HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 2002.02.19
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
Tuesday, February 19, 2002
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the February 19, 2002, meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:40 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojués, Brownrigg, Keighran, Osterling and
Vistica
Absent: Commissioner Keele
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, City Attorney, Larry
Anderson, Planning Staff Catherine Keylon, Erika Lewit, Ruben Hurin.
III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
IV. STUDY SESSION
1. Planning Commission Rules, Procedures and Process
CA Anderson reviewed the highlights of his memos on the Brown Act and Political Reform Act as they
apply to the Planning Commission. The discussion was general and included experience and practical
application of some of the guidelines.
Commissioners noted that it would be more time efficient for the chair to note at the beginning of each item
after the staff report, for the record, that all the commissioners had made a site visit. Commissioners who
had not visited the site could indicate so at that time. Commission felt that the public was not always aware
of the fact that a part of their individual review includes a site visit. The commission also discussed when
under the Brown Act they could employ the three minute rule for those testifying. Concern was expressed
that rigorous, continuous use of this tool might be “off putting” for the public. It was also noted that part of
the Commission’s role was to give people a hearing before an item went to City Council. No rule was
adopted. The Chair will discuss the need to employ the three minute rule with staff when he reviews the
agenda before each meeting and he can make a decision at that time. The testimony time issue really
becomes an issue when the agenda is long and complicated.
Commissioners asked if staff could be even more clear at the counter about the fact that variances must be
based on physical hardships on the property; the personal desire for a larger bath tub does not justify such an
exception to the regulations. Staff noted that there are annotations which clarify the intent of the required
findings on the back of the Variance Application forms; staff will review them and see if it can be made
clearer that the exception must be based on a physical hardship. Commission suggested that we might
consider altering the order of the questions on the handout and put the physical hardship one first.
Special Meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission February 19, 2002
2
2. Planning Commission Communications
CP Monroe handed out a copy of the staff report format and discussed with the Commissioners the purpose
of the various sections. The commission reviewed briefly how they use the staff report. It was noted that on
some occasions the project which goes forward to the city council is not the same one that the Commission
reviewed; on one occasion the “new” project was one which would have been acceptable to the
commissioner and that concern was not in the record because the revised project had not been reviewed by
the Planning Commission. Staff noted that it is required that the same project go forward to the Council.
However, the applicant sometimes goes before the City Council and presents a different project; This
concerns staff because the “new” project has not been reviewed for code compliance and because the
Commission’s action (which is a recommendation to Council) does not have meaning if the project is
different. In the case of the applicant introducing a new project at City Council, staff tries to suggest to
Council that they deny the request without prejudice and send it back to the Planning Commission for
further action.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joe Bojués, Secretary
S:\MINUTES\PROTECTE\2002\minutes2.19.doc