Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1975.10.14THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION October 14, 1975 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard Jacobs Kindig Mink (delayed Norberg Sine Taylor ROLL CALL None at another meeting) The above named members were present. CALL TO O RDE R City Planner Swan Asst.City Planner Yost City Engineer Davidson City Attorney Coleman 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 September 22, 1975 were approved as written. 1. VARIANCE FROM AVERAGE WIDTH REQUIREMENTS OF R-1 LOT AT 1348 DESOTO AVENUE (APN 027-151-350) BY JOHN AND NOREEN DEVINE (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 8 197 5) 2. TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 40 AND NWLY 1/2 OF LOT 39 AND SELY 1/2 OF LOT 41, BLOCK 58, EASTON ADDITION NO. 7 AT 1348 DESOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 BY EDWARD W. BACCA FOR JOHN AND NOREEN DEVINE (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 8, 1975) Chairman Sine introduced this subject for Commission hearing, requesting report from City Planner Swan. City Planner Swan asked that these two applications be considered together since they are inter -related. Copies of the parcel map were distributed. He pointed out that the proposed new lot is 120' deep. The zoning code requires a minimum lot area of 5,000 SF in R-1. However, even though the lot would be narrowed 6.51' down the rear lot line for 84.02', it would still have more than the minimum required lot area. The City Planner then reviewed Commission action of July, 1972 which denied a similar parcel map. He quoted from minutes of that hearing testimony that the 100' frontage had adequate area for two standard sized lots with the proposed subdivision. The City Planner quoted Code Section 25.66.06 which provides that roof overhang of a building may project into the side yard 1/2 of the minimum distance of 5'. The side yard of the existing building is 5' at the point where the adjoining lot narrows. This parcel map would permit development of another residence on the unimproved property. Commissioner Taylor asked if a building permit had been obtained for some recent remodeling, such as installation of windows, on the - 2 - existing structure. The City Planner replied a building permit had been issued in August of 1972 to cover demolition of part of the building to establish a new exterior wall; but no permit had been issued recently. On a question from Commissioner Jacobs, Chairman Sine noted that at the last noticed public hearing the audience was informed the hearing would be continued to this meeting. Commissioner Jacobs questioned lot dimensions to the north and south of this site and was informed by City Engineer Davidson both lots were 75' wide. She then questioned if under the code there were controls of the contour of the structure. The City Attorney noted the code contains setback provisions, but no design control. The Commissioner commented she was concerned about the effect of two adjoining roof overhangs. Chairman Sine noted the difficulty of designing a house for the new lot. Commissioner Francard questioned the original lot lines of Lots 39, 40, and 41 and was informed by staff that at some unknown time in the past Lot 40 and 25' each of Lots 39 and 41 had been combined to form Mr. Devine's present parcel. The 50' lots adjacent to the remaining 25' of Lots 39 and 40 had been purchased and added to these remainders, resulting in three 75' wide lots. The City Engineer noted that no subdivision map is on file in the City for this action, although it has been on the assessor's records for years. In reply to Commissioner Kindig, the City Engineer confirmed Mr. Devine's lot is 100' wide. Commissioner Francard stated he was reluctant to approve the application merely on the basis of area. Mr. John Devine was given permission to address the Commission and affirmed the property had been improved and painting had been done. The purpose of the map was to enable him to build a house on the other half of the lot. At the request of the Chair, Secretary Jacobs read letter of application dated August 20, 1975 from John and Noreen Devine; a letter dated 8/25/75 from Mr. and Mrs. I. Zoellich, 1362 DeSoto, stating no objections to the Devine variance; and cover letter of 9/7/75 voicing no objections to the parcel map, with attached signatures of 30 neighbors of Mr. Devine. There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Taylor stated he had objected to the adverse permanent effect of this kind of variance in 1972, and he considered this application with its gerrymandered lot more adverse than the first. He cautioned that Commission approval on this would irreversible. Commissioner Norberg had no objections since these lots would have adequate frontage and area. Commissioner Kindig, after establishing that area of Parcel B would be 5,453 SF, had no comment. Commissioner Francard was still dubious of the authenticity of the present property lines. Commissioner Jacobs was concerned that a bulky house might be built on the narrow lot created. Chairman Sine had no comment, noting he had expressed himself in 1972. Commissioner Kindig moved the application for variance be ap?roved. He stated this was on the basis of the square footage. Commissioner - 3 - Jacobs seconded the motion and it failed on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG,NORBERG NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,TAYLOR,SINE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MINK City Attorney Coleman requested a motion to deny. Commissioner Taylor moved the application for variance be denied. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,TAYLOR,SINE NAYE S: COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG,NORBE RG ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MINK Mr. Devine was informed by Chairman Sine had the right of appeal to the City Council. Commissioner Taylor moved the application for parcel map be denied. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion, and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,TAYLOR,SINE NAYE S : COMMISSIONERS: KINDIG, NORBERG ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MINK 3. FINAL PARCEL MAP,BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 18, EASTON ADDITION NO. 2 AT 1021 AND 1029 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 026- 164-07/08) ZONED R-3 BY WILLIAM A. BARTLETT FOR MAX AND JEANNE EISELT (CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 22, 1975 Chairman Sine introduced this application and called upon City Engineer Davidson for report. The City Engineer distributed copies of the map, noting it is the final version of the tentative map formerly approved. He listed conditions as: 26' ingress -egress easement ready for recording; applicant to supply water service to the vacant lot; applicant to install protection for the 48" eucalyptus tree on the curb and prevent parking in the front setback by means of landscaping; two new property corners to be established by monument. He stated all of these conditions have been met and the map meets requirements of the City's Subdivision Code and of the Subdivision Map Act. There was little Commission comment. Commissioner Taylor, remarking this project will effect a substantial improvement in the property, moved the final map be approved. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion, and it carried on the following roil call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,KINDIG,NORBERG,TAYLOR,SINE NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MINK Chairman Sine complimented the applicant on his cooperation and efforts to improve this property. 4. SIGN PERMIT FOR 28 SF GROUND SIGN IN FRONT SETBACK AT 1511 ROLLINS ROAD BY J. SPIKE MOLICILLO OF AIR TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES LOCAL LODGE NO. 1781. After introducing this application, Chairman Sine requested report from Assistant City Planner Yost. The Assistant City Planner distributed plans for the sign and explained it is 3'6" high by 8' wide. The top of the sign is 6' above the ground. The sign cabinet will be redwood supported by redwood posts. The sign is tan with brown copy; is double faced and will be illuminated by ground lights. Lighting would be approximately 12 hours per month at times of meetings. The sign is positioned 65' from one entrance on Rollins Road and 70 feet from another. He noted the City Traffic Engineer indicated the sign would not interfere with traffic sight lines. The Assistant City Planner commented that a 15' pole sign could be erected with only a building permit, but stated the applicant preferred the ground sign. He added that staff supported this application. In response to Commission questions, the Assistant City Planner noted that the drawing does not properly dimension the distance from the ground to the sign, but it is 2+1. Commissioner Sine noted it is still a low profile ground sign. Commissioner Francard questioned the type of landscaping. Chairman Sine commented that at the time the building was approved, the landscaping was approved. He received confirmation that the landscaping was not in yet, and suggested approval of the sign be conditioned upon approval of the landscaping by the Park Superintendent and definition of hours of sign lighting. Mr. J. Spike Molcillo was given permission to address the Commission. He stated the landscaping will conform to City codes and noted that the sign meets code for being noncombustible. He had some objections to having a 12 hour per month condition on the lighting. This would ordinarily be sufficient, but it would not suffice in case of extra meetings. Commissioner Jacobs commented she was not too concerned with the 12 hour condition since this sign is on Rollins Road. She moved that the application for this two sided sign be approved in accordance with the design submitted and with the condition the landscaping be approved by the Park Superintendent. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote; Commissioner Mink absent. 