Laserfiche WebLink
RECESS <br /> <br />P. M. , with all Council members present. <br /> <br />At 8:25 P.M., a five-minute <br />recess was declared. The <br />meeting reconvened at 8:30 <br /> <br />CUP 71-17 The Clerk read a letter from <br />ERNEST & LILLIAN R. CAPP William Patrick O'Keefe, Jr., <br /> Attorney for Ernest and Lillian <br />R. Capp, requesting continuance of the hearing on CUP 71-17, to allow a <br />pre-school and day care center in the R 2 District at 1630 E. Palm Avenue, <br />approved by the Planning Commission and set for public hearing at the <br />request of the Council. <br /> <br />On motion of Councilman Villa, seconded by Councilman Herrin, Council <br />continued the hearing on CUP 71-17 to the next regular meeting on September <br />20, 1971. Motion carried on a 6 - 1 vote, Councilman Patterson dissenting. <br /> <br />APPEAL #277 The Mayor opened the public <br />BANK OF CALIFORNIA hearing on Appeal #277, filed <br />CIVIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN #22 by Heath & Co. , Inc. for the <br /> Bank of California, appealing <br />the Planning Commission's denial of roof sign, applied for under Civic <br />Development Plan #22, to be located on an existing bank and office building <br />in the CD District at 401 Civic Center Drive West. This matter was <br />continued from the August 16 meeting. <br /> <br />The Planning Director reported that this matter comes under a special <br />provision of the Code dealing tvith the Civic Development District; that <br />both the Staff and the Planning Commission relied on the provisions of <br />the Sign Ordinance as to what signs would be permitted on this building, <br />and both recommended denial of the roof sign and approval of the wall <br />signs. <br /> <br />The Clerk reported there were no written communications. <br /> <br />Mr. Jim Moore spoke on behalf of the Bank of California, requesting <br />reversal of the Planning Commission's determination on CD Plan #22. He <br />stated the Planning Commission vote was very close, 4 - 3, based on the <br />requirements of the sign ordinance; that the Civic Development ordinance <br />was for the benefit of protecting County and City investments in the Civic <br />Center area; but that in this particular instance, the sign that is on the <br />top of the building is inadequate. He stated the proposed sign would be <br />in front, done in a tasteful manner in ochra?, or gold, against a pale <br />cream. He presented a color rendering and also a scale picture. <br /> <br />There were no others who wished to speak in this matter, and the Mayor <br />closed the public hearing. <br /> <br />CITY COUNCIL <br /> <br />-303 - <br /> <br />September 7, 1971 <br /> <br /> <br />