Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1973.05.30THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Cistulli Jacobs Kindig Mink Norberg Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER May 30, 1973 COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT None City Planner Swan City Engineer Marr City Attorney Karmel Consultant Spangle A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 8:05 P.M., Chairman Kindig presiding. The above named members were present. MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of April 23, 1973 were approved after the addition on Page 10, Paragraph 3 to the sentence, ". . . and the whole area from Burlingame Avenue to Peninsula and from Myrtle Road to Dwight should be upgraded,, . . ." the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of May 14 and of the Study Meeting May 14, 1973 were approved and adopted. HEARINGS CONTINUED At the onset of the meeting, Chairman Kindig announced receipt of letter re- garding Items 5 and 6 of the agenda - EIR and Special Permit for Bubble Machine. He read the letter for the benefit of the audience which was a communication from the Standard Oil Company dated May 30, 1973, asking that these items be continued to the next Planning Commission meeting of June 25, 1973. The Commission had no objection to continuing these hearings until this date. GENERAL PLAN 1. CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL: OPEN SPACE ELEMENT - ADDENDUM AND REVISION REFERRED BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR REPORT Chairman Kindig reviewed action on this item, stating that the Planning Commission had held a public hearing on this Element on April 23, at which time they had voted to recommend the adoption of the Open Space Element to the City Council. The City Council had then studied the Element and made some changes. He requested City Planner Swan to report. - 2 - The City Planner stated that the Council had studied this element in detail and had decided more flexibility was desirable in the section regarding City purchase of property. The City Planner, City Attorney and Consultant Spangle had been requested to make this section more general. Therefore, this addendum had been prepared which slightly changes the format, the main point being the rewording of the paragraph regarding acquisition to "The Program should be flexible, however, so that the City can move rapidly when circumstances are advantageous. Public acquisition includes any feasible means whereby beneficial use may be obtained, including gift, permit, license, lease, lease -back, purchase, life - estate or any combination." He commented this revision was considered by Council at their May 21 meeting and met with their approval with the exception of Paragraph 568 regarding acquisition of lands adjoining school sites, which was then changed to read in part, "Acquire individual lots adjacent to school sites where prudently possible." The City Planner commented that the Government Code requires the Planning Commission to review these changes and report back to the Council. Therefore, this was not a hearing but a report. He stated a draft letter had been prepared transmitting the Planning Commission's approval of these changes if it was so decided. Chairman Kindig requested Commission comments. Commissioner Mink, through the Chair, asked Mr. William Spangle if these changes were consistent with the intent of the consulting firm which prepared this report. Mr. Spangle replied that they were consistent, providing somewhat more latitude; but he thought they were appropriate. Commissioner Taylor questioned why these changes were desired, and Mr. Spangle replied he felt it was a matter of difference of interpretation of the language between the Planning Commission level and the Council level. Nevertheless he thought the language now approved is consistent with the intent. Commissioner Taylor stated he thought that when the original proposal was presented it was a proposal to acquire adjoining lots when available for the sole purpose of having a committed progressive program as distinguished from a policy of acquiring them perhaps. It seemed to him there was quite a significant difference, and he preferred the former wording because he felt the City's parks and recreation facilities were inadequate and this would be a decision to acquire as soon as possible, as opposed to acquisition when the City felt it could afford or could justify it. There was some further discussion of the change of wording as offering alternatives. Commissioner Mink moved the record show that the Planning Commission had con- sidered the Addendum to Open Space Element as modified May 16, 1973 and the Council revision of Paragraph 568, and approved the changes suggested and recommended the revised Open Space Element be considered for adoption. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously on roll call vote. Chairman Kindig stated the letter to Council would be signed and transmitted. - 3 - 2. HEARING ON CONSERVATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF BURLINGAME, MAY, 1973, BY WILLIAM SPANGLE AND ASSOCIATES. Chairman Kindig announced public hearing on this Element, and requested Consultant Wm. Spangle to make a presentation. Mr. Spangle reported that this Element has been prepared to provide the City a way of responding to the requirement of the legislature that it adopt a con- servation element. The focus is primarily on the conservation of the natural environment. Since Burlingame is in the main a developed community it was the firm's judgment that in addition there should be adequate consideration of what they have called the "built environment" - the part of the community that is developed. The conservation Element was prepared and responded to the goals and specifications adopted in the General Plan in 1969. He commented that this is a quite detailed plan, and he had hoped to have it reviewed by city staff before presentation. However, the time element prevented this, and he acknowledged that there would probably be many suggestions from staff and public for modifications. This element brings the programs that the City has in process in focus with what the city has not been doing. Charts on Pages 11 and 12 provide an opportunity for evaluating present city programs and proposed programs both for conservation of natural resources of the built environment. He detailed methods under the general headings of City government —� regulations, acquisition of endangered areas, technical advice, education, incentives and remedial work programs. Mr. Spangle categorized natural resources as water, vegetation, soils and geology, wild life, and air; and detailed each as it relates to Burlingame. He then requested questions or comments on this general overview of conservation. At this point Chairman Kindig acknowledged the presence of Councilman Dorothy Cusick in the audience. There was no Commission comment on the Conservation Element, and Chairman Kindig opened the meeting to public discussion. David Keyston of Anza Pacific requested permission to address the Commission. He stated he had put his comments in writing, and distributed copies of a memo to the Commission and the news media present. The Conservation Element, he said, had disturbed him because the general goals seem to be implied as re- flecting the basic aims of the majority without reflecting the rights of property owners and due process. He referred to an objective on Page 8 which is to restore where feasible marsh and Bay areas where they have been unduly disturbed by man. Commenting that for 15 years the City has encouraged private parties to disturb marsh and Bay areas for various purposes, he felt it implied City policy to tear down buildings built on filled land and to remove the fill. He also objected to a suggestion in the report that the City should limit devel- opment in areas of known geologic hazard - landslide, earthquake zones. He generalized that the entire State was a known geologic hazard, and clearly defined guidelines should be established as to how hazardous an area must be. M-W With regard to the suggestion that the City should maintain communication with conservation groups and agencies, he stated this should be limited or it would be too time-consuming. He urged caution in judgment of "areas of change where prospects of additional development threaten the natural resources." He cited his own area of development where he felt care has always been exercised in this regard. Mr. Keyston challenged the statement on Page 16 that an urgent program is needed to " . . halt the trend of incompatible development along the Bayshore." He felt that the trend is improving and should be encouraged. With regard to the statement on Page 17 that a specific plan should be formulated in collabor- ation with BCDC for this portion of the Bay, he questioned if this should be adopted as part of Burlingame's program for the future in view of the substantial conflicts that have arisen between the City and BCDC. He also disagreed with the statement in the report that pollution of the Bay has all but destroyed its shellfish, stating that Bay pollution reached a high in 1940 and has been reducing steadily, with the result that three years ago for the first time shellfish and crabs have been found in the Bay and have been coming back. With regard to architectural guidelines, he questioned whether any governing agency is appropriate in passing aesthetic judgment on any private developer. Mr. Keyston thought the Conservation Element was vague and that a complete review of the draft should be undertaken by the Planning Commission. He made the following specific recommendations: 1. Add to General Goals, "Consistent with accepted legal rights of private property owners." 2. Limit cooperation, participation, and communication with conservation and regional groups to areas where the City Council has found that such . . . is related to promotion of the aims of the City and implementation of its general plan. 3. In regard to geologic hazards, City to limit development or require proper and reasonable engineering standards to be applied to any such development.. 4. In undeveloped areas, due consideration be given to historical commitments, economic, job producing, and other developmental factors, as well as all conservation items herein mentioned. 5. Remove the statement, "halt the trend of incompatible development along the bay front." 6. Remove the statement, "Pollution of the bay has all but destroyed this valuable resource." Mr. Keyston then read a recent editorial from the San Mateo Times entitled "No Growth Advocates Endanger American Dream." There was some discussion of points raised by Mr. Keyston. - 5 - City Engineer Marr criticized statement on Page 19 of the report, "Also, sewage bypasses plant during heavy storm flow . . ." He stated that at no time do we deposit raw sewage in the Bay. During storm periods it may bypass secondary treatment but always gets primary treatment. He referred to two points in the program: "Provide full tertiary treatment for sewage." and "Extend sewage outfall to the deep waters of the Bay." He commented that Mr. Spangle possibly did not know that Burlingame is completing plans for pumping all its effluent to South San Francisco which city is constructing an outfall to accommodate South San Francisco