Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1972.02.28THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION February 28, 1972 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli None City Planner Swan Jacobs City Attorney Karmel Kindig City Engineer Marr Mink Councilman Mangini Norberg Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m., Chairman Sine presiding. ROLL CALL The above -named members were present. MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of January 2.4, 1972; the adjourned meeting of February 14, 1972; and the study meeting of February 14, 1972 submitted to members previously were approved and adopted. ANNOUNCEMENT At the onset of the meeting, Chairman Sine made the following statement: "Before opening the public hearings, I would like to defend a group of dedicated and public spirited citizens of Burlingame who spend long hours each month helping solve a number of the City's problems. All of this is done without pay and in the fond and unrealistic hopes of satisfying 50/ of the people. I speak, of course, of the Planning Commission. In the past few weeks the Planning Commission has been subjected to undue and fallacious criticism for something it did not do, i.e., the Crocker Bank Building on Donnelly and Primrose Avenues. The request for this structure never appeared before this body for the simple reason all the developer had to do was take out a building permit and abide by all applicable building codes." HEARINGS: 1. RECLASSIFICATION OF LOT 5, BLOCK 3, BURLINGAME PARK NO. 2 RSM B/17. FROM R-1 TO R-3A. BEING CITY OF BURLINGAME PARKING LOT Chairman Sine presented this application for public hearing, and at his request the City Planner reviewed the circumstances leading up to it. City Planner Swan reminded the Commission that there were two applications to reclassify property from R-1 to R-3A; one for Lot 5, and the other for Lots 8, 11, and 12, in the same block. At the November 22, 1971 meeting of the Commission, these applications - 2 - were presented along with an application for variance on Lots 8,11, and 12. At this meeting the Commission took action to continue consideration of the reclassification applications until February 28, 1972. He quoted the minutes of that meeting noting the motion for continuance of the application and subsequent approval of the motion. Due to the amount of concern expressed by Burlingame Park residents, the City will study this area in depth with the aid of a Citizens Committee being formed for this purpose. Ideas and offers of assistance will be welcomed by the City Planner. He requested the ideas in writing. Commissioner Mink introduced a motion that the application for reclassification of Lot 5, Block 3, Burlingame Park No. 2 be withdrawn without prejudice. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Jacobs and passed unanimously on roll call vote. 2. RECLASSIFICATION OF LOTS 8,11, and 12, BLOCK 3, BURLINGAME PARK NO. 2 RSM B/17, FROM R-1 TO R-3A, BEING 1513 AND 1517 BURLINGAME AVENUE (APPLICANT AND OWNER: RICHARD F. MC LAUGHLIN) The Commission Chairman announced that this application had been scheduled for public hearing at this meeting. He then reported to Commission members and the audience that late this afternoon a letter had been received from Dr. Richard F. McLaughlin withdrawing the application for reclassification without prejudice to resubmission. Secretary Kindig read the letter which commended the Planning Commission for their recognition of the need to modernize and improve this part of Burlingame Avenue and thanked them for courtesies extended and the thoughtful consideration of the application. Dr. McLaughlin expressed the opinion that his plans were consistent with the revitalization of the street, and his application was rejected upon appeal to the City Council on the basis of objections he believed ". . .were emotionally presented and insufficiently substantiated." He went on to state he deeply resented any suggestions that this property had been allowed to depreciate in order to qualify for reclassification, and maintained he had made considerable expenditures on this property and others he owned in order to keep them up to neighborhood standards. The letter informed: "However, I do not choose to engage in recrim- inations with those who are not interested in factual considerations. Instead, with regret, but after due reflection, I withdraw my application for reclassification of these lots, without prejudice to resubmission." There was no Commission comment. There was no audience comment. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Chairman Sine acknowledged the p-esence in the audience of Councilman Mangini, and of Mrs. Dorothy Cusick, candidate for councilman. - 3 - 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ADVERTISING DISPLAY TO IDENTIFY THE SKYLINE TERRACE APARTMENTS AT 3133-3155 FRONTERA WAY, LOTS 1, 2, 3, BLOCK 1, SKYLINE TERRACE, RS 1 6150, ZONED R-1. APPLICANT: ELEANOR H. MOOREHOUSE. Chairman Sine introduced this application for public hearing. Mrs. Diane Shane was present as representative of the applicant. The City Planner was requested to comment on the application. He projected transparencies on a screen to illustrate the type and size of the proposed sign, stating that it was TN' x 3'9" high, and has a shadow board with an indirect recessed light. He noted that the length appeared to meet all code requirements and the sign was deemed appropriate for that location. Mrs. Diane Shane addressed the Commission. She stated