HomeMy WebLinkAboutMin - PC - 1974.10.16THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
October 16, 1974
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT COMMISSIONERS ABSENT OTHERS PRESENT
Francard None
Jacobs
Kindig
Mink
Norberg
Sine
Taylor
CA�LLMORTDER
City Planner Swan
Asst. City Planner Yost
City Attorney Coleman
City Engineer Davidson
The monthly study meeting of the Burlingame Planning Commission was
called to order at 7:40 P.M. on the above date, Chairman Mink presiding.
ROLL CALL
The above members were present.
1. CONTINUED REVIEW OF ANZA MASTER PLAN EIR 28-1'
At the invitation of the Chair City Planner Swan addressed the
Commission. He reminded them the EIR had been considered in phases
so that public hearings could be held on the different portions.
Commission request at one of these hearings had been for a schedule
of incremental development from Anza. This had now been received.
He distributed copies to the Commission of "Anza Master Plan
Incremental Growth Table." This is a timetable try year of specific
buildings to be completed; their type; number of employees; and
peak traffic generated. The table shows a project completion date
of 1983. The City Planner, commenting he thought. this completion
date was optimistic, announced David Keyston was present for
Commission questions.
Mr. Keyston agreed that 1983 would be an early date of completion
of the project. In response to questions, he stated that the
30,000 traffic figure included trips of employees to restaurants,
and verified the traffic report was accurate in the peak traffic
generated. He noted he is basically asking for a conceptual tentative
approval of a master plan that includes these buildings, and gave
his rationale for the times of erection. The large office buildings
would be last since they would be the most difficult to finance and
fill. The best temporary use - the airport parking - would be next
to last. Prior to that he planned the clusters of buildings that
could be developed as units.
Chairman Mink pointed out the purpose of requesting this time table
was to establish lines of demarcation: points in time to check the
project's effect on traffic and other aspects. The developer stated
the traffic report designated 1978 as the year when plans for traffic
must be resolved in order to continue development. This is approximately
the 45% completion point to which it is estimated the.present road
network will support traffic. Discussion followed as to whether
�AE
the traffic report meant this was sufficient for access roads or
to roads within the project. It was the developer's interpretation
that the roads within the project would be adequate for the entire
development. It was agreed this point needed clarification.
Mr. Keyston suggested 1975 as a check point for demographic impact,
noting that this impact will depend on solutions for traffic. There
was Commission comment that traffic impact on Burlingame would not
be so much on the freeway as on streets in Burlingame being used
for access to the project.
The developer was questioned if he might switch times for the
buildings, thereby changing the employment impact. He replied there
might be some changes, but not as units. He agreed to have the
traffic consultant present at the public hearing in October.
There was Commission suggestion that Bayshore traffic could be alleviated
by stipulating project's office hours as starting at 9:30 A.M.
when heavy freeway load is OVar. Chairman Mink requested staff to
report at the next meeting on their estimate of necessary check points
for the project.
The City Planner asked that the Commission consider demographic
impacts: Where will people live? Where will they spend money? If
in Burlingame, where would housing be? If along access routes to
Anza, where will access be provided? Discussion followed with
particular reference to apartments in Burlingame and where they could
be provided.
Chairman Mink questioned Mr. Charles Bigelow on his opinion of the
legality of the draft concept of the EIR in fulfilling legal
requirements, particularly in the demographic section which is based
on assumptions. Mr. Bigelow cited legal precedents. Court rulings
have in the past required more than a tentative EIR, and he stressed
the importance to the City of clearing up this legal question. He
noted that the City is a lead agency and has the responsibility to
see that the EIR is fully prepared. Lawsuits on the legality of the
EIR could result in financial difficulties for both City and developer.
With reference to demographic impacts, he thought: that, given an
understanding of the age, sex, and employment pattern characteristics
of the people in the Anza project, it would be possible to come up
with a general demographic analysis. Consultant services could be
used. Mr. Bigelow did not feel there would be great change in the
number of single family residences in Burlingame, but rather in
their remodeling and turnover. He conceded there would be a large
demand for apartments= and did think employee needs and patterns
could be established along with a method of monitoring them.
Mr. Bigelow warned that providing freeway access would-be a multi-
million dollar project and spoke of diversion of some federal
urban aid funds to transit. The City, of course, could exercise
its option to apply for mathing funds for access. He made the point
that auto -oriented solutions may not be possible, and it might be
easier to get funds for transit. The cost of access makes an
economic feasibility report of key importance. He cited present
studies being made to upgrade the Southern Pacific., presently
- 3 -
operating commute system; the possibility of BART'; and the Greyhound
system.
