Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1966.02.28CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION February 28, 1966 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was called to order on the above date at 8:00 p.m., Chairman Kindig presiding. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Brauner, Cistulli, Edwards, Horwitz, Kindig, Pierce Commissioners Absent: Norberg Commissioner Norberg, absent because of illness, was excused. MINUTES� The minutes of the regular meeting of January 24, the adjourned regular meeting of February 14, and the study meeting of February 14,1966 previously submitted to members,were approved and adoplsd. HEARINGS_ Public hearings, pursuant to public notice, were conducted as follows: 1. RESUBDIVISION. Lots 06 and 031, Block 41, Burlingame Park 44, _ ;WITHDRAWN) A resubdivision map of the above -described properties, filed by Howard G. Hickey, Civil Engineer, for the Seventh Day Adventist Church, 707 El Camino Real, Burlingame, was scheduled for public hearing at this time. -The City Planner reported that earlier in the day he received a tele- phoned request from Mr. Hickey to remove the application from the agenda; for the present, due to some problems, the Church is unable to consummate the purchase of the adjoining parcel. In response to the Chair's inquiry, there were no comments from the audience; members of the Commission indicating no objection, the appli- cant's request to withdraw was granted. 2.. RESUBDIVISION. Acreage northeasterly side of La Mesa Drive. (CONTINUED) A resubdivision map prepared by Howard G. Hickeyy, Civil Engineer, proposing a resubdivision of acreage on the northeasterly side of La Mesa Drive, owned by Mr. W.F. Rhoads, 1S30 La Mesa Drive, was scheduled for public hearing at this time. The applicant desired to divide two existing parcels into four, each with an area in excess- of 10,000 square feet; Parcel D. site of an existing dwelling, has frontage on La Mesa Drive; Parcels A, B and C front on a common driveway easement off La Mersa Drive, the easement being confined wholly within the boundaries of the property. Iffie City Engineer, in reply to the Chair, reported that since the study meeting the map has been revised as follows:: The ingress and egress easement has been widened to some extent, giving the curve a little longer radius for turning; also, a four inch water line.was added and a hydrant at the cul-de-sac end to comply with fire.depart- ment requirements.. In reply to Commissioners Brauner and Cistulli, the City Engineer con- firmed that the one hydrant and additional pavement at the curve of the driveway satisfied Fire Chief Moorby. The Engineer reported problems in the util'.ities-: The map shows a tenE private sanitary sewer easement but there 'is no showing of the location of the sewer nor the laterals to serve the four lots; further, water service to Parcel A is not indicated. He recommended, since there is more than one dwelling involved, that the water and sewer services necessarily should be city owned and maintained, and a public utility easement provided through the property for the purpose. The City Engineer mentioned also that there/some minor problems relating to drainage, which probably could be corrected with little efforc. Mr. Hickey, the project engineer arrived; following a discussion., Mr. Rhodes agreed to comply with the City Engineer's requirements for water and sewer improvements. In reply to the City Engineer, Mr.. Hickey confirmed that there will be public utility easements for power and telephone which will be.underground. A motion introduced by Commissioner Edwards, and regularly seconded, to continue the hearing to the meeting -of starch 14 for the engineering details«.:- to be completed was unanimously carried. 3. FRONT SETBACK VARIANCES ON SKYLINE BOULEVARD APPROVED. An application filed by -Alpha Land Company c/o Cyrus J. McMillan, 14SO Chapin Avenue,. Burlingame, requested a variance to allow less then the legal 1s foot front setback on five properties in'Mills Estate No. 2S as follows: Zone R-1 (First Residential) Block 43 Lot 37 16S6 Skyline Boulevard present front setback 14,69 38 1664 ditto ditto 13.S 39 1672 " " 6.7S 40 1680 6.7S 41 1688 " •• 14.3 A letter from the law offices of Anderson, McMillan and Connolly, dated February 10, 1966, claimed unusual or extraordinary circumstances in the properties as follows: The front property line of all of the lots included in the application -adjoins-.a buffer strip of land owned by the City of Burlingame, which separates the -homes from the existing Skyline Boulevard; Due to the existence of this city area, with the many trees thereon, the deviation