she had been studying the different zoning codes and the sign ordinance for the City of Burlingame and had done what she could to modify this sign to meet the code, and that the sign area is under 32 square feet. She pointed out a definite need for a sign of this type, especially since another apartment unit is going in across the street from the Skyline Terrace, and there will be competition. She noted that her apartments can be considered commercial in the sense that the gross income per month is $36,000. There were no comments from the audience in favor of the application. Raymond Mauss, 1837 Hunt, spoke against the sign, stating it would be detrimental to the residential area adjacent to the apartments. He cited the many apartments along El -Camino, which have only small signs, not the illuminated or flashy type requested here. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Norberg had no comments. Commissioner Jacobs thought the sign as modified was an improvement over those previous. Commissioner Taylor questioned if this were a flashing sign, and was informed that it contained fluourescent tubing, but was not a flashing sign which would be detrimental to the building. He then stated he did not feel the erection of the sign would have an adverse effect. Commissioner Mink questioned the "commercial" application of the sign, stating this is not a commercial zone. Commissioner Kindig wished verification of the fact that the bottom of the sign would not be more than 2' above the ground for a total height of 5'9". Commissioner Cistulli thought that at the speeds traveled on Route 280 no one would notice the sign and that the money would be better spent on needed landscaping or renovation of the shabby entrance on Trousdale. fie felt the sign had merit only for identification. Mention was made of the non -cooperation of the former owner in meeting Planning Commission requirements. Mrs. Shane replied that $1,000 had been spent this year on landscaping in addition to $500 for a gardener, and that in this case the former owner, Mr. Pringle,was not the applicant. Chairman Sine stated he appreciated the facts that the old signs were taken down and that the present applicant is Mrs. Moorehouse; but also commented on previous Commission difficulties with the former owner. Commissioner Kindig stated the sign would be on the freeway and not facing toward the residential district; and further, that the City had permitted the apartment building which is now in competition and it is only fair that under the new ownership they be permitted an identification sign. There was further discussion relating to the size of the sign and its relation to the considerable bulk of the building, with the specific understanding that the bottom of the sign shall not be more than 2' above the ground and the height of the sign itself 3'9". Commissioner Taylor __moved that the special permit for an identification sign to identify the Skyline Terrace Apartments at 3133-3155 Frontera Way be approved, subject to conformance to the plans submitted and height limitation of 5'9" from the ground with a width of 76". Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously on roll call vote. Chairman Sine cautioned the applicant that this special permit is subject to Commission review and will take effect on March 7 unless appealed to the City Council. 4. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP BEING A RE SUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT 2 AND ALL OF LOTS 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, AND 8, BLOCK 1, BURLWAY INDUSTRIAL PARK, 808-826 BURLWAY ROAD, ZONED M-1 BY REYNOLDS C. JOHNSON COMPANY Chairman Sine announced Commission consideration of this tentative parcel map. He requested the City Planner to review it for the Commission. City Planner Swan commented that there had been concern about the parking and showed the Commission transparencies of the parcels involved. He stated that three more parking spaces had been added to Parcel B for a total of 54. Parcel C had indicated 69 spaces but additional parking could be provided to give a total of 81. He went into the number of employees each company had in the building, stating that a rule of thumb is one space for each 2 employees plus one space for each company vehicle. With a total of 24 employees there is adequate parking under the present lease. A provisional egress - ingress easement is to be provided centered on the property line in the event either parcel is sold. In reply to a question he -stated that four tenants occupy the entire premises. He showed slides of the building with the present parking including a bridge over the drainage canal with parking along the rear of the warehouse building. City Engineer Marr stated that the map was technically correct, and he had no objections to approving it. He noted it is a matter of deleting several existing property lines and installing two new ones. There was Commission discussion of leased Parcels 1 and 2 as shown on the map. Tom Hower, representative of Johnson Company, explained that Parcel 2 is owned by the City and is the part over the drainage canal. It carries a provision that the lease can be cancelled.on six months' notice, and thus is difficult to develop. M'M Commissioner Kindig asked -if there would actually be a shortage of parking on Parcel C, and the City Plan replied that if the interpretation were one parking space//�`1,000 square feet of gross area, 60 spaces would be adequate. However, the Commission might wish to condition