Commission discussion followed, with some agreement that there
would be a definite traffic impact from commuters on the streets of
Burlingame and surrounding communities. There was more discussion
on housing.
Chairman Mink questioned if this series of hearings could be
terminated so that necessary analyses could be made and a new
series of hearings conducted when information was complete enough
fora legal document. He requested the City Attorney to research
the legal options of the City of Burlingame in the preparation of
the EIR, noting that this city has procedural options which some
cities do not have. He suggested the City Attorney confer with
the developer's legal staff to this end.
Mr. Keyston protested it had not been his understanding that a final
adopted EIR was necessary before the project could be started=
that a tentative EIR would be sufficient for the concept,°with final
EIRs for the separate increments} He reviewed the process of submitting
his Master Plan to the City and 1the resultant staff suggestion of a
tentative draft EIR. He noted that Anza is not at this time asking
for a specific approval, and hoped it could be handled in a manner
other than a final EIR.
City Planner Swan announced there would be a public hearing on the
socio-economic changes and growth inducing impacts of the Anza
Master Plan on October 30, 1974.
2._ PROPOSED _CODE A, E T MEMIS TO TITLE 25 ZONING
City Planner Swan informed the Commission that EIR 30-P, detailing
the proposed code amendments, and a draft resolution with findings
of fact had been prepared. Code amendments increase off-street
parking requirements for restaurants in the C-4 District; reduce
lot coverage, require front and side setback's and side and rear
yards, and require landscaping in the M-1 District; exclude use
variances; and delete code section giving exceptions to lot coverages
in R-1. He commented the Commission had discussed these amendments
over the past few months, and reminded them the M-1 district amendments
had been added because of need for a policy on lot coverage and
setbacks. The only restrictions in this area have been the recorded
deed restrictions followed by the Design Review Committee for
Millsdal.e Industrial Park. There is no machinery to enforce these.
Amendment to require that 10% of the total lot area be devoted to
landscaping seems reasonable, since C-4 is 15% and SSF uses 10%.
He pointed out that the State code had been amended in 1970 to
state a variance shall not be granted for a parcel of property
which authorizes a use QC activity which is not otherwise expressly
authorized by the zone regulation governing the parcel of property.
The Commission reviewed EIR 30-P section by section.
On restaurant parking, there was a comment that 1 space per 90 SF
would be more adequate than 1 per 91. Also there was a question
e�
of what constitutes "reasonable" in " . . .parking for employees
within reasonable proximity." The word "reasonable" is to be deleted.
One commissioner asked if amendments could be voted on separately,
and was informed they could be.
City Planner Swan distributed to Commissioners a copy of deed
restrictions in Millsdale which stipulates that loading and unloading
must be conducted off the street, and further details that no dock
or loading door shall be nearer than 60' to the inside line of the
sidewalk. He asked if Commission would like to have this added to
amendments. There was considerable discussion to the point that
this is sometimes an unnecessary restriction on some property owners;
and they would be penalized because of non -enforcement of the vehicle
code which prohibits parking across the sidewalk. There was general
agreement that this should be studied later after a report from the
Police Department assessing the problem of enforcement of vehicle
code.
There followed Commission discussion of methods of enforcing
landscaping percentage. It was suggested that it could be mandatory
upon filing notice of completion that landscaping be completed.
The City Engineer agreed that landscaping could be included in the
certification of occupancy.
The consensus of the Commission was that landscaping should be
included and provisions made for assurance of its completion. There
was discussion of some latitude in case of bad weathers but it was
decided that since there -were very few periods when landscape work
cannot be done,the time lapse could be left to the discretion of the
City Engineer and Building Inspector.
Chairman Mink requested the City Planner to draft additional wording
in the amendment which would require either landscaping to be
installed or surety bond established before a certificate of occupancy
is given. The City Attorney confirmed that it would be proper to
put this stipulation in the code amendment.
City Attorney Coleman told the Commission the State Code has since
1970 stated that use variances are illegal. This code amendment
is a move to bring Burlingame's code up to date. He confirmed that
the alternative to a use variance would be rezoning.
