The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About247-251 California Drive - Staff ReportItem No.�_ Meeting Date: 7/23/O1 Study Item City of Burlingame Action on Use Determination at 247 California Drive Request: Use determination that the graphics design use on the first floor of the building is a pedestrian oriented retail sales use consistent with the retail uses permitted in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and is therefore not required to have on-site parkin� because it continues the nonconforming parking use. Applicant: Jan Haseman, London Road Designs APN:029-211-050 Property Owner: Basim and Linda Azar Lot Area: 25'x119' or 2975 SF General Plan: Service and special sales commercial Zoning: C-1, Subarea B, BACA Adjacent Development: Retail and service commercial and office use CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically exempt per Section 15301 — Existing facilities, Class 1(a), interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances. ' ` �w , ��`_ � �� . Previous Use: First floor used for retail sales and second floor mezzanine used as office; no parking provided on site. Proposed Use: First floor used for graphic design office with very limited retail sales, mezzanine used for office; no parking provided on site. Summary: The applicant, Jan Haseman, representing London Roads Designs, is requesting a determination on the use of the first floor of the building located at 247 California Drive, Zoned C-1 Subarea B, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. The site was previously occupied by Fat Cat Antiques, a retail sales use. London Roads Designs is a firm which produces and sells custom printed products. Printing occurs off site. The employees use computers to produce complex documents such as annual reports as well as newsletters, invitations and business cards. The first floor is occupied by a number of employee desks. The company's web site states that they specialize in "the design and development of marketing communication programs" in print and on the internet. The web site does not mention the design of invitations or business cards. At the time of city inspection there was no cash register observed, there was no merchandise displayed for sale, and no business license had been applied for so the Planning Department had not previously reviewed this use at this site. This is a code enforcement item which began in April 2001. Actu�n on Use Determination at 2-17 California Drive July 23, 2001 Staff would note that as a part of this determination request the applicant submitted no plans to scale to document the size of the use areas established by the on-site improvements or to document the size of the tenant space (first floor and mezzanine). Parking requirements, in the event a variance is required, cannot be precisely calculated without accurate building dimensions and to scale demarcations of use areas by the applicant. In his letter of June 28, 2001, Mark Hudak, the applicant's attorney, notes that the site has "been beautifully remodeled". There are building permits on file issued in January 2001 to the tenant for gas, electrical and air. This type of permit does not require planning department review or approval because they do not change the envelope of the structure, its footprint or its support members. Decorating improvements (paint and carpet) do not require building permits. (Correspondence attached) Issue: If the proposed graphics design use on the first floor and mezzanine is determined to be a retail commercial use, consistent with the pedestrian oriented retail requirements of Subarea B, then the applicant's use is allowed as a matter of right and no additional parking is required because no change in use has occurred and the nonconforming parking status of the site continues. If the applicant's proposed graphics design use of this entire structure is determined to be an office use similar to that of an architect's office, then the nonconforming parking status of building use is voided; and the applicant must obtain a parking variance for the entire area of the building in which the use has changed. Office uses are allowed on the first floor and mezzanine in Subarea B, so long as parking is provided to code on site. Standards which Establish the Classification of the Uses in Subarea B, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area The General Plan designates the site Service and Special Sales commercial. In the Land Use Element (page L-5) it notes that the Burlingame Avenue- Park Road Center, of which the site is a part, includes outlets providing a wide range of consumer goods and services for Burlingame residents and residents of adjoining communities. It also includes business service establishments, business and professional offices, civic buildings, and some residential uses. "The