parking space as 81, which would be maximum. There was commission question regarding the 24' driveway through the parking lot on the property line between Parcels B and C. City Planner Swan read the January 20 letter of commitment from Johnson Company indicating approval of a new property line and a reciprocal ingress -egress easement between Parcels B and C. The City Attorney noted that the Commission could approve the parcel map subject to acceptance by the City Council of the granting of a cross -easement in the event of separation of the parcels. At the present time the City would be a party to the easement since the owner cannot have an easement on his own property. Commissioner Mink moved the acceptance of the tentative parcel map subject to the execution of an agreement for egress and ingress easement between the City of Burlingame and the applicant. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion. It passed unanimously on roll call vote. 5. TENTATIVE RESUBDIVISION MAP OF ATLANTIC RICHFIELD SERVICE STATION AT BROADWAY AND ROLLINS ROAD Chairman Sine announced this application for consideration. City Engineer Marr reported that he had received no revised map since the study meeting, although the engineer for ARCO had been contacted. He stated that with no final map no action could be taken. Commissioner Mink moved that this application be put on the agenda for the regular public hearing in March. Commissioner Taylor seconded and the motion passed unanimously on voice vote. RECONVENE After a recess at 9:00, the meeting reconvened at 9:08. 6. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTOMATIC CAR WASH AT BROADWAY AND CAROLAN AVENUE BY CABLE CAR WASH, NAPA, TENANT ON LANDS OF SOUTHERN PACIFIC TRANSPORTATION COMPANY Chairman Sine announced this application for public hearing. Attorney Cyrus McMillan was present as representative of the applicant. Secretary Kindig reported on the application stating there was no new material in the file and the Commission had only the original application resubmitted and the original letter of application of March 8, 1971. City Planner Swan reviewed the events leading up to this hearing. He quoted the City Council minutes of January 17, 1972, "Council concurred with Councilman Martin's recommendation that the matter be returned to the Planning Commission for a complete rehearing, with the under- standing that a resubdivision map is to be filed delineating the boundaries of the parcel to be used for the car wash." He brought - 6 - up the question of whether or not this can be considered a gasoline service station, since, according to the municipal code, gasoline service stations must not be within 490 feet of each other. There are several in this location which would be closer. In addition, he stated that a tentative subdivision map should be filed as soon as possible. He stated that the Police Chief had been requested to prepare a report regarding traffic in that area. There had been no written report, but the Police Chief had stated it was a less than satisfactory location for a car wash. The City'Planner brought out several points which.need resolution: Where will the driveway out of the car wash be and in what direction will the traffic go after it leaves the car wash? Will there be a sidewalk on the westerly side of Carolan for Northpark residents or a pedestrian crossing of the railroad? There is a sidewalk on the east side but part is occupied by cars at the Peninsula General Tire on the corner of Broadway. He stated that to the best of his knowledge the old file had contained no plot plans or drawings for this develop- ment, and he had received no new information. He thought action should not be taken until sufficient detail has been submitted for review by the Planning Commission. He showed slides of the car wash site and surrounding areas and also transparencies of the location. Attorney McMillan then addressed the Commission. He apologized for the absence of Mr. Al Kamura of Cable Car Wash because of illness. He stated that plot plan, rendering, and other documents had been filed with the City in 1971; but upon being advised that they could not be located he had brought with him plot plan showing area landscaping and layout for rendering of proposed improvements. Also there had been filed previously a photo of a similar installation in Napa. He felt that sufficient information was now in the hands of the Commission. He noted that the appeal before the Council had been with representatives of the Southern Pacific, and the Southern Pacific had agreed to contribute $6,000, going up $2,000 from their previous offer of January 12, toward Carolan Avenue improvements. He questioned the definition of the Cable Car Wash as a gasoline service station, quoting from the code that a gasoline service station is "for the retail dis- tribution of gasoline directly to motor vehicles; oils, grease, tires and batteries, greasing and washing, the sale of minor accessories, and services incidental thereto." He stated that this car wash did not come within this definition. On the question of traffic he commented that more traffic would be generated, but the installation would be a considerable improvement over what is there now. He commented that the installation would cost $100,000. These improvements would be subject to taxes, and the applicant had paid over $4,000 in taxes on a similar installation in the City of Davis. He offered to show a copy of the tax bill. On a Commission question, City Engineer Marr indicated that estimated cost of improvements for 600 feet along Carolan Avenue would be $12,000. Commissioner Taylor asked Mr. McMillan's interpretation of the wording in the Council minutes ". . .with the understanding that a resubdivision - 7 - map be filed." McMillan indicated he had not been at that meeting but considered this statement was not intended in the technical sense, but referred to a plot plan layout with dimensions, since there was virtually no public work involved. Attorney McMillan stated he did not intend to file a resubdivision map. He had filed a plot plan. Chairman Sine asked for audience comment. No one in the audience was either for or against. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Norberg questioned the public use of the gasoline pumps and Attorney McMillan stated gasoline would be sold to car wash customers as needed. The Commissioner questioned the 10' easement in the 600' strip and was informed that the car wash would occupy 35' of which Southern Pacific owns 25' and 10' is leased from Pacific Telephone. Commissioner Norberg asked about the sidewalk along Carolan and Attorney McMillan stated that there would be no sidewalk put in. Commissioner Norberg then asked if the $100,000 improvement had to be demolished for BART, would the City have to pay for it? Mr. McMillan stated that would be conceivable. Commissioner Jacobs had no comment. Commissioner Taylor stated his previous negative vote had not been because of lack of contribution to the improvements but because he thought and still thinks it is a poor plan, agreeing with Commissioner Norberg that it would lay in the way of BART. Commissioner Mink asked the City Attorney's interpretation of the requirement that a resubdivision map be filed. City Attorney Karmel stated he had the impression the Council knew the difference between a resubdivision map and -a plot plan and wanted the resub map. Commissioner Mink questioned if the submission of the application and the drawing would indicate the S.P. did agree to submit to zoning. The City Attorney replied that if Southern Pacific had submitted the resub map, or signed the application, or paid the money for the application, it would be indication of a joint application. However, this has not been done. Commissioner Kindig asked the disposition of the telephone poles on the strip owned by Pacific Telephone and was informed by Mr. McMillan they would neither be removed nor undergrounded. Commissioner Kindig then stated he, too, had not voted against this previously because of non -contribution but because he did not consider it: the right place for a car wash and retained that opinion. Commissioner Cistulli questioned the lease time of both properties and Attorney McMillan stated one property was for 10 years and the other for 15. The Commissioner thought it would be a good project to have a car wash in Burlingame instead of going to other cities for this service. Chairman Sine commented on his own work with Southern Pacific in upgrading railroad crossings. He questioned if the Parking Commission had considered the idea of another pedestrian crossing or if there were any comments on this application, and was informed by the City Planner that this commission had deferred the matter to their March meeting. The Chairman stated he would rather see this right-of-way made into a mini -park and feared the possible development of various other business on this S.P. land if this applicant set a precedent. There was further discussion on the questions of BART and service stations. Chairman Sine asked if Attorney McMillan would be willing to amend the application to eliminate the gasoline pump, and the attorney stated he was not authorized to do so. He stated further he thought that signs were not part of the application. City Planner Swan questioned the extent of Southern Pacific participation in the application. Attorney McMillan replied it was his understanding that the Commission preferred to have the tenant make the application rather than the landlord; however the Southern Pacific had sent a letter to Mr..Al Kamura stating they approved the filing of the application by him and that they would agree to be bound by any conditions that the City would impose. He stated he would file the letter if necessary. Commissioner Kindig moved that the special permit for automatic car wash by Cable Car Wash of Napa be denied. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion, and the motion passed on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS KINDIG, MINK, NORBERG, TAYLOR, SINE NOES: COMMISSIONERS CISTULLI, JACOBS 7. VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM SETBACK FOR SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD AND FOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL USE WITHIN A BUILDING IN THE WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AT 1540 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY. H. RICHARD O'HARA. Chairman Sine announced this application for hearing, after which Secretary Kindig read the applicant's letter of February 3, 1972. City Planner Swan reported that the application for variance was necessary because of the proposed location of the building and the proposed expanded industrial use. The building does not meet C-4 code requirements of 25' rear setback and 10' side yard. The existing use is non -conforming for C-4 but still legal. However, there is a restriction for extension of non -conforming use. The property is adjacent to the drainage channel, and there is a question