Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1973.07.09THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION July 9, 1973 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Cistulli Mink (excused) City Planner Swan Jacobs City Engineer Marr Kindig City Attorney Karmel Norberg Planning Intern Eley Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER An adjourned meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission, from the regular meeting of June 25, 1973 was called to order at 8:00 P.M. by Chairman Kindig. ROLL CALL The above -named members were present. Commissioner Mink was noted as being out of town. HEARINGS 2. RESOLUTION NO. 6-73 RECOMMENDING THE ADOPTION OF POLICIES, PROCEDURES, AND CODES FOR A COMPREHENSIVE SIGN REVIEW SYSTEM. This item was considered out of agenda order for expediency,`- r-� At the Chains invitation the City Planner reported to the Commission that the resolution had been drafted per their direction based on guidelines prepared by Wtn. Spangle. This resolution is the first step in the recommendation of needed guidelines for sign review. He presented the resolution for their action. Commissioner Taylor questioned if the resolution should have community input, and was informed by Chairman Kindig that this resolution is strictly an adoption of policies and procedures for the Commission and the City staff, and does not get into the City Ordinance area. Commissioner Sine moved the adoption of Resolution 6-73, Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI,JACOBS,NORBERG, SINE,TAYLOR,KINDIG NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MINK 1. VARIANCE TO ALLOW EXISTING MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITH LESS THAN REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING IN AN R-1 DISTRICT AT 1510 NEWLANDS AVENUE BY BRUCE STEWART, AGENT FOR OWNER, RICHARD GARCIA. Chairman Kindig reminded the Commission that the public hearing :had - 2 - been closed at the regular meeting of June 25, 1973 but the Commission had decided to continue this application to this adjourned meeting in order for the applicant to decide if he could reduce the size of the building from six units to five. At the invitation of the Chair Mr. Bruce Stewart addressed the Commission and introduced Mr. Richard Garcia, owner of the property. Mr. Garcia raised the question of how much parking would be necessary for five units and was reminded by the Chairman that the purpose of the variance was not strictly for parking. He called on Commissioner Sine to explain further to Mr. Garcia. Commissioner Sine commented that Mr. Garcia was not responsible for the construction of this illegal building without a building permit= however, he had suggested the owner investigate the cost of converting this to a five -unit which in essence would bring it within the R3-A regulation of one living unit for every 1,500 square feet of land. The Commissioner remarked that with apartments in this building there will never be sufficient parking; that he was not certain whether he would vote for five units or not, but had thought it would bring it down to the density of R-3A. Mr. Garcia stated it would be possible to make it five -unit but it would be costly, and he did not see the difference in parking between a five -unit and a 6-unit. He was cautioned by Commissioner Sine that the new parking ordinance effective in August would specify 8 parking spaces for 5 units; 9 spaces for 6. Commissioner Cistulli remarked that, considering the illegal building, the Planning Commission was not being too harsh in asking for five units. Mr. Garcia stated that he had an appointment with his contractor today, but the contractor had not kept it and he did not know exactly how much the cost would be. Commissioners Sine and Cistulli suggested this application be continued until Mr. Garcia obtained costs from his contractors and Chairman Kindig informed the applicant that it was a choice of voting on 5 units now or delaying the application until he conferred with his contractor. Commissioner Jacobs asked what the distribution of the five units would be. Mr. Garcia, after replying it would be 4 single units and one three -bedroom two -bath unit, asked if there were a possibility of a variance for six units being passed at this meeting. He was informed by Commissioner Jacobs that it was a calculated risk which could result in a year's delay. Mr. Garcia was again questioned by the chair whether he wished a vote on six units or on five. The applicant indicated he wanted a vote on five. Commissioner Sine commented that despite the fact that there is an illegal use, if this is approved for a 5 or 6 unit building, every illegal apartment in the city will come in for the paternalistic blessing of the Planning Commission. He felt that a precedent could be set that the Commission might find difficult to live with. He wondered if abatement proceedings should be investigated. Commissioner Cistulli stated that the illegal building is there and nothing can be done about it. The present owners cannot be cop ed for it. He saw the problem as a choice between leaving the bui�c ing - 3 - as it is, or modifying it and making a better building out of it. Chairman Kindig added that the City Attorney had pointed out that