Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1974.07.22THE CITY OF BU RLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION July 22, 1974 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard None City Planner Swan Jacobs Asst. City Planner Yost Kindig City Engineer Davidson Mink City Attorney Karmel Norberg Sine Taylor CALL TO O RDE R A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 7:35 P.M. ROLL CALL The above named members were present. MINUTES The minutes of the regular meeting of June 24, 1974 were approved and adopted with correction of typo on Page 6, 8th paragraph, two lane driveway" instead of ". . two land driveway." The minutes of the adjourned and study meeting of July 8, 1974 were approved and adopted with correction in last paragraph, Page 9, "However, some of the Commission thought it best for Mr. Horowitz to submit designs to the Beautification Commission ." HEARINGS: CODE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25 ZONING 1. ADDENDUM TO EIR-29P ADDING SECTION 8. Chairman Mink announced consideration of this agenda item and requested comment from City Planner Swan. The City Planner reviewed procedure of an EIR being required for each code amendment. EIR-29P had covered seven previous code amendments to Title 25. Section 8, added, covers code change specifying special permits for structures exceeding 35' in height in R-3, R-4 and C-1 districts, and M-1 district with an added specification of 60% lot coverage. The addition of Section 8 simplifies the processing of all of the amendments to Title 25. He noted the EIR contained discussion and background, and after approval by the Commission could be sent to the City Council for certification. In response to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, he went on to say that if code amendments are approved by Council, all buildings in these districts exceeding these limits will come before the - 2 - Planning Commission instead of the Council for review; and that the height of 35' should not be considered a limitation but a threshold for review of structures.. Commissioner Taylor questioned the language of "use permit," considering that buildings exceeding the height would require a variance instead. The City Planner commented that this terminology is used in the ordinance code in every district, and that a variance would be considered a "use variance." Commissioner Sine questioned the language of the proposed amendments which state application would be reviewed as a conditional use requiring a "permit from the City Council." It was explained that this language of the code provides for final decision by the Council if appeal is made to Planning Commission decision. Ref. Sec. 25.16.070. For benefit of the audience Chairman Mink reiterated procedure of the EIR addendum and asked for audience comment. There was none and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine moved that Section 8 be added to EIR-29P. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it passed on unanimous voice vote. 2. ADD AS CONDITIONAL USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL PERMIT "ANY STRUCTURE THAT IS MORE THAN THIRTY-FIVE FEET (351) IN HEIGHT." a. TO C-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS SECTION 25.36.030 b. TO R-3 DISTRICT REGULATIONS SECTION 25.32.030 c. TO R-4 DISTRICT REGULATIONS SECTION 25.34.030 d. TO M-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS SECTION 25.42.030 The City Planner reviewed that the. Commission had discussed these height thresholds in previous meetings; that legal public notice had been posted, and that subsequent to the Planning Commission's study the Council had passed interim Emergency Ordinance 1013 covering these height limitations until code amendments could be proposed. He noted that during the period of this ordinance applicants would still make application for special permits to the City Council. After the code amendments have been added to Title 25, applications would be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if the code amendments could become effective before the 4 -month period of the ordinance expired. The City Planner affirmed they could, if approved, and would then replace the emergency ordinance. Chairman Mink added the emergency ordinance would be terminated 1.) after 4 months or J) after enactment of code amendments or 3.) after rejection of code amendments. The Chairman requested audience comment on the proposed amendments. Mr. Albert Kapkin, new resident of Burlingame, questioned what criteria would be used in granting special permit parking, density, etc. The Chairman reported that one criterion noted in 'the EIR was that buildings which are taller than 35' have a tendency to overburden existing services and cause liability to taxpayers. He suggested that consideration of such buildings could be augmented by reports from Police and Fire Departments.and other services which might be disrupted. - 3 - Mr. Arthur Dudley, 109 California Drive, questioned how the figure of 35' was established, since this would penalize some structures, for example those having a mansard roof. Chairman Mink replied this was an arbitrary figure to be used as a base since it has a tradition in the city. Commissioner Kindig added this figure gives the City opportunity to evaluate other factors, such as lot size and shape, type of architecture. There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine moved that the Commission add as conditional uses requiring a special permit "any structure that is more than thirty-five feet in height': to C-1 District Regulations Section 25.36.030; to R-3 District Regulations Section 25.32.030; to R-4 District Regulations Section 25.34.030; to M-1 District Regulations Section 25.42.030. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion. Commissioner Taylor questioned the relation of the interim zoning ordinance to these amendments, and did not recall that there was an actual consensus of the Commission that 35' was a suitable height. After some discussion, he stated he was opposed to a 35' height limit. The motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,KINDIG,MINK,NORBERG,SINE NAYES: ' COMMISSIONERS: TAYLOR 3. FINDINGS AND RESOLUTION TO RECOMMEND CODE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25 ZONING TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION Chairman Mink presented for the Commission's consideration Resolution No. 4-74, recommending code amendments to Title 25, zoning. He listed the specific amendments, of which seven have previously been considered by the Commission. Upon his request for audience comment, David Keyston responded. He suggested that the term "height limitation" not be used, since the base is used as a requirement for a special permit. He also repeated his objections to the FAR. In response to Commissioner Jacobs, the City Planner noted present FAR in C-1 is 3.6. The amendment will change it to 3.0. Commissioner Kindig commented that minutes of study meeting of July 8, from which Commissioner Taylor was absent, did indicate a consensus of Commission opinion on height. Commissioner Sine.moved that Resolution 4-74 be approved and recommended to the City Council for their consideration. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion, and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 4. PARCEL MAP FOR PROPERTY AT 1469 EL CAMINO REAL, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF LOTS 3,4, AND A PORTION OF LAT 2, BLOCK 50, EASTON ADDITION TO. BURLINGAME NO. 4, ZONED R-3, BY FRAHM.EDLER.. CANNI S FOR TUGGIE P ROPE RTIE S. INC . Commissioners inspected copies of this parcel map. Mr. Robert Church of Pacific Western Contractors and Mr. Jerry Clements of Frahm, Edler and Cannis were present. City Engineer Davidson reported that this final map is substantially in agreement with the tentative map. He acknowledged receipt of filing fee and stated the closure calculations were complete. He recommended this final map for the Commission's approval. Chairman Mink noted previous request by the developer that the City maintain sidewalks where they encroach on private property because of the location of the street trees. He requested confirmation from the developer that the City would be allowed to enter this private property. The developer agreed. City Attorney Karmel commented that the Planning Commission does not take final action on this matter. This is done by bonded agreement between the City Council and the developer. However, this recommendation could be made. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Taylor was concerned with the City's legal liability in maintaining private property, and questioned if a hold -harmless agreement could be executed. The City Attorney did not consider this logical if an agreement was made to maintain. He :noted such res- ponsibility is a question for the Council. Commissioner Jacobs thought the trees were an asset to the developer's property, and did not approve of City maintenance of private land. Commissioner Kindig concurred, noting, however, that the street trees should be saved because of their importance to E1 Camino. Mr. Clements suggested a division between what the City might maintain and what the developer might maintain, since there is a total length of only 30' of sidewalk that would be on private property and the balance of 137' is either all or in part on the public right of way. The City Engineer stated that by City ordinance the property owner is required to maintain sidewalk unless there is damage to it by City street trees, in which case the City is responsible. In this instance, the trees are in the right of way and no sidewalk can be laid unless they are removed. Commissioner Kindig commented his objection had been based on the developer's request for maintenance of the "parkway," and he did not object to City maintenance of the sidewalk itself. Mr. Clements stated maintenance of the parkway itself was not desired, just the maintenance of the sidewalk. Chairman Mink commented this maintenance could be included as a statement in the final map agreement. Commissioner Taylor moved this parcel map be approved subject to the completion of public improvements and their dedication and acceptance by the Council. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. - 5 - 5. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO COMBINE LOT 12 AND PORTION OF IOTS 11 AND 13, BLOCK 8, MAP NO. 2 BURLINGAME LAND Co., BEING 537 AND 541 ALMER AND 1513-15 FLORIBUNDA, ZONED R-3, BY PACIFIC WESTERN CONTRACTORS. City Engineer Davidson reported filing fee had been received on this tentative map and the map was in agreement with the City's subdivision code and the Subdivision Map Act. He recommended its acceptance. Pacific Western Contractors' representative added that the parcel map does not subdivide but assembles portions of three old lots into one. Chairman Mink requested audience comment. Mrs. Walter Shafer, 1517 Floribunda; and Mr. John McCloskey, 535 Almer Road; owners of adjoining property, were concerned that this parcel map would affect the boundaries of their lots. The legal description of the developer's parcel includes "portion of Lots 11 and 13." Since they are respective owners of the other "portions" of Lots 11 and 13, they feared encroachment. During the following discussion, it was explained to them that these "portions of" lots were the result of the subdivision of the original lots; also that this present parcel map was for the purpose of elim- inating interior lot,-; lines and does not change exterior boundaries. No property will be taken away from neighbors. The developer offered to show Mrs. Shafer and Mr. McCloskey the property lines on the site itself. The public hearing was declared closed. There followed Commission discussion during which Commissioner Francard wished clarification of the 5' extension of Lot 13 into the parcel, and Commissioner Jacobs questioned the legality of passing on a parcel map which adjoining owners question. City Engineer Davidson offered to explain maps and review title reports for the two neighbors if they would visit his office. Chairman Mink again received confirmation from the City Engineer that the parcel map met all requirements for a tentative map. Commissioner Kindig moved acceptance of the tentative parcel map. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion, and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 6. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LOT 2 OF EDWARDS INDUSTRIAL PARK OFF EDWARDS COURT, ZONED M-1, BY WM.L B. WRIGHT FOR FRANK EDWARDS CO. (APN 026-102-090) Chairman Mink announced hearing for this parcel map. Present at this hearing were Wm. B. Wright for Frank Edwards Company, Roger Lowther, Consolidated Air Freight; and Maurice Kolos, prospective owner of Parcel 3. At the invitation of the Chair, City Engineer Davidson reported that this is both a tentative and a final map, which divides up a portion of Lot 2, establishing Lots 3 and 2A. Secretary Jacobs read memo of July 18, 1974 from Chief Moorby of the Fire Department reviewing this proposal. The Chief made the following suggestions: Approved and supervised sprinkler system for the two buildings. No parking on the access easement or in turn -around. Access road should be given its own street name and building numbers. Method of guaranteeing maintenance and fire protection facilities should be approved. Mr. Wm. Wright spoke to the Fire Chief's memo. He stated the owners have indicated agreement to stipulate in the dedication there will be no parking on the easement and they will change the name as in- dicated. He added he saw.no reason why the agreement for maintenance of the easement could not also contain provisions for maintenance of water facilities. On a question from the Chair regarding the simultaneous adoption of the tentative and final map, the City Attorney stated he thought the conditions of the Fire Department would present problems in drafting an agreement. With respect to maintenance, the rule is that all owners of an easement have obligation to maintain, and the City excludes itself. However, it might be possible to work out an arrangement whereby the City could maintain and charge the property owners with liens. He added it is the practice for public works to adopt a name for easements because people tend to think they are public streets. The City Planner commented that since there is a concurrent application for special permit, it seemed that all the Commission should consider at this time is the tentative map. Mr. Wright agreed to this arrange- ment. Mr. Kolas asked if the project could be started if the tentative map were approved. The City Planner stated a variety of projects could be built on this property just the way it is, and added the Commission had a special permit for one use and the plan shows two buildings. Mr. Kolas pointed out that Parcel 2A is a warehouse for Consolidated Air Freight and Parcel 3 is a building for his company, O'Connor Rug. There will be two separate owners and the easement is for the purpose of access to Parcel 3. Mr. Wright stated they could probably have the draft of the proposed agreement for maintenance of the easement available by July 24 for inspection of the City Attorney and City Engineer. He noted a draft of agreement for dedication of easement hadalready been submitted for review of.City Attorney. The City Attorney reported that when combination of both tentative and final maps had been suggested previously, he thought there would be only the installation of the fire hydrant for consideration. When there are no public improvements it is neither_ a tentative nor a final map but a parcel map. However, with public improvements - 7 - there must be an agreement and this project has several major con- siderations. He thought procedure should be for the map to go through as tentative and come back as final. An alternative would be continue, then both tentative and final map could be completed. He noted if conditions are attached to the map, it must be done at the tentative stage. Commission discussion followed. Commissioner Taylor moved consider- ation of the map be continued to the meeting of August 26. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried on voice vote. Roger Lowther requested clarification on points to be resolved by the August 26 meeting. He noted compliance with Fire Department requests had already been established. City Engineer Davidson stated acceptable closure calculations had already been received. Still necessary are title guarantee; maintenance agreement for ingress -egress easement; and storm drain easement over Parcel 3 along the NE boundary for Parcel 2A. He noted the applicant has indicated he wishes to do that by a recorded easement between the two parcels. There would be a sewer lateral and water service which go through the private ingress -egress easement. It is not the intent of the City to maintain those. There should be a street name and street numbers for this easement, and arrangements for a fire hydrant. Police Department must be contacted with reference to parking restrictions on the easement. 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSOLIDATED AIR FREIGHT FORWARDING TERMINAL IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 75 EDWARDS COURT ON PROPOSED PARCEL 2A BY FRANK EDWARDS COMPANY Chairman Mink announced consideration of this special permit, after City Planner Swan reported it could be conditioned on approval of the map. At the Chair's request, the City Planner reviewed the application. He stated Negative Declaration had been filed, stating no EI R is required, and that a truck terminal is a conditional use allowed in M-1 District with special permit. The Environmental Assessment declares there will be site coverage of 20.6%, with a gross floor area of 17,600 square feet, 40 parking spaces. The City Planner stated that plot plans had been received July 18 which incorporated some previous suggestions of the Commission. However, he was concerned with the sharp right-angle which trucks must make off Edwards Court to enter the access road, and the fact that the office building is only 12' from the property line. This width would be minimum clearance for a truck, and if a fence were constructed in the future, there would not be room for truck passage. He also stated the permit should be approved subject to the building being sprinklered. Mr. Lowther commented that the office building and the gate had been relocated so as to allow direct access to the gasoline pump from the driveway; and that there were no plans to go behind the building in the 12' area at this point. He stated their trucks have a short turning radius and would be able to turn off Edwards Court without difficulty. He assured the Commission he was concerned about this too, and would make sure of this point. In reply to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, he stated they would have eight vehicles carrying freight, ranging from trucks with a 20' bed to a small Econoline van. He told Chairman Mink he would agree to fully sprinkler the building and to installing and maintaining landscaping as shown on the plan. He also agreed to the restriction of no parking on the private driveway. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment. Public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Kindig questioned if the parking was adequate for this building. The City Planner indicated it was. Commissioner Sine moved the special permit be granted subject to the installation of sprinkler system, installation and maintenance of landscaping, establishment of no parking restrictions on the easement, installation of gas pump according to code, and also subject to approval of tentative parcel map. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 8. SIGN PERMIT FOR AVENUE ARCADE PROJECT AT 1110 BURLINGAME AVENUE BY AD -ART _SIGN CO., INC. FOR JONATHAN HOROWITZ Chairman Mink announced consideration of this permit and called on the City Planner for report. City Planner Swan referenced his memo of 7/12/74 to the Commission which compared total signage areas of signs on frontages of Burlingame Avenue and California Drive with recommended maximum signage. This report showed that proposed signage falls within recommended limits; and that placement of signs follows recommended city standards. He displayed drawings of signs indicating size, and illustrations of color and style. The City Planner noted the main entrance sign both on California Drive and Burlingame Avenue has rust background and ivory letters, but the large sign "Avenue Arcade" on Burlingame Avenue has the colors reversed. He suggested reversing the colors of this sign to conform with the others. Secretary Jacobs read planner's report verbatim. Chairman Mink requested comment from Mr. Horowitz, who introduced Mr. Gene Barbour of Ad -art Signs for presentation of the program. Mr. Barbour described the signs in detail, noting their small percentage of area to the total building facade and giving exact percentages. He drew attention to the criteria sheet for exterior signs attached to the sign drawings and stated they would draw up a criteria for interior signs for tenants to follow. Commissioner Sine questioned what color the fascia would be, stating he did not want it a bright color. Mr. Horowitz replied it would be a color in keeping with the signs; would not be bright; and the building facade would remain its original stone color. In response to question from Commissioner Kindig, Mr. Horowitz stated the signage presented would be the total; there would be no signage in windows or elevator shaft. He stated the reversal of colors on the Avenue Arcade sign was because of the gray building =011W front which would not contrast well with a rust background. There followed Commission -discussion of sign sizes, particularly on California Drive. It was established the building color on California Drive would be cream with which the dark background of the signs would contrast. Commissioner Jacobs thought it was a good signage program, and questioned which signs would be i-TIU tiinat;.ea. Mr. Barbour could not specify exactly, indicating some tenants would not wish their signs illuminated. He stressed the fact that only the ivory letters would be illuminated, not the background. This would apply to both exterior and interior signs. The discussion moved to hours of building occupancy. Mr. Horowitz indicated hours of business would be left up to the tenants, but thought they would be no different than others on Burlingame Avenue. The restaurant necessarily would have longer hours. He did not think it necessary for the "Avenue Arcade" sign to be illuminated for the restaurant alone. The City Planner pointed out that this sign, when lit would have the rust letters illuminated, which could be quite bright. Mr. Barbour protested the color would be pleasing but stated there would be no problem in reversing colors. Chairman Mink questioned if Mr. Horowitz would accept the condition that the sign criteria attached to the drawing be a part of the action to adopt the sign program. Mr. Horowitz stated he would. 'inhere was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment, and the public hearing was declared closed. In following Commission discussion Mr. Horowitz felt he could not agree with suggested closing hours of 9:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M. for tenants, noting in particular longer hours for holiday seasons and also the restaurant hours. He stated he would have no objection to the large Avenue Arcade sign being off during late hours. Building Inspector Calwell suggested the record show that any changing of signs due to changing occupancy be referred back to the Planning Commission. Chairman Mink referred him to sign criteria which contains detailed limitations on size and construction. City Planner Swan confirmed the Chair's opinion that change of tenant's signs due to occupancy would be an administrative province. The Chair noted that change of copy in the three signs saying "Avenue Arcade" would necessi- tate referral to the Planning Commission, but all other copy is exemplary. Commissioner Jacobs moved the granting of the sign permit for the Avenue Arcade Project according to the Avenue Arcade exterior sign criteria extended to the Commission, and subject to reversal of colors on Avenue Arcade sign on Burlingame Avenue, and per two drawings submitted. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. - 10 - 9. SCHEDULE SPECIAL STUDY MEETINGS FOR ANZA MASTER PLAN EIR-28P AND SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC HEARINGS Chairman Mink reported that July 29 had been set as a special meeting to which the City Council would be invited and which would cover presentation of certain aspects of the Anza Master Plan. At this meeting.a series of public hearings would be set dealing with the EIR. City Planner Swan commented he considered that at this time a meeting could be set for August 26 since Mr. Bigelow's report is scheduled to be submitted August 21. He suggested subsequent meetings as September 23 and October 30 which would bring the EIR in-_iine for Council action in November. The Chair questioned David Keyston as to his approval. He agreed, stating that three consultants would report at the July 26 meeting. Land Use and Traffic would be considered on August 26; General Appearance, Landscaping, in September; and Local Impact in October. After some discussion, the Commission agreed tentatively to these dates. Mr. Keyston reported he would confer with staff as to which consultants would be necessary for each meeting. Chairman Mink noted letter of July 16 from Fire Chief Moorby on the Anza Project. Mr. Keyston said he had reviewed it and thought there would be no problems in compliance. He mentioned, however, with regard to fire flow, there were still tests being run, and that fire flow had been reduced on Broadway and Howard Avenue, thereby reducing the pressure on the Anza side. Chairman Mink officially set July 29 at 8:00 P.M., as a special meeting and directed staff to send a letter •ttb Council members inviting them to this meeting. 10. AMBIGUITY OF EXCEPTIONS TO IAT COVERAGE SECTION 25.66.020. REVIEW SWIMMING POOL COVER AT 1667 ESCALANTE. City Planner Swan reported receipt of complaint from neighbors of property at 1667 Escalante. He stated this property had a swimming pool over which the owner had erected a cover. He quoted municipal code which states that a swimming pool is not considered in computing lot coverage. He then presented as an ambiguity the fact that a cover or deck over the swimming pool is a structure, and questioned if it should be considered in the lot coverage. Building Inspector Calwell reported this pool cover is 14' high. He said as far as he was concerned the owner had met all requirements of building and zoning code, and added that greenhouses etc. are exempt from lot coverage. Commissioner Jacobs questioned what the lot coverage was. The Building Inspector stated that excluding the greenhouse it was about 29%. Commissioner Taylor thought this interpretation of ordinance should be referred to the City Attorney. The City Attorney replied he had not been informed of the matter prior to this meeting and did not feel qualified to give an immediate opinion. The City Planner specified that the house itself covers only 22% of the lot. The pool house would account for another 16%. The Building Inspector added that the pool cover was 14' high to accommodate a diving board. There followed some discussion during which the City Attorney gave the opinion that he did not see any legal -'-.reason why a written complaint must be filed. At this point Mr. Justin Gross of 1659 Escalante requested privilege of the floor. He then informed the Commission that he and the other neighbor who had complained had both had a discussion with the owner of the pool and wished to withdraw the complaint. This item was then removed from the agenda; however, Commissioner Kindig pointed out that this ambiguity should be clarified for future cases. Chairman Mink requested the City Planner to include this item in the agenda for the August study meeting. 11. REVIEW PUBLIC ACCESS TO SAN FRANCISCO BAY AT PROPOSED DON THE BEACHCOMBER RESTAURANT The City Planner reported to the Commission that Melba Moore Riley's property adjacent to the Fisherman had apparently been sold for "Dan the Beachcomber" restaurant. He said the restaurant seems to meet building code regulations and could probably be issued a building permit. However, he was concerned that the dedication of the 25' shoreline strip for this property be handled properly, and noted that the Fisherman still has not resolved this. Also, he commented a restaurant survey is under way. He noted a letter was written to BCDC stating this was a ministerial project. This will be scheduled for hearing by BCDC August 15. The applicant wanted indication from the City that they could get a building permit, and he said a "yes -but" letter was written. With regard to the Shoreline path, he told the Commission the property itself is only 25' wide at one point. Commission discussion followed. Commissioner Taylor recalled an earlier proposal for use of this land which proposed to fill on the 25' strip. Chairman Mink thought it important that the Commission have a report after the BCDC hearing. Commissioner Kindig moved that staff be directed to represent the City at the BCDC meeting of August 15. Commissioner Sine seconded and the motion carried by voice vote. 12. CITY COUNCIL REFERRAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN IN R-1 AND R-2 ZONING DISTRICTS Secretary Jacobs read Councilman Cusick's motion, "I move that this council refer to the Planning Commission for hearing and report pursuant to the provisions of Government Code 65356.1 an amendment of Part III of the General Plan as shown in the General Plan Studies Map so that Part III will be made identical with the present zoning code in those R-1 and R-2 Districts where Part III of the General Plan now projects a higher density than that allowed by the present zoning code." City Attorney Karmel explained that Part III of the General Plan is a map, not language. This map shows a greater density than is permitted under the zoning ordinance. For that reason, Councilman Cusick believes it is desirable to amend the General Plan so it is - 12 - identical to the zoning ordinance. After discussion it was decided to schedule this matter for the August 12 study meeting with a report from the City Attorney on the procedure necessary to change the General Plan and with material on Government Code 65356.1. City Planner Swan noted receipt of letter from Alpha Land Company explaining their reasons for abandoning the condominium project. He read in part Resolution #3674 passed by City Council which initiates a study of recreational and public land requirements. Commissioner Jacobs suggested Commission consideration of referral of some sign applications to the Beautification Commission. City Attorney Karmel stated that the only bodies which take action are the City Council and the Planning Commission. All other commissions are advisory, and he felt it improbable that the Council would open them up for action. There was some discussion of inviting the Beautification Commission to attend some meetings :for advisory purposes. It was decided to explore the matter and set up some procedure at a future meeting. ADJOURNMENT The meeting regularly adjourned at 11:20 P.M. Respectfully submitted , Ruth -E. Jacobs Secretary