Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1974.03.25THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION March 25, 1974 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT -COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard None Jacobs Kindig Mink Norberg Sine Taylor CALL TO ORDER City Planner Swan City Engineer Davidson City Attorney Karmel A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 7:30 P.M., Chairman Kindig presiding. ROLL CALL The above named members were present. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of February 25 were approved and adopted with the following corrections: Page 12, paragraph 2: "Commissioner Sine suggested the retaining wall be raised 31; the cars be roofed over with plank ." Substitute ". roofed over with pre -cast concrete tongue and groove plank ." Page 14, vote on Agenda Item 10, to be 3-2 in favor instead of unanimous. The minutes of the study meeting of March 11 were approved and adopted subject to the following comments: Commissioner Sine cited paragraph 4, page 5 as an example of too much condensation in the minutes. This paragraph, which starts, "There was discussion . . ." covered several areas in a very general way and made no mention of individual commission comment or discussion. The Commissioner stated this was true also of Agenda Items -13,17, and 19. He noted that on one item Commissioner Norberg had made several forceful comments which were not mentioned in the minutes. Commissioner Sine thought not enough attention was being given to individual comments which were germane to the subject. He disliked this sudden departure from the previous structure of the study meeting minutes and felt it represented only a conglomerate of discussion rather than important specific conversations. He thought the minutes should be edited with a view to including "Who said what." City Planner Swan explained that the Planning Department had been taking the minutes of the study meeting in an effort to relieve the burden of the City Clerk's office. As an experiment, it was decided to condense the minutes so that the salient points of the meeting were covered but with no elaboration. In his opinion a study meeting is held for the express purpose of - 2 - setting applications for public hearing, and the study minutes are not a part of the public record. Therefore, a brief notice of each item is all that is necessary. He stated that study meeting minutes are not necessary to comply with State Planning Department requirements. Commissioner Mink stated he concurred with staff opinion as long as highlights of the meeting were covered. Commissioner Taylor thought a general consensus of information should be presented to get an idea of the problems involved, but added he was not too well satisfied with the study minutes. Commissioner Jacobs agreed with Commissioner Sine, stating that the critical issues should be expanded. Commissioner Norberg thought it would be sufficient to have the minutes describe the general subject and matters included. Chairman Kindig thought it was not too important to specify who said what, and suggested the minutes be handled as previously for a few more meetings with possible commission suggestions for revision. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if the study minutes were sent to the City Council. The City Planner informed her they were not, since they are not part of a public hearing. Chairman Kindig stated he thought it the consensus of the Commission that the minutes continue as they are now prepared. 1. PARCEL MAP OF PORTION OF LANDS OF DORE CONTINUED FOR STUDY AND HEARING MARCH 25. The applicant was not present, and under this circumstance the City Planner declined specific comment. However, he reviewed that the tentative map was approved in August of 1971. Although this subdivision is for less than 5 lots, the subdivision code requires that the final map be brought back for approval within 18 months. Staff had endeavored to expedite this and resolve such matters as easement, fence, etc. He stated that to his knowledge there had been no communication between the applicant and City Attorney regarding the easement. Also minor changes in the map had not been made. He recommended it be rescheduled at a later date. Commissioner Mink moved, seconded by Commissioner Taylor that'the map be dropped from the agenda, for future hearing. Motion carried by voice vote. 2. SUBDIVISION MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM APARTMENT BUILDING AT 1477 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 25, 19741 Chairman Kindig questioned the City Planner as to new developments. City Planner Swan reported receipt of letter dated 3/18/74 from W. K. Johnson, construction superintendent for the developer. This letter was subsequently distributed to the Commission and detailed cash outlay, contracts and loan payoff of $191,733.90 incurred from beginning of construction through August 2, 1973. The City Planner went on to say that review of actual building plans indicates one of the units will conform with present requirements of 2 parking spaces for 2 -bedrooms, 1h for one bedroom, and 80% of required parking being covered spaces. For this project it would be 30 covered parking spaces. There are 22 covered spaces for 21 units. One unit could be assigned two spaces, and remaining units would have one covered space each. There are parking spaces located within the front yard, and in the - 3 - side yard which is contrary to the new code. Also, two parking spaces are tandem. This makes the matter more complicated. than a mere shortage of parking spaces. Chairman Kindig commented that the original application for an apartment was approved one year ago, and questioned when the inquiry for condominium was made. The City Planner stated this was in September after parking regulations had been changed for apartments. Therefore, this is a legal, non -conforming apartment building. Attorney David Van Atta addressed the Commission on behalf of the applicant. He took the position that in August this was a legal non -conforming apartment building. The Subdivision Map Act will convert it to a condominium. The City is therefore charged with examining its ordinances to find if any are applicable to condominiums. The question is, in the absence of any additional ordinances applicable to condominiums, would such condominium applications require additional parking. He submitted that a legal non -conforming apartment is valid for conversion to a condominium since Ordinance 990 applies to both apartments and condominiums. Chairman Kindig thought that if the subdivision application were approved, the Planning Commission would in effect be approving the insufficient parking as it presently exists. What the Planning Commission is really being asked to grant is a variance. He questioned if a variance could be granted by a subdivision action. City Attorney Karmel stated the present position of the City and Planning Commission is that the building permit was valid when it was issued and could not be revoked after substantial work was done. That being the case, he did not see what the City could say about it, in the absence of condominium regulations. He suggested the City and Council may like to consider regulations of new condominiums and conversions of existing apartments. This is neither. It is not an old building - not a conversion. The proposal is to change the structure which has been approved, not as to use or number of parking spaces but as to who is holding title. While the City might wish to consider new ordinances, these regulations are not on the books now and they were not on the -books when this apartment was filed. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if Mr. Johnson was informed of the new ordinance when it was effective, and asked for a definition of "appreciable work." The City Attorney replied that August 2 was the effective date of the ordinance. The work as outlined in Mr. Johnson's letter was by that date a substantial performance of the'work and would have prevented the City from revoking his apartment use permit. Demolition and digging the foundation hole for a new structure, not merely the drawing of plans, is substantial work. Commissioner Jacobs commented the applicant had stated this conversion was considered in June. Commissioner Taylor requested clarification from the City Attorney of Code Section 25.50.03 - "Non -Conforming uses - Change of Use" - 4 - and its applicability. City Attorney Karmel replied that this condominium does not entail a change of use, but a change of title. Chairman Kindig requested audience comment. There was no response and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine stated he had contacted the County Assessor's office regarding condominium taxes, and was informed they would be slightly higher but increase would be offset by additional clerical work involved. '•Both Chairman Kindig and Commissioner Jacobs felt this approval would represent a variance because of the parking. The City Attorney replied this was before the Commission as a condominium map - not as a zoning matter. He added an offer was made by the applicant at the last public hearing to work out with City staff at least that portion of the C.C. & R. that was relative to parking, if the application was approved. City Planner Swan clarified that the condominium subdivision would identify or describe the 21 units, and they would be bounded by the interior face of their walls. The common area would be everything else, including the parking. Without the C.C. & R. it is difficult to explain the parking assignment. Commissioner Francard questioned if it were not true then that a parking stall was sold along with each condominium. The City Attorney replied this was true in effect. The parking area is a common area owned by all of the owners. Each unit owner would be assigned a specific parking space, and would get an exclusive easement for the use of this space as part of the deed. He repeated the Commission could give approval subject to the condition that the C.C. & R. be approved by the City Planner and the City Attorney. Commissioner Taylor emphasized that this case pointed out the necessity for condominium regulation, particularly of conversions. He felt in this instance the developer was taking advantage of the City. He thought that condominium conversions blight property and make it less compatible with the code than it was before. He noted this was the second conversion in Burlingame. Commissioner Sine moved that the Commission deny the subdivision map for condominium apartment building at 1477 Floribunda Avenue. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion. It carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,NORBERG,SINE NAPES: COMMISSIONERS: MINK, TAYLOR, KINDIG The applicant was informed by Chairman Kindig that this denial could be appealed to the City Council. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT At this point, Chairman Kindig acknowledged the presence in the audience of Vice -Mayor IRving Amstrup. - 5 - 1. PARCEL MAP OF PORTION OF LANDS OF DORE CONTINUED FOR STUDY AND DARING MARCH 25 (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 25, 1974) The City Attorney informed the Commission that the representative of the applicant was now present. He had not realized the Commission's 7:30 starting time. Chairman Kindig and the Commission agreed to hear this application. Mr. Don Yarbrough, Trust Officer of Bank of America, San Mateo, advised the Commission he would be in agreement with any conditions the Planning Commission or the City Planner would require. The City Attorney stated it would be necessary to work out a dedicated easement and other conditions. He suggested it be approved conditional upon the City Planner's requirements. City Planner Swan stated that since this is a map, requirements of the Engineering Department should be met. City Engineer Davidson reported there were several engineering concerns in connection with this map and he would prefer to work it out at a staff level and then come to the Planning Commission for approval rather than having it conditioned now. Commission members agreed to this procedure and the map will be scheduled for future hearing. 3. REVIEW OF EIR-27P FOR THE BURLINGAME, A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF 23 LUXURY CONDOMINIUM APARTMENT UNITS AT 33 PARK ROAD, PREPARED BY HART KRIVATSY STUBEE FOR BADGER NATIONAL 4. RECLASSIFICATION OF LOTS 2B,3A AND 3B, BLOCK 3, TOWN OF BURLINGAME, AT 25,29 AND 33 PARK ROAD RESPECTIVELY, FROM C-1 TO R-3 BY CYRUS J, MC MILLAN AND HUGH F. CONNOLLY, 5. PERMIT FOR UNDERGROUND GARAGE FOR THE BURLINGAME Chairman Kindig announced consideration of EIR-27P. City Planner Swan referred Commissioners to PP 4 and 5 of the EIR which are property maps. He explained that the 3 lots fronting on Park Road are zoned C-1 and their rear lot lines are on the boundary separating C-1 from the two R-3 lots fronting on E1 Camino. The basic application is for a reclassification (code amendment) to change the three C-1 lots and put them into the R-3 district. The whole property would then be in R-3 and this type of development could take place. The City Planner went on to say that any code amendment requires an EIR. EIR-27P now before the Commission is an application for reclassification. An application for an underground garage also was to be considered. The project for these five lots will be termed "The Burlingame." Subsequent to the study meeting of March 11, at which time there were Commission suggestions for improvement, the developer had redesigned the building. One result of this redesign is that the garage will not extend into the front yard, and it will not be necessary to review this item. Mr. Sidney B. Badger, 800 Oak Grove Avenue, Menlo Park, addressed the Commission. He stated the garage had been reduced in size and the building size reduced.. The garage now consists of two levels immediately under the residential building. As a result there is no encroachment in any setback. Setbacks have been increased in size and the parking has been increased,by two spaces. Parking required is 46. It is now 50, 47 of which are enclosed. Building height has been lowered from 55' to 5011, lot coverage from 48% to 43.5%. As a result of the change, the redwood tree on the property will be saved. Service driveway on E1 Camino has been eliminated, giving room for more landscaping. Trees will screen the sides of the property. He thought these changes improved the plan greatly. Mr. Badger reported that Charles Eley, Architect, and Ms. Miriam Phillips, Planning Consultant, both involved in preparing the E.I.R., were present, as well as Architect Thomas Jona. City Planner Swan showed transparencies which included the site plan, the two levels of parking, and the front elevation of the building. Commissioner Jacobs questioned if the top of the parking structure would be at curb level. Mr. Badger replied that the garage would be approximately a story and a helf below grade, but the top would be slightly above grade. Commissioner Mink noted that the changes in design enumerated by Mr. Badger do not reflect in the present EIR, and questioned if this EIR could be adopted subject to the listed changes being incorporated. Mr. Badger replied this had already been discussed with Mr. Eley. They had intended to bring the EIR up to date but lack of time prevented. He stated an addendum to the EIR would be prepared incorporating these changes. Commissioner Mink commented he would be satisfied with Mr. Badger's statement that these changes will be incorporated, whether by revision or amendment. Mr. Charles Eley addressed the Commission, stating that Mr. Badger had accurately pointed out the changes made, and in his opinion they reduced the adverse effects and created no additional, adverse effects. He added he was available for questions. Chairman Kindig requested audience comment on EIR 27-P. There was none and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Sine questioned if Mr. Badger had a South and West elevation of the building. The applicant stated there had not been time to prepare these, but the west elevation would be"similar to the front. He presented a rendering of the front elevation colored to emphasize depth perception of overhang and trim. Commissioner Sine questioned the trim and was informed it could be either metal or wood. Commissioner Norberg did not like the design of the building and felt it should be given a more residential appearance. He thought it looked too commercial. Mr. Badger stated final details had not been completed, and possibly a warmer treatment could be given by the use of heavier wood members on the trim. Commissioner Jacobs questioned citizen reaction to the reclassification - 7 - notice. City Planner Swan stated notice of reclassification had been published in a newspaper and notices had been sent to all property holders within 500' radius. Response had allbem in support. Commissioner Sine added that this is an actual down -zoning from commercial to apartment zoning and reduces the present building height limitation on Park Road from. -;751 to 551. Commissioner Norberg repeated, this was still a residential district, although apartment, and he did not like the design. Commissioner Francard questioned if curb would be put back in the existing curb cuts on E1 Camino. City Engineer Davidson replied this would be an engineering requirement. , Commissioner Mink moved that EIR 27-P prepared for Badger National by Hart,Krivatsy Stubee be accepted as the EIR for the City of Burlingame with changes which will include but not be limited to Page 8, Part C; Site plan; Page 32, Part IV; Sections of Appendix B; and all changes as represented by the applicant at this meeting. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. Chairman Kindig questioned if there were further information on the reclassification item. City Planner Swan reported that the reclassification was well documented in the EIR already acted upon. There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comment, and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Taylor moved that the application for the reclassification of Lots 2B, 3A and 3B, Block 3, Town of Burlingame, at 25,29 and 33 Park Road respectively, from C-1 to R-3 be recommended to the City Council for approval. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,MINK,NORBERG,SINE,TAYLOR,KINDIG NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS Commissioner Sine read Resolution No. 3-74, recommending approval of application for reclassification of Lots 2B,3A and 3B, in its entirety with findings. Commissioner Mink moved the adoption of Resolution 3-74. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,MINK,NORBERG,SINE,TAYLOR,KINDIG NAYE S: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS RECONVENE After a short recess, the meeting reconvened at 9:10` P.M. Chairman Kindig announced for the information of the audience that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission is holding a meeting Wednesday, March 27, at 8:00 P.M. at the San Carlos City Council Chambers. The subject will be the Southern Pacific Upgrading feasibility study. Chairman Kindig announced that Agenda Item 5, Permit for Underground Garage for "The Burlingame" would be dropped. OIRM 6. PETITION FOR FENCE WHICH EXCEEDS 6 FEET IN HEIGHT AT THE AVENUE ARCADE BY JONATHAN B. HOROWITZ Atthe invitation of the Chair, Mr. Jonathan Horowitz addressed the Commission. He told them he wished to build a fence across the 45' front of the property at 1110 Burlingame Avenue, the "Avenue Arcade," to prevent unauthorized entry into the complex. The application is for an 8' fence made of 1/2" steel bars and similar in design to the planters on Burlingame Avenue. The fence would set at the top of the plaza, which is 9' down below the grade of the sidewalk. Mr. Horowitz displayed drawings of the fence. Chairman Kindig received no response to his request for audience comment. The public hearing was declared closed. City Engineer Davidson had no comment. City Planner Swan noted that, an earlier plan submittal showed 8'6" height. Mr. Horowitz conceded this was correct and he had mis-stated the height. There followed a discussion of materials and method of construction of the fence. It developed it will be a combination of steel bar and tubing identical to the design that is around street planters, with a simple bar at the top. Commissioner Mink broached the subject of the gate which is a double door and opens inward. He was concerned with the public safety factor and lack of plan detail for the gate. Mr. Horowitz protested that only the fence was before the Commission. City Planner Swan commented that complete plans were necessary tomcake a decision= these had been requested but not received. The Chairman suggested delaying action until complete plans, including gate, were available. Commissioner Sine agreed that plans were inadequate, but mentioned steel availability as a problem in delaying action. He suggested continuing to the study meeting so that detailed drawings could be submitted. Commissioner Norberg thought an 8' fence much too high and suggested the 6' height. He commented that anyone who would go over a 6' fence would go over an 8' fence. Mr. Horowitz considered that if the fence is too low it will not be safe with the 9' drop to the plaza below. He would agree to cutting the 816" fence to 81. He agreed he would not be able to build the fence this month, but needed to order steel and shop drawings. He told the Commission the fence would not be plain steel but would have vines and shrubs in planters along it. Discussion followed. Comunissioner Jacobs suggested a decision be made on the fence and drawings subsequently obtained on the gate. Commissioner Sine moved the Planning Commission approve the sidewalk fence, Detail 2-1 from the drawings of Avenue Arcade, Sheet 1, dated 1/7/74 with the modification.of Sketch 2-1 substituting 1/2" x 1/2" square tubing at 6" on center. Commissioner Norberg seconded the motion, with the specification that the fence be 616" overall height. He was informed by the Chair that he would have to amend the motion and this could not be a second. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion, adding "with some provisions for foliage." Commissioner Francard questioned if the gate should not be specified in the motion. Chairman Kindig commented that the gate would have to pass engineering and fire department inspection. The motion carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,SINE,KINDIG NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: MINK,NORBERG,TAYLOR 9. SIGN PERMIT FOR GULLIVER' S RESTAURANT AT 1699 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Chairman Kindig asked the Commission's approval in considering this application out of agenda order, since the applicant had a plane reservation. Mr. Al Levie, representing Gullivers, told the Commission the main application was for a 20' high 56 square feet free standing pole sign. It will be double faced and illuminated. There will also be two smaller signs on the building itself, under permitted size. Mr. Levie presented 5" x 7" colored drawings of the sign; a 1/2" scale drawing and a site plan showing the location of the sign. He commented the sign is tied in aesthetically with the building. In response to the Chair's request for audience comment, Bryan Chirgwin, assistant manager of Repo Depo, 1669 Bayshore Highway, addressed the Commission. He told them Repo Depo has an 8' x 12' sign on the street which is 20' high. This sign is valuable for their drive-in traffic which comprises a large percentage of their business. Repo Depo feels that Gullivers new sign may obliterate theirs from view. There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Mink, upon questioning Mr. Levie, established that Gullivers sign would be 130' from the property line of Repo Depo. He noted the City code does not approve wooden signs. Mr..Levie reported that the sign is metal but wood clad. Commissioner Sine commented that the Planning Commission had approved Repo Depo's sign permit. Commissioner Mink moved that the sign permit for Gulliver's Restaurant be approved in agreement with the sketches and location plans submitted. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 10. REVIEW OF LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR GULLIVER'S RESTAURANT. Copies of this landscaping plan were inspected by the Commission. Chairman Kindig read memo of 3/11/74 from Park Director John Hoffman approving this landscaping plan. Commissioner Mink moved the acceptance of submitted landscaping plan for Gulliver's Restaurant. Commissioner Sine seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. - 10 - 7. SIGN PERMIT FOR BANK OF AMERICA AT 400 EL CAMINO REAL Mr. Walter Perazzo with Continental Service Company addressed the Commission on this application. He reported that initial application was made for a 65 square foot pole sign, 20' high. The Commission suggested this be reduced, and a subsequent application was made for a 50 square foot sign 10' high. Again, the Commission suggested this be reduced, possibly to 35 square feet and 7' in height. During the last two weeks several meetings had been held with Bank of America's public relations department, and it was their decision that the minimum they could approve was the 50 square foot sign at 10' height. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the distance from the curb and was informed it was approximately 251, just inside the setback line. There was no response to Chairman Kindig's request for audience comments, and the public hearing was declared closed. In response to other questions Mr. Perrazzo indicated the sign had interior illumination and has a plastic face, opaqueycharcoal colored. With reference to the 7' height, he pointed out that cars stop for the traffic light on this corner and could obliterate the view of the sign. Commissioner Sine commented on the low profile of the Bank of America's Palm Springs branches. Commissioner Taylor protested that the Planning Commission should not feel obligated to approve a sign merely because the Bank of America's public relations department had mandated its size. He thought the Bank of America should erect signs within'.the City of Burlingame's approval. Mr. Perrazzo protested that if they changed sign regulations for every city, they would soon have no sign program. Commissioner Mink commented there is already 77 square feet of signage on the building and he did not understand the necessity for 100 square feet as represented by this double faced illuminated sign, especially since the bank is not open at night. Mr. Perrazzo raised the question of prior approval of a free standing sign. The Chairman clarified that there had 'been tentative approval of the signage program. Mr. Perrazzo repeated he must stand by the decision of his advertising department on the large sign. Commissioner Mink moved the sign permit for the Bank of America be denied. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. He then questioned if denial would prevent Bank of America from signage for one year. The City Planner noted that on the Safeway application, all but the identification sign had been approved. Commissioners Mink and Taylor withdrew their motion and second. Commissioner Mink then moved the approval of the signage plan program by Bank of America with the exception of the double faced internally illuminated sign shown on Sheet SN -1. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion. Mr. Perrazzo questioned his right to appeal if passed. The City Attorney stated that if they definitely wanted the large sign as presented, they would have the right of appeal. If they wished to modify the large sign they could come back to the Commission. Commissioner Mink stated his intent of the motion was that it would eliminate the large sign. If not, the entire signage would be refused. Commissioner Taylor felt he was not in accord since other acceptable designs for the large sign could be submitted. He withdrew his second. Commissioner Norberg seconded the motion. It carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,MINK,NORBERG,KINDIG NAYE S: COMMISSIONERS: SINE,TAYLOR Mr. Perrazzo was informed he had the right of appeal to the City Council. 8. SIGN VARIANCE FOR GROUND SIGN IN FRONT SETBACK AT 1575 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY FOR BOMAR INVESTMENT It was determined that the applicant was not present at this meeting. The City Planner commented he had been informed it would be difficult for the applicant to attend, but had been advised that some other representative would be present, since Bomar had specifically requested this hearing. It was the decision of the Commission to continue this application for one month. 11. PETITION FOR FENCE WHICH EXCEEDS 6 FEET IN HEIGHT AT 445 CHATHAM ROAD BY JOHN L. DU GUID. The City Planner informed the Commission that Mr. Du Guid had withdrawn his application, since he had found that a standard height fence would satisfy his needs. COMMUNICATIONS City Planner Swan informed the Commission that communication had been received from Mr. Daniel Franko requesting revision of his application to reclassify his own property to include reclassification of certain neighboring lots. He reported he thought the Commission should not consider this application until an EIR had been prepared. There was Commission discussion indicating reluctance to consider this reclassi- fication again. However, the City Planner was requested to inform Mr. Franko that he should retain a consultant to prepare the EIR. Upon receipt of the EIR this application could be set for hearing. City Planner Swan advised receipt of letter from Alpha Land Company requesting an informal meeting with the Commission to discuss tentative plans to develop a condominium project at Trousdale and El Camino It was Alpha's suggestion that after this meeting definite plans could be brought in for study meeting consideration. The Commission agreed to an informal discussion. The City Planner advised that the study meeting agenda of April 8 would include consideration of a revised sign ordinance and the Anza Master Plan. Draft EIR on Anza would be distributed prior to the - 12 - study meeting. He also reported that applicant for law offices at 119 Primrose Road had been informed an EIR was necessary. City Planner Swan reported to the Commission that a San Mateo County Committee had been established to review recreational program possibilities in the San Francisco watershed. A public meeting will be held at 8:00 P.M. Thursday, March 28, at the City of San Mateo Council Chambers for the purpose of inviting input on the proposed recreational development of the watershed. City Attorney Karmel reported to the Commission that he had disclosure of assets forms available for Commissioners which had been prepared by the League of California Cities. He stated these are similar to those prepared by the Secretary of State, but might be considered more clear. He also distributed copies of memo regarding Nevada suit on legality of this procedure. Commissioner Francard offered as a time saving measure the suggestion that all applicant plans go through applicable departments such as Engineering, Fire Department, etc. for check before coming to the Planning Commission. In this way, the Commission would know they would comply with all city departmental requirements, and consideration could be confined to the pertinent facts of the application itself. There was discussion. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 10:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Thomas W. Sine Secretary