from the required setback is not obvious, nor are there homes across Skyline or in any other area which would be materially affected; All of the houses but one are occupied by new owners and to relocate would create extreme hardship; _ Violation of setback requirements occurred entirely due to inadver- tence on the part of the applicant, its agents or its subcontractors. -2- Copies of engineering plot plans of each lot, prepared by George S.Nolte Company, were furnished Commissionets. In reply to Chairman Kindig's inquiry concerning unauthorized removal 1, ) of trees from the city area, the City Planner reported that it was necessary to remove some trees in order to construct the driveways; in front of one house, however, the land actually was cleared and there was reason to suspect that trees were taken out at other locations for the purpose of widening driveways;; in all,'pernaps as many as 1S trees were removed. Mr. McMillan,in reply to Commission inquiry, advised that Alpha Land Company removed two trees for a driveway before the houses were com- pleted, bum he was not certain of the location --whether in the set- back or the city area. Chairman Kindig invited comments from the audience. Mrs. D.H. Rossi, 1664Skyline Boulevard, inquired whether approval of the variances will affect landscaping in front of the individual houses. Mz,._Frank C. Miller, 1672 Skyline Boulevard, reported that he is the owner of Lot 390 one of the properties with a 6.75 feet front setback. Mr. Louts Starr, 167E Escalante Way, inquired why the variances were not requested before the houses were sold. Mr. Miller, in repl to the Chair's inquiry, stated that he was not Informed of the cit /Wa. when he purchased his property. There were no further comments from the floor. Invited by the Chair to comment, the City Planner stated that the city Is faced with a'situation of.five.houses having less than the required 1S foot front so�`alf-&--- two, w1c7h setbacks of 6.7S feet; the others, varying from less than two feet to a few inches. He advised that the monuments, which had: been uncovered by the Nolte Company engineers, were in place but apparently, although it is difficult. to understand, the mistake occurred when the house foundations were laid. He stated that there .were similar situations in other "citiess where the sub dividers were forced to relocate the houses, but it was not bis inten- tion to suggest such. action to the Commission. In further comment, the City Planner stated that he was disturbed by the removal of the trees since the "tree belt" Was acquired as a. city -owned area•_ purposely to serve as' a windbreak and for its, esthetic value, resulting from considerable planning and effort on the part of the city in cooperation with the developers of the upper Mills Estate. He recommended that the Commission require the applicant to bear the cost of furnishing replacement trees acceptable to the Park Superin- tendent and to be planted by the Park Department, The City Planner advised that in walking the area there appearea.to be no justification for extending the driveways beyond the easements, except, perhaps for guest parking; if the excess pavement were removed, the driveways would still. be usable. Referring to his memo to the Commission dated February 14, 1966 - 3- regarding the application, the City Planner read, seven possible actions available to the Commission, most requiring Council action also. -� In reply to the Chair's inquiry whether additional trees must be ( removed to.correct the driveways, the City Engineer replied in the n-egat ive. Mr. McMillan maintained that because of the 40 foot strip, the area is unusual and quite unlike a typical city street. Commenting that Alpha Land Company built 196 hones in the Mills Estate without difficulty, he declared that there was no way of determining at this time responsi- bility for the error in setbacks since any number of people were involved, "including the City Building Inspector". In reply to Commissioner Brauner's inquiry whether the 6,7S feet:set- backs will in—terfere with city plans for the 40.foot strip, either for sidewalk or recreation, the City Engineer and City Planner replied in the nbgative. Mr. McMillan informed the Commission that Alpha Land Company was agree- able to assuming the costs of new trees on the one lot; he stated there appears to be no evidence that trees were disturbed on the other four lots. The City Planner _ mentioned a further area to be explored -- safeguarding the 48 foot strip, particularly in this area, where the lots have their access from Skyline Boulevard, the strip appears.to be, and as a matter of fact is, the front yard of the