following organization of uses within the center is recommended: shopping goods outlets should, in the main, be located along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road in a pedestrian precinct; convenience goods, stores, restaurants, and consumer service outlets should not occupy ground level street frontage space in the heart of the center but should be in more peripheral locations;..." By this description both retail sales and office uses are permitted on the proposed site because it is out side of core area. The Zoning Code addresses consistency with the General Plan in CS 25.04.080 stating that "(A)pproval of a zoning, rezoning, variance or use permit pursuant to this title shall be based on a 2 Actu�n on Ilse Determinutu�n at 2-17 Cu[iforniu Drive July 23, 2001 finding that the approval is consistent with the general plan and applicable specific plan adopted by the city council. Applications for a zoning, rezoning, variance or use permit shall be denied if found to be inconsistent with the general plan or applicable specific plan." The City Council established Subareas A and B in 1982 to implement the General Plan. This code establishes the need for consistency with the general plan and their right to make specific plans and use zoning to implement them. The Zoning Code defines retail sales(CS25.08.558) as establishments engaged in selling commodities or good in small quantities to ultimate customers or consumers. However this zoning definition of "retail" is further refined in its application in the specific implementation plan for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area in both Subareas A and B. In the C-1 zone, which is the base zoning for the Subarea A and B overlay zones, CS 25.36.040 (2) (A) defines Subarea B as being inclusive of all the requirements and allowances of Subarea A, which means that allowed: "retail uses are those which achieve contiguous, pedestrian-oriented, retail frontage such as drug, liquor, bakeries, variety store, paint and hardware, apparel, accessory, restaurants and coffee shops, florists, furniture and draperies."(CS 25.36.040 (1)(A). Office uses are specifically prohibited on the first floor in Subarea A by not being mentioned as allowed (CS 25.36.040 (1)) However, in Subarea B office uses, except health services and in the areas with street frontage on Chapin Avenue, Primrose Road, Donnelly Avenue or the west side of Lorton, are allowed as a matter of right, with one proviso, parking. (CS 25.36.040 (2) (D)) The subject property has street frontage on California Drive. The General Plan provides for offices in the peripheral area which was designated as Subarea B in 1982. Code section 25.36.040 (d) addresses the parking requirements for Subareas A and B. This code section establishes the nonconformity presently allowed for the retail and mezzanine office use previously present at 247 California in CS 25.36.040 (d) (1), noting that uses permitted and existing before October 1981 "shall be exempt from parking requirements until the vacation of the premises by the use occupying the premises" at that time. CS 25.36.040 (3) notes that "any new development. .. shall provide on-site parking, except that the first floor of such new development in Subarea A shall be exempt from parking requirements if the first floor is used for retail or other personal service uses." The proposed use is in Subarea B. Study Questions Planning Commission reviewed this request for determination at their meeting on July 9, 2001. The Commissioners asked that the applicant provide sales tax information and invoices from the business; data on the actual number of customers that come to the business daily; profile of the products that the customers ordered in the last year; asked staff to investigate the issues experienced by San Mateo when retail space was converted to dot.com office space in their 3 Aetion on Use Determirratwn ut 2-17 Califi�rnia llrive July 23, 2001 downtown ; and for staff to calculate the number of parking space deficiency with the change in use from pedestrian oriented retail to office. In his letter of July 12, 2001, Mark Hudak, attorney for the applicant, responds to the questions about sales tax, invoices, product type and daily customer visits. He notes that based on the London Roads quarterly sales tax reports for last year the business had taxable sales of over $1,000,000. He did not provide invoices of business transactions because the applicant felt that the request was "intrusive and not germane to the planning issues". He noted the London Roads estimates that 10 to 20 customers come to the premise daily. He notes they anticipate that this number will increase as more people become familiar with the business' new location. In his letter Mr. Hudak also addresses the two issues assigned to staff. He notes that London Roads