Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1974.06.24THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION June 24, 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 ORDER 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 May 29, 1974 were approved and adopted with correction of line 6, Page 4, "corrected closure calculations" instead of "correct proposal calculations." The minutes of the study meeting of June 10, 1974 were approved and adopted with correction of title of Item 16 showing "sign variance" instead of "sign permit." CODE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25 ZONING Chairman Mink opened.consideration of this item which covers seven code amendments and EIR for them. These he enumerated as: 1. ADD SEC. 25.74.025 LAPSE OF SPECIAL PERMIT TO PHASE OUT NONUSE OF GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS. 2. CHANGE SEC. 25.24.010 AMOUNT AND DISPOSITION OF FEES TO SPECIFY "FEES SHALL BE FIXED BY 1ESOWTION OF , CITY COUNCIL.- 3. OUNCIL."3. ADD NEW DEFINITION UNDER SEC. 25.08.265 FLOOR AREA RATIO 4. CHANGE SEC. 25.36.070 C-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS TO REDUCE PERMITTED FLOOR AREA RATIO FROM 3.6 TO 3.0. 5. ADD NEW IffT .,EaMa COMMERCIAL C-4 DISTRICT REGULATIONS 8 SEC. .25.41.025 CONDITIONAL USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL PERMIT (b) SEC-. 25.41.090 HEIGHT AND BULK; -OF -BUILDINGS 6. ADD TO C-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS SEC. 25.36.040 :PROHIBITED USES 3. ROOF SIGNS 7. ADD TO M-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS SEC. 25.42.040 PROHIBITED USES f. ROOF SIGNS 8. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPS REPORT, EIR 29-P, LEGALLY ADVERTISED AND POSTED JUNE 14, FOR PROPOSED CODE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25 ZONING. Upon advice of the City Attorney it was deemed appropriate to consider first Item 8, EIR-29P, for evaluation and direction to staff for preparation of formal resolution. Discussion of individual code amendments would then follow. - 2 - There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment on EIR 29-P. He announced there would be further opportunity for comment after Commission discussion. Commissioner Kindig stated he had reviewed the document and had no questions. Commissioner Sine felt his questions regarding the EIR had been resolved at the study meeting. Commissioner Taylor questioned the sentence under "Evaluation of Environmental Impact" which states, "This proposed code amendment project is speculative." He commented he thought code amendments would be definite rather than speculative and questioned if the City Planner meant the impact of the amendments would be speculative. The City Planner explained that the entire EIR is treated as one project to incorporate all code amendments. Since it is this type of EIR,there is no project directly affected. H©sww, there will be subsequent -projects on which the code amendments would have secondary effects. He agreed that in this sense the impact of the code amendments could.be considered speculative. Commissioner Taylor commended the careful and thorough preparation of this document. City Planner Swan reported a change in the definition of FAR (Section 25.08.265) had been.su#"sted by Anza Pacific with relation to underground garages. Anza requests that underground garages be excluded from calculation of FAR, suggesting, "Excluded from consideration are any underground garages which are constructed entirely in accor- dance with Section 25.62.080 of the City Zoning Ordinance." According to the City Planner, the rewording then should be, "excluded from consideration are any underground garage's which are constructed entirely in accordance with and subject to the regulations of Section 25.62.08 of this code." The Planner compared the underground garage within a setback area, which must have a landscaped surface, with a parking structure deck which does not have landscaping. The requirements for an underground garage, subject to review in this section, are that the surface shall be suitably landscaped and the uppermost surface shall not extend above natural grade. He contended that a covered parking area not within a yard and extending above the curb line was then a structure and subject to FAR, the same as a parking structure. Mr. David. Keyston of Anza Pacific was then accorded the courtesy of the floor. He reminded the Commission that a FAR of 3.0 had at first been considered for the Anza Master Plan, but Anza had cut this down to 2.0, hoping that underground garages would not be included, since in many cases, because of the water level, it is not practical to lower their lower level. He felt they were being penalized with the inclusion of underground garages in this new ratio. He considered it counterproductive planning to discourage a developer in placing as much parking as possible underground. Commissioner Taylor requested clarification, stating the Commission had control of underground garages which extend into the setback. In answer, the City Planner explained that only the parking structure - 3 - which extends to the property line is subject to review as an under- ground garage in the setback area. The underground garage must have