homes, and, apparently, -up to this time, the home owners were not aware of this situation, The City Planner suggested installation of some type of physical barrier or markei to identify the division between. the c:fty and the private properties, possibly a fence or iron monuments in the ground. Commissioner Pierce objected to the idea of a fence a3 "not required or necessary" and in deference to the hose owners who usay not favor a fence in -front of their properties. He mentioned that in travelling the area when the grading first started he observed any number of trees on the ground. Mr. Miller, 1672 Skyline Boulevard, .a reported that as earlys June of last year there were no trees in front"of the property which he now owns. Chairman Kindig mentioned four aspects to be considered: 1. The- request for front setback variances; 2. Possibib replacement of the trees; 3. Retoval of excessive blacktop in the driveway easementsf-Considera- tion of the position of the property owners involved in an illegal situation not of their making. A motion was introduced by Commissioner Brauner approving the front setback variances requested on the following conditions: 1. Pavement in the driveways to be made to conform to the easements* on record in the city offices; 2. Trees considered suitable by the Park Superintendent to be plantbd by the Park ©apartment in the city - owned area, placed.so as not to interfere with the use of the ease- ments,, and at.the expense of Alpha Land Company, to replace eucalyptus trees removed illegally; 1. Iron pipe monuments, lettered "P/L" .and painted white, to be placed in the ground in front of each house -4- at the common boundary between the city's and the: private property. Motion seconded by Commissioner Pierce. At the suggestion of the City Plattner, interested persons in the audi- ence were invited to view a map of the area. Mr. McMillan advised that each property will be surveyed, the owners notified by Alpha Land Company before the driveways are changed and informed of their property lines and exact location of the driveway easements. The notion was thereafter unanimously carried on roll call. Chairman Kindig announced that the variance would be effective on Tuesday, March 8, 1966, if not appealed. The hearing was declared concluded. d. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HOTEL ON LANDS OF BURLINGAIME SHORE LAND COMPANY _(CONTINUED) Chairman Kin'dig-announced that a public hearing on the special permit application filed by Harry Somers in behalf of Burlingame Shore Land Company for hotel construction can acreage easterly of the Bayshore Freeway, continued .from the meeting of January 241, 1966, would .proceed at this time. Chairman Kindig invited the applicant to convent. J Mr. Oscar Person = advised that an economic survey mode by the Western Hotel Corporation, with whom the developers are negotiating to operate the: hotel, substantiates the applicant's clads that there is definitely a -need in this area for the facility proposed. The City Engineer, in reply to Commissioner Norwitz, reported that.he has had no discussions with the applicants concerning their plans for the utility services since the last meeting. Mr. Person .stated that on the occasion of the first meeting with the Commission the developers agreed to pay the costs of laying a line from the hotel to the sewage disposal plant but regtested- permmmission to use an existing easement across city -owned property. The City Engineer repeated his commreats .made on -previous occasions; . there is no -easement on the city property; - the applicant's proposal to use city property for a private facility can lye decided only by the City Council. Commissioner Horwitz referred to traffic movements in the area, comment- ing that the.area is practically at itc limit at the present time; additional traffic from the proposed construction -will create an extremely serious situation, In reply to Commissioner Pierce's inquirer whether the city has knowledge of the land to be acquired for the overpt+ss, the City Planner stated that the plan which is nearest to acceptance will provide for an additional off -ramp road from the freeway, joining in with the present Bayshore Highway, which will go through the Burlingame Shore Land Company property; the plan will provide also for a loop and "unless it is made v�o tight and all things made very tight, the amount of area left for a hotel would be quite limited". The City Planner referred to discussion at the previous meeting when i } Mr. Person indicated that if access were lost to the overpass that another means of entry could be found. The Cit Planner agreed that this probably was true but the only one (access that appears to be usable would be over a portion of yity-owned property; here, again, the City Council must wake the decision. The City Planner suggested that the number of questions remaining unanswered.