will not have the same impact as the dot.com uses on 4t'' Avenue in San Mateo because office uses are prohibited in Subarea A(the core of Burlingame's commerical area) and office and mixed uses are allowed in Subarea B(the support area for Burlingame Avenue). Staff would agree that strict zoning in Subarea A does protect the Subarea from having office uses drive out pedestrian oriented retail businesses, as happened on 4`� Avenue. However, if this production and sale of custom printed products use is determined to be a pedestrian oriented retail sales use exempt from parking and suitable for Subarea B, then it could be located as a matter of right anywhere in Subarea A as well. If the production and sale of custom printed products is determined to be an office use, then the use is allowed as a matter of right in Subarea B as a "support" use to Subarea A, as described in the General Plan, so long as parking is provided on site as implemented by the zoning code. While the applicant did not submit revised plans to scale for staff to use to determine the parking requirements for this site, they did provide some "estimated" dimensions for the exterior of the building but no dimensions beyond the plans submitted which had no scale for the interior uses on the first floor and mezzanine. Based on the exterior numbers and using some judgement based on proportions given in the site plans provided and on site visits staff determined the following parking requirements: Existing Fat Cat Antiques Retail First Floor Mezzanine Total parking spaces required: 12 2123 SF retail (1:400 SF) 1063 SF storage (1:1000 SF)� 2075 SF retail (1:400 SF) �. 0 Acliwn on Use Determinatu�n at 2a7 Califo�nia Drive London Road Design First Floor Mezzanine Total parking spaces required: 15 1626 SF office (1:300 SF) 497 SF retail (1:400 SF) 1063 SF storage (1:1000 SF) 1855 SF office (1:300 SF) 220 SF storage (1:1000 SF) July 23, 2001 The change in use of the first and mezzanine floors of the tenant space at 247 California Drive increases the on site parking requirement from 12 spaces to 15. The applicant has noted that they presently park one car in the storage area on the first floor. In order to park a car within a building in this commerical area a one-hour fire rated separation is required on all walls/ceiling which encase the parking space. There can be no required exiting through the area. No inspection or building permit has been issued that includes the use of these storage area for on-site parking. Building permits have been issued for electrical and heating work. To provide this parking space as a legal space may require substantial construction. The Building Department would need to inspect to determine if their code requirements can be met. For this reason, in this analysis, the entire storage area has been counted as storage, and no on-site parking is considered to be provided at this time. Staff Comments As a part of the discussion on the fire rating requirements, the Chief Building Official noted that a change in use of this site from retail sales to office would require the applicant to provide a disabled accessible bathroom on the first floor. This would be a condition of any subsequent planning action on this request. Conclusion: Based on the General Plan designation as implemented by the zoning, the Burlingame Avenue commercial area is planned as an area in which the objective is to promote "pedestrian oriented" retail sale and service businesses. The zoning code defines retail sales as establishments engaged in selling commodities or goods in small quantities to ultimate customers or consumers. But to support the more specific development objective of the General Plan for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area (Subareas A and B inclusive) the zoning code amends the definition of retail sales and service and limits it to "pedestrian oriented" sales and service commercial. Although the zoning does distinguish between Subarea A and B by allowing some additional more bulky retail 5 Acfion on Ilse Determinatiwn at 2a7 California Drive July 23, 2001 uses and first floor office use in Subarea B as directed by the General Plan, the zoning code also requires that these retail and office uses support the "pedestrian oriented" character of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area by requiring them to provide parking to code for both the first and second floor retail and office uses on site. In the case of the applicant's request, the graphics design studio does not appear to meet the criteria of "pedestrian oriented" retail sales since quantities of goods on display and for sale directly to customers walking into the site are not a part of this business and no means of collecting small quantities of cash for goods sold is apparent. However the site does appear to meet the requirement for