it is extremely difficult to get the Courts to raze a building. Commissioner Jacobs commented that his conscience would bother him if the building were left in its present unsafe condition as far as fire protection is concerned. He stated that Mr. Garcia proposed to meet the fire safety code, and he would rather have it remodeled at this opportunity. He was not concerned about setting a precedent, feeling that other cases can be decided one at a time. Commissioner Taylor stated he shared the views of Commissioner Sine and added that this purchaser bought through a real estate agent who should have had knowledge of the illegality of the structure. He felt the Planning Commission was being used to bail out the purchaser who in reality has an action against the real estate agent. He also felt that in event of approval the Planning Commission would be facing a large number of similar applications. Commissioner Cistulli remarked that the owner had made an investment in this building and was willing to reduce it from 7 units to 5, renovating the property at the same time. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if the remodeling would make the building safe. Commissioner Norberg referenced the list of necessary improvements presented by the building inspector, stating that should be one of the conditions of approval. Commissioner Taylor thought that the upgrading of the building should be counterweighed against the fact that this approval would represent a policy of the city. He stated he would like to see city policy directed toward the enforcement of existing ordinances rather than the condonment of illegalities; and suggested a vigorous program of abatements. He thought the building could not be razed, but suggested an injunction abating the apartments and returning the structure to its single family status. The City Attorney stated that if the City went into court it could be done by these methods: Have the building pulled back down to R-1 dwelling; have the portion of the building which is illegally constructed brought down; enjoin a violation of the zoning ordinance by having it occupied by not more than one family. Commissioner Sine moved that this variance be denied. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it tied on the following roll call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: NORBERG,SINE,TAYLOR NOES: COUNCILMEN: CISTULLI,JACOBS,KINDIG ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: MINK The City Attorney informed the Commission that when there is a split vote it ordinarily goes to the City Council for determination. He thought it would be best for Mr. Garcia to appeal to the Council - 4 - on the basis that he had not been granted anything. Chairman Kindig directed Mr. Garcia or Mr. Stewart to confer with the City Planner. IV. OLD BUSINESS 3. A PROPOSED SIGN REVIEW SYSTEM - STAFF REPORT City Planner Swan introduced Planning Intern Charles Eley who gave a comprehensive report on the proposed sign review system. Mr. Eley distributed a flow chart showing the various processing steps of a sign application. He prefaced his remarks with a statement of some of the things the Planning Department hopes to accomplish with sign review. These include protecting the health, safety and general welfare; stabilizing property values: giving unity and distinction to certain areas; and regulation of competition in sign construction. In connection with the latter point, he stated that when too many signs exist in a certain area, they tend to create a visual block and do not serve their real purpose. Mr. Eley went on to say that another goal of the sign review system is to accommodate good design as well as to discourage the bad. He cited the emergency ordinance of 32 square feet which discourages excesses, but places a large burden on .the Planning Commission. The proposed sign review system would not take this responsibility away from the Planning Commission, but would delegate some of the more routine work. A new determination has been made that on -premise signs are categorically exempt from the requirement for the prepara- tion of an environmental impact report. Mr. Eley referred the Commission to the flow chart, which was distributed, and traced the steps of the proposed sign review process. Some signs, such as temporary signs do not require a permit. Another category of signs would require a permit from the Building Inspector but would not require sign review. A third category of signs would require both building permit and sign review. The applicant must first submit an application to the building inspector for a sign permit. The Planning Department has drafted a brief application. The purpose of this is to extract enough information to determine whether or not the sign will need review. The first decision is by the Building Inspector. In this case, his decision must be confirmed by the City Planner. If confirmed, then the Building permit would be granted by the Building Inspector without the discretionary approval by the Sign Review Committee. Additional information would be required for all signs that require approval by the Sign Review Committee. This information would be submitted to the City; Planner and would include elevation drawings; site plan dimensioned and drawn accurately to scale; color slides or color prints showing existing conditions on and adjacent to the site; and other information as deemed necessary by the City Planner. Mr. Eley cautioned that it is difficult to anticipate the information necessary to properly evaluate every sign proposal. Additional information would be required as necessary at the discretion of the City Planner, who would make a sign impact assessment. This would summarize the sign proposal before it goes to the review committee. Mr. Eley commented that it is important that sign regulations be - 5 - distinguished from sign guidelines. Regulations are minimum requirements for measurable attributes of signs, such as: size, location, type, etc. As an example of a regulations for each establishment a total allowable sign area could be calculated, based upon the type of establishment, zone, and size of establishment. This total allowable sign area could be based upon the front footage or square area of the establishment. With the total allowable sign area for the business established, the applicant would then be free to distribute this quantity among as many signs as he wanted, subject to other regulations. Another regulation could be that no more than one projecting or free standing sign be allowed for each street frontage; or that no one sign shall exceed 200 square feet. Assuming the sign proposal has met the regulations and is subject to the review committee, the committee would then apply discretionary guidelines. Guidelines are to close the gaps that the regulations would leave. It is impossible and unnecessary to write regulations to deal with every attribute of every sign. A few good regulations can achieve the goals. Guidelines could be addressed to non -measurable attributes such as the style of type face, color, texture, shape, size of copy, and the content of copy. Guidelines would be applied with discretion on a case by case basis. Once the decision is made by the sign review committee, there is an appeal process open to either side. If no appeal is filed, the committee's decision would be final. If appealed, the sign proposal would go before the Planning Commission. In some cases, the committee might like to give the application directly to the Planning Commission. After the Planning Commission discussed the appeal, it could be appealed again to the City Council. 0 Exceptions to regulations would require a variance. The guidelines are applied with discretion. Both are necessary. The City would not be setting a precedent with a sign review committee. Mr. Eley mentioned other cities he had contacted which have such enabling legislation. Most of the other cities have sign review committees. He also noted that he had requested and received copies of many of these ordinances and they are available in the City Planning Office for Commission review. City Planner Swan distributed copies of the proposed sign review system. In response to a question from Commissioner Sine, Mr. Eley stated that the exact makeup of the sign review committee had not been thoroughly considered yet. Some towns have an architect as a member. Most have at least one planning commissioner. One has a committee of three people - one planning commissioner and two city staff people. He recommended that the sign review committee meet regularly on the Wednesdays before the Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Sine stated he considered the staff had done an excellent job with this proposed sign review in the time they had available, and City Planner Swan commended Mr. Eley for an admirable job in the two weeks he had been with the city. The City Planner went on to say he trusted the Commission would give direction to staff to prepare a resolution for submittal to the City Council. Mr. Eley stated he interpreted Resolution 6-73 as authorization to more clearly formulate regulations and guidelines for adoption by the City Council. The Commission agreed that this resolution was a step toward solution of the problem. 4. CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL: CONSERVATION ELEMENT REVISIONS REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REPORT. At the request of the Chair, City Planner Swan reported to the Commission that these revisions had been referred back to them for study and that the City Council wished a report by August 6. He added the Commission may not wish to take action at this meeting; and then reviewed some of the changes proposed by the Council. He requested Commission direction. Commissioner Sine stated he wanted a chance to review and edit the proposed changes, and suggested this matter be continued to the meeting of July 23. The City Attorney agreed that this would be adequate timing. Mr. David Keyston referred to the Appendix for the Conservation Element, noting that under Area Three it states "115 acres of land being filled for industrial use by Anza Pacific." He noted that all the land is for commercial use, not industrial. In the same area the Appendix states "Per condition of agreement, the M-1 District was reclassified C-4 and it is now available . . . ." He said most of that area was reclassified long before that. He took exception to the statement under Area 4 that "Development to date gives