landscaping on the surface. In contrast, a parking structure can have autos parked on the top. There might be no side yard between projects, and no landscaped area. Mr. Keyston replied his concern was not the landscaping or the yards but the FAR, and suggested raising it to 2.25 which would satisfy his requirements. He stated an ordinance was being considered which would make his project subject to variance. Justification is required for a variance. Commissioner Jacobs questioned what percentage of his project would be affected. Mr. Keyston stated virtually all; he claimed his parking structures presented no more visual impact than the mounding for the parking area on the Woodruff building which the Commission approved. At this point, the .Chairman reminded Mr. Keyston that only a definition of FAR was being considered on this item. Mr. Keyston stated he was suggesting changing either the definition or the FAR. Commissioner Kindig was not concerned with including the underground garages with landscaping in the FAR, but thought the decked parking structures definitely should be included. Chairman Mink restated the item being considered - a definition of FAR, which he read. Commissioner Taylor thought it must be considered in conjunction with C-4 regulations. However, the consensus of the Commission was that the definition was correct. Chairman Mink announced consideration of Item 5, New Waterfront Commercial District Regulations. City Planner Swan, stating the FAR of 2.0 was arbitrary, suggested a FAR of 2.2 or 2.3 be considered with re-evaluation after a year or two. Mr. Keyston suggested landscaping above 15% as an alternative to in- cluding underground garages in the FAR, or raising the FAR to 2.3 with restudy. Mr. Keyston protested the uncertainty of height calculations based on average grade, again bringing up the difficulty of underground construction in this tidal area. Chairman Mink presented the concept of variance supported by the idea of public hardship - the necessity of obtaining open space and land- scaping. He preferred a FAR of 2.0 with appropriate variances and restudy of the factor. Commissioner Taylor commented this project contemplates a ten-year completion, and restudy by a subsequent planning commission might not be equitable. Commissioner Sine thought the developer had been more than cooperative in minimizing multi -story parking for this project. He preferred a higher FAR with restudy at the end of one year. Mr. Keyston requested clarification on calculation of average grade, - 4 - noting its significance in calculations of FAR. The City Planner quoted, "Average curb line -grade shall be measured by taking the average of the curb grade at the lot lines, the building lines and at each one hundred feet of building frontage." Chairman Mink invited Commission discussion on balance of EIR items. David Keyston referenced Agenda item, "Revision of :Roof Sign Ordinance." He suggested changing "Any building" to "main building" in the definition of roof sign, "A roof sign means . . any sign erected or constructsClupon or over the roof or parapet wall of any building, including the roof of any porch, walkway covering, or similar covering structure, and supported by or connected to the building or roof." He stated some buildings proposed for Beach Road are attached to each other.. By the prior definition, some signage could be considered as roof signs, when actually it is not. There followed Commission discussion of.definition. City Planner Swan commented this particular definition was included in the EIR for Title 25 for the purpose of elimination of roof signs, and the definition is subject to amendment. He suggested revising the EIR to read, "the proposed definition," then there would be no conflict with the sign title revisions. Chairman Mink agreed, directing that "proposed definition" be shown on Page 12 of the EIR. Chairman Mink again requested audience comment on this EIR. There was none. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Jacobs moved the adoption of EIR-29P for Proposed Code Amendments to Title 25, Zoning, and Code Amendments I through 7 therein. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. Staff was directed by Chairman Mink to prepare findings and resolutions recommending the code amendments for consideration by Council. INTRODUCTION At this point in the meeting, Chairman Mink introduced Mr. John Yost, new Assistant City Planner. 9. FINAL MAP, FLORIBUNDA VILLAS, A CONDOMINIUM, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF A PORTION OF LATS 11 AND 12 IN BLACK 9, AS SHOWN ON MAP ENTITLED MAP NO. 2 OF THE PROPERTY OF THE BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY BY WILLIAM A BARTLETT FOR ZAUDER BROS., PARTNERSHIP -OWNERS. Chairman Mink requested comment from the City Engineer on this map. City Engineer Davidson replied that the map was in substantial conformance with the tentative map, that all technical requirements had been met, and he would recommend its approval. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Kindig established that the street address of this property is 1427 Floribunda. - 5 - Commissioner Sine moved that the resubdivision final map for this property be approved. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion, and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 10. FINAL MAP, THE BURLINGAME. A CONDOMINIUM, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 2B, 2C, 3A, 3B AND 3D, BLOCK 3 OF SUPPLEMENTARY MAP NO. 1 TO SUPPLEMENTARY MAP TO MAP NO. 1 OF TOWN OF BURLINGAME BY R. M. GALLOWAY & ASSOCIATES FOR BURLINGAME CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATES. Upon the Chair's request for a report on this map, City Engineer Davidson replied that this is a final condominium map and it is in accordance with the tentative map approved by Commission and Council. Technical information which must still be submitted is: owner's certificate, engineer's certificate, title guarantee or proof of ownership, and evidence of paid taxes. He stated that with this documentation as a condition, and with its approval by the City Attorney, he would recommend approval of the map. He suggested the relocation of the driveway further south so that a 10" sycamore on the frontage could be preserved, commenting this also was the recommendation of the Director of Parks. Chairman Mink questioned the propriety of conditioning the approval of this map. The City Attorney commented that these are merely technical requirements and the map will not be approved by the City Council until the project is completed. He indicated conditional Commission approval would be satisfactory. However, he questioned why the relocation of the driveway would apply to this subdivision map. The City Engineer replied he had required a contour map for grading and a street tree program, both requirements of the subdivision ordinance; and he did not wish to infer approval of the driveway which would eliminate a street tree. Chairman Mink requested audience comment. There was none. The public meeting was declared closed. Commissioner Sine moved the Commission approve this final map for the Burlingame, a condominium, subject to submittal of owner's certificate, engineer's certificate, title guarantee or proof of ownership and evidence of paid taxes. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,KINDIG,NORBERG,SINE,TAYLOR,MINK NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS 11. VARIANCE FROM SETBACK REGULATIONS TO ALLOW PORTICO FOR THE BURLINGANE AT 33 PARK ROAD, ZONED R-3, BY BURLINGAME CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATNS t ND -39P POSTED 6/13/74) Secretary Jacobs read letter of June 14, 1974 from Morris, Lohrbach and Associates requesting variance for this portico, which is to provide a visual and architectural tie with the trellis paralleling Park Road. It also provides for a covered entry way. Plans were distributed. Secretary Jacobs then read letter of June 24, 1974 from Park Director John Hoffman recommending the southerly driveway on Park Road be relocated to save the existing sycamore trees. Mr. David A. Kaech, Associate Architect for Morris, Lohrbach & Associates was invited by the Chair to address the Commission. He told the Commission it was the intention to either move the one sycamore tree or replace it with a tree of like quality. There presently exist two magnolias and two sycamores on the frontage. The other three trees will not be affected. In response to various Commission questions, Mr. Keech stated the portico would have a solid toof and the round light globes in the entrance way would be made of a white plexiglas material. He stated there was an error in the application letter which stated that the property line was 246" from the sidewalk. The actual distance is about 2.80. He stated the light fixture would be approximately 10' from the ground. The bottom of the beam sombers would be 12' at least. Commissioner Sine corrected the height of the light fixture, stating. it scaled out at 716" from the sidewalk and suggesting it be raised. Mr. Kaech agreed to this. Commissioner-Norberg questioned the finish of the soffit. Upon being informed it was 3 x 6 tongue and groove, he suggested a plywood panel instead for better appearance. The City Planner showed slides of the Park Road frontage at present, commaenting the portico would be hidden by the street trees. If any are removed, it would change the picture. He stated that the project plan does not show the dttveway in the same location as the engineers' plan. Mr. Kaech reported the driveway had been relocated to the south to provide an easier turn -away from the portico. He added that his Civil Engineer present confirmed that a relocation of 5' to the south would save the tree. There were no audience comments in response to the Chair's request, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the width of the driveway. This is shown as 129. City Planner Swan noted that a two land driveway was not necessary between the trees since only one car would be exiting at a time. Commissioner Sine preferred that the developer remove the existing trees and replace them with comparable ones. He thought the present trees were not too large and not very clean. Commissioner Kindig thought it important that there be trees, of whatever type. Chairman Mink thought it unfortunate that virtually the whole frontage of this project would be paved with the 12' driveway extending the full length of the lot. Commissioner Taylor moved the application for variance from setback regulations to allow portico for the Burlingame be approved. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYESt COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,KINDIG,SINE,TAYLOR,MINK NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,NORBERG - 7 - 12. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FIELD ENGINEERING TRAINING FACILITY IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1525 ROLLINS ROAD BY HOLVICK DEREGT & KOERING (ND -40P POSTED 6/13/74) Chairman Mink announced this item for consideration, stating that Negative Declaration for the project had been posted. Secretary Jacobs read letter of June 21, 1974 from Mr. Tevis Martin, of Dooley, Martin, Anderson & Pardini, on behalf of his clients, Lorraine and Mildred Martin, who had recently purchased the property. He explained that his clients did not receive notification of the proposed project which is adjacent to their property, but learned of it from surrounding landowners. He went on to say his clients and their subtenant, Rapid Mounting and Finishing Company are concerned about the impact on off-street parking which this use will engender. He stated his clients are also concerned since ingress and egress for off-street parking for the applicant is over property owned by them and adjacent property owners, and he requested continuance of this hearing in order for all concerned to review the provisions of the easement. City Planner Swan explained that notification of property owners is accomplished by reference to assessors maps. In this case, a parcel number had been changed by the County Assessor's Office, the City Clerk's office had not been notified of the change, and therefore the correct owner was not notified. Chairman Mink requested comment from Mr. H. R. Fielden, representative of the applicant. Mr. Fielden stated that his company would be glad to confer with surrounding property holders regarding the easement, even though the documents which create the easement go back to 1960. He was agreeable to a short continuance of this hearing, and further stated he would communicate with Mr. Martin to set up a meeting for discussion of this easement, for which he felt he had qualified documentation. He agreed to include in this meeting Mr. Walter Roosli, Rapid Mounting and Finishing Company; and Mr. Joseph Todd, Lee's Carpeting. Chairman Mink announced this application would be heard at an adjourned meeting of the Planning Commission at 7:30 P.M., July 8, 1974. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTO REPAIR ESTABLISHMENT IN NONCONFORMING BUILDING IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1047 BROADWAY BY DOUGLAS BRASS, OWNER DON TATEOSIAN (ND -41P POSTED 6/13/74) Chairman Mink announced this application for hearing. Secretary Jacobs read letter of June 10, 1974 from Mr. Tateosian, consenting as owner to this application for this use of his property. Mr. Tate was present to represent Mr. Brass. City Planner Swan showed slides of this establishment on both sides. He commented on the intrusion of the building drive and parking area on the sidewalk facing Carolan and noted the discomfort to pedestrians. Mr. Tate had no comment. Secretary Jacobs read memorandum dated June 21, 1974 from Fire Inspector Howard Pearson. This stated that the proposed use of auto repair would constitute a change of use from a storage garage where no repair was done, and inflammable materials were not used. The proposed use would require a four-hour fire wall because it is more hazardous. Secretary Jacobs also read letter dated June 14, 1974 from Dr. A. H. Gaffin,.Burlingame Animal Hospital, adjoining this property. Dr. Gaffin protested the already congested traffic on Broadway and the fact that the Tateosian property does not have adequate parking for its customers. He stated previous customers had parked on his own property, interfering with his facility. Chairman Mink requested audience comment. There was no response and the public hearing was declared closed. In response to several questions, Commissioner Taylor was informed that probably the overhang does extend over City property, and the area in front of the building has curb and gutter and a flat valley gutter for access. Commissioner Sine questioned the fact that the signage was still up. The City Planner stated the signs are to be declared obsolete, then their removal is the responsibility of the Building Inspector. Commissioner Sine questioned if the applicant had investigated the cost of a four-hour fire wall. Mr. Tate replied that the cost would appear prohibitive for this 100' wall, and stated when application was originally made it was not thought the use would. be significantly different. Now he flit the firewall would be too costly, and requested this item be dropped from the agenda. The Chair formally noted this item as dropped from the meeting agenda. 