- access to the property, utilities, land area - would appear to preclude a fair appraisal of the application. Commissioner Edwards stated that. "it is the responsibility of the city to furnish utilities for a hotel"; the question in the applicant's mind concerns procedures whereby he can secure an easement for the surer line. Commissioner Horwitz stated that if the development is permitted, the applicants undoubtedly will atteapt to purchase city property ear- marked for park purposes. Mr. Person stated the matter a!' access is "minor", compared to .the benefits deriving to the city.From the proposed construction, and that it can be worked Out ; he protested that as a taxpayer he should not be expected to purchase land for a utility easement, that it is the "city°s duty to supply the serer line". Commissioner Pierce declared that the major problem telates to the overpass, that before -he would agree to approval of the hotel, the larger problem of ttanspormion and traffic problems affecting the general public must be considered. Commissioner Brauner concurred that a six million dollar hotel would add considerably to the city but the Commission must be furnished with answers as to access, utilities and the specific location of the hotels he stated that a pcsrmit for the hotel conceivably could bring to a halt the overpass rioject because the cost of the land would be too high. Commissioner Cistulli rownented that several plans have been drawn but neither the city nor the State has reached a decision; granting that the overpass recsnst:ruction is essential to the city's progress, it is not fair to th<< applicants -to whithhdld approval of the permit because the State h,.s not made up its mind. He declared his position in favor of the application. The City Engineer, in -reply to Chairman Kindig, advised that the scale model of the over -pass, prepared by York $ Dady, possibly will be available within a norith's time. A motion was thereafter introduced by Commissioner Brauner to continue the hearing t.� the vesting of March 28; 1966.. Motion seconded by Commissioner Fierce and declared carried. RECESS Following a recess at 9:4S p.m., the meeting was called to order. by -6- Chairman Kindig at 9: SO p.m. S. SIGN VARIANCE GRANTED RAMADA INNS, INC. Chairman Kindig announced a public hearing on an appli9ption -for a variance from the provisions of the sign code for property easterly of the Bayshore Freeway now under development by Ramada Inns, Inc A letter dated February 3, 1966, from QRS Company, San Francisco, Designers and Manufacturers of Plastic and Neon Signs_, requested a variance in behalf of Ramada Inns, Inc., for construction of the "typical Ramada Inn sign" at the site of the IS4 room motor hotel at 12SO Bayshore Highway, Lot 4, Bearint Industrial Park Subdivision. The letter described the sign: 38 feet long, 13; feet tall, under- neath which is another panel 30 feet long by 4 feet 6 inches tall. The communication advised that the site is approximately 300 feet back from the freeway and to assure identification to freeway traffic it will be necessary for the bottom portion of the large section of the sign to be SO feet above ground. A plot plan, including the location of the sign,, a sign detail and photographs of the location taken from the freeway, were filed. A note from the City Planner advised that the gross height was com- puted at 63 feet from ground level. Mr. Barney Mackall, Vice President QRS Company, referred to the snap- shots on file, showing the flagging of the site to determine visi- bility from the freeway, advising that because of the location of the sign some distance back from the highway and the proxisit of buildings in the area, the requested height was necessary to identify to sorthbound traffic; because of the trees, there was no attempt to identify to northbound traffic. In reply to Commission inquir�yaehffiii lighting and coloring, advising that no moving lights will be employed. Commissioner Brauner agreed that the site should be properly identified, raising a question, discussed 'at the study meeting, concerning height variances. The City Attorney referred to the section of the sign code relating to variances, expressing the opinion that "size"' must necessarily cover all dimensions, including "height". The City Planner stated that the proposed sign is reasonable for the purpose, considering the size of the property, building height, and location some distance back on the property. A