of how far up the drainage channel BCDC regulations apply. If the application is approved, it should then be submitted to BCDC. Plans were submitted to the Burlingame Fire Inspector, and he reported that the roll -up doors do not count as fire doors and suggested there be an additional fire exit. The City Planner stated the height of the building would be 16', enough to block the view of the buildings to the east. He commented on a previous plot plan of the O'Hara project dated February, 1966. This was for an L-shaped building along the rear and side property lines (Permitted at that time as it was then in an M-1 District.) He noted that Mr. O'Hara has benefited from the Commission's action regarding the removal of the 15' easement bisecting his land to the boundary along the drainage canal, and that the develop- ment of this project on the property could be considered detrimental to the other property owners. The type of use will be entirely contained within the building. He noted developments in the Waterfront Commercial District required landscaping. He then showed slides of the site and transparencies of the proposed building locations. Mr. O'Hara addressed the Commission stating that the 25' rear setback would serve no purpose and that they needed the larger building for storage of quipment which -is now stored outside. The Chairman asked the City Planner if there had been sufficient time to study the drawing received Friday afternoon, and the City Planner thought it was not enough. The Chairman offered to continue this matter to a study meeting but Mr. O'Hara declined. No one in the audience spoke in favor of the application. Mrs. Melba Riley spoke against it, stating she felt, if the building were placed in a different location it would not detract from her property which she is developing. She also questioned Mr. O'Hara's use of the driveway, an additional 10' of which she had to purchase and which she must maintain. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Norberg suggested that the rear yard could be considered as a side yard and Mr. O'Hara could be given an additional 10'. Commissioner Jacobs had no comment. Commissioner Taylor disapproved of this continued use in a C-4 zone and considered the building a potential visual blight. Commissioner Mink questioned the conditions of public use of the driveway which Mrs. Riley must maintain, and was told by the City Engineer that to his knowledge there were no restrictions on its use. Commissioner Mink commented that he thought the building use was not appropriate for that property. Commissioner Kindig agreed with Commissioners Mink and Taylor, although he voiced sympathy for Mr. O'Hara. Commissioner Cistulli also agreed. Chairman Sine had no comment. City Planner Swan commented on Commissioner Norberq's suggestion regarding the rear yard, stating that the only frontage of the parcel is on Bayshore Highway. Therefore the long way of the proposed building would be at the rear, noting that the setback would still be zero on each side. Chairman Sine offered Mr. O'Hara the opportunity of continuing this application for future study, and an opportunity for him to redesign. Mr. O'Hara commented that he had built the first building in North Burlingame on that site,pioneering in the development of the tidelands, and he felt this should be given consideration. He also expressed an urgent need for the space. There was Commission discussion and Mr. O'Hara was given several alternatives including relocation of the building, redesign of the building, and landscaping around the whole area. Commissioner Mink moved that the application be placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting 30 days from date and that the staff be requested to determine if this application is subject to BCDC regulations. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it passed by voice vote. 8. VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A 6-UNIT APARTMENT ON AN R-2 LOT AT 1131 CAPUCHINO, BEING LOT 7, BLOCK 5, EASTON ADDITION. LESLIE T. ALEXANDE R . Chairman Sine announced this application for public hearing and Secretary Kindig read Mr. Alexander's letter of application. City - 10 - Planner Swan commented that a precedent had already been set for this type of development on this block on Capuchino. However, each case should be considered on its own merits. He noted that this area is zoned R-2 with a lot coverage of 40% but the coverage applied for is 50%, comparable to R-3. The open space will provide 260 square feet per unit or 140' per person, considering the 6 units will house 11 people. He stated that the block has a narrow street and guests would have to park in the street, and noted that in private residences 20' is required for 2 parking spaces. The plan shows 3 sets of 2 parking spaces that are 18' wide, which does meet the code but is not desirable. He felt the development was crowded and really R-3 density. He showed transparencies of the plot plan. He mentioned that occupants might back out on the street. Mr. Leslie Alexander of 2057 Eaton Street, San Carlos, addressed the Commission, stating that he was asking for 50% lot coverage, and that had been granted in the past to other 5 and 6 unit buildings on that block. Secretary Kindig read a letter from Fiory A. Olivolo, 1129 Capuchino Avenue, owner of the property next door. He offered a cross easement on the driveway use to Mr. Alexander, believing it to be of mutual benefit. Audience comment in favor: Mr. Olivolo stated he approved. Audience comment against: None. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Norberg disapproved of the elevation plan, but did think the double easement would improve the traffic situation. Commissioner Jacobs did not like the black top areas, mentioning this was supposed to be a garden apartment. Mr. Alexander stated the front and rear were to be landscaped. Commissioner Taylor suggested that the plan be redesigned to a five -unit building. Commissioner Cistulli agreed. Commissioner Kindig stated a precedent had been set for six units but it would have been better with five. City Attorney Karmel commented that the matter of a joint easement was entirely at the option of the property owners. Chairman Sine stated he too would like to see some modification in the elevations. Mr. Alexander stated he had an alternate elevation drawn and showed it to the Commission. Commissioner Cistulli moved that this application be approved in accordance with the plot plan and the revised elevation. Commissioner Kindig seconded, and the motion was denied on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS CISTULLI, KINDIG, SINE NOES: COMMISSIONERS JACOBS, MINK, NORBERG, TAYLOR The applicant was informed he had the right of appeal to the City Council. 9. SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO -ALLOW STORAGE AND SERVICE OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES AT 1650 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY IN THE WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL DISTRICT BY AVIS RENT -A -CAR SYSTEMS, INC. Chairman Sine introduced this application. Secretary Kindig read the letter of application. City Planner Swan presented a review, stating that the original special permit was initiated in 1966 and only refers to automobiles and storage of service rental vehicles. He showed slides of the Avis site and commented that buildings should not be located within the rear portion of the property so that future access could be provided along the shoreline. The Avis leasehold extends to the fence and then there is a 50' slope easement, extending out into the Bay. David Keyston of Anza Pacific, owner of the Avis property, represented the applicant. He stated that Avis business has now changed so that they are now renting recreational vehicles in the same manner as cars. He stated that inquiry had been made to the Fire Inspector regarding the recreational vehicles with propane tanks and he had questioned whether this was an appropriate use - hence the application. He stated no propane tank for refill was proposed, and there will be merely the service area and body shop. He stated that he agreed that no tanks or facilities should be built at the back part of the property to interfere with public access; no permanent tank or structure is to be built to the rear of the structure. No one in the audience was either for or against this application, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioners Norberg and Jacobs had no objections, Commissioner Jacobs declaring he thought it was a service to Burlingame for the enjoyment of these vehicles. Commissioner Taylor had no objections. Commissioner Mink raised the question of landscaping and asked about the width of the area between the buildings and the rear of the property. He was informed it was about 401. He commented this could be considered if there is to be landscaping at the rear of the property in consistency with C-4 regulations. Mr. Keyston agreed, if i:t were considered necessary, although he remarked on the difficulties with the salt air killing vegetation. Mr. Keyston commented that he thought some access back there would be required, and that was certainly a possibility. He noted the 50' slope easement at the rear of the property and commented there was not much that could be done on it without putting more fill there. At high tide much of it is under water. It would be timely to provide access along this shoreline when the property to the north of Avis is developed. Commissioners Cistulli, Kindig and Sine had no comment. Commissioner Mink moved that the special use permit to allow storage and service of recreational vehicles at 1650 Bayshore Highway, Avis Rent-A-Car, be granted. Commissioner Kindig seconded and the motion carried - 12 - unanimously on roll call vote. Chairman Sine informed the applicant this would be effective on March 7 if not appealed. ANNOUNCEMENT: Chairman Sine announced the annual Commissioners Dinner to be held on March 22, 1972 at Bob's on Broadway. NEW BUSINESS: City Planner Swan announced that the handbook "Signs of California" put out by the California Roadside Council, was available for review. He commented on a letter from Statewide Convalescent Hospitals regarding the functional changeover at the Casa Madonna Hospital on Trousdale. The hospital will now accept patients on a residential basis, as well as those requiring nursing care. He commented on the Beautifications Commission minutes of February 3, which state that the Commission would appreciate the opportunity of reviewing landscaping plans on new projects. He noted a recent State Law which requires County and City zoning ordinances be consistent with the General Plan by January 1, 1973. He stated that three commissioners were able to attend the conference in San Jose, and reported his own attendance at an afternoon session of ABAG. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting regularly adjourned at 11:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Everett K. Kindig Secretary