14. SIGN VARIANCE FOR NEW COPY ON 37 FOOT HIGH, 275 SF POLE SIGN AT 895 STANTON ROAD FOR GERRAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS. Commissioner Mink armounced that members of the Commission had received copies of this application and copies of minutes from the December 28, 1961 Planning Commission meeting when the original sign was approved for Facit. He noted the minutes show this sign as being 42.6" tall. Plans for the sign were distributed. Mr. Morris Finch, president of General Business Systems, was accorded the privilege of the floor. He stated his company is a distributor for Norelco. They have entered into an agreement to purchase the land and buildings which they are currently occupying. They propose to repaint the existing sign, changing copy for identification, color, and reducing the illuminated area. He displayed a colored rendering of this blue and white sign, and pointed out where the illumination would be lessened. There was no response to request for audience comment. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine questioned why the sign had not been removed. City Planner Swan explained that written notification to remove an obsolete sign within 30 days must be given to.the owner before the building inspector is authorized to cause removal of such sign. He went on to comment that earlier in the meeting prohibition of all MM roof signs had been discussed. This sign.is about 20' above the roof of the adjacent building. Also this sign is more than 35' high which makes it subject of a sign variance. The pole structure is covered by 8' long panels; he suggested one section be removed to reduce the sign to a reasonable height. He also suggested removal of the sign, at the end of an equitable amortization period. He did not agree with the previous planning commission decision that it is in proportion to the building, and stated a sophisticated sign ordinance would not permit this sign. He showed slides of the sign, noting its substantial visual impact on both motorists and pedestrians. Mr. Finch reported that the standard is made of continuous I-beam with sheathing on the outside and cannot easily be shortened. He claimed the cost would be prohibitive. He protested that when the agreement for purchase was consummated, it was with the understanding that the sign was legal and could be repainted for different identifi- cation. He spoke of the importance of the sign to his business; its proportion to his large building, and the tall trees which screen it from view to the south. He offered to mask the supports of the sign with shrubbery to reduce apparent height. Commissioner Sine established that he did not check with City Staff regarding the legality of the sign. Commissioner Kindig was in favor of a revised sign ordinance which would disallow signs such as this in the future, but thought this applicant should not be penalized until other large signs are also abated. Mr. Finch stated he would be the first to comply with new restrictions when they apply to everyone else. On a question from Commissioner Jacobs,. Chairman Mink stated that restrictions on pole signs would be considered by the Commission when roof sign regulations are finalized. Commissioner Taylor pointed out the code requirement that a sign must be removed when a tenant vacates. Mr. Finch replied Facit Ohdner was still in part of the building. There followed a discussion of the possibility of referring this to the City Council for an ambiguity hearing in connection with Ordinance 1000 which provides no structure shall be erected over 35' in height without special permit. Chairman Mink noted code provisions that non --conforming structures cannot be repaired without being brought to conformity, and Commissioner Taylor thought this application should be treated as a new sign. After further discussion, Mr. Finch requested the indulgence of the Commission in this matter, stating that when such signs are abated in his area, he will be among the first to comply. Commissioner Kindig moved that the sign variance be approved for new copy on pole sign at 895 Stanton Road in accordance with drawings presented, and with the understanding that the "General Business Systems" - 10 - portion was not to be illuminated. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,KINDIG,NORBERG NAYE S : COMMISSIONERS: SINE, TAYLOR, MINK 15. SIGN PERMIT FOR SIGNAGE PROGRAM FOR BELL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION AT 1841 EL. CAMINO IMAL BY AD -ART IN,C. Chairman Mink announced consideration of this application, reporting that copies of applications and drawings of signs had been received. The Chairman accorded the privilege of the floor to Mr. Gene Barbour, representative of Ad -Art. Mr.Barbour spoke to the Commission's previous dislike to the wall sign facing north on a private driveway, and showed photos illustrating that signing on both sides of the building was necessary. He pointed out that with the removal of the revolving pole sign there would be no identification for traffic moving from the north end of the parking lot. The City Planner then showed slides of the site and also of Bell Savings and Loan in San Mateo for purpose of color comparison. He advocated the same color scheme as the San Mateo office. Mr. Barbour stated the sign background of off-white and the lettering color of wine had been chosen because the building itself was not the same color as the San Mateo location, and also this color scheme tied in with that of Petrini's and other establishments on the Plaza. There followed a discussion of colors and the effect of illumination. Chairman