motion was iaatroduced by Commissioner Cistulli to approve the variance, in accordance with the sign detail and the location noted on the plot plan. Motion seconded by Commissioner Edwards and carried unanimously on roll call. The hearing was declared concluded. -7- 6. SPECIAL TER IT_APPROVE4 FOR DETACHED RUMPUS 1100R1-. An application filed by V.C. winters, 1620 Forest View Avenue, Lot 100, Burlingame Park Subdivision No. S (R-1 District) requesting a special permit to construct a detached run us room at the above address, was scheduled for public hearing at this time... .. A communication from the applicant dated February 11, 1966, advised that the proposed structure, to be used as. a family or recreation roam, will replace an existing building in extremely bind repair; the communi- cation stated further that it is not intended that the new building shall be used as sleeping Quarters; therefore, only a half -bath wt'Ii be installed. A plot plan was filed:.by ter. Thomas Martin, representing the applicant and the contractor. There Were no comments from the audience in reply to the Chair's inquiry. In reply to Commissioner Pierce,, whether the now construction will be -the same size and in the same location as the existing structure, the City Planner advised that ho did not inspect the property; he stated he was interested primarily in the drawings -of the proposed construction, which, upon examination, were found satisfactory. The City Planner stated that the city is concerned primarily that detached accessory buildings shall be approved by the Planning Commission so that there wilU be a record in the city offices. Referring to the applicant°s communication concerning the intended use j of the building, and the fixtures to be installed, the City Planner Advised that the request meets the purposes of the use per■it...con- versipn to a . dwelling would not be possible unless there were extensive additions. A motion was introduced by Commissioner Pierce :approving the application In accordance with the dra.4ing on file. Motion seconded by Commissioner Cistulli and carried unanimously on roil call. The hearing was declared concluded. Cam UO'ClatmLolaq Chairman Kindi_g announced that a public hearing would be hold at this time on the application of Mrs. Harriet Giacamini, 1929 St. Francis flay, San Carlos, for a"varianca to remodel an existing residence for nursery school PurpoSeSL at 740 Fairfield Road, 'Lot Y and portion of Lot X. Block 8, Burlingame Terrace Subdivision; Zone R-1.- A letter from the a plicart dated January 20, 19666'advised that -she is presently operating -the Caiolan Oaks Nursery School at.1024 Oak Grove Avenue, which has been in -this location, under different owner- ships, since 1946. Because of the city's plans for improving Carols* Avenue from Broadway to Oak Grove, the location will no longer serve the purposes of a RUTSery school since the play yard area will be lost to the now street. The communication stated that, after seven months of searching, the property at 740 Fairfield Road was the only one considered suitable to accommodate the SO children for which the.school is licensed by -a- the State agencies. The communication stated further: the children range in age from two to seven years; operating hours a from 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.., the premises are vacated by 6:30.P.M.; the staff consists of nine persons, in addition to the owner; the letter explained at length .school.routine and services available to parents requiring day care facilities for young children. In reply to the Chair, the City Planner stated that the property is in a first -residential district, hence the variance application. The Chair invited comments from the audience in favor of the application; there were none. Gommunxcations filed with the City Clerk were acknowledged and read, as follows: Protests: Gerald A. and Marian L. Regoli, 7SS Paloma Avenue; Mrs. Edith Chettle, 733 Fairfield Road; Mr. and Mrs. John M. O'Donnell, 1401 Palm Drive; Mr. and Mrs. Stanley Bosanko, 745 Paloma Avenue; Mrs. Bertha Roberts,- 740 Paloma Avenue; Jennie 1il. Lloyd 748 Paloma Avenue; Mrs. H.W. Dessin, 141E Palm Drive; A.S. and Miriam Garrott, 7S3 Paloma Avenue; Hilda and George Bruns, 737 Fairfield Road. Protestants claimed as follows: Intrustion of a commercial use into a residential area; the 700 block of Fairfield Road, from Paln,Drive to E1 Camino Real, is presently burdened with on -street parking and heavy traffic generated from an apartment building, a nursing home, a church where part-time classes are held, plus McKinley School; the proposed site is -between two private residences, occupied by elderly