City Planner Swan explained the last code amendment which would
delete exceptions to lot coverage in all R -1,R-2, R-3, and R-4
zones, Section 25.66.02. Preceding Section 25.66.01 specifies that
"all buildings, structures, and improvements . ." shall be included
in calculations of lot coverage. The City Planner commented that
the main idea is that any structure above ground encroaches on the
open space of a lot.
Commission discussion followed. one commissioner disliked the
amendment since it would cause hardship on people wishing to build
arbors. Discussion followed on whether or not swimming pools would
be included since they are "improvements." If not, then would
"doughboy" pools be included? it was suggested that wording be
- 5 -
changed to "all buildings and structures" instead of "all buildings,
structures, and improvements." The question was raised of how
people would know if they have exceeded lot coverage since no building
permit is required for such things as patios. The City Engineer
remarked that permits are required for patio covers and swimming
pools.
It was agreed this section should be rewritten with language that
is specific in regard to "above ground" structures.
3. AMEM GENERAL PIAN, IN R-1 AND R-2 DISTRICTS.
At the invitation of the Chair, City Planner Swan opened discussion
of the recent Council referral to the Planning Commission of considered
amendment of the General Plan to make it identical with the present
zoning code in those R-1 and R-2 Districts,where the General Plan
'indicates higher density.
The City Planner illustrated by means of charts and maps present
zoning uses as opposed to those permitted by the General Plan.
There was particular reference to Burlingame Park: area and the
General Plan's indication of medium density where it is presently R-1
zoning. He illustrated that existing land uses in this area are
not uniformly R-1. He referenced the August 14, 1974 staff report
to the City Manager which presented Commission opinions expressed
at their August 12 study meeting:
1. All R-1 will stay R-1.
2. Change General Pian to coincide, not be "identical," to retain
city in historical condition.
3. Concurrently, pursue every legal means for abatement of illegal
uses.
4. Consider alternatives for private redevelopment in the R-2
Districts which now have single family dwellings.
S. Identify R-3 property that is uhderimproved.
6. Balance public utility systems with land use; improved water,
wastewater and storm drainage systems are prerequisites for
intensified (greater density) residential uses.
The City Planner specified that the General Plan :is a guideline; the
zoning code is the set of regulations. He considered it difficult
to make the two identical, and cautioned that care must be taken not
to create additional non -conforming uses.
Commission discussion followed. One idea was creating "buffer
zones".%reducing the area of medium density, but not putting R-1
next to R-3.' One opinion was that R-3 should be :zoned in the General
Plan much the way it exists - medium high density approximating
existing buildings - since rezoning would definitely hurt many
property holders. R -3A zoning was suggested as a buffer between
R-1 and R-3, as well as the R -2A concept in R-2 zones.
The Chairman spoke of the demographic impact of the Anza project on
entry corridors of Burlingame, and stated in his opinion consistency
should be achieved by rezoning rather than by changing the General
Plan. There was some Commission agreement, especially with regard
to Anza, and a statement that the Planning Commission has the respon-
sibility of recommending what it considers good planning. One
commissioner cautioned that if some older areas are to conform to
the General Plan, there will be a problem with inadequate services.
Further discussion was scheduled, with City Planner Swan commenting
that a change in the General Plan would probably :require an EIR.
4TgENE RAL PIM p1 QG„RB SS IMPORT
City Planner Swan told the Commission that a one year extension had
been granted for the City•s completion of Noise, Safety, Scenic
Highway, and Seismic Safety Elements of the General Plan. The
extended completion date is now September 20, 1975.
Chairman Mink read communication of October 11, 1974 from Gregory
W. Harding, of the Office of Planning and Research, State of
California, confirming this extension.
The City Planner reported that the Geologic Hazards Act would be
considered later in the agenda.
S. AMENDED PARCEL MAP, PARD P.I.AZA TOWERS, A CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
AT 110 PARK ROAD, BY FRAHM.EDLER.CANNIS FOR PACIFIC WESTERN
CONTRACTORS (CONTINUED_ FROM SEPTEMBER 11. 1974.)
City Engineer Davidson reviewed circumstances surrounding this parcel
map. This map amends the previously approved map to agree with as -
built construction plans. It was submitted to the Planning Commission
in August and continued to the October meeting to allow Council
consideration of the as -built construction plans. The Council did not
approve the as -built plans. The building is to be reconstructed to
conform with the original plans for which Council approved a special
permit. The developer had requested that the amended map remain on
the agenda.
