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