CC MIN 01-07 to 12-15-1980 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

_. Posh... .... ,wEfYEty_� .YaYkw...ewW.vsnia-.wma.:.0r. _..�.� +.•in.. �_..u_ _._ —_ sa..'.,r-__.. .._a1)Jfsi 273 AGENDA (continued) ACTION TAKEN (continued) PUBLIC HEARINGS PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Public Hearing - Proposed vacation of spur Planning Commission record transmitted 5/21/80 track easement {Ampex Corporation) (Per RESOLUTION NO. 8599 adopted 6/2/80; Report Mayor Biagi declared open 7:38 p.m. of City Manager 5/29/80) Affidavits of publication of Notice of Hearing and of Posting declared on file. Mayor Biagi invited anyone present who wished to speak to do so. No one wished to speak. M/S: Leipzig/Rhodes to close the public hearing Carried unanimously by voice vote and hearing closed at 7:40 p.m. Title read. M/S: Chandler/Rhodes RESOLUTION VACATING SPUR TRACK EASEMENT RESOLUTION NO. 8616 adopted unanimously by roll call vote 2. Appeal of denial by Building Official of Report of City Manager 6/19/80 applications for project signs, 202 and 250 Report of Building Department 6/19/80 Walnut Street - Terranomics Corporation, Appeal letter of 6/4/80 from Terranomics San Francisco Mayor Biagi declared open at 7:42 p.m. noting that no publication of notice is required and that the appellant was notified in writing of the date of the hearing. City Attorney Schricker advised that the only 1.41 issue before Council is whether or not the interpretation of the sign ordinance by the Building Official is correct. Building Official Malkemus referred to the report from his office and to his letter of May 21, 1980 to Mr. George Otsen approving one sign and denying the other two of the three signs for which application was made and giving reasons therefor. Discussion followed and Mr. Malkemus and Mr. Schricker commented and replied to questions regarding the precedent which might be set if one sign were allowed per parcel in a shopping center instead of one for the center as pro- vided by ordinance; the requirements of the sign ordinance regarding freestanding signs beside freeways; the requirements of the Highway Beautification Act; the difficulties when elements of the sign ordinance may con- flict; and the difference between on-building and freestanding signs. Merritt Sher, Terranomics, stated he believes the three signs for which applications were made are justified, commenting that the Center is expected to draw from the surrounding Peninsula area and signing is necessary to direct prospective customers. Mr. Sher said that the third sign proposed to be placed off the premises on City property would be a directional sign and could be smaller. Reg.Mtg. 6/23/80 Page 2