On invitation of the Chair, Mr. Robert Church addressed the Commission.
He confirmed that the as -built plans had been rejected, but wished
the amended map to remain on the agenda for Commission consideration
as a matter of record.
Some discussion followed. Chairman Mink then informed the developer
that this amended map might be placed on the agenda for the public
hearing as a convenience in closing the record. City Engineer
Davidson informed the applicant that the following information
would be needed for a hearing; New title page to snap, closure
calculations for the lot and all of the units, title report current
within 30 days. There was Commission suggestion that the City
Attorney research any possible effects of Commission decision on
this invalid map.
- 7 -
6. FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF PARCEL 5, ASSESSOR'S
MAP B16 CITY OF BURLINGAME (APN 026-121-040) PROPERTY AT 1327-47
NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE., ZONED M-1, BY BLOMQUI SI' ENGINEERING INC.
FOR KAREN HOLDING COMPANY
City Engineer Davidson informed the ComMission the tentative map had
already been approved and this map was exactly the sante. The in¢p
does conform to code. He recommended it be set for hearing.
Chairman Mink set this final map for hearing October ~30, 1974.
7. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LOTS 28
AND 29, BLACK 1, BURLINGAME PARK NO. 4 (APN 028-141-050/-060)
PROPERTY AT 735 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED R-3, BY WILLIAM J. HAMMOND
FOR RO RTP BERRYMAN S AND M=A M&RSH.)
City Planner Swan reported to the Commission that this map was for
the purpose.of combining these two lots. He noted tentative map had
appeared before the Commission previously by another applicant for
town houses.
The applicant told the Commission he desired the common lot line
between two lots eliminated to create one parcel of property for the
purpose of building an -apartment building. No variances would be
sought.
City Engineer Davidson cited some problems. This map will be
both tentative and final. However, one owner is shown on one map
and a different owner on the other. A title report will be necessary,
as well as closure calculations on the lot. A block -designation
must be shown on the map. For the applicant's benefit, he noted
that water service is not adequate for any major project, and its
cost would be expensive.
This map was set for hearing on October 30, 1974.
7A. FINAL PARCEL MAP, RESUBDIVISION OF LATS 7 AND 8, BLOCK 11, EASTON
ADDITION, PROPERTY AT 945 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, BY AUGUST E. WAEGEMANN
FOR LANDS OF F M.- XOLKER & CO.
City Planner Swan reported to the Commission that this tentative map
was approved in February. This is the final map. City
Engineer Davidson told the Commission there were no changes from
the previous map, and basically it is in conformance with the code.
Chairman Mink set this final parcel map for hearing on October 30.
8. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP, BEING A RESUBDIVISION OF LATS
4,5, AND 6, BLOCK 3, EAST MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 1
(APN 024-403-270) PROPERTY AT 1755 BAYSHORE :HIGHWAY ZONED M-1,
BY BRIAN, KANGAS, FAULK AND ASSOCIATES FOR ALBERT HOOVER AND
ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS.) AND CA_RQL_J. FMN (OWNER.)
9. SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OFFICE BUILDING IN M-1 DISTRICT AT 1755
BAYSHORE HIGHWAY BY ALBERT HOOVER AND ASSOCIATES.
Chairman Mink read letter of October 16, 1974 from Mr. James M. O'Neal
=K4.10
of Albert A. Hoover & Associates requesting continuance on both these
applications: The Chairman announced there would be no hearing in
October and the items would be continued.
After a brief recess at 10:30 P.M., the meeting reconvened.
10. VARIANCE TO RECONSTRUCT SUB -STANDARD WIRING IN NON -CONFORMING
DWELLING BEHIND 1508 CABRILLO AVENUE (APN 026-031-060) BY
WILLIAM J. BRITTON
City Planner Swan showed slides of the front and rear house on this
property, including views of the rear house on the property line,
adjacent house on next door lot with only 3' between, a two story
house on the rear of the lot across the 10' wide rear easement, and
an interior view of the rear house. He explained this could best
be called a non -conforming structure.. There are six dwellings on
three R-1 lots. Each lot has a rear building on the rear property
line.
The rear house at 1508 Cabrillo has substandard wiring. The new
owner had attempted to change the wiring without a permit from the
City and the building inspector had stopped the job.