people, noise from SO children will create a serious disturbanee,not only to the adjoining residents, but. the entire neighborhood; granting the variance will cause injury to property values. There were no _ communications favoring the application. Comments from the audience were invited. Mr. J.J. Hamrock, 8S2 Fairfield Road; Mar. Prod Henry, 817 Fairfield Road; Mrs. A.P. MacPherson, 8SO Fairfield Road; Mr. W.S. Rozemholtz, 844 Fairfield Road; Mr. F,E. Wentworth, 723 Fairfield Road; Mr. Gerald Regoli, 7SS Paloma Avenue, spoke in opposition mentioning, in addition to existing traffic problems and they residential zoning, that fire department equipment travels Fairfield Road frequently and additional on -street parking will emphasize existing traffic hazards. Commissioner Edwards advised that as a resident of the area, 1429 Palm Drive, he is aware of the traffic and parking problems. He reported innumerable telephone calls to his home from concerned neighbors, suggesting.to the applicant that another location might be more suit- able to her purposes. The City Planner stated that childcare centers are permitted in the R-4 District but nearly always must come to the Commission for a variance since there is very little R-i land in the city. Commenting that the school.has operated successfully for mane years at its present location and is being forced to find other quarters because -g® of the city°s plans for improving the street, he stated that he has been aware for some time that Mrs. Giacomini has been searching for a new location; it will be unfortunate if she is compelled to leave the \� area since the school is certainly a worthwhile facility in the community and invaluable to parents who must take: advantage of the service. The City Planner suggested, in view of the strong opposition, that perhaps the proposed location is not the best; however, every effort should be made to assist the applicant. Commissioner Brauner, agreeing that the type of facility does supply a social need in every community, advised that after visiting Fairfield Road on Sunday, and observing traffic and general neighborhood con- ditions, in his opinion -the location is not desirable. A motion introduced by Commissioner Edwards to deny the variance was seconded by Commissioner Horwitz and carried unanimously on roll call. The applicant was advised of her right of appeal to the City Council. Chairman Kindig informed Mrs. Giacomini that it was difficult for the Commission to -take its action but the CoMnis::ion wished her success in locating, new quarters. The Chairman complimented the large number of persons in attendance for their orderly conduct during the hearing. 8. SPECIAL . P� APPROVED FOR AUTO RENT& AGENCY? A special permit application filed V Thrifty Rent-A-Car of Northern 1 Catifornia. William F. Fleck agent, proposing an auto rental agency and office space at 1238 Bayshore Highway, Lot 2,, Searint Industrial Park Subdivisioug was scheduled for public hearing at this time. A letter dated January 26, 19669, from Mr. deck and his associate, Peter F. Bennison, stated that the property will be used for rental of automobiles; office space in the building, not required for their purposes, will be leased to others; these is ample area for on -site parking to accommodate the rental cars and the office building. The City Planner advised that the zoning is M-1, the proposed use, eommercial..requiring the Commission's approval of -a use permit. In reply to the Chair, the City Planner reported that he received a plot plan and parking layout from the applicants which was examined and found satisfactory-;; there is ample land for all of the required parking. He suggested, should the application be approved, that the Commission require the blacktop to be painted to designate the parking spaces. He advised that he suggested to Mr. Mock installation of a cyclone fence enclosing the storage area, explaining the position of the police and fire departments concerned with the safekeeping of such areas. - In a period of discussion concerning the fence, 14r. David Hart, associated with her. Meck, advised that the company maintains -six offices in the Los Angeles area, none of which are fenced, and has never ex- perienced a theft off their property; he assured the Commission that, if proved necessary, the fence will be -installed as suggested. -1B- There were no comments from the audience. A motion introduced by Commissioner Cistulli to approve the the parking area to be marked in accordance with the plan on was seconded by Commissioner Edwards and unanimously carried call. The hearing was declared concluded. use permit, file, on roll 9. SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVED TO USE EXISTING RESIDENCE FOR CHURCH PURPOSES. An application filed by American Turko-Tatar Association, Inc., requested a special permit to occupy an existing residence at 1258 El Camino Real as a place of worship (a Mosque) and, to conduct Church business. (Lot 1S, Block 17, Burlingame Grove Subdivision, Zone R•3). A letter filed by the applicant dated February 7', 1966, advised that the Association isa lay group representing the Moslem Religion for residents of Turko,�-Tatar origin in this general areao and recognized by the State of California as a religious organization. The letter stated further that the Association has been seeking a permanent meeting place; since the majority of the members reside in or about the Burlingame area, the property at 1258 El Camino Real was selected; from past experience in using members homes for group meeting, attendance in the building will approximate thirty to forty at a single meeting. The communication noted that the property will be used as follows., ftekly religious services to be held each Friday; Daily evening religious services to be held once each year during the month of Ramadhan (the month of fasting); Occasional religious lectures and study groups; Reading and library facilities; Religious Instruction (Sunday School) for.approximately 15 children; Board of Directors meetings. A plot plan, including parking, was filed. In reply to Chairman Kindig•s inquiry concerning adequacy of on -site parking, the City Planner stated that this is a problem generally with churches; however, the subject property is rather large and cars can be accommodated at the rear of the building. The number of spaces on the site .will meet code requirements. Communications were read from the City Building and Fire Inspectors outlining alterations and additions necessary to bring the building to standard. Mr. Shamil Ibrahim, representing the applicant, advised that all of the city°s requirements will be net. Comments were invited from the audience. Mrs. B. Shear representing property owners. Daniel S. Cullen and Irvin Boop, protested that traffic -conditions at the particular location on El Camino are "extremely hazardous. Mrs. C. Eppingers, 1400 Lincoln Avenues spoke in favor of the application. ollo In reply to Commissioner Brauner, Mr. Ibrahim advised that there are certain occasions when the gatherings are quite large, but , atsuch times, the meetings are held in a public social hall, which is rented for the purpose. A motion introduced by Commissioner Pierce approving the use permit, subject to the rear yard being paved and marked for parking, in accordance with the plan on file, was seconded by Commissioner Edwards and carried unanimously on roll call. The hearing was declared concluded. 10. VARIANCE -APPROVE D _F©R _BOARDING HOME FOR AMBULATORY PATIENTS An application filed by Mrs. Nancy Lazar for a variance to supply board and room for four ambulatory persons in a dwelling located at 922 Capuchino Avenue, Lot 12, Block 14, Easton ADdition, Zone R-2, was scheduled for public hearing at this time. A statement from the applicant accompanied the application. Chairman Kindig advising that he is acquainted with the applicant, a member of his family resides in her home, excused himself from the hearing, turning the Chair over to Vice Chairman Pierce. The City Planner stated that originally Mrs. Lazar requested permission t. ) for six patients but as a result of the Fire Inspector's requirements, revised the application to a total of four patients. The City Planner reported that the Fire Inpector, in a conversation this afternoon, indicated no problems if the number of persons were reduced to four. A communication in favor of the application was read from Mrs. Grace Eatc 941 Paloma Avenue. In response to the Chair's request. -for =comments from those in favor, Mrs. Isabel Wolfe and Mrs. Whitehead, licensed social workers in San Mateo County, spoke in favor. The following persons objected: Mr. Donald Nahrwold, 3034 Hillside Drive, owner of property at 1009 Paloma Avenue; Mr. and Mrs. George Bueckle, 926 Capuchino Avenue; H.J. Carter, 949 Laguna Avenue, D. Heinrichs, 927 Capuchino Avenue, Jean Jones, resident of Sanchez Avent A motion introduced by Commissioner Cistulli approving the variance was seconded by Commissioner Edwards and carried unanimously (Chairman Kindig abstaining). Vice -Chairman Pierce advised those in attendance of the right of appeal to the City Council. The hearing was declared concluded. ADJOURNMENT The mee ing was adjourned at ll:S0 p.m. , to Monday, 4grch 14, 1966. Respectfully submitted, John J. Brauner, Secretai 1Z- --7 ' if4� C -- J � � Qom► 0