and San Bruno. Burlingame has made applications for Federal and State grants to participate. The City Engineer said that it would be very uneconomical and impractical to provide tertiary treatment at the present time. Extending sewer outfall to deep waters of the Bay would involve tremendous cost. He added that Millbrae and Burlingame are going to combine systems to pump effluent to South San Francisco with the approval of the State Water Control Board. The City Engineer spoke to a statement in the report, "The City should protect the creeks flowing through private and public lands by regulation and acquisition of easements where necessary." He said that if the City acquired easements on every one of these creeks, it would be a tremendous burden on the taxpayers to maintain them. Those that are on private property are now maintained by the owners. The City, of course, does maintain creeks where they cross public land. City Planner Swan commended the Conservation Element for its attempts at limiting the liability of the City for development that occurs at the wrong place and at the wrong time. He noted the recommendation that existing areas and structures be protected from deterioration, but commented that the conservation of old buildings is difficult without property owners' cooperation; and is particularly difficult in the industrial areas. He spoke positively of cooperation with BCDC and in support of working out a special area plan that would outline land uses within a large area. City Engineer Marr again raised the question of exactly what is meant by the rehabilitation of the creek system. Mr. Spangle replied that the type of easement suggested was not a storm drain easement but a conservation easement that would control what the private owner could do along the creek, preventing changes in the natural bank of the creek that could adversely affect the downstream property. The City Engineer commented that the City already exercises some control, especially in the matter of structures built on storm channels. No one is allowed to interfere with the normal natural flow of an open channel. The Chair questioned Mr. Spangle if he wished to comment on Mr. Keyston's presenta- tion. Regarding incompatible development, Mr. Spangle stated that he thought there had been two trends going on along the Bayfront up to the present. There has been incompatible development. He thought that Mr. Keyston was considering the part that has not been built. He stated that Mr. Keyston's remarks about shellfish were substantially correct. There has been a reduction in pollution and some of the fishery has begun to reestablish itself. However, it is not yet absolutely certain. The City Engineer stated that repair of erosion in hill areas had been recommended in the report, and that this erosion has occurred entirely on private property, which is not the City's legal responsibility. He commented the City can give advice on this but cannot make the property owners follow it. Commissioner Taylor commented he was interested in Mr. Keyston's remarks; however, he was not sure that conservation and growth are inconsistent with each other. He was sure that without a Conservation Element building and growth defeat the purpose of living in Burlingame. He thought the City must consider and adopt something that will meet the needs of the community as a whole, and he generally approved of the objectives. However, he found the report quite detailed and felt it deserved much further study. He thought the remedial work program is a conclusion which should be supported by some evidence. He also remarked regarding statement about pollution of the Bay, he had heard nothing that supported this conclusion. He thought some findings or evidence should be made on the facts reported in this Element which could be incorporated, and then the Element could be adopted. Chairman Kindig questioned the City Planner on the timetable for adoption of this report. City Planner Swan reported that the Government code requires it be adopted by June 30. He suggested that if the item were adjourned for hearing on June 11, the Conservation Element could be revised, and the Council still could consider it in June. Commissioner Sine liked part of the concept of the Element, but had some positive and negative reactions, and wished to give it more thought before voting. He approved of the hearing at the study meeting in June. The City Attorney was questioned about the deadline and stated that if the law was not changed, action would have to be taken on June 11. Commissioner Mink requested the City Attorney to review and advise if some of the wording should be modified, particularly with regard to the objectives of local government to fulfill the wishes of the government and maintain the rights of the minority. Also he wondered if it might be improper for this commission to request strong action on the part of the City Council such as acquisition of property. His general comments were that the whole trend of the document appealed to him. He complimented Mr. Spangle for his advice and hard work. Commissioner Mink also suggested that the reference to the liaison and communica- tion with other agencies was too general. However, he did think there were a number of agencies with whom the City should at least work. He noted that "collaborate" does not mean "agree with." With reference to the suggestion that sewer outfall be extended to the deep waters of the Bay, he felt that the City would be essentially in agreement, whether single or in efforts with other cities. He agreed with the City Engineer that primary treatment is available. - 7 - On Page 20 he thought the statement "Negotiate for the