The front house has three bedrooms and does not have a single covered
parking space. There is a 10' easement at the rear of the properties
which does mitigate the transmission of fire. He quoted Code Section
25.50.07 which stipulates that remodeling, rebuilding or reconstruction
of non -conforming buildings shall not be permitted. In his opinion
this rewiring constitutes remodeling, because the work to be done
included going into the stud walls and changing the wiring. He did
not regard this as normal maintenance and repair. He reported the
zoning code was adopted in 1941. If this building was constructed
before 1941, it is non -conforming; but if any portion was constructed
after 1941, it is an illegal use and should be abated. The City
Attorney stated it was difficult to determine from City Hall records
when the structures were built, but added he was going to check
the 1941 aerial photographs at the County of San Mateo.
Mr. W. J. Britton addressed the Commission. He claimed his wiring
contractor mailed in a permit application with a check to the City
of Burlingame. Prior to receiving it, the building inspector
visited the site and stopped the work. Mr. Britton stated he had
purchased the property on May 31, 1974 and wiring was in bad condition
with some bare and corroded wires. In the interests of safety he
had retained an electrician to do the repair work. He did not
consider this remodeling.
Mr. Britton protested that in 1965 the then owner of the building
had been notified by the City of Burlingame of his unsafe wiring.
There had been several subsequent inspections in 1965 by the building
inspector and City Planner and no indication was made by them that
this was an illegal building. Subsequent to this the substandard
wiring was metered, which Mr. Britton claimed could not have been
done without permit of completion from the City.
Commission discussion followed with one opinion that replacement
of wiring appeared to be repair rather than remodeling.
City Attorney Coleman commented he thought the first step would
be referral to staff for their determination of whether or not this
was remodeling and whether it was a non -conforming or illegal use.
Chairman Mink informed Mr. Britton that the City. Attorney would make
a decision based on information from staff on whether or not this
was a non -conforming use. Mr. Britton would be informed of the
decision in light of a possible ambiguity hearing. .
11. VARIANCE TO EXCEED HEIGHT LIMITATION IN R-3 DISTRICT AT 545
ALMER ROAD (FORMERLY APN 029-111-030,040,050) BY PACIFIC WESTERN
CONTRACTORS, INC.
City Planner Swan asked that the Commission focus on the fact that
this is an application to exceed the height limit: in this R-3 zone.
He added that since it is a condominium development, subsequent
application will be needed for a condominium permit and an EIR
will be necessary.
Mr. Richard Elmore and Mr. Tom Hisata of Hisata Design Associates,
Palo Alto, made a.detailed presentation of their proposed project
using slides and enlarged photographs. These displays showed different
views of the surrounding area with a mockup of the condominium
superimposed on the view.
Facts developed during this presentation were:
This will be a multi -story condominium of 36 units, half of the
units to be 3 bedrooms and half 2 bedrooms. Price will range from
$125,000 to $210,000. There will be four apartments per floor, with
two levels of basement parking and surface guest parking. 81 parking
spaces are required; 90 will be provided plus 12 guest spaces.
Building will be secured by electrical gates; 24-hour guard; and
T.V. monitors at entrances. it will be fire-sprinklered , Overall
height of the structure will be approximately 112 feet. Lot coverage
would be 27.5% which gives room for wide setbacks and use of open
space. Existing trees would be preserved.
Comparison was drawn between this 36 unit building with its limited
lot coverage and other 36 -units in the area which allow minimum
open space. Construction will be masonry with structural steel
frame.
Commission commented on the unusual jutting facade, the height, the
ample parking, and use of open space. It was alleged that the
project meets the design characteristics laid out for the area by
the General Plan.
Chairman Mink questioned if the applicants wished conceptual
acceptance at this point. The representatives of Hisata Design
and Mr. Robert Church of Pacific Western indicated they were asking
- 10 -
for a chance to continue with detailed plans. City Planner Swan
stated they should be asked to submit a detailed application and an
EIR before the project could be scheduled for hearing. He added
that a report from the Fire Department would be necessary. Detailed
drawings will not be necessary but conceptual floor plans should be
reviewed by staff before this is brought back to the Commission.
The applicants were advised to prepare an EIR and return to the
November study meeting.
12. SIGN VARIANCES FOR BROADWAY ARCADE PROJECT AT 1050 BROADWAY
FOR N. CRISAFI BY J/W DESIGN ASSOCIATES.
Assistant City Planner Yost told the Commission new drawings had been
submitted for these signs which changed the projection on Sign A
to only 8'h" and accurately located Sign H. Otherwise the signs
are the same as previously presented. He questioned whether Sign F,
a directory, should be considered a sign; and stated that the total
signage represents only 5% of the total area on Broadway, which he
considered reasonable.