5. CODE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25 ZONING: (1) ADD SEC..2.5.08.325 DEFINITION OF GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY. (2) ADD UNDER SEC. 25.32.030 CONDITIONAL USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL PERMIT: 4. GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FOR THE ELDERLY. Chairman Sine announced this agenda item for consideration. City Planner Swan referred Commissioners to draft of ordinance which adds Section 25.08.325 "Group residential facilities for the elderly" - 5 - to Title 25. This section defines this type of residence for "elderly persons 60 years of age or over in good health . The ordinance also amends Section 25.32.03 to add "group residential facilities for the elderly" as a conditional use requiring a special permit in R-3 zones. There followed some discussion on semantics. It was agreed "Group residential facilities for the elderly" would be satisfactory. Commissioner Taylor questioned the definition of "elderly" as 1160 years of age or older." The City Planner informed him this age formula is used in AB1X which covers State financed projects such as this. Chairman Sine questioned the fate of "Casa Amigo" if this amendment were not approved. The City Attorney informed him the application would have to be denied since there would be no legal provision for it in an R-3 zone. Commissioner Jacobs considered this amendment important because of the Housing Element in the General Plan which suggests that cities make provisions for facilities of this type. She also voiced personal concern that projects like this are needed, and remarked she hoped the City would have more like this and that they would be within people's reach. Chairman Sine considered that the project under discussion was a high-class rooming and boarding house out of reach of people who really need it at a possible price of $600 a month. Commissioner Kindig noted such a facility is required to take a certain percentage of SSI recipients, and Commissioner Jacobs considered that other projects in the future might be within range. There was no response to the Chair's request for audience comment, and the public hearing was declared closed. In response to question from Commissioner Francard, City Attorney Coleman stated the County Health Department is responsible for cleanliness standards in such facilities, and a variety of other agencies were also involved. Commissioner Taylor read "Ordinance Adding Section 25.08.325 and Amending Section 25.32.030 Of The Burlingame Municipal Code To Allow Group Residential Facilities For The Elderly In R-3 Zones" by title and moved that the Commission recommend to staff that they prepare findings of fact and a final draft of the ordinance. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,JACOBS,KINDIG,NORBERG,TAYLOR NAYES: COMMISSIONERS: SINE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MINK 6 - 6. APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING OFFICIAL TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF ALTERNATE ROOFING MATERIALS PER SEC. 18.08.050 BY ANZA PACIFIC CORPORATION Chairman Sine introduced this matter for discussion, and requested report from City Engineer Davidson on the subject of "Trocal S," the roofing material in question, manufactured by the Dynamit Nobel Company. The City Engineer reviewed events which brought about this appeal. He stated Mr. David Keyston had requested that the building department allow installation of this new roofing material. This material has not yet been approved by the UBC Code Committee. Under the authority of the building inspector, the city requires that all materials be approved in the Uniform Building Code. The manufacturer has submitted this roof- ing for testing on two previous occasions and there was not sufficient material given to the Committee to analyze. More information will be available to the Committee in approximately two weeks. The City does not vet know whether sufficient information will be given. The City Engineer went on to say that the Building Department does not have the expertise to test, nor is it set up for testing. The material submitted appears to be good roofing material, but since it has not been approved, the City staff is hesitant to approve it. If it failed the City could be put in a difficult position. Commissioners Jacobs and Taylor had questions on the jurisdiction of the Commission and the liability of the City in this matter. City Attorney Coleman could not specify the exact liability. Mr. David Keyston was given permission to present evidence. In addition to previously submitted descriptive material, specifications and details, and copy of 5 -year warranty, he now presented a sample of the material for Commission inspection. Mr. Keyston listed the following organizations of building officials which establish building standards and codes: Uniform Building Code - Eleven Western states Southern - Southern United States VOLA - Northwest United States Both Southern and VOCA have tested and approved Trocal S, so it has been approved in all but the 11 western states. He noted the use of this material in the East by several important companies such as A.T.&T., DuPont, I.B.M. and others. He added that this product has UL approval with a Class A fire rating, and cited an extensive report from Federal testing laboratories. Mr. Keyston stated he had information that 10% of the flat roofs in this vicinity are made of this product. He considered that it would be early December before the UBC Committee could approve this material, and this would not be soon enough for the 533 Airport Boulevard building. He introduced Mr. Colin Gilboy, manufacturer's representative, as available for questions. The qualities of the product were described, one of which is 50% better insulation than the same thickness of other roofing material. Mr. Keyston emphasized that this product does not - 7 - affect the fire rating, structural integrity, or any life safety systems in the building. He