Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1975.10.28THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION October 28, 1975 COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT Francard None City Planner Swan Jacobs Asst.City Planner Yost Kindig City Engineer Davidson Mink City Attorney Coleman Norberg 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 October 14, 1975 were approved as written. 1. 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 AND D. E. CRIVELLI JR. (APN 026-331-400) Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing. Report was requested from City Engineer Davidson. The City Engineer informed Commission members the applicant had agreed to put in wire glass in the wall openings on the property line of the building on Parcel A. This would satisfy code and should be made a condition of approval. He added the applicant had asked that, pending a letter of commitment from him, the easement around the "Welcome to Burlingame" sign be delayed until after January 1, 1976. The City Engineer indicated he would have no objection to this delay if it could be worked out legally, but he would like to have assurance this would be done. City Engineer Davidson went on to say that Anza Pacific would prefer not to give a permanent easement around the propane tanks which are going to be there on a temporary basis. Rather, they would cooperate with the city in whatever commitment might be necessary, such as a lease. The City Engineer tended to agree with this viewpoint. Anza Pacific, he stated, agrees to give the City access to the channel for maintenance. Referring to the access to be given from the cul-de-sac of Lang Road to Parcel A, the City Engineer commented on the City Attorney's opinion that when an access is given, an easement is implied, and need not be shown on the map. He went on to say the tentative and final maps indicate a change in building setback line along the cul-de-sac of Lang Road and along the 30' easement along the south property line. - 2 - Since there is presently a 5' building setback line around the circum- ference of the cul -de --sac and also adjacent to the 30' access easement, and since the present city code of 15' would still supersede the map, he questioned if it should be changed. He noted the 15' setback would go through the building on Parcel B. City Attorney Coleman suggested that this setback line be left off. The City Engineer recommended that the tentative map be considered with the condition that all openings within 10' of the property line be enclosed with wire glass. Although the final map cannot be conditioned, he suggested it could be considered at this meeting, if there were commitment from the owner that closure of openings would be accomplished. He suggested separate motions. City Planner Swan reported the property was divided into two parcels in 1967 for the purpose of financing, and the Airportransit fi.tm leases both of those parcels. He stated they are considering a lease with an option to purchase. He suggested the urgency of the final map under these circumstances and requested comment from Mr. David Keyston on this subject. Mr. Keyston indicated he was willing for the City Engineer to delay signing the final map until the wire glass was installed and inspected. He added the final map was urgent, since Airportransit had recently signed an eight year lease on both pieces of property. This lease contains an option to buy 380 Lang Road within three years. Anza Pacific has a buyer for both pieces of property who will honor the option on 380 Lang Road, and Anza Pacific will have a 30 year leasehold on 390 Lang Road. In reply to Commission question he stated the propane tanks are on the property which Anza will keep. He agreed to give the City a letter authorizing the propane tanks to remain, but stated that arrangements should actually be made with the tenant. In addition, he suggested when the tenancy ceased the City should rent the site. He added that when the tanks are removed, there will be no problem on channel access. He stated he hoped to dedicate the area around the sign to the City after the first of January, 1975. Commissioner Mink reviewed the five items of concern on this map and questioned the.City Attorney if the tentative map should be conditioned on the window openings and the establishment of some final agreement between the City Attorney and applicant for space around the sign, access to the propane tanks, and development of easements. The City Attorney agreed these points should be contained in the motion. Commissioner Francard questioned the parking under the PGE easement, and was informed by Mr. Keyston that it was permanent, authorized by an agreement made with PGE. There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Taylor questions how a parcel map could be conditioned by such detail of wire glass in a building already there. The City Attorney commented the Planning Commission must deal with the fait accompli of the building which does not meet the code if this property line is established. - 3 - Commissioner Mink moved the acceptance of both tentative and final parcel map with the understanding that the final parcel map will not be signed until the openings on the property line in the building on Parcel A are treated with wire glass and necessary agreements are made to establish an easement around the "Welcome to Burlingame" sign, access to the propane tanks and access to the channel. Commissioner Taylor seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 2. 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. At the request of Chairman Sine, City Planner Swan reviewed circumstances of this map. He stated that on October 6, the City Council approved an agreement authorizing 45 units in this building instead of the 44 proposed on the original plans. He explained the physical change in three condominium units which made space for one additional unit. The amended subdivision map reflects the as -built plans, and follows the agreement made by the City Council. He stated.there was no change in parking and no structural change other than changing these three units to four units. City Engineer Davidson listed his concerns with the map as follows: 1. Closure calculations 2. Identification on map be changed from "parcel map" to"subdivision map. 11 3. Sheet 3 of the original map shows air space by elevation. Amended map for this sheet deletes elevation for parking and storage areas. These should be replaced. 4. Deck space "B" on original plans was tied directly to units. Amended plan removes this designation. 5. The Subdivision Map Act requires statement on the map that it is filed at the request of the City Clerk. This has been omitted. The City Engineer stated the project architect had been informed of these requirements two weeks ago, but that, to the best of his knowledge, only the closure calculations had been received as of this afternoon. Staff had no opportunity to review and he questioned if the map should be considered at this meeting. Project architect Rene Cardinaux protested that closure calculations had been mailed previously and all changes to the map had been submitted this afternoon. He apologized for the misunderstanding, but urged the approval of the map conditional upon meeting all of the City Engineer's requirements. The City Engineer reported he had requested details to be submitted by 10/23/75 in order to have adequate time for staff review. Commissioner Taylor suggested this map be approved conditional upon completion of the City Engineer's requirements. There was little Commission comment. In response to the Chair's request for audience comment, Mr. Marion Donahoe, 110 Park Road, responded. As an owner of one of the upits in this condo, he urged Commission approval of the amended map in view of the minor changes. There were no further comments and the public hearing was declared closed. Chairman Sine commented on the minimal changes structurally. There was no other Commission comment. Commissioner Taylor moved the amended subdivision map be approved conditional upon completion of the six items specified in letter of 10/24/75 from the City Engineer's office. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 3. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR CHILDREN'S CREATIVE LEARNING PROGRAM AT ST. PAUL'S CHURCH NURSERY SCHOOL, 405 EL CAMINO REAL (APN 028-281-020) ZONED R-3, BY JON BARKHURST Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing. City Planner Swan told Commissioners this is basically a request for extension of the same type of use which now exists. The Church conducts a nursery school in the morning, Creative Learning wants to use the premises for a nursery school in the afternoons. There would be 30-36 students and from 2 to 6 employees. This involves no change in land use. The parking lot and the side street frontage along Chapin provide good access for pickup and delivery of children. The City Planner displayed site plans for this use, reporting that the first special permit for a nursery school was approved in June, 1960. In April of 1963, there was another permit granted to use adjacent land as a parking lot for about 16 vehicles. At present the parking area is not in use during the afternoon. There would be no expansion of the building. Secretary Jacobs read application letter of October 9, 1975 from Jon D. Barkhurst, director of Creative Learning, which covered the facts reported by the City Planner. Mr. Jon D. Barkhurst informed Commissioners he was available for questions. Commissioner Taylor questioned if St. Paul's Church would maintain control over the afternoon school. Mr. Barkhurst explained that Mrs. Barbara Ild had the full responsibility for the morning nursery school; and the Creative Learning session would be working with her also. The Church does not exercise any program control. Application for new students who will attend the full day would be handled by Mrs. Ild at the nursery school. Creative Learning also would be working closely with Reverend James. In response to question from Commissioner Jacobs, Mr. Barkhurst stated the back parking lot would be used which comes off Occidental. Cars would not be entering from E1 Camino. Responding to Commissioner Mink, Mr. Barkhurst stated he was on the staff at Nueva Day School and the property then had been leased as it would be in this case. The outside facilities of the well -arranged yard with grass and concrete areas, swings, and slides would be used. No changes would be made on the property, and no climbing structures would be added which might be visible from neighboring residences. He informed Commissioner Mink this is a staff school rather than a proprietory school and is a non- profit organization. Commissioner Mink remarked he was concerned about a commercial venture in a residential zone. Chairman Sine requested audience comment. There was none, and the - 5 - public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Francard questioned fire inspection procedures. Mr. Barkhurst told him the present permit requires fire inspection on a regular basis; and since the number of children attending at one time would not be changed, the inspection routine would not be changed. Commissioner Kindig questioned if the school might continue through- out the entire year if successful, rather than the period requested of September through June. Mr. Barkhurst agreed there was this possibility. Commissioner Norberg considered this a worthwhile project and had no objections. Commissioner Mink received verification that the permit would be issued to Creative Learning. He suggested the desirability of a statement from the property owner approving this use. Commissioner Taylor approved the project. Commissioner Mink moved that this special permit be granted in accordance with the attachments to the special permit application, with the ex- ception that in application letter of 10/9/75, second paragraph, the phrase " . . .September through June" be deleted. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. 4. RESOLUTION NO. 15-75, RECOMMENDING CODE AMENDMENTS TO TITLE 25 ZONING TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION: (1) ADD SEC. 25.08.325 DEFINITION OF GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES FOR THE ELDERLY (2) ADD UNDER SEC. 25.32.030 CONDITIONAL USES REQUIRING A SPECIAL PERMIT: 4. GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES FOR THE ELDERLY. At the request of Chairman Sine, City Planner Swan reported that staff had prepared a resolution recommending ordinance change for these two items. He read statement of findings contained in Paragraph 2 of the resolution, and added that there may be other findings which the Commission might wish to add to the resolution. Commissioner Jacobs questioned statement in findings "Federal financing is now available for such projects, making them available to persons of limited income, " Referring to the Casa Amigo project, she questioned how a rental of $600 per month could be applied to limited income. She also questioned statement that adequate provisions are in the code for off-street parking. City Planner Swan commented that the rental rate is not a part of the findings. The point made is that Federal financing is now available for such projects. City Attorney Coleman added that there was a precedent in a recent project of this type. At that time it was stated there was a requirement that a certain number of people on SSI be included in this facility. City Attorney Coleman verified that there was a specific code requirement for parking for facilities of this type. He read Code Section 25.70.03- Offstreet Parking for Group Residential Facilities for Elderly People. Commissioner Mink reminded the Chairman he would not be able to vote on this application since he had been absent from the pertinent part of the October 14 meeting. Commissioners Norberg, Francard, Kindig, and Taylor had no further comment on the application. Chairman Sine stated he believed this ordinance was drafted for the benefit of one developer and he intended to vote against it. Commissioner Taylor moved that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 15-75, recommending these code amendments to Title 25 Zoning to the City Council for consideration. Commissioner Kindig seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRANCARD,KINDIG,NORBERG,TAYLOR NAYS S: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS,SINE ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MINK VOTING AFTER. REVIEW OF MINUTES At this point City Attorney Coleman informed Commissioners the City Council had before it an ordinance to require a vote of the majority of the entire Planning Commission to pass any motion of the Commission. This means any motion would require four votes to pass. City Planner Swan suggested the possibility of absent Commissioners reading the transcript of the meeting and then being held able to vote. He stated some cities do this. The City Attorney reported that as a matter of law this could be done. He considered the minutes detailed and very accurate so they could be used. However, action type minutes would not suffice. Commissioner Kindig agreed, stating he considered the minutes excellent and the idea a good one. He thought this action would be valuable in the future. Commissioners Sine and Mink agreed, noting instances when only four members of the Commission were present or periods when a hearing continued over several months and some people were not able to be present at all meetings concerning it. Commissioners felt this would be an important procedure. City Attorney Coleman stated he would send a memo to the Planning Commission outlining this change. 5A. SIGN PERMIT FOR 90 SF WALL SIGN AND 8 SF PROJECTING SIGN AT 927 HOWARD AVENUE BY BRIAN DOUGLAS OF THE FOUR CAR GARAGE. Chairman Sine introduced this application for hearing. At his request Assistant City Planner Yost detailed sign permit facts. He told Commissioners Mr. Douglas is the owner of a new business which services foreign cars. In July, 1975 Mr. Douglas had received a building permit for four awnings on the Myrtle Road elevation. Each of these was painted with an 8" high sign with the names respectively of Rolls Royce, Mercedes, Porsche, and Jaguar. Total signage was 12.7 SF. Prior to this an older roof sign on the building was removed. He had then added a 90 SF wall sign, 3' x 30', non -illuminated, advertising "The Four Car Garage." Another sign on the application is for an 8 SF projecting sign on the Howard Road elevation. This sign would be illuminated from dusk to 10 PM. He reported that Mr. Douglas had color slides to present which would more fully explain this application. Prefacing his slide showing, Mr. Douglas commented that the wall sign - 7 - up existing was not put/in defiance of the Planning Commission. He had intended to make application, and had removed a previous 47' x 3' wall sign that identified the previous business. He had engaged a sign company to produce the new wall sign, and when they had completed it, he was eager to see the effect. He had put it on the wall, and had intended to cover it with paper, but because of wind the paper would not stay on the wall. Mr., Douglas showed slides of signage now on the building and that which had previously existed, including the large 47' sheet metal company sign, and the large roof sign. He pointed out the decrease in signage area with his present program and the more pleasing effect, which enhances the appearance of the building. Chairman Sine questioned if Mr. Douglas had intended the wide painted stripes at the bottom of the wall to be part of the signage program. The applicant replied he had considered them a part of the paint job itself for the purpose of brightening up the building. The Chairman then questioned if he had been informed at the time of the awning permit that any additional signage would require a sign permit. Mr. Douglas stated the permit had been handled by the sign company, and they might have been so informed. Assistant City Planner Yost commented that striping might be considered a part of signage under the proposed sign ordinance, but would hardly apply under the present. He confirmed that at the time of the awning permit the Building Department had informed the sign company that any additional signage would require a permit. Chairman Sine questioned the loss of 4 parking spaces by the painted yellow loading zone on the curb. Mr. Douglas stated that had been repainted by the City and he had had no objections. In reply to a question from Commissioner Francard, Mr. Douglas stated the only addition to the Myrtle Road signage was the projecting sign on Howard and a small inspection sign required by the State of California. Commissioner Kindig questioned the necessity for the illumination of projecting Sign B. Mr. Douglas indicated he had no positive feelings about it, and would not illuminate if there were objections. Commissioner Jacobs approved of the appearance of the building. However, she considered that color designs were a part of signage, giving the example of Bob's on Broadway. Commissioner Kindig received confirmation that the signage on the awnings had already been approved. He then moved that the Planning Commission approve permit for the 90 SF wall sign and the 8 SF projecting sign, with the understanding that the projecting sign is not to be lighted. Commissioner Jacobs seconded the motion and it carried on unanimous roll call vote. Commissioner Kindig commented that the building owner should be present on all sign hearings so that he would be aware of conditions. 5B. PETITION TO PERMIT A FENCE MORE THAN 6 FT. IN HEIGHT AT 100 CALIFORNIA DRIVE FOR DICK BULLI_SCHEVROLET. At the onset of this hearing, Chairman Sine announced he did not choose '�.= to participate for personal reasons and would abstain from voting. For this application he turned over the Chairmanship to Vice -Chairman Taylor. Before leaving the Chair he suggested that the Commission give special consideration to the high amperage of lighting for this project; and the possible necessity for a parcel map. Chairman Taylor introduced this application for hearing and requested report from Assistant City Planner Yost. The Assistant City Planner explained plans for this proposed development at California and Howard. For this large area Mr. Bullis proposes two new units. The front portion of the site facing California Drive, for a depth of 55', would be devoted to new and used car sales. The rear portion is to be a storage area for more than 120 new cars. Hence there is a real concern for security. A security fence is proposed which would be 818" high and would divide the two areas. (Ed. This fence would be 295' in length extending from new sales office to existing buildings, and including a 20' gate.) This fence incorporates alternate sections of concrete block and wood. The Assistant City Planner then read letter of application dated October 23, 1975 from Richard S. Bullis which points out the necessity for protection of inventory and that a 6' high wall would not offer sufficient security. Assistant City Planner Yost noted the point raised on the lighting of the project and verified that a very high level of illumination was proposed. However, he commented that does not pertain to the present application. In reply to question from Commissioner Kindig, he affirmed there would be nothing on top of the security wall and total height is to be 8'611. Commissioner Jacobs questioned the need for high illumination if such a high wall were used for security. Mr. Cliff Harding, architect for Mr. Richard Bullis, was given per- mission to address the Commission. He explained that a 6'-7' fence is not high enough to prevent people from scaling it. He pointed out the attractive design of the wall was intended to lessen its impact along its 250' length along California Drive. He added that in place of the wall a flat roof structure could have been erected and no permit would have been necessary. He noted that the wall is to protect a $1,000,000 inventory, and added there will be a fence on the SP property line. In reply to questions from Commissioner Taylor he affirmed that this fence will not abut any street and that there is a 40' setback on Howard. The surface of the sales area along California Drive will be concrete. Commissioner Mink questioned the fence on the SP property line. Mr. Harding stated this will be an 8' chain link fence with l' of barbed wire on top of it for total security. This fence cannot be seen from California Drive. It was his understanding that an 8' fence was permitted in industrial areas and the Bullis property is related to the industrial property behind it. Commissioner Jacobs suggested the view of this project from California Drive would not be pleasing. Mr. Harding cited the extra space created by Mr. Bullis' razing the buildings previously there and the lesser coverage of his proposed development. Commissioner Jacobs questioned how many lots were involved. The City Planner reported no plot map had been submitted. Mr. Harding reported that in effect this was one piece of property, since Mr. Bullis owned the property on Bayswater and California, owned the property on the north of the site and had an eight-year lease on the property in the middle of the site. Mr. Harding stated the owner of this middle portion could not sell for seven years because of a tax problem. Commissioner Kindig questioned security on the front sales lot. Mr. Harding explained that the concrete slopes back about V from the front and there is a 6" curb. If a thief attempted to drive a car over it, the front wheels would hang up on it. In reply to a question from Commissioner Taylor, Mr. Harding suggested the wall was attractive enough not to need screening. Mr. Harding then detailed justification of the lighting load of 600 amperes, which includes lighting for future signs and for security purposes. He noted that the sign program would be brought before the Planning Commission at a later date, and there was Commission comment that the lighting would be considered at that time. Commissioner Jacobs questioned security on the back of the lot, and Mr. Harding pointed out visibility of the lot through the chain link fence. Commissioner Mink commended Mr. Bullis and Mr. Harding for a well - organized plan which appeared to be sensitive to the amenities of the area. However, he stated he was concerned with the future lighting and suggested Mr. Harding present profiles for this. Mr. Harding agreed. Mr. Richard Bullis told Commissioners he approved Mr. Harding's work and considered the result would be an attractive site. He stated he would repaint his old building. There was no response to the Chairman's request for audience comment and the public hearing was declared closed. Commissioner Mink stated he considered this met the variance requirements of exceptional circumstances, no public hazard, no damage to neighbor- ing properties such as the SP and hardship requirements as to wall height. He moved that the petition for a fence constructed in general conformity with the blue line plans submitted in their entirety be approved. Commissioner Francard questioned if this motion covered the fence only, and was informed it would. Commissioner Norberg seconded the motion and it carried on the following roll call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: FRAI-ARD, ; KINDIG, MINK, NORBERG, TAYLOR NAPES: COMMISSIONERS: JACOBS ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: SINE RECONVENE After a short recess at 9:30 P. M. the meeting reconvened. - 10 - 6. SUMMARY OF RESPONSES FROM PLANNING COMMISSIONERS ON WORK PRIORITIES FOR FY 1975-76. City Planner Swan explained Exhibit distributed to the Commission which tabulates vote on importance of 63 planning activities. Ten most urgent items had been selected in order of their importance; and ten items of general concern to Commission and staff respectively. He asked that the Commission evaluate this report, and from the list of 18 different tasks select the five most important. This would indicate to staff definite priorities for the coming year. j - One commissioner asked for a realistic percentage of how planning staff time is now spent. The City Planner replied that about 25% is spent on special studies; 25% for staff work on applications to the Planning Commission; and the other 50% is spent in department zoning administration, information to the public, business license checking, field work and other duties. There was commission comment that the percentage of time spent by other departments such as engineering, attorney, and building department would be useful. Another Commissioner remarked he was concerned with the judgmental function of the Planning Commission in such matters as use permits. He stated the Commission must prepare records in event of appeal; the Commission's decisions are going to be more susceptible to appeal and guidelines should be set up as to how much information the Commission should have to function on recommendations to the City Council. There was some discussion. The City Planner told Commissioners he would report on the results of their vote in the near future. 7. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE SIGN ORDINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Chairman Sine, speaking as a member of the Chamber of Commerce Sign Committee, told Commissioners there had been a meeting this date with excellent input and one more meeting of the committee is scheduled. Commissioner Jacobs .requested permission to attend the next meeting of this committee. Assistant City Planner Yost reviewed points of sign committee recommen- dations of September 30, 1975 with comparisons to the present sign code and current Commission suggestions. Chamber of Commerce recommendations and a summary of his comments follow: Permit required for sign over 250 SF. Present is 32 SF and considera- tion beingiven to 50 SF. Should there be a consistent review line throughout the city or different review lines for different areas? Permit for sign over 32' high. Could a ground sign be built to 321? Should we stay with present code for pole signs of 35' in M-1; 20' in commercial zones? _Permit for any sign over 35% of front wall and over 20% of side wall. Staff has presented other standards based on recent Commission actions. What is reasonable? Permit for any sign with total area over 2 SF per lineal front fnnt- of frontage. Review of previous planning commission actions indicates a lower city standard. Do we want to change? Permit for any sign over 25% of window areas. Present code does not limit signs in windows. __Permit for any sign over four colors. Why four colors? Should certain colors be prohibited? Limitations for all districts or for just some? _Permit for any Project over two acres. "Project" needs to be clarified. The Assistant City Planner indicated that response from the Commission to these initial ideas would be desirable. Commissioner Jacobs thought some compromise could be reached, but was unwilling to accept these present guidelines. She considered a signage program could be valid by zones. She did not approve of the front of a building containing 35% signage. Commissioner Mink thought these guidelines were a good first effort but that they met only part of the issues. He was concerned with window signage and the specifications for signage per lineal front foot. He suggested recommendations be made for signs with changing or changeable copy. Commissioner Kindig suggested the Chamber carefully consider the questions raised by the staff and Commission. Chairman Sine suggested inclusion of definition on flags and banners. Commissioner Francard suggested the problem be approached by exclusion of what is undesirable. Commissioner Taylor considered the committee suggestions too relaxed, and remarked that very few existing signs would not meet these requirements. Mr. David Keyston of the Chamber committee commented the guidelines were proposed with the point of having as few signs as possible come before the Commission, and that these be the definitely objectionable type. He requested input from the Commission as to whether this was their objective and how much control they desired. Commissioner Jacobs remarked she thought these guidelines permissive, but considered that a middle ground could be reached. After some further discussion, Chairman Sine announced this would be considered again after further work by the Chamber Committee. LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONVENTION Commissioners and staff who attended the League of California Cities Conference in San Francisco discussed their impressions. Commissioner Taylor was not impressed with the format of this con- ference, mentioning one meeting he attended where the subject was the proposed rewriting of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Chairman Sine noted he had attended only two meetings, so would reserve judgment. Commissioner Jacobs was impressed with a meeting on growth control, especially with regard to Petaluma and its right to control its growth with circumspection. She was interested to learn of Governor Brown's attitude on reviewing EIR procedures and effects to determine their value and possible need for change. City Attorney Coleman stated that in the planning area he had found - 12 - the discussion on the Petaluma case very interesting. He considered that the departmental meetings are much more useful than large conventions, and hoped that formats could be improved. City Planner Swan was impressed by Tuesday meetings about council and staff relations. Of particular interest was a presentation by Melvin LeBaron, faculty associate of the School of Public Administration USC. He spoke about giving attention to the process of relationships: listening, lauding, learning, leveling and Linking. LeBaron advocated taking time to link people together to act like a team to create action. Assistant City Planner Yost described a workshop on "Planning, Present and Future" which stressed that recent environmental regulations, mandatory General Plan elements, and new Federal housing programs are making the planner's role more action oriented. This action role raises the question of leadership, a question which necessarily impacts city councils and results in varying reaction to planning endeavors. The point was made that since these new issues and new ideas must be confronted, much better communication is needed among city departments, elected members and appointed commissioners. The speakers suggested that the planning department might serve as staff to the Mayor. At present, there may be too much distance between Planning Department and members of Council who have responsibility for setting policies and implementing them. The Assistant City Planner noted attendance at a meeting where recent bills and legislation were reviewed. A panel on the Petaluma case stressed the ability of this small city to control its growth by the establishment of a quota of building permits. in light of recent court actions, the message seems to be that Federal courts do not wish to be zoning boaids; and in the absence of State legislation, local government must be allowed to determine their character and growth rates. It was also suggested that if a city does not wish to accept active participation in a regional growth policy, it will be up to the sate legislature to draft a law that solves the problem. As a c,)rollary, the "right" to decent housing is not a constitutional right, but is a legislative question to be worked out between the State and the cities. OTHER City Planner Swan reminded Commissioners to complete their review of condominium criteria. ADJOURNMENT The meeting regularly adjourned at 11:15 P. M. Respectfully submitted, Ruth E. Jacobs Secretary