Mink commented he would be more approving of the total signage program if the pole sign were removed immediately. Mr. Tom Newman, president of Bell Savings, told the Commission he would remove the revolving sign immediately if the balance of the signage program were approved. Commissioner Sine pointed out that if a tall building were erected across the street from the easement, it would block out the sign on that side. Mr. Barbour stated that because of the angle of the sign it could still be seen. Commissioner Sine disliked the signage in the windows. The Chairman questioned the applicant if the program would be limited to the signs submitted and the window signs would be eliminated. Mr. Barbour stated this was correct. Chairman Mink cautioned that the terms of the variance must be adhered to or it is subject to revocation. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. There followed considerable discussion on color and illumination, with Commissioner Kindig objecting to the illumination since this business will not be open at night] and Commissioner Sine considering the colors too gaudy, especially with relation to Petrini's muted sign. Chairman Mink wanted confirmation that the light background would be off white and not a bright glaring white. Mr. Barbour agreed, stating the color of the background would be suitable. Commissioner Taylor moved that this application be approved conditional upon removal of the existing pole sign within sixty days. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,NORBERG,TAYLOR,MINK NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS, KINDIG, SINE 16. SIGN PERMIT FOR 58 SF OF SIGN AREA EXCLUDING TWO SLUMPSTONE PILLARS FOR SAFEWAY STORES, INC. AT CORNER OF HOWARD AVENUE AND EL CAMI NO REAL BY AD -ART INC. Chairman Mink announced this application for hearing, commenting that the Commission had plans and a colored rendering of the sign. He invited Mr. Dick Snyder of Ad -Art to Make a presentation. Mr. Snyder produced another colored picture of the sign, and informed the Commission that Mr. Ludwig, president of Safeway Stores was also in attendance. He went on to report that this proposal is to construct one sign to replace two existing pole signs. These two signs now comprise 110 square feet of face area on -.one side only and are 18' high, whereas the sign proposed is 51' square feet and is 13' high. It is designed in answer to Commission suggestion that a previous sign planned be reduced from its 20' height. Both pole signs will be removed. Mr. Snyder thought the sign was in character architecturally with the remodeling under way, and noted -the necessity of advertising liquor since this is a new department in the store. He then detailed the material and construction of the sign. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Kindig questioned where the sign with its red letters would be in relation to the traffic light at El Camino and Howard. Mr. Snyder thought there would be no confusion with red lights since he estimated the traffic signal was 20-22• high. This was corrected by the Chairman to a height of approximately 10' from the ground to the lowest signal light. Commissioner Sine commented he had asked that Safeway present a low profile sign such as Northern California Savings, and they had not one so. He too was concerned with the red traffic light and also questioned the advertising for liquor, noting the presence of a church directly across the street. Mr.:Snyder stated that.when new stores are developed or when stores are remodeled, the liquor sign is put up and is actually very small. He noted that the whole corner is commercial and doubted if the church would object. Mr. Gary Baker, real estate department of Safeway, noted that Walgreens, also across from the church, 'has a sign advertising liquor. Mr. Ludwig commented that if the Commission would prefer a white sign, Safeway could,go to that. With regard to a "low profile", he considered that 13' is low profile in comparison with the present pole signs. Chairman Mink stated that to his understanding Safeway had requested - 12 - a signage program, and the pole signs were to come down whether or not the new corner sign was put up. Commissioner Taylor thought the sign should be mounted on a pedestal and that the liquor sign was inappropriate. Commissioner Sine wished to introduce a motion to continue so that Ad -Art could return with a low profile sign. Mr. Snyder asked direction as to what constituted a low profile sign if their 13' sign did not. Chairman Mink commented the purpose of the sign is for identification for traffic moving from the South, and Commissioner Jacobs remarked that the problem apparently is that the sign must be seen over the top of automobiles and vans. Mr. Baker added that Safeway wants the sign to be visible anticipatory to turning movements on E1 Camino. A ground sign would not be visible, hence 12' at least is necessary for height. There was some further discussion. Commissioner Sine moved that the sign permit as presented by Ad -Art Design No. 8971 dated 5/8/74 be denied. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD, JACOBS,KINDIG, SINE,MINK NAYE S: COMMISSIONERS: TAYLOR, NORBERG The applicant was informed he had the right of appeal to Council. 17. REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW RE- BUILDING A GASOLINE SERVICE. STATION AND A NEW CONVEYOR CAR WASH AT 1000 BROADWAY BY ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY Chairman Mink read letter of application dated May 10, 1974 from Mr. T.T. Clausen, real estate department, ARCO. Mr. Clausen was present at this meeting and told the Commission that ARCO had had a building permit for the past several months. However, work was held up pending results of Government regulations. This was being resolved, and ARCO expects to start construction within 30-60 days. There was little Commission comment. Commissioner Sine moved that the special permit be extended until December 31, 1974. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous.roll call vote. 18. RECOMMEND CODE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 22 SIGNS. a. REVISE DEFINITION SEC. 22.04.080 ROOF SIGN b. ADD TO SEC. 22.20.010 PROHIBITED SIGNS DESIGNATED h. ROOF SIGNS i. SIGNS ON OR ATTACHED TO ANY STRUCTURE THAT PROJECTS ABOVE THE ROOF OF A BUILDING C. ADD CHAPTER 22.64 ENFORCEMENT The Chairman questioned City Attorney Karmel as to procedure. The City Attorney reported that changes in this title did not require public.notification or hearing, and could be recommended directly to the City Council. - 13 - City Planner Swan referred Commissioners to draft of these amendments. He suggested some changes in wording, insertion of "immediately" after the first paragraph of "Amortization of existing signs" and change of longest amortization period to 8 years. He thought recommen- dation to the Council should include some suggestions on how amortization could be implemented, since the Planning Department is not obligated to enforce it. He commented that without a firm policy and commitment, there will not be much change. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the method of abatement of huge roof signs in San Francisco. There was opinion that in some cases when they were too expensive to remove, the copy was painted out. The City Planner suggested the organization of a special team to abate signs and bill the owner. There was Commission comment that owners could abate their own, and 75% of owners would be cooperative since most signs are charged off within.three years. Chairman Mink suggested the inclusion of a statement,,"This tentative change in Title 22 is submitted by the Planning Commission as one example of several much needed changes in the whole title, and if the City Council is willing to proceed with proper enforcement procedure, then the Planning Commission will be glad to change other items in this title." David Keyston suggested as definition of roof signs: "Any sign on any property that extends above the parapet roof or eaves of a sloping roof of the tallest building on the property." He stated this would be simple to define and enforce. Chairman Mink suggested adding to roof definition, " . . and supported by or connected to the roof." This would prohibit any sign being attached to the roof of a porch or covered walkway. There was further discussion of definition. Commissioner Taylor thought rewriting was necessary with relation to a wall sign extending above a porch but not above the eaves of the building. City Planner Swan stated this section would be rewritten for clarity of definition. Chairman Mink suggested this be done with the addition of a covering section stating the Planning Commission would cooperate if the Council desires and is willing to enforce this action. CORRESPONDENCE City Planner Swan read letter received June 10, 1974 from Mrs. H. Fambrini, 827 Prospect Row, San Mateo, urging that the Planning Commission take action against the large roof sign at 230 California Drive, which advertises Nevada gambling and is spotlighted at night. Chairman Mink announced receipt of Supplement #1, Anza Master Plan. PLANNER REPORT City Planner Swan announced the City Council had approved Charles Bigelow Associates as consultant on the Anza EIR. He believed the City will consider a contractual agreement with this firm and financial arrangements will be made with Anza Pacific for their share of the fee. He questioned if the Commission wished a special study meeting to meet Mr. Bigelow, and urged early Commission study on the Anza - 14 - EIR, with a possible public hearing on July 22. Mr. David Keyston was pleased with efforts at early hearing on this EIR, but reported he would be away for about six weeks and there would be no way the Council could hear it before he left. He suggested programming it for Council action in September. The City Planner commented on City information sheet of questions to be attached to the Peninsula Humane Society's census of Burlingame. This sheet includes questions on population age, vehicles in family, parking spaces, reaction to buses, etc. The City Attorney reported to the Commission on the Financial Disclosure Act, stating that the Nevada County case has been found constitutional, and the courts now say that financial disclosure statements must be filed during the month of September. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:00 M to July 8, 1974 at 7:30 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary