Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1975.06.09THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION June 9, 1975 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard None City Planner Swan Jacobs Asst.City Planner Yost Kindig City Engineer Davidson Mink Asst. City Engineer Norberg Rebarchik Sine Taylor ROLL CALL The above named members were present. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Sine on the above date at 7:30 P.M. MINUTES The minutes of the meeting of May 27, 1975 were approved and adopted. 1. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LATS 7 AND 8, BLACK 18, EASTON ADDITION NO. 2 AT 1021 AND 1029 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 026-164-070) ZONED R-3, BY RICHARD EISELT FOR MAX AND JEANNE EISELT (CONTINUED FROM :-.MAY 12, 1975) At the request of Chairman Sine, City Engineer Davidson reviewed this application. He stated that previously the original lot had been 50' wide. In the 1930's a concrete and steel apartment building had been erected housing six studio and nine one -bedroom apartments. The owners had subsequently acquired the adjacent 50' lot and added carports. They then purchased a third 50' lot, presently vacant, adjacent to the first two. Coverage for the original two lots is now 45%. It is proposed to divide the three lots into two - one of 70' frontage containing the existing apartment house, and one of 79.90' on which a new apartment house would be built. At the study meeting of April 14 Commissioners had objected to this plan because of excessive lot cover- age for the original apartment, and Mr. Eiselt had been instructed to prepare alternative plans. City Engineer Davidson stated he had just received a letter from Mr. Eiselt listing alternate plans A,B, and C. Plan A is the proposal for_ two lots of 70' and 79.901. Plan B is to develop the third 50' lot as it is, with a maximum of five units. This might not be economical and could require diagonal parking and cars backing onto E1 Camino. Plan C is a compromise with the new apartment frontage of between 60 - 80 feet and with a common driveway between the two lots. Mr. Eiselt was accorded the privilege 9f the floor and, speaking for his parents, explained to the Commission that he had not specified a definite plan because he felt that a compromise could be negotiated - 2 - in the matter of frontages. Chairman Sine requested Staff and Commission comment. City Engineer Davidson remarked that any change shortening the frontage of the present apartment would render it non -conforming as to lot coverage. Also the parking for the existing building is now non -conforming. He stated there is only a 2" water main on E1 Camino which probably would not support another apartment. Sewer is adequate but shallow, requiring that building be at higher grade. He questioned the adequacy of the common driveway. Chairman Sine requested the City Engineer to develop costs of upgedin City Planner Swan stated that the ingress -egress easement would erains. determine where the lot line should be, and this is not shown. He considered the parcel map could be approved, but without an adequate recorded easement the new apartment might also be non -conforming.. The 90 degree parking on this lot would leave a 12' wide yard for backaround where 24' is needed. Chairman Sine considered that an inadequate amount of information had been submitted. He suggested this application be continued, and that. Mr. Eiselt work with staff further. Mr. Eiselt protested time was of the essence, and guidance was being sought as to what the Planning commission wished. Commissioner Mink stated he wanted two legal lots with no exceptions. Commissioner Taylor objected to Plan C on grounds of insufficient landscaping. Commissioner Jacobs objected to creating another non- conforming building. Commissioner Francard suggested that'undergrounding be thoroughly investigated. It was the consensus of the Commission that a definite acceptable plan should be forthcoming from Mr. Eiselt. Chairman Sine announced this application would be continued to July 14 and instructed Mr. Eiselt to work with staff. 2. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTO SALES AND SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1017-25 ROLLINS ROAD (APN 026-240-300/310) BY ALFRED G. MOLAKIDIS FOR NEUFELD PORSCHE -AUDI INC. (ND -57P) (CONTINUED FROM MAY 27, 1975) Attorney Cyrus McMillan appeared on behalf of the applicant. Also present were Alfred Molakidis, David Neufeld, and Paul Iacono, architect. Attorney McMillan introduced these principals, and then spoke of the improvement this development would make over the present site, and its proximity to other existing commercial uses. He agreed that the landscaping did not cover the required 10% of the site, but pointed out this was an impossibility because of the size of the existing building. However, he stated, the proposed landscaping would cover more than 10,6 of the present open area, and that only a limited amount of construction is planned. City Planner Swan voiced several concerns with the plans. He stated the Fire Department had checked the building and it must be brought up to code requirements with extension of the automatic sprinkler system and the installation of fire doors. Fire Inspector Pearson had stated that on building plans dated 5/22/75 the doors are not indicated and that parking is shown on both sides of the exits in the rear. The City Planner read memo of June 4 from the Park Director on the subject of landscaping. It stated the landscape plan was inadequate - 3 - in several areas, and suggested further consultation. The City Planner specified that one area in question is next to the Teevan building. The submitted site plan shows a 50' wide space between the two buildings. There is a proposed fence next to the Teevan building and then a row of trees which would take up space. This would not leave the necessary 44' for automobiles and customer parking. He also noted detail plans scale out at 7' x 18' for parking spaces. Regulations require 9' x 20' and 24' backup space. He commented that the landscaping would occupy 10% of the unimproved property. He suggested Commissioners consider plans carefully. Attorney McMillan stated the applicant would cooperate with the Park Department in putting in the type of landscaping desired. Mr. Iacono stated original drawings show that space between the showroom and the Teevan building is 52' which wiil leave ample__space for cars. (`commissioners questioned de_tai s of-Ian�s�cap ng.__Mr:_ Iacono explained, cnt ommeing that a detailed landscaping plan would be presented for approval. In response to questions on exits, he stated that there are 5 exits out of the front building. There are four auto exits out of the service areas. He explained method of exiting onto Rollins Road. There was some discussion. There was no response to Chairman Sine's request for audience comment. The public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Mink wanted statement in writing from the applicant that the space designated as new car storage and future body shop would be limited to one or both of these services. He commented he would be satisfied with the landscaping if approved by the Director of Parks, and if it were no less than that specified on the drawing. Commissioner Jacobs was concerned about parking in the future if it were insufficient at the present time. Commissioner Francard disapproved of trees in 15 gallon containers because of insufficient root space and suggested five gallon containers instead. Commissioner Kindig objected to any sort of loud calling system outside. Mr. Neufeld stated the outside system would be eliminated. Commissioner Mink moved that this special permit be approved -with these conditions: 1. There be no exterior calling system. 2. Landscaping plans be submitted and approved by the Director of Parks, and in no case should the landscaping coverage be less than shown on the drawing. 3. Space marked on plans for new car storage and future body shop be used for one or both of these purposes. New application to be submitted for other uses. 4. Any interior or exterior modification to be done substantially in consistency with drawings submitted. Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 3. SIGN PERMIT FOR 223 SF POLE SIGN 35' HIGH, 21 SF POLE SIGN 15' HIGH, 12 SF GROUND SIGN 6' HIGH AND 15 SF WALL SIGN AT 1017-25 ROLLINS ROAD FOR NEUFE LD PORSCHE -AUDI INS. (CONTINUED FROM MAY 27, 1975 Attorney McMillan stressed the reduced size of this sign, which is approximately 1/3 of the existing Coca Cola sign of about 800 SF. The proposed sign, 35' in height with time and temperature gauge, is within the sign ordinance. He stressed the need of this agency for identification. The application is for Sign A, 35' high pole sign with name of agency; SignA1, , 12' pole sign "Used Cars"; Sign B, 15 SF wall sign "Service Parts"; ign C, 6' pole sign "Service." Mr. McMillan stated that only the main sign and the used car sign would be lighted. He displayed colored renderings of the signs. City Planner Swan commented that sign exception was required for the main pole sign, the bottom of which will have only 9' clearance from the ground instead of the required 101. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Kindig disapproved of the lighted signs in view of the nearby residential area. Mr. Neufeld stated they would operate on a clock and would be turned off after evening business hours. Commissioner Taylor objected to the expanse of signage provided by the used car sign being adjacent to the main pole sign. Mr. Neufeld said the small sign would actually be in front of the other. In reply to a question from Commissioner Mink, Mr. Neufeld agreed to turn off the lighted signs at 11:00 P.M. After some further discussion, Commissioner Taylor moved this sign program be approved conditional upon the signs not being illuminated after 11:00 P.M. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 4. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR TRUCKING E STABLI SHMENT IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 189 AIRPORT BOULEVARD (PORTION OF DOTS 7 AND 8, ANZA AIRPORT PARK, UNIT NO. 2, RSM 65/27,28) BY GLEN HUBBARD OF GLENCO TRUCK LINES: L. IZMIRIAN, OWNER. (ND -56P) (CONTINUED FROM MAY 27, 197 5) At the request of the Chair, City Planner Swan appraised this application. Referring to the site plan submitted by Mr. Hubbard to show parking, the City Planner stated he thought it was dysfunctional. Rigs are shown parked in a fenced trapezoidal area with a gate at one end. He also stated Mr. Hubbard was still parking his trailers on Airport Boulevard which is now illegal. Mr. Hubbard said he had discussed his parking on Airport Boulevard with Sgt. O'Brien of the Police Department, who had stated he would be informed when he had to stop. To date, Mr. Hubbard had heard nothing. Mr. Hubbard said he would remove the gate and the fence along the alley side of the parking area. On a question from Commissioner Jacobs, Mr. Hubbard stated he would use his warehouse for light maintenance of his rigs. Commissioner Francard questioned parking in the P.G.E. easement. This was clarified later in the meeting. Chairman Sine questioned the private parking stalls shown on both sides of the warehouse building. Mr. Hubbard stated they were for tenants of the building. Commissioner Mink questioned Mr. Hubbard if he would be willing to limit servicing of vehicles to minor servicing and minor maintenance - 5 - and agree that it would not include any body work and any major repairs. Mr. Hubbard agreed. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Mr. David Keyston addressed the Commission, stating that when Anza had recently owned the property, an agreement was reached with P.G.E. permitting the parking of vehicles under the transmission lines. He stated he had written verification. City Engineer Davidson questioned -the property line and if a subdivision map might be necessary. Mr. Keyston established that Mr. Hubbard was a tenant in a multi -tenant building and he thought all tenants were on one present parcel. Commissioner Taylor moved this permit be approved subject to the removal of the gate and of the fence adjacent to the alley, and with the con- dition that no major truck repairs or overhaul be conducted on the premises. City Attorney Coleman read memo of May 19, 1975 from Building Inspector Joe Heath which reported observation of two rooms constructed in the warehouse without a permit and not according to code. The City Attorney suggested a condition that proper building permits be obtained. Mr. Hubbard remarked that this work had been only the construction of plywood panels. Commissioner Taylor amended his motion to include that the building must be brought up to code and that building permits shall be obtained. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,MINK,TAYLOR,SINE -L YES C0MMTSSZ0NERS �_JACOBBj-KINDIG NORBERG Charman' Sine cauoned.:l4r Hubbard ._ that his public image needed "improvement,--AncT- it -was to be hoped he would keep his rigs off the street. 5. VACATION OF EASEMENT, 10' WIDE, P.U.E. BY 276 FEET LONG, BEING EASTERLY 5 FEET OF IAT 7, BLOCK 3, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT 5, AND WESTERLY 5 FEET OF LOT 1, BLACK 6, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT 6, ZONED C-4. Commission members reviewed memo of 6/3/75 from the City Attorney regarding the legal necessity for this vacation of public utilities easement. The easement will be relocated. The purpose of this move is to avoid cutting up the property for future development. There was little Commission discussion. Commissioner Jacobs moved this vacation of easement be approved. Commissioner Mink seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 6. RESOLUTION NO. 9-75 APPROVING THE SEISMIC SAFETY ELEMENT OF THE BURLINGAME GENERAL P LAN . City Planner Swan explained that this resolution is a formal recommen- dation to Council to approve the seismic safety element. Commissioner Mink moved approval of Resolution 9-75. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,KINDIG,MINK,SINE NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: NORBERG,TAYLOR (Not present at meeting of May 27 at which element was �rrr�e�r� 1 7. DRAFT SAFETY ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN. Assistant City Planner Yost explained that this is the second of four mandated elements to be completed by September. He stated that essentially the purpose of this element is to introduce public safety into the planning processes of the city. He listed the hazards of special concern as: fires, floods, breakdown of public sdrvices such as water supply and sewage disposal, and geological hazards such as earth and mud slides. This element proposes implementation measures to reduce hazards. The Assistant City Planner noted that this report does not address such aspects as civil disturbances, disasters such as plane crashes, crime prevention aspects of land use development, etc. These aspects may be reviewed during the coming year. He briefly listed the summary of findings on safety conditions in Burlingame, and reviewed ten major recommendations which include greater structural fire protection for older buildings, requirement that existing dwellings and other structures have smoke activated fire alarm devices, measures for large sections of the city which have combustible roofs, 100 Year Flood Protection Plan, and others. He noted this element is to be considered within the context of the County's element which is now being prepared. Commission discussion followed. Some Commission concerns were: fire hazards in Mills Canyon area; shake and shingle roofs in the residential areas; flooding of the Bayfront area. Chairman Sine set this element for public hearing on June 23, 1975. 8. HEIGHT AND YARD REQUIREMENTS FOR ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES (CONTINUED FROM -:MAY 12, 1975) City Planner Swan opened discussion of code changes regarding accessory buildings recommended by City Engineer Davidson by memo of 6/4/75. The City Engineer's recommendations were: 1. Lower height limit for accessory buildings - possibly to 159. Plate height of 8' and storage space of less than 7'. 2. No plumbing fixtures to be allowed except hose bibbs. 220V maximum electrical connection. 3. Swimming pool pump houses to be separated some specified distance from dwellings because of noise. The City Engineer also noted a source of citizen complaint is the code allowance that an accessory building may be built on the lot line in the rear 30% of the property. -Chairman; Sine suggested 12' to ridge line instead of the 15' and pump houses to be 12' from any habitable structure. City Engineer Davidson stated the reason for allowing 220V was the fact that many people install power equipment.in their garages. Commissioner Mink - 7 - wanted plumbing fixtures such as showers allowed in pool houses for health and convenience. He also.suggested that acceptable noise levels be established for mechanical equipment. After further Commission discussion and in view of staff involvement with the General Plan, Chairman Sine requested report from staff in 60 - 90 days. 9. CRITERIA FOR REVIEW OF CONDOMINIUM PERMIT APPLICATIONS. City Planner Swan reviewed worksheet he had prepared for Commission study on this subject. This list covered items under the headings of: A. Location and the surrounding neighborhood B. Site Plan - orientation, landscaping, etc. C. Arrangement of units within building D. Individual living unit floor plans E. Utilities, building services and facilities, and amenities He noted there is no specific area that relates to office condominiums and emphasized several important fadbrs. These are: need for a fire wall along the property line which is the adjoining wall of the apartment next door; requirement for control of mechanical equipment installed and its attendant noise and vibration; mandatory inspection prior to condominium conversions; requirement of occupancy permit for new construction. Commissioners agreed to study the suggested design review criteria and make recommendations at a later meeting. 10. AVERAGE SETBACK DISTANCE IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS The City Planner discussed present code Section 25.62.040(b), "Average' Setback Distance." He referred to request from the Chief Building Inspector to delete this section of the code, and commented on the problems it causes. In the case of new construction near the front setback line, inspectors must measure all the front setbacks in a block to reach an average for the new site. Since there is a minimum 15' setback in the city, the Building Department considers this to be adequate. City Planner Swan requested guidance from the Commission in this matter. Commission discussion followed, with particular reference to areas of the city having deep setbacks such as 25', and the effect of new construction at 151. City Planner Swan remarked the staff has difficulty with variable setbacks that require field measurements. City Engineer Davidson confirmed that the problem of averaging comes up most frequently in remodeling, and inspectors do not go out until forms are inspected. This can cause problems for the owner who must move a foundation. The Commission considered that most architects would attempt to conform with other property in the area, and approved the deletion of this section of the code. It was Commission suggestion that staff prepare an amendment to the zoning code, deleting the section and establishing a general minimum front setback of 151. 'There was a suggestion that City Attorney Coleman include this in his total review z of Title 25, and another.suggestion that this amendment be combined with height and yard requirements for accessory buildings under one EIR. 11. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AUTO REPAIR SERVICE ESTABLISHMENT IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1244 ROLLINS ROAD (PORTION OF APN 026-134-100) BY DON YARBROUGH, BANK OF AMERICA, NT&SA FOR KATHLEEN M. DORS, ET AL, OWNER, and LESSEE, RICHARD GEORGE OF R&R AUTO REPAIR SERVICE (CONTINUED FROM MAY 12, 1975) City Planner Swan reported that staff had negotiated arrangement with Mr. George to continue this application until July 28 pending removal of the Covey trucking firm from the warehouse. He also stated that the Bank of America has agreed to file a tentative subdivision map for this property, and it should be forthcoming soon. Chairman Sine scheduled this application for hearing on July 28, 1975. 12. VARIANCE FROM REAR YARD REQUIREMENTS IN R-3 DISTRICT AT 1220 PALOMA AVENUE (APN 026-094-19) BY DAN AND RITA CROWLEY (CONTINUED FROM : MAY 12, 1975) Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed the circumstances of this application. The applicant plans to build a four unit apartment on his site which has on it a Distinctive tree, the removal of which the Beautification Commission has denied. Because of the space which must be allowed for the tree, Mr. Crowley is asking for a variance from rear yard setback to allow more room for his construction. The degree of encroachment would be 3'6" x 35'. In effect 70 SF would be given up for the tree and the applicant is asking for an encroachment of 123 SF. The tree dimension of 36" is at a 4' level. At ground level it is 69'x" in diameter. Report of May 28, 1975 from Leslie S. Mayne Associates, consultants in tree care, regarding protection of this tree in construction was discussed. In this report Mr. Mayne states the building should not be constructed less than 48" from the tree. The Asst. City Planner noted that in further consultation with Mr. Mayne he had stated the building could be 2'' from the tree if the foundations are no deeper than 18". He stated this report was reviewed with the Park Director, and that he will receive written confirmation from Mr. Mayne of his latter statement. In response to Commission question, the Assistant City Planner stated amended building plans have not been received, but will be available by the public hearing. He described conditions by the Park Director as: 1. Advice of Mr. Mayne regarding"'care of trees be followed and work be done under his supervision. 2. No trenching deeper than 18" be done within 15' of the tree. 3. Building permit have these conditions and be enforced.!, 4. No occupancy be permitted until Mr. Mayne has certified work on tree has been completed to his satisfaction. Commission suggestions were that the lot coverage with the new construction be checked, and one commissioner suggested the rear yard remain as it is and have the additional space required as overhang. This application.was scheduled for public hearing June 23, 1975. 13. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR RUMPUS ROOM IN GARAGE AT 21 BANCROFT ROAD (APN 029-303-090) ZONED R-1, BY KAZIMIERZ AND EMILIA NOWAK. Assistant City Planner Yost stated this application is to use an existing small room with attached bathroom which is located in a garage. The described use is guest quarters during family visits. He explained a sketch of the unit and commented that the Building Department is con- cerned that a greater fire separation should be provided between this room and the remainder of the garage. Extension of sheet rock in this area is suggested. At the request of the Chair, the Nowaks' daughter addressed the Commission. She stated this is not a rental property and is used mainly for the visits of relatives from Europe. She stated the room had been in the garage for 10-11 years. It was established there was no record of a building permit being issued for this unit. The unit is electrically heated. Chairman Sine set this application for hearing on June 23, 1975. 14. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CARETAKER QUARTERS IN AN ACCESSORY BUILDING AT 1124 BERNAL AVENUE (APN 026-182-170) ZONED R-1 BY ZINA G. BA SKETT Assistant City Planner Yost told Commissioners Mrs. Baskett had purchased this property with three structures on it - the main house, the garage, and a cottage on the rear property line with kitchen and bath. This cottage had been used as living quarters for her son. He no longer lives there and she wishes to continue to use it as quarters for her caretaker who presently inhabits it. The Assistant City Planner stated he could not determine at what date this accessory building became a cottage. Assessor's records of 1947 indicate a radio shop there. He distributed a sketch of the site and explained it. Mrs. Baskett was given permission to address the Commission. She stated she had bought the house three years ago on the premise that someone could live in this cottage. Her dwelling is too small to share. She cited reasons of her poor health and need for protection of her property while she is absent. There followed Commission discussion during which Mrs. Baskett averred she did not rent the property but wished to let the caretaker live there in return for services. There was some discussion as to whether or not this constituted rental. City Attorney Coleman stated he would research this matter and give the Commission an opinion in writing. After further discussion this application was set for hearing June 23. 15. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CHILD CARE CENTER IN R-1 DISTRICT AT 1421 PALM DRIVE BY FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH OF BURLINGAME Assistant -City Planner Yost read excerpt from minutes of Planning Commission meeting of 7/30/62 which granted a special permit to the First Baptist Church to use this house as a church school on Sundays. He told the Commission the church has requested special permit at this location for a child care center for 20-30 preschool age children. There would be a staff of four and hours could be from 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. This could involve some additional traffic in leaving children and picking them up after the school. Reverend Wm. Ebling, pastor of this church, was accorded permission to address the Commission. Reverend Ebling told Commissioners this application was the first step in an investigation of ways the Church could help the community. The program may or may not be implemented. At this point the church is asking guidance. Commission discussion followed. On a question as to whether State and local health authorities had been consulted, Dr. Ebling said it was thought best to do this at the time a final decision was made by the church about the school. It was noted that the special permit could be conditioned in this regard. This application was set for hearing June 23, 1975. 16. VARIANCE FROM MINIMUM SIDE YARD REQUIREMENTS IN AN R-1 DISTRICT TO ALLOW SECOND STORY ADDITION AT 3080 RIVERA DRIVE BY CON AND MARLENE RABOLI. City Planner Swan distributed sketches of the site which indicate a small accessory building next to the house and at the rear of the dwelling only 4'5" from the property line. He stated Mr. Raboli wishes to build a second story addition over his present two bedrooms and bath. Since existing building is non -conforming, a variance is required for the new construction. Since there is no 4' separation from the house, the accessory building was considered part of the house and there should be a 5' side yard. Mr. Raboli stated he had built the small accessory building as a playroom for his children. It had been built near the property line three years ago. He had subsequently put in a swimming poor and at that time had cut off 333' of the playroom which left it in its present position of 4'5" from the property line,7" short of conformity. Chairman Sine scheduled the application for hearing June 23, 1975. 17. VARIANCE TO EXCEED IAT COVERAGE AT 1356 DRAKE AVENUE BY ALBERT RE NNE R Assistant City Planner Yost told commissioners Mr. Renner wishes to add a family room and deck to his present dwelling which covers 40% of his lot. With the addition, lot coverage would be about 50%. Plans of the addition were distributed. Mr. Renner explained his plans, noting that one of the reasons for the large family room was the preservation of a large antique pool table. This application was set for public hearing. CITY PLANNER'S REPORT City Planner Swan reported Road have been complaining scrap lumber. He pointed punitive measures for code Owner of this property has that neighbors in the area of 18 Arundel about an apparent corporation yard of out that Ordinance 1041 which carries infractions will soon become effective. been notified in writing of his violation. The City Planner commented that the Burlingame Transit System is now on its second year. New bus schedules and route map were distributed. He noted meeting of Bikeways Committee scheduled for June 10 and commented on the agenda. A progress report on the Bike Path and review of preliminary bikeways plan for San Mateo County were distributed. The City Planner considered there is a need for citizens' participation in planning of the bike path, and suggested an ad hoc bike path committee. He stated interested people should contact the City Council. He commented on SB 100 and the Collier bill which would affect bikeways transportation. The City Planner went on to say the consultant for the Noise Element, Earth Metrics Inc., has executed a contract with the city and will be working with staff. The element is tentatively scheduled to be heard during August. He distributed to Commissioners copies of noise questionnaire prepared for public use. Methods of distributing this were discussed. City Planner Swan reminded Commissioners of the Planners Institute to be held July 30 through August 1, and asked Commissioners to make commitment within the next week as to their attendance. Commissioners Sine and Taylor.indicated they would attend. Some Commission discussion followed as to whether or not architectural controls in some areas would be possible. City Engineer Davidson announced he would be absent at meeting of June 23 because of vacation. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 11:45 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary