The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1745 Adrian Road - Staff Report - flipped p28Shelagh put in boiler plate �r-� -- � � �'.�,� �� c.,..,� � � � y��- � �--'��C�� .-�-1� �,,.� s��6 -��'�.y Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. The variance for 1215 California and the conditional use permit for 1109 Rhinette Avenue can be addressed at one public hearing since the uses are int�erdependent. Action �� on the t�vo �iarianc�s ;,sh�uld be t�aken �parately. • Affirmative action should include findings anc� should�be by resolution. The reasons fo� an� acikion should be � clearly stated. The following conditic�ns sholild be considered at the public heaiing: `i � w � For 1215 California Drive: 1! That the+ projec� shall be built as shown on the plans submit�ed to the Pl nning Department nd date stamped September 15, 1995 with 6,290 SF ret�l sales area, 1�20 SF office includin�'disabled accessi e restroo�, 330 SF '� train�n�_room or o�fice, and 1,344 SF of storag /stock room; f ' � 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Inspector's '� August 28, 1995, memo as they apply to the structure on the site at 1215 California Drive shall be met; 3. That the training room facilities shall only be used for the instruction of employees on the 1215 California site; 4. that on site at one time there shall be a maximum of 9 employees, including all on site managers and one employee assigned to operate the donations trailer and related activities, and that the store shall be open between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. daily; 5. that all employees driving to work shall park in the parking provided by this business at 1109 Rhinette Avenue; 6. that this parking variance for 11 spaces shall be valid so long as the properties at 1215 California Drive and 1109 Rhinette Avenue remain in the same ownership; the 4 CITY t� O� 6URUNGAME �M:; STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Mavor and Citv Council DATE: .7llri2 15. ]_9$2 FROM: SUBJECT: � • � " � • � • � Request for twelve-month Tentative Extension - 1745 Adrian Road - P.M_ 8 �� GENDA H B ITEM u � MTG. _ ,__�� DATE ��L � SUBMITTED BY APPROVE BY ap and Condominium Pe t Recommendation: It is recommended that Council concur with the Commission and grant the requested twelve (12) month tentative map extension. Background: This project was before Council and the Com- mission in mid 1981. The applicant has re- quested this map extension and a Condominium Permit extension to get this project. Exhibits: Staff inemo Mr. Kent's Letter 5/19/82 / Frank Erbacher City Engineer FCE/rh cc: Robert Kent 608 Hurlingham Ave., San Mateo, Ca. City Clerk/City Atty. _ Page 4 Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes June 14, 1982 1981, except as further amended by the conditions of this review; (2) that the employee parking shown on the diagram submitted with Mr. Hahn's letter of June 3, 1982 be made permanent and designated on the spaces that they are for employee parking only; and (3) that this permit be subject to review in December of 1983. Second C. Garcia; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. The Chair directed staff to review all conditions and cor�enunicate to the applicant what is currently needed, deleting those conditions which are now found in compliance. � 6. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF JULY, 1981 CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP - 1745 ADRIAN ROAD CE Erbacher reviewed this request for a 12 month extension for a commercial condominium. Reference his staff inemo dated June 7, 1982 and"May 19, 1982 letter from Robert Kent, the property owner. Approvat was recommended. C. Graham moved to approve extension of the condominium permit to July, 1983 and to recomnend to City Council that the tentative subdivision map be extended for the same length of time. Motion was seconded and approved unanimously on voice vote. ITEMS FOR STUDY 7. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A 330 SF CABANA/STORAGE STRUCTURE AT 1441 DRAKE AVENUE Requests: include condition that would prohibit water, sewer and gas service; what parking is provided on site?; distance of the cabana from left lot line; what is the objection to placing on a slab?; need for a sump pump. Item set for hearing June 28, 1982. 8. REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT OF SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A HANDICAPPED CHILDREN'S PROGRAM AT 1151 VANCOUVER AVENUE Comnent: need for the ramp for the handicapped to be installed. Set for hearing Jume 28, 1982. 9. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW THE EXISTIN6 OFFICE/HALL BUILDING AT 1450 ROLLINS ROAD, TO BE RENTED OUT FOR PARTIES AND BANQUETS Reuqests/comments: Jazzersize classes would also require a special permit; clarify if there will be any other uses on the property; clear statement as to number of required parking spaces for each use, if they will overlap on time and how they will be accommodated; who will sponsor the Friday night dinner dances - live music, number of people and will they provide their own police patrol service?; provide same information for the catering business and lunches; will there be private parties only or is this a service of the company?; concern about two uses in a structure; how can adequate parking be provided for the expected number of people?; concern about total parking impact on the area; will alcoholic beverages be served?; need for proper cleaning and policing at all times; what signage is proposed?. Item set for hearing June 28, 1982. 10. SPECIAL PERMIT TO ALLOW RETAIL SALES IN THE M-1 DISTRICT AT 1745 ADRIAN ROAD Requests: clarify if the sales are proposed for all weekends in January and July or only one weekend each month; are there any other businesses of this type in the area?; major issues appear to be traffic control, availability of parking> total number of days. Set for hearing June 28, 1982. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 June 14, 1982 It was determined the proposed addition would not change the exterior walls of the existing structure and would be within the original footprint. Mrs. Greg Levy, wife of the applicant, was present. Chm. Mink opened the public hearing. Rose Giavia, 1565 Meadow Lane, spoke in favor and did not believe the addition would be visible from the street. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Discussion: lot coverage would be less than one percent above code require- ment; possible need for a sump pump since the addition is below the existing floor level. C. Harvey found there were exceptional and extraordinary circumstances since the structure was built to code in 1946 and the applicant should not now be penalized; that if this particular addition is not allowed the applicant would be denied proper use of his land inasmuch as it is within one percent of the required lot coverage; that for the same reason the variance would be necessary for the preserva- tion and enjoyment o` a�roperty right of the owner; that it would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare inasmuch as the footprint would not change and it would not have any visual impact on the neighborhood; that the use of the structure will continue to be R-1 and therefore would not affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. C. Harvey then moved for approval of this variance appli- cation with the following condition: (1) that the conditions in the Chief Building Inspector's memo of June 2, 1982 be complied with. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 5. REVIEW Of SPECIAL PERMITS APPROVED FOR TRANS RENT-A-CAR AND ALAMO RENT-A-CAR AT 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY CP Monroe reviewed the special permits approved at this location since June of 1978. Referer.ce staff report dated 6/8/82; June 28, 1978 letter of action to Trans Rent-A- Car; 1/2/81 Nroject Application & CEQA Assessment for Alamo Rent-A-Car at 1755 Bayshore Highway; aerial photograph of the site; March 3, 1981 letter of action to Alamo � Rent-A-Car; December 11, 1980 letter from Alamo Rent-A-Car to the City Planner; Jiane 3, 1982 letter from Alamo's Burlingame Manager to the Zoning Aide; June 4, 1982 letter from Alan Hahn, Manager, Alamo Rent-A-Car to the Planning Commission; sketch indicating on-site parking; and June 8, 1982 memo from the City Engineer. CP discussed history of applications on this site, staff site inspection in May of 1982, applicant's letters and staff review. If the special permit is extended, four conditions were recormnended as listed in the staff report. George Corey, 700 E1 Camino Real, Millbrae, attorney representing the applicant, introduced Alamo personnel in the audience. He then discussed several of the conditions of approval, illustrating compliance with photographs: exit area will remain open, "no left turn" sign will be permanent, employee parking will be striped and signed, entrance and exit signs have been placed on the two driveways. Mr. Corey requested all conditions for this permit be included in a single document and review be held in December, 1983 when the lease expires. Discussion: applicant's agreement for the north driveway to be entrance only and south driveway to be exit with a "right turn only" sign at the exit drive at all times (with this agreement the CE's reauirements could be eliminated); Mr. Corey's suggestion that the 1978 conditions which have been met be removed from the list of conditions; there was agreement because of the terms of the applicant's lease to review this permit in December, 1983. It was suggested that in the event the south driveway is ever closed in future that the area be landscaped and properly irrigated. C. Harvey moved for extension of this special permit until December, 1983 subject to the following conditions: (1) that the operation of this car rental agency be consistent with the conditions of the 1978 special permit as amended in 1979 and AGENDA. To: From: RE��IVED JUN7=1982 CI PLAMNIN6�bEPTME Re: Request for Twelve-Month Tentative Map and Condominium Permit Extension - 1745 Adrian Road - P. M. 81-4 � On June 22, 1981, the Planning Commission reviewed the subject Project, approved the Condominium Permit and recommended Council's approval of the Tentative Map. Council concurred at their July 6, 1982 meeting. The attached letter from Mr. Kent requests that he be granted a twelve-month extension for both the Condominium Permit and the Tentative Map approval. It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve the requested Condominium Permit extension and request Council's approval of the Tentative Map extension. � Frank C. Erbacher City Engineer FCE:mg Att. Planning Commission Engineering Division cc: Mr. Kent „ - Robert Kent 608 Hurlingham Ave. San Mateo Calif. Planning nepartment City of Burlingame May �9, 1932 0 Thi� letter is a request to extend the condo conversion on the building located at t745 Adrian Road Burlingame which was approved by tiie City Council in July of 1981. T�ank You , , /� � R�6bert Ren �� 1 � ii'� MAY �' S 1982 GTpLANNING DEPTME �.�P lniF.� 0 � ��'�IYC��CYYC.0 SAN MATEO COUNTY � GITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME� GALIFORNIA 94010 November 13, 1981 Messrs. W. L. Thomas and R. Kent 555 0'Niell Avenue Belmont, California 94002 TEL:(415) 342-8931 Re: Tentative Commerical Condominium Conversion Map for 18-unit office parcel of Parce7 Map, Voi. %+a, Page 27 - 1745 Adrian Road - Map 81-4 Dear Sirs: The subject Tentative Commercial Condominium conversion map was appnoved by the eurlingame City Council at their meeting of July 6, 1981. In accordance with City Code, you have one (1) year from this approval date to comply with all conditions of approval and file the Final Map for approval. Yours very truly, THE CITY OF BURLINGAME Ralph E. Kirkup, P. E. Director of Public Works i / /�� .G� j /, '-� � cc �.�!;��"� : =Frank C. Erbacher, P.�-- City Engineer fCG:I11G cc: Redmond Walsh 887 Waltermire St. Belmont, Ca. 94002 �d � �� .3��--1.3SZ s �hP Lit� II� �lt uriing�rn� SAN MATEO COUNTY • CITY FiALL- 501 PRiMROSE ROAO OURLINGAME.C4LIFORNIA 94010 TE4f416)342-6931 JU�,y %e 1981 Messrs. Robert Kent and Ward Thomas 608 Hurlingham Avenue San Mateo, CA. 94401 Gentlemen: Since there was no appeal to or suspension by the City Council, we wish to advise the June 22, 1981 Planning Commission aoproval of your condominium conversion application became effective July 7, 1981. This application was to allow the subdivision of the existing office/ warehouse at 1745 Adrian Road into 18 condominium units. The June 22, 1981 minutes of the Planning Commission state the permit was approved with the following conditions: 1. that the final working drawings for this condominium conversion be consistent with the plans filed with this application; and 2. that the conditions recomnended by the City Engineer be met. Any site improvements or construction work will require separate application to the Building Department. MM/s cc: Chief Building Inspector License Collector Sincerely, �� lt�G�� Q. Margaret Monroe Acting City Planner, Assessor's Office, Redwood City (Parcel 1, Block 6, Millsdale Industrial Park No. 3; APN 025-169-190) 241 City Council Minutes--- July 6, 1981 � Council discussed brieEly. Mayor Ffangini announced final declsion would be made when budget is adopted. CO�SGNT CALGNDAR 1 2 INTRODUCTION - ORDINANCE N0. 1211 "FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION ORDINANCE" � RESOLUTION #47 -"RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME MAKING DETERDIINATION OF PROPERTY TAX EXCHANGE - PENINSULA AVENUP, EL CAD7IN0 REAL INTERSECTION" 3. RESOLUI'ION n46 - AUTtIORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREF.MENT WITFI DEL De1VI5 ASSOCIATES INC., FOR PREPARATION OF EIR - 1800 EL CAMINO 4 RESOLUTION $49 - AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH GATES, MCDONALD & COMPANY" CLAIM OF DENNIS COLLINS - DENIAL RECOMMENDED \\ � � i' E City Attorney's memo of June 22, 1981 recommended de�ial of this claim for lack of liability. 6. TENTATIVE COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION MP.p, 1745 ADRIAN ROAD City Engineer's memo of June 23, 1981 recommended approval of this tentative map for 18-unit office warehouse. Councilwoman Harton moved approval of consent calendar, second by Councilman Amstrup, carried on unanimous vote of inembers present. OLD BUSINESS PIOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT - AB-1662 Ci[y Attorney's report of 6/22/81 discussed AB-1662 which supporte not only mosquito abatement work but also support of programs for control of rats and other animals carrying such diseases as encephalitis, malaria, plague, and others. Council had no objections to staff's writing a letter supporting this bill. NEIV BUSINESS CURBS Councilwoman Barton spoke of complaints received about red curb painting in front of 1422 Bellevue being too dim to see, with people getting parking tickets. Director of Public Works stated he would i.nvestigate. FZ REl40RIC5 Councilman Amstrup suggested City consider revising code regarding sale of fireworks which at present allows commercial ventures to the detriment of charitable organizations traditionally involved, such as Lions Club. He asked that staff investigate. MAILBOX � Councilman Martin noted that the curb mailbox on Broadway had been removed because of damage. Ile asked that staff ascertain from PostCBfice if it will be replaced, notin9 that if not, space could be �sed for parking. BUS SNELTER Councilman Nnstrup noted deterioration of bus shel}er on Ray Drive. In discussion, Council agreed it would be better to restore with present typc of material rather than replace with Samtrans nlastic shelter. Direc[or oF Public works stated he would investigate cost. RAILROn� SIGNAL Councilwoman earton asked that City Manager contact SouChern Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 June 22, 1981 Randolph B. and Vicki Rinker, 2404 Hillside Drive. Another letter in support (enclosed in the packet) was noted, from Dorothy Benedict, 1331 Carlos Avenue. There were no letters or cortments in opposition and the public hearing was closed. Further discussion: possibility of a penalty fee; alternatives to mitigate some of the violations, particularly to bring the roof desi9n within the standards of the code; problem with normal inspection procedures of the city. One Commissioner expressed hi5 opinion that the applicant should not be penalized. . C. Harvey moved to deny this special permit with the condition that abatement of the structure be delayed for a period of 90 days, during which time the applicant mny submit plans for a revised roof line, limiting the roof height to the code standard of 14'. Second C. Graham; motion approved 6-1 on roll call vote, C. Cistulli dissenting. Appeal procedures were advised. 2. VARIANCE TO ADD AN 1,100 SF THIRD FLOOR TO THE EXISTING FIVE UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING AT 836 EL CAP4IN0 REAL, BY RONALD J. BAHN WITH MRS. INES BAHN CP Yost reviewed this application to add an 1,100 SF th�rd floor, with family room, recreation and collection display room, bathroom, bar and deck, over the existing two- bedroom owner's apartment unit. Reference staff report for this item; Project Applica- tion & CEQA Assessment acceoted by staff 6/i/81; aerial photograph; photographs of the Site; April 13, 1981 letter from Ralph Button, Building Designer; June 10, 1981 memo from the Chief Building Inspector, "no corrrments" memo from the City Engineer; June 3, 1981 memo from the Chief Fire Inspector; plans date stamped April 28 and May 29, 1981; and revised plan for a second exit from the third floor date stamped June 16, 1981. CP discussed code requirements, staff comments and issues involved. Staff did not believe the legal requirements for variance approval had been satisfactorily addressed and recomnended denial. Ralph Button, building designer,represented the applicants who were also present. Mr. Button discussed this unusual lot and the applicant=' need for the addition. He also briefly addressed the legal requirements for a variance. Determinations (confirmed by Ronald J. Bahn): they have resided at this location for 20 years; as collectors of fine art, there is presently a real need for more space. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing; there were no comments and the hearing was closed. C. Harvey found it unlikely this property owner would be adding space for another rental unit at this time; that parking did comply with the code when the building was �onstructed; that there were exceptional and extraordinary circumstances in the physical impossibility to provide additional parking; that the variance is necessary for the preservation of a property right of the applicants (a need for more space); that it would not be detrimental to the neighbors; and that it would not adversely affect the comprehensive zoning plan of the city. C. Harvey then moved for approval of this variance application. Second C. Graham; motion approved 6-0 on roll call vote, C. Cistulli abstaining (acquainted with the applicant). Appeal procedures were advised. _� �f— 3. CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PERMIT FOR THE EXISTING OFFICE/WAREHOUSE AT 1745 ADRIAN ROAD ` I CP Yost reviewed this application to subdivide an existing 25,330 SF office/warehouse into 18 condominium units. Reference staff report for this item, Project Application & CEQA Assessment accepted by staff 5/27/81; June 15, 1981 memo from the City Engineer; June 1, 1981 memo from the Chief Fire Inspector; May 27, 1981 memo from Helen Towber, Zoning Aide listing present tenants on the site; May 10, 1981 evaluation of the proposed Conversion from Ernest S. Ihlen, Re9istered Civil Engineer; February 13, 1981 letter with recommendations for sound-rated partitions from Richard B. Rodkin of Charles M. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 22, 1981 CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Planning Cortrnission, City of Burlingame was called to order by Chairman Jacobs on Monday, June 22, 1981 at 7:32 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Comnissioners Cistulli, Garcia, 6raham, Harvey, Leahy, Mink, Jacobs Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner John R. Yost; City Attorney Jerome F. Coleman; City Engineer Frank C. Erbacher MINUTES - The minutes of the June 8, 1981 meeting were unanimously approved and adopted. AGENDA - At the request of the applicant, Item �6 continued to the meeting of July 13, 1981; Study Item 6(a) added; Item 9 added. Order of the agenda was then unanimously approved. Chm. Jacobs welcomed Meg Monroe, Planning Consultant, Ironside & Associates, who will provide temporary planning administration services until a new City Planner is appointed. MEETING ITEMS FOR ACTION 1. SPECIAL PERMIT TO APPROVE A 16'-6" HIGH GARAGE (R�CENTLY CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT AUTHORIZED PLANS) AT 2409 HILLSIDE DRIVE, BY t4R. AND MRS. J. CAMILLERI CP Yost reviewed this request for a special permit to approve a recently constructed 16'-6" hiqh garage, with 340 SF of attic storage space, at the back of the property at 2409 Hillside Drive, Reference staff report for this item; Project Application & CEQA Assessment accepted by staff 5/29/81; aerial photograph; letter from the applicants date stamped May 5, 1981; plot plans date stamped May 5, 1981; photographs of the site; June 10, 1981 memo from the City Attorney, with attachments, giving a history of this project; 6/8/81 memc from the City Engineer; and 6/2/81 memo from the Chief Fire Inspector. CP discussed code exceptions requested, history of the project, and CA's comments. Staff recommended that the application be der�ied and the garage be modified to conform to code. If approved, it was suggested the motion should note the specific violations to which it refers. Jeffrey Camilleri was present and submitted letters in support of the application from his immediate neighbars. He also noted his need for additional storage space. There was considerable discussion about the chronology of this project, comnunications between the city and the applicants over the last three years and code changes within this period. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. Damar Rados, 2405 Hillside Drive spoke in favor, noting the upgrading of this property by the applicants. Secy. Harvey read letters in support from the following neighbors: Robert E. Tarry and Carol DeAnda, 1330 Castillo Avenue; Audrey M. Page, 2408 Hillside Drive; Derek and Barbara Forman, 1341 Carlos Avenue; _, . , Burlingame Planning Comnission Minutes Page 3 June 22, 1981 Salter Associates, Inc.; and architectural plans for the project. CP discussed the plans for this conversion and staff corrQnents. Approval was reconanended with two conditions as listed in the staff report. Discussion: the Fire Inspector's requirement that all businesses must be "B" occupancy; city controls over purchasers, and procedures for approving all new businesses; a change in suggested condition #2, from only allowing "B" occupancy to any use so long as the structural modifications of the fire code are met. Robert Kent and Ward Thomas were present. Mr. Kent stated he had always advised prospective tenants to check with City Hall; he expected prospective buyers would do the same. Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing; there were no comnents and the hearing was closed. C. Graham moved for approval of this condominium conversion permit with the following conditions: (1) that the final working drawings for this condominium conversion be consistent with the plans filed with this application; and (2) that the conditions recommended by the City Engineer be met. Second C. Mink; motion approved 7-0 on roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. �. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISIOPJ MAP FOR THE 18 UNIT INDUSTRIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 1745 ADRIAN R'JAD Reference June 18, 1981 memo from the City Engineer. CE Erbacher recommended approval. C. Mink moved for approval and recommendation to City Council of this tentative sub- division map. Second C. Cistulli; motion approved unanimously on voice vote. 5. SPECIAL PERMIT TO OPERATE A CAR RENTAL AGENCY AT 1300 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, BY EXECUTIVE RENT-A-CAR CP Yost reviewed this application to operate a car rental agency in the C-4 District. Reference staff report for this item; Project Application & CEQA Assessment accepted by staff 6/1/81; aerial photograph; May 15 and April 2, 1981 letters from David R. Goldman, president, Executive Rent-A-Car; site plan, Comnercial Lease and Rent-A-Car Questionnaire received May 20, 1981; June 11, 1981 letter from John V. Sessa, Executive Rent-A-Car local manager; photographs of the site; petition dated June 4, 1981 from tenants at 1300 Bayshore Highway concerning parking problems; June 3, 1981 letter in,opposition from Vincent J. Russo, Manager, The Eggplant restaurant, 1310 Bayshore Highway; June 2, 1981 memo from Helen Towber, Zoning Aide reporting 6/1/81 site inspection, with attachment indicating on-site parking spaces; May 19, 1981 memo from Helen Towber detailing the city's request that a special permit be obtained and follow-up actions; June 9, 1981 memo from the City Engineer; June 2, 1981 memo from the Chief Fire Inspector; and January 1, 1981 list of Burlingame Car Rental Agencies. CP discussed details of the application, principal issues, previous permits granted at this site, and opposition by businesses in the immediate area. Staff recommended the application be denied. If approved, three conditions as listed in the staff report were suggested. David Goldman, president of Executive Rent-A-Car discussed the operational details of his company, primarily a leasing business, and stated he did not believe it would add to congestion in the area. He was prepared to accept a limit of 25 fleet vehicles, with only 5 on-site at one ti�> the remainder at nearby locations. Concern: the time it took Executive Rent-A-Car to make application subsequent to learning the city's requirement of a special permit. Discussion: date the company signed the lease and started operations at this site; number of assigned parking spaces on site; arrangements for parking fleet vehicles off site; employee vehicles and employee parking. Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 June 22, 1981 �4►. �., Chm. Jacobs opened the public hearing. There were no audience comments and the public hearing was closed. Secy. Harvey read petition and letter (distributed in the packet) from neighboring businesses in opposition. Fu'rther discussion: the Planning Corrmission agreement several years ago, because of economic conditions, to approve car rental agencies as an interim use. Present congestion in the area has made this interim use unrealistic; for this reason two commissioners urged denial of the application. Responding to the tenor of the discussion, the applicant requested a three month relocation period be granted. C. Mink moved that this special permit be denied and vacation of the property be completed by October 1, 1981. Second C. Cistulli; motion to deny approved 7-0 on _ roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. 6. FENCE EXCEPTION, 740/744 CROSSWAY ROAD Continued to the meeting of July 13, 1981 at the request of the applicant. MEETING ITEM fOR STUDY 6 a. SPECIAL PERMIT, 728-730 LAUREL AVENUE Item set for hearing July 13, 1981. Recess 9:10 P.M.; reconvene 9:27 P.M.__ OTHER BUSINESS 7. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION N0. 2-81, AMENDMENT OF CURRENT REGULATIONS, BURLINGAME AVENUE OFF-STREET PARKING DISTRICT Reference P.C. Res. 2-81 with attached Exhibit A, Findings and Exhibit B, Attitude Survey, Downtown Land Use, June 2, 1981 Planning Comnission Meeting. CP Yost discussed this resolution, an attempt to formalize the several meetings and findings discussed by Conenission and Council over the last two months. Following some discussion , a minor word change in the resolution and the addition of coin operated laundries as a conditional use in Zone B(services 72-15), C. Mink moved for adoption of Resolution No. 2-81, with the two chan9es discussed this evening. Second C. Harvey; motion approved 6-1, C. Cistulli dissenting (believed the present code should not be changed). Subsequent procedures for this study were discussed, particularly receiving public input. CITY PLANNER REPORT R. PUBLIC FORUM ON THE•MARRIOTT HOTEL AND OFFICE PROJECT AT 1800 BAYSHORE HIdiWAY Meeting between Marriott and BCDC for discussion of the four alternatives to be included in the EIR has not yet taken place. Following this meeting notices will be placed in the three local newspapers to advise of the Planning Commission meeting date for public input. Target date is July 13, but the forum will not be scheduled until BCDC has reviewed alternatives. P.C. 6/22/81 Item No. 3 MEMO T0: PLANNING COt�1ISSI0N FROM: CITY PLANNER SUBJECT: CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING 25,300 SF OFFICE/WAREHOUSE AT 1745 ADRIAN ROAD The attached Project Assessment describes the 18 unit office/warehouse condominium conversion of an existing 25,300 SF building at 1745 Adrian Road filed by Robert Kent with Ward Thomas. The architectural plans date stamped May 22, 1981 show the existing building and the modifications proposed for conversion to condominium ownership. The present structure (as modified for condominium ownership) meets current City Building Code requirements, and is reviewed by the City Engineer (memo June 15, 1981). Fire Code and public safety requirements are also satisfactory; the Chief Fire Inspector's May 27, 1981 memo notes that all businesses must be B occupancies. This occupancy requirement can be handled during the City's review of new Business License applications. The project represents no change in use; the nonconforming sideyard does not appear to be germane to the present conversion application. Given the above, the staff recortenends that a condominium conversion permit be approved for this project. Recortmended conditions for Commission reivew at the public hearing are: 1. that the final working drawings for this condominium conversion be consistent with the plans filed with this application; and 2 JRY/s that the conditions recomnended by the City Engineer and Chief Fire Inspector be met to the satisfaction of each department. J��. a�t-- John R. Yos City Plan cc: Robert Kent and Ward Thomas � June 18, 1981 MEMO T0: Planning Commission FROM: Engineering Division �� Ir� �.� L� • Y �'I� rII JUN 18 1981 GiY �F AW� PLANdtYl6 pFpi Re: Tentative Commercial Condominium Map Parcel 1 of Parcel Map, Vol. 46, Page 27 1745 Adrian Road - Map 81-4 Staff has reviewed the subject Tentative Condominium Map, together with the Condominium Permit Plans. The Map conforms to the Condominium Permit and may be recommended to Council for approval. � , ,� �__ ank C. Erbacher City Engineer FCE:mg � C INTER-OFFICE MEMO To: John Yost, City Planner From: Building Division 'Pi�j June 16, 1981 Re; 1745 Adrian Road Office Condominium Conversion The Building Department recommends that should the application be approved, the following conditions shall apply. l. Comply with Chapter 26.30 of the City of Burlingame & Municipal code, Condominium Subdivisions. 2. Two complete sets of Plans be submitted for Plan Check, upon approval of Plans all required permits be obtained before beginning construction. 3. Meet the requirements of the State of California Energy Commission. Pete Kr'ner C� Building Inspector PK/pma ,,-�, . ... ... �., i i n :, MEMO T0: Y. Yost, Planning Dir. FROM: Engr. Div. JUN 15 1981 June 15, 1481 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Re: Commercial Condominium Conversion 1745 Adrain Road Engineering staff has reviewed the subject Permit Plans. The application appears complete and all necessary reports have been filed. Staff has re- viewed the reports, site plans and proposed condominium divisions and has no objections. Site plans and details of surfacing drainage and utilities are as constructed, except in the installation of a concrete valley gutter in the parking area. These site improvements are adequate to service the site. � Frank C. Erbacher City Engineer FCE:mg �P�(�� -6�a�i�� lbe� � tT 1�6 i ePe-DEPARTM�tJT tvIGN,ORC.NDUM ' TO City Engineer — wil�i y�IAKf DATE Chief Building Inspector ' �hi$€-€#r-e Inspector��..FJS P4.s � : � f � ., �, ; ,, �� ;i �'iI :i � ' •N�w�� A. M. rJ�2�� 19 81 P. M. The following application has been received for consideration by the Planning Commission: , Industrial Condominium Conversion - 1745 Adrian Road. Does your department have any comments that should be brought to the attention of the Commission? We would appreciate receiving these by Monday, June 8, 1981. Att. REPLY ON THIS SHEE7 WILMER '$[RY1Ci�L _-- Thank you. J�, ' ' I John R. Yost ' I FROM City Planner � iTAHDFROIHTCR DEIT. NCNO. fOXM I I'�L4 i ' �u� _co� ners.....�'r.�n r.� r s). tY� us F��--� f��, �. �. .- �. . � :. .�_�� -. . � 6 occuP►a�ys e l�o wdoou�o�.K,u��2 ., f�v`c�.�. � rePr�►r .. .(� �T-�e�w�S� . ..��.;-1 ��s. ; ,. y. . , i o � �� _r�-Qv ��:. ;� � • � � - , , • � , . . .. • � ; ' i..�\.. . � ' . . . •1 / , . , i • : � •. - � . . . , .. . ... • _ � � ,: . � . . i . � . ��Co .rY1 �.O�s: .. ' . i « , . • i . � � . .�-.o �r� ; .. . � r . ' • . • . . � . , p � f�,�.l��.�'/�5 � i ' . ;�. . . . . MA� 2 � 1981 . i . _.. . � � � • • 9uRltNc�,gME riKE �crt. ; . . . . . FIRE ih15P,�.TOR i � . . . , , i • . . , .. • ' " I May 27, 1981 T0: FILE FROM: ZONING AIDE SUBJECT: PRESENT TENANTS OF 1745 ADRIAN ROAD, CONDO CONVERSION APPLICATION In a telephone conversation with the applicant, Bob Kent, the following information was given describin9 the present tenants of 1745 Adrian Road. Unit numbers correspond to plans submitted for this project. � Use 1,2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 E�i HT/s Orange Juice Ino Rodrigues AR Concrete Smith-Cline Larry Capello R. L. Dickinson Barbara Hewitt San Bruno Hardwood Floors Vacant Pioneer Stereo Gamefield Concept Selko Air Freight Starlight Bldg. Maintenance Steve Gardner Munday & Collins Jim Brett Fish,Fish,Fish Fresh juice distributors Car Detailing for Dealers Storage, contracting ofc. Storage Metal working Paint contractor Silk screening Storage/office Dealer repairs Mfg. sport equipment Office Janitorial work Auto repairs Office/storage Real estate office file storage Tropical fish 2200 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 1100 2200 2200 1100 2200 1100 2(s-5) 2(8-5) 1(8-5) 0 1(8-5) 1(8-5) 1(8-5) 1(8-5) 2(8-5) 3(8-5) 1(8-5) 3(8-5) 1100 1(8-5) 1100 3300 2(8-5) /��,--�s-�w�.--' HELEN TOWBER ZONING AIDE 1(after 5:00) 1(after 5:00) 2(after 5:00) � '• • � � .. .. � . . '__."___._'__"_._... ._""_' ' _'"...____.._.... _ '"'_' i. _ __.__ _. ._ _""".. _.. _. . _ _... .... r�OJECT APrLi�si��iV lr-"�� '� 1745 ADRIAN ROAD r s�:F�::.=�M� projec[ address �t C�QA ASSESS�t�lT �` INDUSTRIAL CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION �� " _ �� project naine - i any � v 00 N U' m ti 01 r c ro TY Q� L i �n C R.� . N � X 0. +-` C N �6 •r '�7 � N i Ul � O c E c w �r �O 'O r U r' C • �r 10 NW V � •� 3 � N � U +� SC � � a+, � L i 'n s �n t v +� Ui a� N L � +� O •r- O � L1 }i 7 N v O V � "O i N �'r- t6 O L .� > O N•i O � i bn � vo. 3 o v� -o • �w +� N N •r c ++ v ro E 7 Ln L C a1 L N �O •r r � n � .�b •� C U tn U v o a� �n N U N O "O � o c �n ai o a v �o v �3 Oa^ � m U v b v c •• s v .� c� +� a r� z N r �+ O> C a C O .� a o a c� v � � � � � o� v N� Z U C .0 .G Q X •r f-H �w.- K # � Application received ( 5/22/81 ) Staff review/acceptance ( 5/27/81 � . i . 1. APPLICANT Robert Kent and Ward Thomas 591-0206 name teiephone no. 608 Hurlingham Avenue, San Mateo, CA. 94401 � applicant s address: street, city, zip code ; Robert Kent and Ward Thomas 591-0206 � contact person, if different telephone ho. 2, TYPE OF APPLICATION Conversion Specia.l Perr:it () Variance` () Condominium�Pernit (X ) Other 'Attach letter which addresses each of the 4 findings required by Code C apter 25.5 . 3. PROJEC7 DESCRIP7ION CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PERMIT to subdivide an existing 25,330 SF office/warehouse into 18 condominium units. There will be no change in number or size of the existing rental units, which range from 1100 SF to 3300 SF. Zoninq requirements for lot coverage, hei ht and on-site parking are , met by the project; however, the structure is built to the side property line, and does not observe the 10' side.yard requirement recently added to the M-1 District requlations. Other alterations (to bring the structure up to current Building and Fire Code standards) are proposed by the applicant. (attach letter of explanation if additional space is needed) Ref. code section(s): ( Chap. 26.30) (PC Res. 5-80 ) 4. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION �parcel ( 025-169-190 ) ( 1 ) ( 6 ) APN lot no. block no. i M-1 ?( 52 466 SF ) 5. d. ( Millsdale Industrial Park No.3� subdivision name zoning district land area. �square feet � - - _ e Robert Kent/Ward Thomas 608 Hurlingham Avenue and owner's name address - San Mateo, CA. 94401 Required Date received city zip code {yes) (�e� ( 5/22/81 ) Praof of awnership . (yes), (fla� ( 5�pp/gl ) Owner's consent to application ' EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS • Existin9 25,330 SF office/warehouse with on-site parking for 47 cars. Required Date received (yes) �#) ( 5/22/81 ) S1te plan showing: property lines; public sidewalks and curbs; all structures and improvements; paved on-site parkino; landscaping. (yes) (irti�= ( 5/22/81 ) Floor plans of all buildings showing: gross floor area by type of us�`on each floor plan. (yes) (�to�= ( 5�22�g1 ) Building elevations, cross sections (if relevant). (ye5) (�1= ( � � ) Site cross section(s) (if relevant). (other) ( �/�Z�Z/�} � _Conditions, covenants & restrictions: Acoustical and Structural Report *Land use classifications are: residential (show N dwelling units); office use; retail sales; restaurant/cafe; manufacturing/repair shop; warehousing; other (to be described). FnuucCT FR��?C:,A� NO NEW CONSTRUCTION IS PROPOSED Proposed construction, Below grade ( - SF) Second floor ( - SF) gross floor area First floor ( - SF) Third floor ( - SF) Project Code Project Lode Proposal Requirement Proposal Requirement Front setback 24'-0" 15' Lot coverage 48.2% SP over 60 Side setback - Side yard 0'/46' � Rear yard 40' -0" ' - Buildinq height 17'-9" 10'* Landscaped area (� �� On-site pkg.spaces 47 P over 3', L[: 6. PROJECT PROPOSAL (continued) Full time emo7oyees on site Part time employees on site Yisitors/customers (weekday) Visitors/customers (Sat.Sun.) Residents on property Trip ends to/from site' Peak hour trip ends" Trucks/service vehicles � `Show calculations on reverse side or attach sepz:ate sheet. � 7. ADJACENT B�SINESSES/LAND USES ! General Electric Co. to the east; other manufacturing/warehouse uses to the west and south; Bayshor•e Freey�y to the north. Required Date received �� no) ( - ) (Yes) (�s# ( 5/P7/81 � See Item #6 Location plan of adjacent properties. Other tenants/firms on property: no. firms ( ) no. employees ( ) floor area occupied ( SF office space) ( SF other) no. emp7oyee vehicles regularly on site ( ) no. company vehicles at this location ( ) 8. FEES Special Permit, all districts $100 () Other application type, fee $ Variance/R-1,R-2 districts 5 40 () Project Assessment $�� X Variance/other districts S 75 () Negative Declaration $ 25 (X ) Condominium Permit $ 50 (X ) EIR/City & consultant fees $ ( j TOTAL FEES $ 100.00 RECEIPT N0. 1840 Received by H. Towber I hereby certi true and cor�e Si under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is to the be�t of � knowledge and belief. STAFF USE ONLY File No. ND-292P NEGATlVE DECLARATION � ' The City of Burlingame by JOHN R. YOST on MAY 26 . 15 3l, . � ' tanpleted a review of t.he proposed project and deternrined that: �� ( X) It will not have a significant effect on the environment. • ( ) No Environmental Impact Report is required. Reasons for a Conclusion: The existing 25,330 SF office/warehouse was constructed with a buildi'ng permit from the City of Burlin9ame in 1979. Minor renovations I will bring the structure up to all current Building and Fire Codes. The proposed � classification of this project as a"condominium" will not result in 9reater site � density, traffic generation, utility consumption or other possibly adverse ; environmental_e�,fects. ng CITY PLANNER MAY 27, 1981 Title �ate Signed Unless appealed within 10 ddys hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final. DECLARATION OF POSTIPIG Date Posted: �� `�+� I declare under penalty of perjury that I ar� City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Council Chambers. � Executed at Burlingame, California on �� , 19 �� . Appealed: ( )Yes ( �no � , � n . � �.� r� �. - - —�— ----- . , . . -�-----____. --- ___.__,_ IN 5 YEARS after Q_5 S PM EXISTING after 8-5 5 PM IN 2 YEARS after 8-5 5 PM STAFF REVIEVII 1. CIRLULATIOW OF APPLICATIOI� ProJect proposal/plans have beer. circulated for review hy: City Engineer Building Inspector Fi re Inspector Park Department "CC&RS are OK"----- City Attorney date circulated ( 5/27/81 ) ( 5/27/81 ? ( 5/27/81 I � -- ) ( 5/25/81 ) reply received (yes) _� �.Y�. (��) (yes) � (yes) (no) (yes) _(� 2. SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS/POSSIBLE MITIGATION MFASURES memo attached (yes) _� �,�) (no) (yes) _� (yes) (no) ��e� (no) Concerns Mitigation Measures Does the project meet the engineer- Request report from the City ing requirements of Planning Engineer. Comnission Res. No. 16-75? Does the project comply with Fire Request report from the Chief Fire Department requirements? Inspector. Are the sideyard and landscaping Discuss; make findings. deficiencies significant? 3. CEQA REQUIREMEPlTS If a Negative Declaration has not been posted for this project: Is the project subject to CEQA review? See Negative Declaration ND-292P IF AN•EIR IS REQUIRED: Initial Study completed Decision to prepare EIR dotices of preparation mailed RFP to consultants Contract awarded Admin. draft EIR received Draft EIR accepted by staff Circulation to other agencies c c � � i � � i Study by P.C. Review period ends Public hearing by P.C. Final EIR received by P.C. Certification by Council Decision on project Notice of Determination � � ) ) ) � ) ) i i � � � � � 4. APPLICATION STATUS �phone Date first received ( 5/22/81 ) Accepted as complete: no( X) Call to applicant advising info. required ( 5/25/81 ) Yes( X) date 5/27/81 P.C. study ( 6/8/81 ) Is application ready for a public hearing? (yes) �) Recoimnended date ( 6/22/81 ) Date staff report mailed t pplicant (6/18/81 ) Date Comnission hearing ( 6/22/81 ) �ppl�caticn �pprrv�d ( D=nied ( ) Apoeal to Council (yes) no) ' Date Council hearing ( ) Application approved ( ) Denied ( ) Jt�M 1�. alfi 6/16/81 siy ed date , ERNEST S. IHLEN 2917 California Street San Francisco, California 94115 May 10, 1981 Ward L. Thomas and Robert Kent 555 O'Niell Avenue Belmont, California 94002 Re: Proposed Condominium Conversion of Shop Building at 1745 Adrian Road, Burlingame, California Dear Messrs. Thomas and Kent: The following is an update of my preliminary evaluation regarding feasibility of your proposed condominium and conversion. 7. FIRE AND ZONING CODES AND REGULATIONS The zoning, codes, and regulations for this project are in compliance with City of Burlingame requirements for proposed uses: Group B-2 S H, and parking; (2 parking spaces per each 1,100 square feet of building area. Total parking 47 spaces). 1 Space for owner, 7 space for guest. 2. STRUCTURAL Structural evaluation of your building was made April 15, 1981. My conclusion from visual inspection and your compieted plans and calculations dated March 20, 1979, confirms that the 18 proposed condominium units are in complaince. 3. PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL AND HEATING All units at the present time have gas and warm, forced air heating units. At this writing, water heaters have not yet been installed. All electric and plumbing is in compliance and working order. 4. ROOF AND PAINT ROOF is in compliance and has more than adequate dr�ainage to existing drains and roof overflow drains. Ponding is very unlikely. �;�C;ciil�l� MAY 2 2 1981 CI PLAMNiNGLDEP�TME � Ward L. Thomas and Robert Kent May 70, 1981 Page Two PAINT is over cement plaster and concrete block with clear heart, rw�trim stained a natural redwood color. Paint color is "bone white." Screens and signs are of redwood and all are in excelleni condition. 5. LANDSCAPING AND PAVED AREAS Landscaping has approximately 18 months of growth and is filling out adequately. Trees have also shown 4" to 5" of new growth and is more than adequate. Paved areas are for the most part all solid without checking, and drainage is to 18" x 18" catch basins. Asphalt paving is trimmed with 2" rough redwood header boards. At Unit ]4 of proposed condominium, an area of approximately 10 x 15' appears to be some breaking up of the 2" AC paving and should be repaired. Rain water is taken off underground in transite drain lines of adequate size and taken into storm drain, Invert 97.8 as shown on drawings and is in compliance. The above evaluation with remarksconfirms that the proposed 18 condominium units to be converted are in compliance with the City of Burlingame requirements for conversion. Very truly yours, �,�..� .a • ��!��..� Ernest S. Ihlen California Registered Civil Engineer #11002 ESI/hjm Ward L. Thomas General Contractor 555 0'neil Avenue #9 Belmont, CA 94002 - ... = - _ - CICOUSf ICS� _ \ architecnire engineering the en��ironment 13 February 1981 Subject: Burlingame Commercial Condominiums-- Recommendations for Sound-Rated Partitions Dear Mr. Thomas: This letter presents our recommendations for obtaining STC 50 partitions at your project. We understand that the existing partitions consist of either: a. A single row of 2 x 4 studs with one layer of 1/2" thick gypsum board on each side--STC 35, or b. Two-hour shear walls with 2 x 4 studs with one layer of plywood on one side and two layers of 5/8" gypsum board on both sides--STC 39. We do not know of a way to upgrade the existing partitions to an STC 50 ratinq without either resiliently supporting one side or erecting a new row of studs. The two options are, therefore: 1. Resilient Channel Construction - one side of studs only Remove approximately 90� of the gypsum board between each of the studs on one side o€ the studs. This is necessary because the resiliently-supported gypsum board must have an air space behind it. Put a 3-1/2" t�ick glass fiber blanket in each stud space. The following insta�lation instructions have been abstracted from U.S. Gypsum Companyl literature: F. w �.+ .= i �/ r: L� MAY 2 2 1981 CITY Of BURLINGAM� pLANNItVG DEPT, Charles M. Salter, PE Eva Duesler Kichard R. Illingworth, PE Wilmoth Lewis Anthony f? Nash. PE Sheldon Remington Richard B. Rodkin 3.50 Pacihc Avenue. Snn Frnncisco, CA.I94171 tel: 1415) 397-0442 L Ward L. Thomas 13 February 1981 Page Two 1) Attach U.S.G. RC-1 resilient channels at 24" center-to-center spacing perpendicular to the studs. a. Use U.S.G. 1-1/2" Type S hi-lo bugle head drywall screws. b. Drive screws only through pre-punched holes and channels. c. Mounting flange should face downward except at floor. 2) Hold back ends of channels 1" from intersecting surfaces. 3) Splice channels only at stud and overlap butt ends. Screw attach through both flanges. 4) Locate channels so that gypsum board will not be cantilevered more than 6" from vertical surfaces. 5) Apply gypsum board of maximum practical length. Fasten gypsum board to channels with U.S.G. 1" Type S hi-lo bugle head drywall screws. Space screws 12" center-tb-center in the field of gypsum board and along all edges. 6) Hold back gyps�m board edges 1/4" at all intersecting vertical surfaces. • 7) When a construction includes two layers of gypsum board on resilient channels (such as the two-hour fire rated wall), apply the face gypsum board layer in the same manner as the base layer except offset the long edge joints by 24" and the short edge joints by 48". a. Fasten face layer panel to channels with U.S.G. 1-5/8" Type S hi-lo buqle head drywall screws. Space 12" on center in field of panels and along butting edges. b. Offset face layer of screw patterns 6" from base layer screws along all RC channels. c. Hold back gypsum board edges 1/4" at all intersecting vertical surfaces. d. Only one layer of gypsum board in a two-layer construction need be caulked. It is very important to eliminate all potential sound leaks and to prevent structural ties to the resilient construction. The entire perimeter of the partition should be caulked airtight with ,. e Ward L. Thomas 13 February 1981 Page Three an acoustical sealant such as Inmont Corporation Presstite 579.64 acoustical sealant, Pecora BA 98 acoustical sealant, Tremco acoustical sealant, w.w. Henry 313 sound control sealant or an approved equivalent. This construction has an STC rating of 51. 2. New Row of Studs The alternative to the above construction would be to erect a new row of 2 x 4 studs adjacent to the existing wall. The new row of studs should be spaced at least 1/2" from the existing row of studs so there is no physical contact between the two walls. There should be a 3-1/2" thick low-density glass fiber blanket placed in t}ie new stud cavities. Then one layer of 1/2" or 5/8" gypsum board should be nailed to the new row of studs. The entire perimeter should be caulked airtight as described above. This construction has an STC rating of 53. : s e This concludes our recommendations for increasing the sound ratiny of your inter-office walls to 50 or greater. If you have any questions, please call. Sincerely yours, /G,�.�.�..Q � ,%�.�� Richard S. Rodkin RBR/esd �r �� '+`�� . _j r� �� _F � ;"�: �" „ YSF�.. . .. . � a � ' s . I'� . ,. .. . ..._ , . _'•T� � �y R��iT �"•�Y -4.� � *�� ,�,:, 4-.. � d iv� t �� C r��( pI.�i F(' JJ��..x�.`) � �,h /`" N 1 �, K "1• *.' � J -}�"Y� 4T` � � . SSY � k . . � • � z . . . . � Y . .��-.r. �� " �• �-`�- �`' hat� . ; � � `� � • � �� „`` '� ,�, .._r � - . 1. r . . _ ' "'.� � �% e:, .. . . . - ,-� -. . •_. • ::i �'a � �IY � .. . q•' . � - � 1� '� � . _ . . . � Y ., � �.Y. � _ � � ♦ �� . .� . ` q !:• • 1 v. .. . ' . - . • . . • C� . �� . . . . � 1" - . . . � . . _ • q � . :t . � . ' . � _ _ ' . .�•i . . . . . . i�- u . . � � ,s �:1 ; � � � .�.s. . �� r - � �. �a� . . � � � . _ , . . - . `� � � --. h J 4� �.3 � y � � '�� ; .� , �`1 ' '_: � '�' (—__ .:. . ;� � _._ __ _ ' = :� .i� �� # � �;: � x� x F `' �lJ, i� l <, �3,=. �' � � � .-1 -! _� !-��'�� '; = . � " . ., �� ' . . . . -. q� � � � , ` . � ,` � � K: c STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, � 55.. ) I, JOHN R. YOST, declare: I am the City Planner of the City of Burlingame. On June 12 , 198 1, I deposited in the United States Post Office at Burlingame, California, with postage thereon prepaid, Notices of Hearing on the application for and Tentative Subdivision Map Condominium Conversion Permit pertaining to the property designated as 1745�Adrian Road a copy of which notice is attached hereto. Said notice was mailed to all property owners named on the attached list and to each person named in said application, which is incorporated herein as if the same were set forth in full. �_ I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Burlingame, California, on June 12 � 1981 . . J�.�. � JOH R. YOST City nner �� .... /r^ P,-..-Y' ��'�"; ,'K" f,;... ;% ,'^�?i'.l � , n �he Litu af ��uriing�mP SAN MATEO GOUNTY CITY MALL- 501 PRiMfiOSE ROAD BURIINGAME. CALIFOqNIA 94010 TEl:f41� 30E-6931 NOTICE OF HEARING CONDOPIINIUM CONVERSION PERF1IT AND TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP d NOTICE IS HEREBY GI4EN that Monday, the 22nd day of June, 1981 , at the hour of 7:30 P.M., in the City Hall Council Chambers , 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California the Planning Cortrnission of the City of Burlingame will conduct a public hearing on the application to convert the existing 25,33a SF office/warehouse at 1745 Adrian.Road into a condominium. At the time of the hearing all persons interested will be heard. For further particulars reference is made to the Planning Department. t ..JOHN R. YOST CITY PLANNER June 12, 1981