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