stated its guarantee is far superior to a regular roofing guarantee. He answered some Commission questions on the technical application of Trocal S. City Attorney Coleman asked if it is proposed to do construction with the limitations set forth in Mr. Keyston's letter of October 8, 1975. Mr. Keyston agreed. Chairman Sine stated he had found this material listed in Sweet's Architectural Catalog, so it has national recognition. Local representa- tives of two of his Eastern accounts had informed him they had built several structures using Trocal S. Two other Eastern contractors whom he had called had used the product and found it satisfactory. In reply to a question from Commissioner Jacobs, Mr. Gilboy stated the same testing laboratories are used for the three different code committees, although different tests are run. Commissioner Taylor noted that the code specifies that the use of alternative materials shall be those which meet the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. He questioned if the Commission would be dis- charging its responsibility if it approved something which did not meet UBC requirements. Mr. Keyston noted the material was not yet approved. Mr. Keyston distributed copies of a report from the Southern Building Code. Chairman Sine affirmed that in the South and in the East there were large and reputable architectural firms that used Trocal S; and the mere fact that it was not used in the West was not conclusive to him. There was some comparison of this situation with that of Romex cable which is prohibited by the City but approved by ICBG. Mr. Keyston made the point that Building Inspector Calwell is authorized to approve this material. On a question from Commissioner Taylor, City Engineer Davidson read part of Section 106, 1973 Uniform Building Code, which states "The building official may approve any such alternate provided he finds that the proposed design is satisfactory ." At this point, 9:00 P.M., Commissioner Mink entered the meeting. Commissioner Taylor noted this indicates the Building Inspector does not have to test the material himself, but can accept evidence. The City Engineer agreed. However, he reported that Building Inspector Calwell is unsure about unknowns such as the material's ability to stand up under the sun and the question of deterioration. Under these circum- stances the Building Inspector was reluctant to approve it. He added that seemingly this appears a much better product than some other roofing materials. However, the City is concerned with its durability over the years. On a question from Chairman Sine, Mr. Keyston stated he would agree to a ten-year warranty on this roof. Commissioner Francard desired more information before voting, but it was established that no Pertinent information would be forthcoming before December. Commissioner Kindig thought the evidence presented had clarified his opinion. Commissioner Norberg stated that since this will not affect the health and welfare of the occupants of the building, the material seems to be superior, and there is evidence of approval in various parts of the country, the material should be approved. Commissioner Jacobs moved that the material, Trocal S, be approved for use on the -.building at 533 Airport Boulevard with the condition that there be a ten year warranty on the building roof. After establish- ing that this would apply to this one building only, Commissioner Francard seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote, Commissioner Mink abstaining. 7. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 1, ANZA AIRPORT PARK UNIT NO. 2 (RSM VOL. 65/27,28) AT 380,390 AND 398 LANG ROAD, ZONED M-1, BY H. G. HICKEY FOR LAWRENCE AND HAZEL CRIVELLI AND SECONDO & D. E. CRIVELLI, JR. (APN 026-331-400) AND ANZA PACIFIC CORP. (APN 026-331-410) Assistant City Planner Yost distributed copies of this parcel map. He told Commissioners this splits an existing parcel into two parcels, A and B to correspond with lines of ownership established in 1967. He gave dimensions of the parcels, noting that each has an existing building on it. The building on Parcel A requires 4 off-street parking spaces and five spaces are shown on the map. The building on Parcel B requires 17 spaces. Only 16 are shown, but another probably could be provided. Lot coverage on both parcels is within the code. He suggested that the 5' building setback line shown on the map be deleted, since Ordinance 1037 now :requires a 15' setback. City Engineer Davidson has a list of concerns with this map. He wanted building setback lines set, particularly along the proposed property line. He noted code requirement that any building wall that is separated from another by less than 20' shall have no openings in it. He understood there are some openings in the building on Parcel A and nothing on the map to indicate where they would be. He noted the 40' high theater sign actually straddles the proposed property line, but commented this is of no concern to the city. There is a permit for that sign. He noted the map's provision for 30' easement for future street and access to Parcel A. He requested this easement be extended across Parcel A to allow access to gas tanks for city buses and for channel maintenance and maintenance of City of Burlingame sign. He also requested a 30' easement along the west side of Parcel A for channel maintenance. The City Engineer commented there were some discrepancies between the title policies' dimensions and the dimensions shown on the lots. This is important for the final map. He added there are no contours shown on the map at all; there is no way to check whether the parcels are self- contained as far as drainage is concerned. Mr. David Keyston was accorded permission to address the Commission. He agreed that setback lines could be shown; the 30' easement as requested was acceptable; dimension discrepancies could be corrected. On the subject of drainage, he thought the properties are not completely self-contained but there is a drainage system that drains them all. City Engineer Davidson reminded him of the code_ -requirement that no lot may drain onto another lot. Mr. Keyston requested that both tentative and final parcel maps be scheduled for hearing at the next meeting since he had a sale of one of the parcels. City Engineer Davidson was reluctant to consider both maps so soon, since so many items needed revision. He preferred to hear only the tentative map. Mr. Keyston affirmed he could confer with the City Engineer the following day to resolve both the tentative and final map. The Chairman announced both tentative and final maps would be scheduled for hearing on October 28, over the objections of staff concerning the final map. 8. AMENDED SUBDIVISION MAP, PARK PLAZA TOWERS, A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT AT 110 PARK ROAD, BEING A SUBDIVISION OF PARCEL A RSM 19/40, BY RONALD J. REE SE FOR MORTGAGE TRUST OF AMERICA. City Engineer Davidson reported to the Commission that the City Council had reached an agreement with the new owners of this condominium, Mortgage Trust of America, allowing them to develop the condominium as shown rather than as planned. This amended map should actually be termed a subdivision map. It is a technical amendment showing dimensions on the changed units and an increase from 44 units to 45. He recommended this be set for hearing as an amended subdivision map. In reply to Commission question he stated this project was initiated before the City had its condominium ordinance. Chairman Sine set this map for hearing 10/28/75. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CHILDREN"S CREATIVE LEARNING PROGRAM AT ST. PAUL'S CHURCH NURSERY SCHOOY., 405 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 028-281-020) ZONED R-3 BY JON BARKHURST. Assistant City Planner Yost presented background of this application. He reported that in June, 1960 a special permit was approved for a church nursery school for 36 pupils at 405 E1 Camino. This school operates on weekday mornings. In 1963 a further special permit was granted for a parking lot at the rear of this site. At present, the church does not use the school or the parking lot on weekday afternoons. The present applicant wishes to establish a "Creative Learning Center" for young children at the church weekday afternoons from 12:00 to 6:00 P.M. Basically, this would be a continuation of the present morning use of the facility with an enrollment of 30-36 children. According to the Assistant City Planner, the issue is: will this use present additional benefits to the community or additonal problems? Mr. Jon Barkhurst told commissioners this school would be licensed by the State, and necessary applications are being processed through the County Health Department. He stated this Department forsaw no problems in finalizing, and that all personnel fall under their juris- diction. In response to Commission questions he stated that children would be driven to school by their parents and picked up at the end of the session. There was adequate parking and dropoff and pickup would probably be on Occidental. - 10 - Chairman Sine set this application for hearing October 28, 1975. 10. WORK PRIORITIES FOR FY 1975-76; COMMISSION OBJECTIVES AND STAFF RE SOURCE S The City Planner discussed questionnaire on relative importance of planning activities which Commissioners were to complete. He regarded this as an opportunity for the Commission to evaluate planning work which had been done and that which would be of most importance in the future. Sixty-one various subjects are listed in such differing categories as zoning studies, signs, general plan studies and revisions, and others. The City Planner stated that most staff time is presently spend on planning applications, a large amount of time on special studies, and much time on work with the public. He requested that Commissioners return their forms at this meeting or early the next day, and three major priorities be designated. Discussion followed during which the City Planner explained the following items: 60. CEQA. Abbreviation for California Environmental Act of 1970. 28. Transit and Transportation Plan. Linkage of all transportation systems as a part of a circulation system. 37-38. Community Development projects in E. Burlingame and Corbitt tract. Money is available as part of the Federal block grant program. A project can be designated; for example, street improve- ment or code enforcement. 39. Housing Assistance Plan. Making housing of a wide variety available to people living in Burlingame. 43. Defensible space. Guidelines to be established by joint work of city police and planners for better design of residential and business areas for improved protection of private property. 44. Acquisition of conservation easements. Example: a stream channel that needs to be maintained and which has no present city easement. 54. Office space adsorption. Study of has fast additional office space is being constructed, leased, and occupied. 59. Build data bank. Compilation of data on land use, space use, demographic, and socio-economic information of such use for purpose of cost benefit analysis. A project could be evaluated in terms of costs and gains and its apparent benefit to the city. At the end of this discussion, City Planner Swan assured Commissioners that a report on results of questionnaires would be presented to the Commission at the next meeting. 11. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR CONDOMINIUM PERMITS. City Planner Swan informed the Commission there are two condominiums being discussed by the Planning staff and design representatives at the present time. He then referred to previously mailed design review criteria for condominium permits, and suggested that these guidelines be aceepted or modified so -that a resolution could be drafted. Adopted guidelines would enable staff and Commission to review condominium applications more thoroughly. Chairman Sine suggested that office condominiums be included in these criteria. The City Planner agreed this would be useful, but it might require a separate set of guidelines. The City Planner asked that Commissioners review guidelines particularly in the light of condominium conversions. He also asked consideration of the problem of noise transmission. He suggested condominiums be reviewed in two stages: 1. Conceptual approval 2. Specific project details; building plans, site improvements, the CC & R etc. There was Commission discussion of Items C and D of the criteria which deal with arrangements of units within the building and the individual unit floor plans. Commissioner Taylor thought it was not the function of the Planning Commission to review details, such as a separate dining area, because this is not done for private homes. Commissioner Mink considered that the number, type and size of rooms is a function of public health and safety. He spoke of the common areas,- such as hallways, as comparable to public areas of streets and sidewalks over which the City has jurisdiction. Chairman Sine added if this is to be a specific then the door to the hallway of this "quasi -public" building should be solid core, one hour. Commissioner Francard definitely wanted conversions included in the criteria. Regarding conversions, Chairman Sine commented that any municipality should have apartments for the use of people who needed them, and many young people do not have the money to buy condo- miniums. Commissioner Mink did not approve of detailed landscaping plan specified in Ordinance 1015, since this is not required for private residential areas, and he disapproved of selective enforcement by zones. Commissioner Jacobs remarked condominiums have more impact on the neigh- borhood than small residential homes. Commissioner Kindig considered the type of landscaping too specific. It would be appropriate if "type" of plant materials were eliminated. He suggested Commissioners mark criteria sheets and return to Planning Department with modifications and eliminations. After further discussion and Commission agreement that these are non - enforceable guidelines, Commissioners agreed to study these criteria for further discussion. 12. INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. 1046, WHICH DELETES THEATERS FROM THE LIST OF PERMITTED USES IN THE C-1 AND C-2 ZONING DISTRICTS City Planner Swan discussed recommendation that Emergency Ordinance 1046 be supplemented by a permanent code change to delete the word "theater" from the list of permitted uses in C-1 and C-2, and that a decision be made whether this use may be allowed with a special permit. It would be proper for the Commission to make a recommendation to the Council to make a code amendment. Unless a code amendment is processed on an extension is noticed and approved, that emergency ordinance will cease. A simple change would add theaters as a conditional use requiring - 12 - a special permit. There was Commission discussion as to the intent of this ordinance and the extent to which a special use permit could control different phases of the theater use. City Attorney Coleman stated a conditional use permit would control only in the usual areas of these permits. Different conditions can be imposed except with regard to the first amendment, at least as far as C-1 and C-2 zones are concerned. Quality or type of movies cannot be specified. Commission comments included the fact that people have the option of attending either regular or pornographic movies as they desire, and a suggestion that the owners of these buildings have rights also. City Planner Swan urged that some action be taken since there is now an application pending for the use of one of these theaters. He presented options to the ordinance as: Incorporation of changes, no changes, or conditional use permit. He commented that a conditional use permit would appear to be more equitable than prohibition. One commissioner suggested resolution of the problem by a finding of fact. He suggested the life style of the community has changed since the advent of television and requested findings of fact including