indication of a character that may be developed along the waterfront unless action is taken for improvement." He stated such action had already been taken. Under Area 5, he disliked the statement "The City waste disposal area, waste water treatment plant and natural inner lagoon show no change or aesthetic improvement. He thought that the City has been changing there and it does show improvement. Under Area 7 he criticized the statement" . . . the vastly inadequate Broadway-Bayshore Freeway interchange." He contended this was not "vastly inadequate." City Attorney Karmel reminded Mr. Keyston that the Planning Commission had already passed this Element; no hearing was required, but merely a report from the Commission on the specific changes requested. Chairman Kindig announced this item would be on the agenda for July 23. After a short recess at 9:20 P.M., the meeting reconvened to the regular study meeting. STUDY MEETING JULY 9, 1973 APPLICATIONS MAC 5. SIGN PERMIT TO ERECT A POLE SIGN WITH THREE FACES OF 70 SQUARE FEET EACH IN A C-2 DISTRICT TO IDENTIFY THE BUBBLE MACHINE Planning Intern Eley called the Commission's attention to a display on the bulletin board showing the size to scale of the various sign applications for this meeting. He stated the Bubble Machine representatives had brought photographs showing the area and additional drawings of the signs. These were distributed. The Chairman questioned if the application for the Bubble Machine itself would be on the agenda for July. City Planner Swan indicated it would appear so, but added that the sign application is independent of the Bubble Machine as a use permit and had been considered as a separate application. It must be kept in context and both applications will be on the agenda. He added that the Bubble Machine representative present had some more information on the sign. The representative stated that this is a stationary sign, 20 feet high, 210 square feet in area, lighted at night. This is in the category of a low profile sign, although in other areas their signs might be only 12-14'. This is impossible at this corner, since it might block traffic view. This is a standard type sign with the Bubble Machine. There was Commission comment that a 20' sign was not in conformity with this area. The representative announced they would be glad to make the sign lower, if the City Traffic Director did not object. Chairman Kindig set this application for hearing on July 23. City Planner Swan distributed an addendum to EIR 18P for the Bubble Machine system. 6. SIGN PERMIT TO ERECT A GROUND SIGN WITH 108 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS AREA IN AN M-1 DISTRICT TO IDENTIFY ARCO GAS/CAR WASH City Planner Swan distributed blueprints of this sign. Arco representative T.T. Clausen told the Commission the height had been reduced from its present height of 30' to 141; and from its present square footage of 85' to 55'. There was -some discussion of discrepancies in the prints as to the exact height of the pilaster supporting the sign. The City Planner contended that the pilaster should be considered as part of the sign, since it cannot be seen through. This would make the total area of the sign 108 square feet. Mr. Clausen agreed to correct the prints to show the correct dimensions for the pilaster, and was informed the sign application would be heard on July 23. 7. SIGN VARIANCE TO PERMIT INSTALLATION OF A POLE SIGN 47 FEET IN HEIGHT IN A C-2 DISTRICT AND SIGN PERMIT FOR 36 SQUARE FOOT WALL SIGN AT 200 CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND 1123 HOWARD STREET BY CUMMINGS & CO. OF CALIFORNIA, INC. FOR ARATA PONTIAC, Mr. L. E. Goble of Cummings and Company was present and distributed Photographs and scale drawings of the signs. There was some discussion of the location and a Commission question why a 47' high sign was necessary. Mr. Goble replied it did seem a little high to him; however, this was the size requested by General Motors and Arata. The dealer signs up with General Motors for a sign program. He indicated Arata pays half for the signs and General Motors pays half. He again commented he thought the 47' sign was too high. There was Commission request that it be made a condition of the public hearing that Mr. Arata be present, or the hearing will be continued. Mr. Goble assured the Commission Mr. Arata would be present. The Chairman scheduled this application for hearing on July 23. 8. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING AIR FREIGHT TERMINAL IN AN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1348 ROLLINS ROAD BY SFO EXPRESS Mr. George Carter of S.F.O. Express told the Commission that his present quarters are overcrowded and they need more space. The building in which they propose to locate has been improved and painted. City Planner Swan stated that this is an expansion of an existing air freight terminal, and he felt a special permit was needed, as well as a negative environmental impact report. It seemed to him in keeping with that area that Mr. Carter's business be allowed to expand. Chairman Kindig set the application for hearing on July 23. 9. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR MR. FLORIN RHOADS, 1530 LA MESA DRIVE Mr. Rhoads displayed his tentative parcel map. The City Engineer noted that he had divided one parcel into two and had moved the sewer easement. It was his opinion that this could only be accomplished by the City Council. The City Planner questioned if this was less than a five -lot subdivision. The City Engineer said that Mr. Rhoads was to have contacted him on this. The City Planner indicated that he had not. The Commission discussed the jagged property line division and the easements. Mr. Rhoads explained that this property should have been included in the General subdivision about five years ago but the seller had moved out of town. Mr. Rhoads now wants to make his ownership legal. There was Commission request that the new easement be indicated before approval. Mr. Rhoads stated he would contact his engineer and get a final map. This map was scheduled for hearing on July 23. 10. TENTATIVE RS SUBDIVISION MAP OF LOT 14 AND A PORTION OF LOTS 13 AND 15, BLOCK 8, MAP NO. 2 BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY, BEING 519, 521, 525 AND 527 ALMER ROAD, ZONED R-3, FOR DAVID A. NICOLAIDE S. City Engineer Marr distributed tentative maps and stated that this was merely a resubdivision map deleting lot lines. He assumed that Mr. Nicolaides was building a condominium. Mr. Nicolaides was not present. The City Planner verified that this will be a 36 unit condominium in an R-3 zone and does not have to come before the Commission. Chairman Kindig set this application for hearing on July 23, cautioning that Mr. Nicolaides must appear then. 11. VARIANCE TO ADD SOCIAL ROOM AS PARTIAL FOURTH FLOOR ON SKYLINE TERRACE APARTMENT STRUCTURE IN R-1 DISTRICT AT 3137-3155 FRONTERA WAY City Planner Swan informed the Commission that the last information he had on this continued item was a telephone call from Mr. Pringle just before he left for Europe. Mr. Pringle had retained a consultant to prepare an EIR. At that time they were awaiting a report from the Fire Department. The City Planner stated that on July 5 the Fire Department had reported that this would be considered a four story building and an approved automatic sprinkler system will be required for 100% of the building. This may obviate the application, or it could be a condition of approval. He requested Commission advice on whether this application should be continued. The City Planner was directed by the Commission to write Mr. Pringle upon his return, setting forth the circumstances and asking if the applicant wishes this continued. 12. SIGN PERMIT FOR NEW GROUND SIGN WITH 74 SQUARE FEET OF GROSS SIGN AREA IN AN M-1 DISTRICT TO IDENTIFY AIRPORT OFFICE CENTER AT 1799 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY BY CAL -COAST SIGNS FOR DOHEMAN AND CO. The City Planner spoke in lieu of representative from Cal -Coast. He stated this is a ground sign. There is a large area of lot in front of the building. When he last talked to the sign company he was told that the sign location would be in the 15' setback area, but a ground sign must be located in back of that. This is not a large sign, 48 square feet plus 26 square feet for the pedestal. In his opinion, it should be a routine approval. Planning Intern Eley added that one thing to consider is if the sign is going to block any traffic views. Chairman Kindig set this application for hearing on July 23, with the stipulation that the applicant must be present. 13. SIGN PERMIT TO PAINT GRAPHIC DESIGN ON FRONT AND SIDE OF BUILDING FOR BEARDSLEY'S BAR AND RESTAURANT AT 1445 BROADWAY IN A C-1 DISTRICT Mr. Patrick Finnegan was present, and introduced his co -owners of the former "Bob's on Broadway" as G. L. Hylton and John M. O'Brien. He presented for the Commission's inspection large drawings of the signs to be painted on the front and side of the building, along with several photographs of the building. There was some discussion of the well -established place which Bob's had long held in the community, and the new owners' hopes that this tradition would be carried on. - 10 - There was question as to the origin of the name "Beardsley's." Mr. Finnegan replied that Beardsley was an illustrator who lived in England at the turn of the century. The City Planner expressed his personal opinion - he liked it. Chairman Kindig announced this application would be set for public hearing on July 23. Mr. Finnegan told the Commission they would like a special session of the Planning Commission to approve their request, especially since they had first applied on the 26th of June. He felt if the hearing was delayed it would be a hardship on their business since they intend to open for business on July 19. City Attorney Karmel commented that this does not require a public hearing but does require a formal meeting. This meeting could be called by the Chairman. The City Planner added that there should be notification to the press 24 hours in advance of the meeting. With the Commission's approval, Chairman Kindig announced that a special meeting would be held to consider this application at 5:00 P.M., July 13, Conference Room B, City Hall. 14. SIGN PERMIT TO PAINT GRAPHIC DESIGN ON FRONT AND SIDE OF BUILDING FOR PENGUIN CLUB AT 261 CALIFORNIA DRIVE IN A C-2 DISTRICT Representative Ivan Chiolo told the Commission that the building had been remodeled and a graphic sign painting started on the front. However, this had been stopped by Building Inspector Calwell because it was more than 32 square feet. Mr. Chiolo would like to keep the sign and extend it all the way on the front and around the side of the building. The design consists of large penguins which diminish in size as they go around the building. He had retained an architect, Jack Mensies, who designed the interior and exterior of the building. When asked why the sign was started in violation of the ordinance, he replied that the people who did the graphic took the responsibility upon themselves and neglected to get a sign permit. It was a crash program to get the building done, and everyone assumed that everything had been taken care of. It was an error of assumption. Both the name and the graphic are on this sign in front. The sign encompasses 58% of the front area and 25% of the side. He cited the improvement the sign on the side would make on the city parking lot next door. This side wall is now very drab and unattractive. There was some discussion. Chairman Kindig set this application for hearing on July 23. 15. VARIANCE.FROM SIDE YARD REGULATION FOR GARAGE AT 2201 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 BY WALTER L. MC ARDLE In the absence of Mr. McArdle, the City Planner showed plans of this garage enlargement. He explained that the house is being enlarged and the garage is too small. Two bedrooms have been added upstairs, and there is desire to store cars in the garage. Mr. McArdle wishes to extend the garage into the side yard setback. The garage door would be 4' behind the property line. This is a corner lot and zoning regulations require a 7'y" side setback. After inspection of the plans and some discussion, this item was set for hearing on July 23, 1973. 16. CITY PLANNER REPORT The City Planner noted recent actions of the City Council as follows: On July 2, 1973 the City Council denied 5-0 the reclassification application by Leon Richardson, 117 Arundel Road. He interpreted their policy as establishing that no variances and no reclassifications are to be given much time. The City Planner commented that he will not welcome such applications until there is some indication of Council support. He considered the City Council's decision as a policy decision. Parking regulations for apartments and apartment hotels become effective August 1, 1973. William Spangle's contract has been extended, and he will present Urban Design Guidelines on July 23 to the Planning Commission. Finalization of the Safeway improvement program is approaching. It has been held in abeyance because of downtown parking requirements. Safeway has proposed to tender money to the City and work out an equitable system of paying for previous parking credits. City Planner Swan informed the Commission that the mandatory deadline for the Open Space and Conservation Elements has been extended by SB594 to January 1, 1974. Other elements required within a year after the adoption of Guidelines by the Council on Intergovernmental Relations are: Seismic Safety, Noise, Scenic Highway, and Safety. The City Planner added that he considered the Noise Element as the most important, particularly with relation to transportation noises. Seismic Safety could be more efficiently considered on a larger scale, if the County would take the lead. The safety Element itself refers not only to seismic safety but all other aspects, traffic, fire, flood control, etc. The City Planner reported that the Council had received and filed his report on "Permits for Gasoline Service Stations" relative to parking commercial vehicles at night. They will be the policy - making body on this matter. He spoke of the emergency ordinance which requires that a structure more than 35' in height or covering 30% of the lot come before the City Council; and noted that the Council may wish certain types of structures reviewed by the Planning Commission. He'spoke about the importance of the City Council establishing fees for sign review. The City Planner stated that the Transportation Fund Claim to initiate a municipal bus system may be approved by MTC at their July 27 meeting. The City Planner reported thatan important project for 1974 will be a specific plan for the shoreline and guidelines for the C-4 - 12 - district. He noted proposed developments in this area, such as the expansion of the Airport Marina Hotel and plans for another restaurant along the shoreline. He commented that the Bank of America project on Chapin and E1 Camino had apparently gone back to the drawing board, since he had received a call from the Continental Service Company indicating they are considering alternatives. City Planner Swan told the Commission that Alpha Car Rental at Stanton and Bayshore Highway was still parking cars in violation of their use permit. It was Commission opinion that they should be called to attend the next study meeting to consider violation of their use permit. Commissioner Sine remarked on his observations of cement pouring in the city on Saturday. This is_.a non -union procedure and he felt it opened the door for illegal construction. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 11:00 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Malcolm M. Jacobs Secretary