Chairman Mink scheduled this application for hearing October 30,
1974.
13. SIGN VARIANCE FOR 38'6" HIGH POLE SIGN HAVING 92 SF OF FACE
AREA, AT 925 BAYSWATER FOR PUTNAM DODGE BY COAST/QRS SIGNS.
Assistant City Planner Yost stated this pole sign of 92 SF was now
proposed at a height of 38.6" and plans now show a location of 121
from the present pole sign. He presented a drawing showing the
circle of visual impact of this higher sign.
Some commissioners were concerned about the visibility from the
R-1 areas. The applicant stated that the present location of the
sign caused traffic confusion since there is no parking there. In
response to question, he stated this sign has light control and
would not be lit all night.
There was some discussion of his parking problems and comment that
if the new sign is located near the existing sign it need not be so
high. This application was scheduled for hearing October 30, 1974.
GENERAL_
Chairman Mink read communication of 10/10/74 from Carr, McClellan,
Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn regarding temporary use for parking on
lot on Howard and Primrose by the First United Methodist Church.
He also read letter of October 15, 1974 from William Wright & Co.
regarding unsightly dwelling at 1221 Howard Avenue. He announced
there would be a joint dinner meeting by the City Council and Planning
Commission at Beardsley's Restaurant at 6:15 on October 29 in honor
of retired City Attorney Burress Karmel.
Chairman Mink then requested report on the Geologic Hazards Act.
City Attorney Coleman remarked that more information on implementation
of this act may be forthcoming at the League of California Cities
Convention.
Assistant City Planner Yost referenced his recommendations on this
act with exhibit map delineating boundaries of three faults within
the City of Burlingame. He noted effects on property owners. All
applications for construction within this zone must be accompanied
by a geologic report. If proposed construction :is within 50 feet
of a fault, it may not be built.
ADJOURNMENT:
The meeting regularly adjourned at 12:30 A.M.
Respectfully submitted,
Ruth E. Jacobs
Secretary
AGENDA
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION
STUDY MEETING - OCTOBER 16, 1974 - 7:30 P. M.
A. POLICY PLANNING
1. Continued Review of Anza Master Plan EIR-28P
2. Proposed code amendments to Title 25 Zoning
3. Amend General Plan in R-1 and R-2 Districts
4. General Plan Progress Report
B. MAPS AND ZONING ADMINISTRATION
5. Amended Parcel Map, Park Plaza Towers, a condominium project
at 110 Park Road, by Frahm.Edler.Cannis for Pacific Western
Contractors (continued from September 11, 1974.)
6. Final Parcel Map, being a resubdivision of Parcel 5, Assessor's
Map B16 City of Burlingame (APN 026-121-040), property
at 1327-47 North Carolan Avenue, zoned M-1, by Blomquist
Engineering Inc. for Karen Holding Company.
7. Tentative and Final Parcel Map, being a resubdivision of
Lots 28 and 29, Block 1, Burlingame Park No. 4 (APN 028-141-050/060)
property at 735 E1 Camino Real, zoned R-3, by William J.
Hammond for Robert P. Berryman (James and Helen Marsh.)
8. Tentative and Final Parcel Map, being a resubdivision of Lots
4,5, and 6, Block 3, East Millsdale Industrial Park No. 1
(APN 024-403-270,) property at 1755 Bayshore Highway, zoned
M-1, by Brian, Kangas, Faulk and Associates for Albert Hoover
and Associates (architects) and Carol J. Flynn (owner.)
9. Special Permit for office building in M-1 District at 1755
Bayshore Highway by Albert Hoover and Associates.
10. Variance to reconstruct sub -standard wiring in non -conforming
dwelling behind 1508 Cabrillo Avenue (APN 026-031-060) by
William J. Britton.
11. Variance to exceed height limitation in R-3 district at
545 Almer Road (formerly APN 029-111-030,-040,-050) by
Pacific Western Contractors, Inc
C. MINOR PERMITS
12. Sign Variances for Broadway Arcade project at 1050 Broadway
for N. Crisafi by J/W Design Associates.
13. Sign Variance for 3816" high pole sign having 92 SF of
face area, at 925 Bayswater for Putnam Dol3ge by Coast/QRS
Signs.
D. OTHER