in- formation from the Police Department on car thefts in the vicinity of the theaters and a report on long term parking in the area of Broadway. He stated the use of the SP lot at Broadway is dangerous since people must cross a busy arterial, there is no contiguous parking, street lighting on California Drive is adequate but not on the side streets. With easy access to Bayshore and the 7-11 store and some crime in that area he voiced concern about the safety of the community at night. He urged staff to make a finding of fact to remove these uses from these zones, and added that his personal opinion on porno movies did not impact his decision on this particular use. Another Commissioner remarked that theaters do not add to our retail trade business. There was a suggestion that a finding of fact be made to result in the removal of this use from these zones. To this, one commissioner remarked he had no definite feelings about the use, but fact finding should be an indication of actuality; and it is possible to make a demonstration of facts to fit any situation. Another Commissioner agreed the facts should not support a certain conclusion. City Attorney Coleman stated that staff could report back to the Commission at the November study meeting. The Council has until January 1, 1976 to act on this ordinance. A public hearing could possibly be held on November 28. Chairman Sine announced this matter would be continued to the November study meeting. 13. SIGN PERMIT GUIDELINES AND REGULATIONS City Planner Swan referenced study information distributed which included alternative drafts of an ordinance amending Section 22.08.02 providing for the issuance of sign permits. He remarked that the recent - 13 - personal experience of being on the witness stand and testifying on the sign code had highlighted some inconsistency regarding painted signs. He broached the question of where the responsibility for sign enforcement will be. Assuming a modern sign ordinance is developed, who will be the sign "cop". City Attorney Coleman added he thought the point had to be faced. is the Building Department going to enforce it or is it the Planning Department. The permit situation gets very fuzzy and he thought the situation of where the public goes for a permit and who checks up on them needed to be faced healon. He emphasized this does not mean the creation of another department. However, many different people are now involved with signs - the building inspector, the City Planner, the City Attorney, and others. Commissioner Sine thought it would be best to rewrite the entire ordinance, covering every aspect of signs, and suggested that most of it be ministerial. Commissioners Jacobs and Francard agreed to the rewriting. Commissioner Jacobs suggested it not be so lengthy, but the City Attorney considered it must be fairly lengthy to cover all eventual- ities. He especially approved the definitions proposed. Commissioner Mink suggested the chief city administrator should have the responsibility of sign enforcement. He did not feel it was the function of the Commission and Council to tell the City how to arrange its personnel. He considered Draft A of the ordinance to be suitable, and suggested a time limit on work on a new ordinance. Commissioner Kindig had no objections to rewriting the code. Chairman Sine considered that four months would be adequate for the work. There was a consensus of the Commission that there should be a modern sign ordinance, with a report from staff at a later date. APPLICATION FOR GARAGE AND HOBBY ROOM Chairman Sine gave permission for Zev Ben -Simon, 1517 Burlingame Avenue, to address the Commission. Mr. Ben -Simon told Commissioners he had recently purchased this property and wanted to build a garage and a hobby room. He had been informed by the City Planner that he would need a special permit for the hobby room and must appear before the Planning Commission. Mr. Ben -Simon stated he did not see the reason for a hearing for such a trivial piece of construction. Chairman Sine stated the reason for this was control of illegal living units, and gave examples. Mr. Ben -Simon stated he only wished to have a laundry room in the property. Chairman Sine again explained he could build a garage and apply for a hobby room later, but that he must follow established procedures. City Planner Swan reported that Mr. Ben -Simon had appeared at 3:00 P.M. this afternoon with this request. Procedures had been explained to him, and he had been given an application form and advised of the fee, and told he might appear at this meeting. Since Mr. Ben Simon had no completed application Commissioners refused to consider his project, Chairman Sine told him this could be on the next agenda if he followed proper procedures. - 14 - OTHER BUSINESS Chairman Sine requested that staff work on a sandblasting ordinance. This should include wet sandblasting, and should include both old and new structures. City Attorney Coleman informed him work was in progress on such an. --:ordinance. City Planner Swan reminded Commissioners of the League of California Cities Conference to be held in San Francisco the week of October 20. (Mr. Zev Ben -Simon informed the City Planner at the end of the meeting he would not be submitting an application.) ' ADJOURNMENT The meeting regularly adjourned at 11:30 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary