, 1998, with 530 SF of seating area; 2) that the conditions of the Fire
Marshal's October 13, 1998 memo shall be met; 3) that the business may not be open for
business except during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. daily; 4) that there shall be a
maximum of seven employees, including the owner, on site at any one time; 5) that the project
shall provide adequate filtering and venting to avoid dissemination of odors on neighboring
properties; 6) that an enclosed and ventilated garbage storage area shall be maintained at the rear
of the site and that garbage cans shall be kept in the storage area until such time garbage is
picked up and upon pick-up cans shall immediately be returned to the storage area; 7) that no
banner signs shall be used per Title 22 Sign Code Section 22.48.080 and the applicant shall
obtain planning and building permits for all signage; 8) that this project shall meet all the
requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1995 Edition, as amended by
the City of Burlingame; and 9) that the project shall be reviewed for compliance with these
conditions in six months (May, 1999) or upon complaint, and resolve the issue of the availability
of disabled accessible bathrooms for this and other tenants in the building. The motion was
seconded by C. Key. Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the
conditional use permit amendment. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Coffey absent) vote.
Appeal procedures were advised.
APPLICATION FOR SIGN EXCEPTIONS FOR A MASTER SIGN PERMIT AT 1155
CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2. (ALAN WILLIAM COON, APPLICANT, AND
MANSA CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, PROPERTY OWNER) (45 NOTICED)
(CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 14, 1998)
Reference staff report, 11.09.98, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the
request, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested
for consideration. The commissioners had no questions.
Chairman Deal opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present. It was noted that
without the applicant present the commission had three choices of action: continue the item to
a date certain, drop the item all together, or proceed with the hearing and take action.
In
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes November 9, 1998
C. Key moved to continue the item to the first meeting in December. The motion was seconded
by C. Keighran.
On the motion: applicant has only given minor changes in response to commission's previous
direction, told not to use neon, has letters backed by neon, told to use brass letters, uses green;
told to have uniform fonts, has varied fonts, applicant needs to take a hard look at this proposal;
the flexibility on the logo's where anything goes in terms of lighting, color, etc, is contrary to
commission's previous direction; window signs have no limitation on color or font, should be
uniform, applicant did not address issues raised by commission; logo any color is a problem
since it is likely to be the name of the business as in "gap", concept :is not in keeping with one
color scheme; number, size and area of signs is pretty extreme. CA noted that he provided the
applicant with two Federal cases on trademark infringement which indicate that the city can
forbid use of logo's all together on a site or can limit the percentage of signage which can be
used for logos. When one talks about signage there is a difference between signage and sign
face, can say no logos at all or limit the size of logos the same for each business on site. The
city can regulate on a site by site basis.
Commission continued: last meeting commission gave direction, asked for some square footage
to be taken off and put on door, let the tenant have color on the door, limit logo size on door;
don't remember different colors on door signs; never discussed trademarks being lit on doors,
the window signs included here are a whole new picture.
Chairman Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to the first
Commission meeting in December. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Coffey absent) vote.
Since no action was taken on the item it is not appealable.
PLANNER REPORTS
CP Monroe reviewed briefly the planning related actions taken at the City Council
meeting on November 2, 1998.
FIRST DRAFT OF REVISED COMMISSION RULES OF PROCEDURE (MARCH
18, 1998)
The Commission discussed the draft of the Rules of Procedure prepared by the City Attorney
and City Planning and previously discussed by the commission in March or April. The CA
Anderson pointed out that the purpose of these Rules of Procedure was to serve as a handout to
a variety of audiences, different planning commissions have different procedures and it is
difficult for applicants, we could put them on the web site for those who wished the information
before participating in a meeting, and hand them out to new planning commissioners so that they
have a better understanding of how the commission works. This document is an update from
the present rules. They offer guidance to the chair for how to run a meeting, help define the
relationship of the commission with the city attorney, staff and city council. He asked if there
were things not included. He did note that since we had begun this review the commission has
enacted a consent calendar and appeal fees, both of these items need to be added. After the
Commission approves these rules they will go to the City Council for their approval.
In
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes
November 9, 1998
Commissioners comments: glad to see that these are written in a "user friendly" manner; there
is a typo on page 7, presenter should be presented; rules do not address the joint planning
commission/council meeting in the Spring, it is a study meeting and anyone is invited; have
always had a problem understanding the purpose of deferring to chair before speaking. CA
noted on speaking through the chair, the reason is to avoid a situation which will lead to debate
between an individual commissioner and an applicant, the more formal structure of speaking
through the chair creates a formality which reduces antagonism and reduces debate.
CA will revise the Rules as noted and place them on the Commission's action calendar.
ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Deal adjourned the meeting at 9:20 p.m.
MINUTES11.9
-10-
Respectfully submitted,
Dave Luzuriaga, Secretary