full title of parcels not yet developed" was redundant. He also commented he would like to see the City exercise as much power as it has to encourage architectural guidelines. Chairman Kindig agreed with Commissioner Mink with regard to cooperating with various agencies and thought the word "all" was too comprehensive. City Attorney Karmel, speaking as a member of the Planning Commission, stated he would like to see the Conservation Element be restrictive with regard to geologic hazards in view of the fact that there is a state mandated seismic element to be considered in the future. Commissioner Mink remarked about Paragraph 610 (c) "Areas of change where prospects of additional development threaten the natural resources;" stating he did not find this objectionable because we have the EIR process for this purpose. Commissioner Taylor questioned Item (f) Page 8 "In order to conserve the ecosystem, the City should restore unduly disturbed areas within its jurisdiction to a more natural condition", feeling if you took this statement to its conclusion, the entire city could be torn down. He asked what it was intended to suggest. Mr. Spangle replied that the main focus of this suggestion was on the Bay and shores and some of the as yet undeveloped areas, including some hillside areas. Commissioner Mink commented this is one of the points he hoped the City Attorney would look at with regard to the will of the majority and the rights of the minority. He suggested as a possible modification restore unduly disturbed public lands within its jurisdiction." Chairman Kindig declared that public hearing on this element would be held at the adjourned meeting of June 11, 1973. Recess was declared at 9:40 p.m. Meeting reconvened at 9:50 p.m. HEARINGS ON APPLICATIONS 3.- HEARING FOR MAKING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, EIR-17P, ON RECLASSI- FICATION FROM R-1 TO R-3A OF LOTS 2 - 6 INCLUSIVE IN BLOCK 23, TOWN OF BURLINGAME: RESOLUTION NO. 2-73 MAKING EIR-17P. 4. RECLASSIFICATION OF LOTS 2-6 INCLUSIVE IN BLACK 23, SUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 22 AND 24 AND RESUBDIVISION OF BLOCK 23, TOWN OF BURLINGAME FROM A FIRST RESIDENTIAL (R-1) DISTRICT TO A THIRD RESIDENTIAL (LOW DENSITY MULTI -FAMILY DWELLINGS) (R-3A) DISTRICT: RESOLUTION 3-73 ADOPTING FINDINGS AND MAKING RECOMMENDATION. Chairman Kindig announced receipt of a petition signed by many residents of the area protesting this reclassification. City Planner Swan reminded the Commission that the draft EIR had not been noticed in time for the April 23 meeting and was scheduled for hearing at this meeting of May 30 as well as the reclassification itself. He stated the facts are still as presented in the EIR. City Attorney Karmel agreed that there was a motion at the April 23 meeting directing the staff to prepare a resolution and findings. There has been no action since. Commissioner Taylor questioned if the EIR could be adopted but the reclassi- fication itself rejected. The City Attorney confirmed that this was correct. It was brought out that the Planning Commission does not itself reclassify property but can recommend to the Council that the reclassification be adopted or not adopted. Chairman Kindig requested audience comments on EIR-17P. There were none, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine requested permission to question the applicant. This was granted, and he asked Mr. Richardson how long ago he had purchased the property and for what purpose. Mr. Richardson stated he had bought the property 4;� years ago, not for income property but for a residence. He lived there for a year or so. However, it is now rented. Commissioner Sine asked if he was the person who had circulated the petition for reclassification, and after Mr. Richardson agreed, the Commissioner stated he had talked to the tenant, who apparently knew nothing of it. Mr. Richardson --disagreed, stating the tenant does know. Commissioner Sine then questioned if the buildings at 105, 109 and 115 were built before building permits were required. The City Planner stated they did have building permits, their date and number are on file. Commissioner Sine then established that these apartments had been built before zoning for apartments was in effect, and he felt that reclassifying at the moment would not be wise because the City does not have revised parking requirements. To him, it seemed merely an opportunity for the applicant to do some redeveloping and rezoning; and by reclassifying the City would be condoning the two non- conforming properties. He stated he was opposed to any assessment of property owners in the area for undergrounding. If this area is to be redeveloped, then the entire area from Burlingame Avenue to Peninsula, and Arundel Road to Dwight Road should be included. In this case, he thought an assessment of $2,000 per dwelling unit should be set up and the entire area rezoned. The Chairman reaffirmed that voting on the EIR did not limit the action on the reclassification. There was some discussion as to which should be considered first, the EIR or the reclassification. Commissioner Cistulli felt that if the reclassification was denied then the EIR would not have to be processed. City Attorney Karmel said the environmental act states in essence that no approval of a project may be undertaken by the hearing body until it has first made an EIR. Under this act, a rezoning is a project. By the terms of the act the Planning Commission must first act on the EIR and second on the appli- cation to rezone. The Planning Commission now has a resolution before it. Commissioner Mink moved the adoption of Resolution 2-73 making EIR-17P. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion, and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, JACOBS, MINK, NORBERG, TAYLOR, KINDIG HAYES: COMMISSIONERS: SINE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Commissioner Sine moved that the request for reclassification of Lots 2-6 inclusive in Block 23, Subdivision of Block 22 and 24 and Resubdivision of Block 23, Town of Burlingame be denied. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion. City Attorney commented that he had summarized the procedure; he thought it would be proper to have the resolution introduced and then voted on. The point is that the resolution as prepared for the Commission calls for an approval of the application, but conditional upon rectifying the water system. If this resolution as prepared does not satisfy the Planning Commission, they must direct preparation of another resolution, and the action on that resolution would take place at a future date. Commissioner Sine withdrew his motion. Commissioner Jacobs moved the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 3-73 Adopting Findings and Making Recommendation on Reclassification of Lots 2-6. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. Commissioner Mink inquired about change in Paragraph 4 of the findings to "Fire department recommends a water flow of 3,000 gallons per minute ." The City Planner stated the findings had been changed to conform to this. The motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS, MINK, NORBERG, TAYLOR, KINDIG HAYES COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, SINE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE The City Planner commented that this is a resolution and recommendation to the City Council. They must schedule a hearing on the reclassification. 6a. SIGN PERMIT FOR BUBBLE MACHINE The Chairman requested the City Planner to explain this item. City Planner Swan reported that this application was received late in the week to be considered in conjunction with the EIR and permit for the Bubble Machine. This is a 3-faced sign 7 x 10 on each face. - 10 - The Chairman noted that the Commission liked to have signs considered separately if they do not comply with the code. The City Planner stated that if the Commission desired there could be an additional application for the sign. There is no fee for the sign permit, but there is a fee for an EIR for the sign. A second EIR for the sign seems to be superfluous. Commissioner Mink commented that inasmuch as there was an EIR on the project, he thought the Commission could include the sign as part of the project, and requested another addendum to the EIR. Commissioner Taylor stated he had no objection to introducing the sign as an amendment to the EIR, but he would expect the sign to be a separate item on the agenda. The Commission agreed that the sign should be considered separately. 7. SIGN PERMITS FOR TWO SIGNS MORE THAN 32 SQUARE FEET IN AREA TO IDENTIFY GOULD INC. AT 1633 ADRIAN ROAD IN AN M-1 DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ACME-WILEY CORPORATION Chairman Kindig introduced this item for hearing. Secretary Jacobs read letter of April 30, 1973 from Gould Inc. and letter of May 16, 1973 from Acme -Wiley Corporation regarding these signs. Mr. Bob Youssi, representing Acme -Wiley was given permission to address the Commission. He noted he had brought a $200.00 check for the EIR, and was in a position to answer the questions raised at the previous Commission study meeting. He produced a plastic model of the large sign, and referred to the question of how much light it emitted. The only light which comes out from the sign will be from the white areas on the side which is one foot wide. The sign is made of "plexan." He explained that meter reading at point blank range is 50 foot candles, pro- gressing at different ranges down to 5' which is two foot candles and 12, at which the meter did not register. He noted this is evidence the sign emits a very soft light. He produced plot plans of the area with locations of different signs and produced a photographic survey of the area. One photo displayed the sign superimposed on the area where it will be located. He displayed architect's drawings of the sign. Mr. Youssi quoted William Spangle's "Guidelines for Sign Review", "Visual over- load occurs when the viewer is presented with more items than his eye'can see or his mind can process." He stated this sign does not give off much light. The sign is not an advertising sign, it is for identification. He commented that just because a sign is large does not mean it is not eye appealing; and added that because this area is zoned M-1 and there are going to be other large signs, this sign would be in character. Mr. Youssi stated that Mr. Olsen, owner of the building, was present at the meeting, and he and Mr. Olsen would be glad to answer questions. Commissioner Taylor asked what type of business Gould conducted and the purpose of the building. Mr. Youssi informed him that Gould is involved in electronics manufacturing, automotive parts, electric motors, etc. and does work for such organizations as NASA. The building will be used mainly for a warehouse. Commissioner Sine expressed his displeasure with the tenor of a paragraph in the letter from Gould, which he interpreted to mean they demanded that this permit be approved. He did not consider Acme-Wiley's apology for this misunderstanding to be acceptable. He noted there was no representative of Gould present, although he had requested this. He objected that the sign on the plan was 36' high, even though it has been modified on the sketch. Commissioner Taylor questioned the EIR process on this sign. The City Planner recalled it was explained at the study meeting that, in the absence of adopted procedures for EIR's and permits for signs, the City could ask for graphic communication of the visual impact of a sign from 500 feet away. This could be backed by a written report or other presentation. Acme -Wiley has chosen to superimpose the proposed sign on photographs. He commented that the sign ordinance does permit a sign like this except the sign permit from Planning Commission for signs more than 32 square feet in face area. When the applicant first inquired, they were told that the height limit was 35'. Based on that, the sign had been modified to conform to regulations. Commissioner Mink inquired about the length of the lease and was told it was for 12 years. He commented favorably on the applicant's presentation. Mr. Olsen told the Commission there was no representative from Gould present because the company is in Chicago and the local manager, having appointments he could not change, had asked Mr. Olsen to represent him. Commissioner Sine suggested that this application be continued to the adjourned meeting, since no Gould representative was here. Chairman Kindig stated that unless there were questions that could not be answered at this meeting, he would prefer to proceed with the hearing. Commissioner Sine disagreed, because Gould had chosen to ignore the Planning Commission's request. In the discussion which followed, it was established that the height of the sign would be 34'11"; that the two directional signs would be of the same plastic material. Acme -Wiley has a contract with Gould to develop this type of sign in all their locations, the standard height being basically 361. Height and bulk are modified somewhat where possible to meet regulations of the various cities, although design of sign is lost if scaled down too far. Commissioner Sine still felt there was insufficient cooperation from the applicant and moved this application be continued to the study meeting date. There was no second. Commissioner Mink stated that there seemed to be no requests for modifications of the sign and he moved the sign permit be approved and the signs be built according to plans and specifications in the EIR report. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: - 12 - AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CISTULLI, JACOBS, MINK, NORBERG, TAYLOR, KINDIG NOES: COMMISSIONERS: SINE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE 8. SIGN PERMIT FOR A 5' x 12' GROUND SIGN TO IDENTIFY NOTHERN CALIFORNIA SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION AT 1430 CHAPIN AVENUE IN A C-1 DISTRICT Chairman Kindig announced consideration of this application. Secretary Jacobs read letter of May 8, 1973, from William A. Patrick, architect, detailing the proposed sign and giving an evaluation of its environmental impact. City Planner Swan distributed plans of the sign. Both Mr. Patrick and Mr. Jack Middaugh, Vice-president of Northern California Savings were present. The Chair requested audience comments. There were none and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine was interested in the marble base of the sign. Mr. Patrick noted this was Florentine marble and elaborated further on the sign which he described as being low-keyed and designed to be in proportion to the building. The subdued illumination would amount to approximately 500 watts over an area of 60 square feet. Mr. Sine commended Mr. Middaugh on his presence at the meeting and stated he had no objection to this sign. Commissioner Norberg objected to both the size of the sign and its location, which is one foot from the front property line. The architect stated they would not object to a slightly smaller sign but protested any other location of the sign because that would damage the land- scaping plan and eliminate a parking space. Also the bank is next to a driveway and the adjacent property will be developed. Changing the location of the sign would throw the frontage out of proportion. Commissioner Norberg protested that the sign jammed in this location would not add to the appearance of the building; and since there were already 19 parking spaces, the loss of one was not important. Commissioner Taylor agreed that the sign should be smaller, and the architect indicated they could reduce it to 50 square feet. Commissioner Mink asked if this would require redesign of the base. The architect replied only a small change would be necessary. After some further discussion Commissioner Mink moved that permit be granted for this sign, general properties to be consistent with those in drawings submitted May 30, the base of the sign to be the same material as the facing of the building, and the appropriate drawings to be submitted to the City Planner before issuance of the building permit. Commissioner Cistulli seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: - 14 - on billboards and signs. The fee is $40.00 per year which would come out of the Planning Department budget. However, he did not feel membership in this organization was necessary. Commissioner Sine brought up the subject of a sandblasting ordinance which is lacking in the city code. The City Attorney stated that since this is not a land use it is not really related to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Sine thought the staff should initiate such an ordinance. The City Engineer suggested that this be referred to the Building Inspector for a report on how he handles the matter. The Chair requested him to refer and report back at the study meeting. �. • 1: Flu DIkN- The meeting adjourned at 11:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Malcolm M. Jacobs Secretary.