office use. The first floor is filled with computer desks and employees using those computers, in a fashion similar to an architect's office. If the determination is that the use is indeed an oiiice use, the applicant should be directed to apply for a parking variance within 30 days. Margaret Monroe City Planner Attachments: Planning Commission Minutes, July 9, 2001 Mark Hudak letter to Erika Lewit, July 12, 2001 Application for a Determination at 247 California Drive, signed by both applicant and property owner, July 3, 2001 Jan Haneman letter to Erika Lewit, May 7, 2001, describing business Copy of Web site description of business, April 30, 2001 Mark Hudak letter to Planning Commission, June 28, 2001, reasons to determine retail use Code enforcement correspondence: Erika Lewit letter to Jan and Martin Haseman, April 10, 2001, use not approved Erika Lewit letter to Basim and Linda Azar, property owners, Apri120, 2001, business on site without business license and unapproved use Erika Lewit letter to Basim and Linda Azar, May 2, 2001, unapproved use Erika Lewit letter to Basim and Linda Azar, May 11, 2001, making determination that business is an office use. Staff generated diagram of site, part of site inspection notes. Aerial Notice of Public Hearing, Mailed July 13, 2001 6 CARR, MCCLELLAN, INGERSOLL, THOMPSON & HORN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MARK D. HUDAK mhudak@cmithlaw.com ATTORNEYS AT LAW 216 PARK ROAD, POST OFFICE BOX 513 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401 1-05 1 3 'I'ELEPHONE (650) 342-9600 FACSIMILE (650) 342-7685 . ' www.cmithlaw.com '' July 12, 2001 Erika Lewit Planning Department Burlingame City Hall 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: London Road Design 247 California Drive Dear Erika: RECEIVED JUL 1 3 2001 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. This letter will respond to the issues raised at the Planning Commission's Study Session on July 9, the requests for information in your July 10 memorandum, and matters we noted in the staff report. Retail Sales. The central issue is whether London Road conducts a retail business at 247 California Drive. As we have explained, the company is still in the process of moving into its new space. At this point, London Road is displaying for sale a. line of furniture which complements its design services. A retail bookstore for design materials is planned but not yet installed. The evaluation of London Road's operatien shuuld consider all of the uses planned for the space. London Road is now offering a variety of products and services that are available to the general public and local businesses. Anyone can drop in and order business cards, newsletters, invitations, announcements, advertising, and graphic designs. The staff report does not seem to acknowledge that these products and services are available. The most important point is that London Road's design services result in products which, for the most part, are subject to sales tax. Pursuant to the City's request, I am enclosing copies of the company's quarterly sales tax returns for 2000 and the first quarter of 2001. As you can see, London Road had sales of over $1,000,000 (after exclusion of nontaxable services and exempt transactions) in 2000. The sales for the first quarter of 2001 are significantly higher than for the comparable quarter in 2000. If London Road's business were limited to an office or service use, as suggested in the staff report, the company would not be generating this volume of taxable sales. This is the best indication of the nature of the business London Road is conducting. Erika Lewit July 12, 2001 Page 2 One Commissioner asked that we-produce the invoices issued by London Roady '�'he exact scope of this request was not clear; presumably, the City wants to see all invoices for a defined period of time, like one yeaz. T,�is request is highly intrusive and not germane to the planning issues before us. If we produced the invoices, they would immediately become public records under the Public Records Act and subject to inspection by London Road's competitors. While some customers may not mind if their design packages and prices are made public, others may view this as an invasion of their privacy and result in the loss of future business. Looking at individual invoices, as opposed to the gross sales revenues, is not likely to determine whether London Road has retail sales. We must respectfully decline to provide this proprietary information. Customers. The Commission has requested an estimate of the customers coming to the premises. London Road estimates that 10-20 customers come to the premises daily. More customers are expected as the new location becomes known and the company completes its plans for the space. Web Site. The staff report emphasizes the services described in London Road's Web site. The Web site is not retail-driven. The company designed the site for use by its corporate customers and the information provided on the site is directed to that audience. The site is not intended as a comprehensive statement of all services offered by the company. Dot.com Invasion. One Commissioner expressed concern that London Road's business could have an impact on the retail character of Burlingame Avenue similar to the furor caused by the conversion of the Jud Green store on 4`h Avenue in San Mateo from retail to a dot.com business. Burlingame's existing zoning regulations would prevent that from happening. UnIike San Mateo's downtown shopping area, Burlingame's code restricts uses in Subarea A to retail, personal services, and restaurants on the first floor. In the core retail area of Burlingame Avenue, an offce or dot.com use on the first floor would not be permitted, absent a huge variance. However, an office or service use � permitted in Subarea B, where 247 California is located. Whether London Road's use is characterized as retail, office, service, or a mixed use, it is a permitted use at this location. It does not set any type of precedent for the core shopping area of Burlingame Avenue. In any event, London Road is not a dot.com company. It does not design software or provide Internet content. A portion of its business is conducted over the Internet, but that is certainly true of most businesses these days. Space Plan. I am enclosing a dimensional drawing for the first floor and the partial second floor/mezzanine at 247 California. Erika Lewit July 12, 2001 Page 3 The upper floor is 2,075 sq. ft. and is used for office and storage. There has been,no expansion of the square footage and no change in the traditional use of this space. ' The first floor has app. 2,11 Z.5 sq. ft. in the front which is used for retail and design. The rear portion is divided by a wall and is app. 1,062.5 sq. #�. This area has traditionally been used for storage. It has a garage door that opens onto Hatch Lane. London Road'has cleazed the rear space and it is being used for parking by the company's owners. The staff report erroneously states that there is no on-site parking. If the Commission determines that London Road is conducting a retail use on the first floor at 247 California, then there is no change in use and no on-site parking is required. If the Commission determines that the first floor use is mixed — part retail and part office/service — then one on-site parking space should be required to account for the theoretical intensification of use. For example, if the Commission applied a blended rate of one space for every 350 sq. ft. for the front area, less than one space is required: Mixed use at 1:350: 6.04 spaces required Prior retail use at 1:400: 5.28 s�aces required Difference: 0.76 space This requirement can be satisfied by keeping a parking space available in the rear garage area. Naturally, London Road would like to keep this entire space open for storage if needed in the future, but it is able to supply an on-site space if it is necessary to resolve this situation. London Road has signed a long-term lease and invested a good deal of money into improving this space so that it will be an asset to our community. The business is a permitted use and a sensible use in this location. The owners hope that this matter can be resolved satisfactorily. Please call me prior to the issuance of the staff report if you need any further information or clarification on these points. Sincerel , �,.��,�� _ ; /��-� � . Mark D. Hudak MDH:Ijs cc: London Road Design 21759.00001 �BG LIB 1\ 1 I 10656.1 Jul 09 01 11:07a london road 455 �OLDEN GA7EAVE. STE 7600 �� n SAN FFtANC1600 CA �t10Q-3825 • aEv.e�cx-0a LOMOON RO�D IIiC. �alloaN ao�a, � Nc . 2361 BROADtiIAY REov00o cirr. c�► g�«o6� '' STA� LOCAL �nd DtSTRICT B�AL�3 und U8E TAX RETIJRN . DUE ON OR BEFORE Apr 30� 2000 �or Jan tt�rough AAar- 2A00 or � � ' � SR Bi�4 97-877807 � oOAR� OF EQUALIZATION P.o.eox 9�z879 s�►cRu��o, c� gaz7g-8o2z r�c. NO � � [6501 558-1222 p.5 80CL432-Z82� 2140 1, TOTI4L(G;ADSSySAIES ................................................___......«............�.,...._...._......_..................._.................7. s � 2. PURC'.HA.�3ES SUB.�CT TO US£ TPJ( ..._....__...._ ....................._...._........_.....,..............._.........._...............- .....,..2. S. TOTAI hdd�Vwe 1irod2) _......_..........._.._.._ ..............«.........._...__.._........_......».........,.. ................._.........�. 4. SALESTOOT►�IERFlETAL�iSFORPURP�OSESOFfE5ALE ...�........__...�..._....W.._ .............. 5. NONTAk/iBLE SALESOf FOQD PRODUCiS •• s� ........_._.... _ _.. _ ...................................... _....... 6. NONTN�i�BIE 1.A90Fi (reper a�►d nstal�atio� � 6� ..........._.._......_ .............................._.............. � 7. SN.ES TO Tl-E UN7ED STAI'ES CsOVERiNEM' � ................._...._..__.....,,....,........_............... B. SALES IN ItJ1'ERSTATE lka FOF�1(3N COW�iEIaC� ........._.. _ .................._.............._.............. � p. SKFS TAX (IF Ml'� INClUDEO ON LIf� t._..........�.....,.......,..._....._..._._.._.......»_.......... � 1Q (y B4� DE9T LOS9E3 ON TAi�A�E fi+�1LE8 � ._.........._.._....._ ............... ...-...--- ......_.... ..... (q COSt OF TAX�PAfD PURCF�ASES F�901D i�90RT0 U9E: 57 ..........................., r ............. (C) RETURNED TAKABLE AAERCi-IAt�pISE ............__ ......................._...._.................................. � (4 CA511DISt:�UNTSON TAXAg.E SN.ES ...._ .............�,.,..................,._.......................,....... fA SECTIOfJS 63T7 A 0.37H - 5% STATE TAX EXEMPTIONS ,;�eY :. ., ,:, s r,,, ., , ........'�ha6.._. ........ ,., .� . ca • �� :> �. EDp►n,n,r� abja� oo � M,a,x aLpa kr en0o� 6� nx� d , x..� ;: �., s. Mnn�avds aa, �,a odw. eo a e b« ao�q s ' � a - t �j�.� e, i i. TOTK NOPJTAXABLE �S F� ON Li�EFi 4�FIFMJ 1aQ (edd i. iYf A tMu Iq7)J ..._......_..... �. 12. TRAfVSA�CTIONSSUBJECTTOS�ATfTAX(subt►�ctf�ellAurnlrw3j ....� ............._................_.........._...........f2 13. 1TAT�TAX6l� ��Q�j�lyYrw 72by.06,► ......................._....,.........._.............._...._........,_..........,.........�......_......_....13. �,. (a� �r�r�sncriors sue,�cr 7o cou�m 7nx fam.r+�o�xr tieax et (etww) to aw f2) Enh►btelAwro ...._ ..............................__........»...................................,,..._.,.................,......_.._...............11(IQ. (b�OOUNiYTN(1/49�I►�nEPNinsl�by.OQ2'�i �,........._...._.........._......� ............._........_....._...,............1�� 15. AD.IUSThEIYTS FQH LOCAL 7AX (cse irq 15 iratructiovie) � ..................�...........�,..,..,,,,..,.,.._...........,.,.......�...... 15. is. T�v�Wso�C.'rionL55th'�IECTTOt.OG4LTAX(aidax�be�r.r6�sf5roar,omw,ota(Ay ._ ..........................._... 7a 77. LOGL TA1� 19b MwmP�l'rP�e 766y.01f ...................._..._...._...-.._ ........ ............_.......�....................._...._............17. yg, p1RqCT TAX (trarri SchetluSe A. 5r� A71j YOU M11�1' GOAAPLETE SGHEOIAE A a1V REVEflSE IF YOU AP� EtVCi11QED IN BlI51NESS IN A THIWSACTIONS TIJC D13TFiCT ...._..---.-- ..............._.........._ .._....... 18 19. TQTALS7ATE, CaIfNTY, LOCJIN.ANDDISTFrC7TAX (s�Y � 1Fps t�,1�(6� !7d t8] ............_....,._ .................19 20. aEOUCT sales a usa �,c hrp � d��othr� rrasA b�i In�dua: i r,.�� ..._ ..............._.................... �o. d �Din Dwsaiat Poo(�+ty ....._....._..._. 2t. � TAX�Y+rifreCtf�nB20/rOfnllrt 19j ............ .. _ _ . .. .. . ................._.....................?1. ......_..«.........»...T ....... ... ... .... .. 22. LMs PF�PAYMENTS s S Tola� PrepMynwA ?2. $ 29. f�UANNINGTIJI(�uQbxYd►ts22hamlhe?1) ........».....,...._ ...................._.........,...T..._..................,.............23. 2�. PENpLI'Y ot tOK t.1 al s due � your t�ec pe�nt s n�Yct�, a y��ur ntum �s INd, a11w the vEtrAl.tv 24. du� dsta shcwm �oovo (sea Ww 24 irotr++cba� 25. INTEfES7: Ons mori'� ttw«a f� dr an t� tw wrri maro� Q ha�n d � n,ae, are P�*+�++� RE�' Z6. a.�rjw Ar �. ew d�. m..dw.a more+y wrwac r�. �s .�r� G��+� d�w dhmd ey ��. 2E. TOT�LMAOUfJiDIlEANDPAYABl.6 �Lc�a'firi6sZ�,21b2S,1 ......._._.... ................_..._......_.._................,...._20 S M�It� CheCM o► ma�y o►dM paydbk tD tM S�le HOwrtl d£quali2atlat. Be eure to writeyour aoCount ntar�ber on ttwck ar matay ortior. 1F YOU PA10 BY CbEQIT CARO AS DESCRiBED ON PAGE 1 OF THE INS7RLICT10N6, CHECK H9;E � 1 � I�pr�bY qraYy M�et efrs /se+y:4 McA�a4V r�y roarr�o�nyiro �d�Af�a andah0ar►rnr+. f�r l�rn �r+irwdDY . me andto ths hr� ol mybw�Ma� andboliaik � b�w, canet o�d cornpWta rotun � STA'F OF fJ1UFOt�MA eo� o� �awwzar�or� � F1t�TF NYB R� 7 . ioi�-o�s-oeoo �� ot�n� T-AA ar� waritucT�oMs uay �� -. . . �� , �� .. �� .. . �� -_- �� "' - � -- � r -- ..: �� i � _ �� - � -- �� _ .. - � I , �� , _ �v v � �r� -'- � • � • � --- • � � 11: -_-_ �� 1� ��7� � � �•r 11 ■�i�� . � � 1 V� �LY Jul 09 02 ii:06a london road (6501 558-1222 p.4 .�� .ad��EN .�14?E AVE.::.Tc` 75�� a�1c�-c�z-2e� I:�(Y Ot�-A!FF7CJPP} yp�l � �?.NC� �CO CA9�70"1-:aF?�. �- � `At� CiF : �� ; 4+I+tlR �;�. t►�+al,� GGJWv oF E.�JA:.r...a r:o�,, sty► �oc�. �,a a��Taic�r s�►�s �,d u� ��uc ��u� aau�o �im�Y' ____. __--�_._.�._..�_.__-; � w,�'- ;G-ri.�r. � ��:. � `�t' ��.FOR� Jt�i 3 t, 2C►00 fcx Apr ltxrK+9t'� 3lM 1C)OCl . �_ L`�� =' rFwe1 r; S wY•: }' ix i� '[ POtO 8�436-618 j q ^ _� ._....-Tt�tMt�ocouMT�u `�� i..-- �i-- s S}a 5HA �67-0"77��' _r ... -_ i � � ; .��' ' �� _�___L__� � ' 80XRa OF E UAl t ZAT ! t!k `�� --• ----� Q *� atots-o:9•�oc� � P.Q.BOX ��2679 LQNOON RO,ID IRC. !►s SACRAMENTQ. cn 9a�79-8ez� L�7NDCN �iCAO. +NC. :o�"' 23b) �ROADN�Y ' ' � `.her-u I REurraoa c i rr, c�► 9ao63 , , �POA � �a �ei�c�rioi+sa�-� ---- --_ _�..�_ .....�-- --------- -...�------8EF7A PNEPARI_t�r � t. 1:)1/LL �f;F$J55! ��11i�5 ..... . . ...... .. ........ ...... ..._ _,.......................�....... ...... ...... ... .... � ��C7. �� I '� �4��f�� ~ ��T�. �c, ,•�, • :C:�S! i41 .... .. ' - 4 � ;' Fi.rtg�.f-1/�.5.'�'+. P.kt . . .... . ..... .... ................. ..... . .. ..... ... ................... ...kJff� W � , c i $. I��IAI. i.afawr::' rr;:� ....._... ...... ....... .... _ ... .. .... ......._....... .... ....... :). � ._ � .�_ � Drx� ai �, � �i : ��... ,. . .. . . .... .. . ...... ... ... . ' 1 �- �--r �---�--� � � <. SAIFSTUOfHERfR'.T.+4R,�R'';«7FiNl�C'C'�GS�Tr�SALE....... �-' �_�� ' ... ... .... ...... ... ._ .... 1 � NG�HI��A:'=c;�'N'+i�'i,rrNJf'1� '�� —..__..__------ �.....�.I xr.�nr . .. .. � .. . � _ , _ ._ ....... ... . . .... . . ... _ . .. . _ . . � 6 'Jtx�ilAxAfill't.AtK�F?;r:•sk«r::ncri.�:�.,N.�,.x�: ....... ....... ....._ ................ ...... .......... . LS� 7. 5.':.F:,IGIr�•i�nrTfl:�rA`fSt;clr�F�YJ�N- ................. . ....... ..... .. . .. ...... � R. :r�:f:SUVIti�}"�f31A�c.';'. ��>;:l.l::k 't4.t'AENC:F �� ...._ ... . ..... . . . . .... .. . . . a. ,:� f �. �n,x p� .:.n��:w� s� ' Li71Gr: f+Jl4b: ' ._ . ..._ ............. ... . ............. .. . .. �......... !Q.'•a•,H�L.'CYiii�C�',tti,,lJiA�f.N�i�l'�: .. . ............................... _ ., ..... st' �nC:b10f �Nc•F:4k>�'LIfa:FN.SESF�FS�.:J.�k'!i(XiTUIl.tiE ....... ..... ...................... 5, w1��.1f�EJ�4\l.i.� RaFf2.F�Fr�I+ISf '.it _ ... .. ....... ..... ..... .. . . ., ..... ...... ....... ... .......... . 1d1l7fLG�DiSI :AMiI �' C1tJ PWC:.F$ k. SJ�i1�5 ......... ........ .. _ ....... . ...... ..._ . . .........._ �S) H.f S1:C71CNJ°; 6:l � / R n.'R - S y= SiA�-F 1'Vl'c?�`_•�W1 KN1$ . . . _...... . .. .... .... .. . ..... . G�{rl M+ary Knp: M• riAiL,:Y ar� .lw�.t to FiJ�rl En1e id.� •A bY4iiCAl��SEWRI�X'�T� �t�R�LK�ICr:I'.t�f1`�I�Y� ins�t4� d•� 'A4dl pi�tra5lk; �`"� { } �'� .e S .�_—�_.�., . S `1 � �?�3r!=rnxnxA ,�i�i . �a �_ � �-- ------ �.-- _ �._ �h cx�F i�a�..,x;::,,.., _ .. .. .. . .. . . .. .. .. ..... . _. . . . .. . ..... .. , �c' ----�--- ; .; �,,ia� r�urv�aKv.��. ��;:,i„Sr,-_.,xu,�:a�,�,,:-��::!��sa;�ia�i�c�+� ��.�;r„�,�c�rv;�+,�� . . . . :,. �c c4 .o � , - � r, iFtaNvw::�-�rs*r;;v�R1!-�:[:�.��r�.rftn�irs�.r..rr.c!!r,eii�r....n�us� .. ..... ........+7. ... . .. ,. � +.a sfASLr iti'�e�Y ��,,;,a,-.e�a rzt�.c.� : ..... ... ....... ........ _.._.... ... .. .... . .... .... ........_ t3.' � -4. t�11W1NS+IC�T�f;�ISS�.;'r',iE� T^ j'l�*lTF fNt �++dklaRv.:tm.tnr�wotra!x:•�er�chrr7^�. E:nFwtot��re . .... . ... .. ... ......._--- ........... ........ ......_...... ................ ................�.1td�. , i �bl COINITY iAX u��: r^�:Yit�J} �Fte J�i(a� �..(�'L`1 .._ . . . _ . __ _ . . .._ _...... ..... Istb1 � _ . .. ........... . .. .. ... ... _. � �5. AC7JtA5TMEN:�F�F1LUlY�[ fAKjse��lx�e!�,rol�o:tf01�! .........__...._ ................ .......................... ...... ',7� �!��i v: � � TA 7 f'v1P�5kr:; TKNY5 St li3.X C 1 T: i Ll'�(. N E 4`G jaOU ur R/Cl�dct,9't� : i �O J: 'rT'�7 R'IP ;.t�:� ;' _.__.. ..... ... 1!i. . --� li. LAC�AI.'f/v( 14c rayA(:r� N-fr 1[hy.�)r. .. . _ ........... ...............,...c......._.. .t...._ ......^.......-. .. ..... . . 1i j. � is OIfTlIfC� i Sx ct�, rn;_t�rnlutN A��t+ � i �CNJ MUrT Gvr�. - rE .�C:r#l:ui ,. a•_;r: 'z.. rC99L iF iv:X�WaE�FNG.4L�0irr;+li4td�.SStN�,TFiA,11SA1:11DPI5�AX[�IS'.Rti' .. .. . ......................... ....... _ TA �4 (C)I/1lSlA-iE,':UtR�;Y.lC:C14LA1'�Y.lt7i5TciC•`TN(�e¢U<A`.7iS'3 9,tfii.'.'�1N; ......_ ............ ... ... ». � I(s. EiECUC'�yrd�r_:.+;,v,t:uc�rxx»ulby�fr�e��lal�,andpa�onl.'ix�x,i�i�av�rx�a: � x ung,pp� oer;x,rd o� ,�x:ry f a �� w� pr�:e �� r� mcr.x�ce n�i,,e 2 '�0 _.... .._............_....... .., 4 ►�. 1VE'T TAK(suha�ru�,e�OM�;nlra r9� _..... _............ ........... ................. .. .. .......... ,............... .... �l ��h t1. IHe::f�FaFPQvIIk�FliC � s •tiT �� '1' i t, ' `+�� (�_ .._.. T�taf FAw1ar rwr+t I � .�_2? f� Z� � �i�i, � � � � � � � �+�s � � � c �- � �; t .i1t11 C i ,.- .UJ� L , Z L ooi � Z � ��+ �� .�b; z�. tz � �� F 2`s �MHM�ING�Fa��,a.;�acta-r?'ltixni+kr%r ........... ......................,................ .................._....?3.� .._._� �;�. I'E!4A1. iY u lU?t � c!P c: cLr i� yc�ur 13v �.ly..iem �;�. or Lr�v nrutn a filrv3. a'1a !:R� rr�'Nf1.1Y •-� " �i � 1 .f.�c �+le �#xTvn aDin•.: ��en'�'1� CQrv�tnii�l�cx�5i1 ------. .�—•...•.-^ ' � �` c ��. IIJ�P.�S�:lhrrn�eh'r�-�wvilw�iu'cn�s�t....��f��neti7nnndim�femul�ltYtN;rymNy�a .NtiF7.:i� �]. etillti+f !o!� tfle O�e �]tl4-. ;he-:dN',l�W �rwvttrYv :Nirrsi �M� � .97"'4f 1-�05'T� t1 itlf.:LvRh�t AY 17�. �--_ ��.. "'._.._._. .—.-.. Ni C 1 /} -� [i�. 1?TA� fY.f10lA.' I)Uk A�fU VA`�AG1lF. �i�7.�. ur�' "13. �d �?5) .. ... ......... ... ... ... .. . .... .. . . ........................... ... ..�f'i. �V � ` �_ --t _�� _.4 ��._-_� _'.�..-'._....... —�.�.._ � -- -..1.• � ' ��.�,� __��_� _�,^_.: i 't . _. �----- -^-•----�,i _..�_.._._..�. .i , .� �r�� iNBIGd ChACV �N IRCiI�' OIC:@' (�F�'H SCNM SY2�E� BOAICI rJ} ECAi�V�zatn�n. 9e sure ro wnt� yuu• aoco�,nt nur•tber un cl� yck or nxx»y� or�a+•. sF Y:: ' PAID BY:.RcDli C.AR� 4S �JESCRISEC 01V FAdE t�F TNE INSTF;IJCTiUvS GhECK NEF� (;. --- f11.:c•r..i.P,KrY:nsl'1rlrHhlr';,nCJ'.�dRqatlyaGWr�wryv�r�ctsx3NPsaexilf9teme�vs:lta�txanerar�wut��Y—.-----'----- rr,r a�vre, rns Ars n� rnylvyWieOp� r-ia bcwut�ti a �n,c, uwr-xYann' ccmc*�w �rtv: r. Jul 09 01 11:05a london road •�� 45S qCLDE;N ti�,T& Mi�.. 5T� 7604 ' soE..wi-�tcaown Sary F+�r,asro : o�aa,al��s25 - aEv a 1r�a lCTA L.O�GAL and DI$TRlCT SALE'� arsd USE TAX RETI1Rt�t DUE ON OR BEPOpE Oct 31, 20W fo� J�! through Sep : WO . EOD �-1 �18-� l 1 � �O�RD OF EQUAI, ! YAT 1 bN P.o:dox g42879 S�Cau�€r�n, cA g�219•80�� 0 S�i BNA � 97-677FiUl .� �o�aoe� �o�o i �c. io�ao� Ro�o. ��rc. 2361 BRBAD�FAY REDMJOD CITY. tA 94a63 (6501 558-1222 p.3 30Q-43�•2� 230G dT,;r� o� c.�v�oArw �cat� Ur- ��x�.�z�ot�or� r �J � � � �3 �___.( ♦19t!••fif-�tYO � :� �.� � T-M j i �.°" _ � �wsr�ucriaraoa-� ,. ,Qr�_��,�ts .................... ..... ...._......._...._.........._._...._....._.,_._........_........_..._.......... ..........��. s z 3 � 1. Ptx�u,sessu[c.�c� r��usc-nx ................._.............................._...................................................._. z � 9. TOTJIL jedal Ir�es 1 ar�0 � .._... _............. .... .__....._ .............. .. ............................................... ..... ......... . .. .........J. � 4. SALESTOZlTFIEfiFtsh��hSFUFiPI�F+P(}SEipFf�SAL[ ........._�.... `'�'�� .l � ............. ._ ......... __ . �..� � b. NC7�fTAXRBLESA:kSC�FOC�JPFqDU:,75 ...............__..._....._......._....................._....... s� .t 6. NCaV1AkA8LE LAF30N lrap� Md ii4taiVaconl � � t ..................... . ...... . . . . ........... .... ...... .. ._�. { � --- � T. SAI.EST4T?-IEtJNTED3FAf£Slr')VfF�tJH�E:NT ............................__......__......... _.--__- -- tl. SALFSININTERSTAihl7HF�t(;Vt'.;,�MMCFi,'f. ........ x � ............ ........... ......... . .._ .... .. . . 9. SALES TAX iF AN1^, M�LltJ�JEti ON LlNE f 'b ` ... .. .... ............. .... . . . . ...... ... ....... .......... ..... . 10. Udk1AD0E8TLCY55eSO►:14riP�8L.f �PV.ES � -- .f ... . ............... . ... ... . . . ...... ... ... ...._.......... � N1 CC75T OF TAX�R410 R,"i�4iAYS fiF X�LC PF10R TO t15E ........ -•..,.._ ...... .... ........... .�� .t __._. I {cj fE'tJF�D FtJ( `�lf 1uE�7CFie4`a�FS! ..... ................... .. . _,...... ...... .......... .............. ' . . ... 1 {dICASHDISC.�0�.1�(TSQNTAXABI.[.aAt'c� ..._...._ .............................._. ... .._............ 5!l � . .� � I9) SEC1KlIJ56?77 S6318 • 59'o S(ATE TN( EXLMP'iKX� """' • f eaMp Arnar+ ta�n m eoc_o Mxvw a�nMa �0 5�q Frw� «au a ... .......... .. ....... ............. ..:. .:. .. .. ... ::�: 3;a µ��..,. n :. r,;,:;�:;:�.r:z � Ml�tluiuw�s � ►� Trl frr+Frot�plicn b�.ww a l� - -y . ��' g -�� .N R1 J -__J � _"� i , (!�CTrERicvuerl�ro�toh) ...._..._..._..._.._ ...................... ............................. .......... ; � r. �YsrK. !�p0�•rraxae�F rTiArr3r+cri��+is i�P�Yi� £u c7N ur�E:� a� N� +,qn �aC,r, rron < cv,1 rik7j� ... ...... .'4 � t � � 7. lNMISPC7TION$ 6l;QJE.C1 ?t"1 S � RTk ?AY. 1x/btreC! ht4 1! lnxr�.'+w� 3j .. ........ ...... .. ..... .,........ . ..... ... .._...... /?,. � I t3. �TAT� 7A?(896 (n�AS'ylo ic4 12 by.f)6� ........_ .......... ......... _. ......_.... ..._..... .. ...... 13. .............. ......... .... _._....... ... , ! tA. {+s)TFiANSPGTt�lVSSUBIEr:T'!U��OUPTf�'?dX)JOdA'r�WY�fibtzt6l(ef.�7►e!bWs�liy ErMtalbtWher� ..._ ......... ... ... .. _ ...... ................_ ....... ....................... . .......td(a)_ . . .. . . (bY 001MiTY 2 AX 1/496 ;rte�R�F�y ra, !d;a1 by.0025,� ......... _ ................. ........ . .... .._........... . fstb). ..... . . .. .. .. .. . � ts. �n,n�sTw�s�rrsF��:u-�xt�,.w�srnsn,c� ._.......-........._ ........................._..................... is.� t�A� 16. TRAlySA(,'TlOfV55U6JL-L'T TUIDC�Fd TA;t jack'.r.rx3.t'rac`:6•:s :tito;Ntra��lv+�etq'a�) .. .............. .......... '.8., �'�' I�T. LOCALTflX?9F9nt�A'blyWw.'6by,v7; .................................................................._.... .......,... ..... ... 1t.lF"""'�,iZ � re. oarwcr rwc nr«n scnva� n, w,a a; i? rc�u �wsr a�,� re s:.r+e �x � R:� �rverts� +r -- ; rw�e!acrac�ae�arsw�rss!NA-�NM►.v�c;iFcx�srwcr.�s�qc� ....._..._..._.._....._.._ .............._.._.__ tia. € ts. r�it�t sTatE, c�UNTv, �.�k;At aaD 01sr�1rGT. � odc /aaid c �i�s �,�, r.�j, :?a 1fy .... .. ... .. .. .�3. -- ........... _.... . . � I 2C. CL-DUCT eal�s ur uk lar np ec! t�y apwr sfates and prd or. Mu p..r�frrwi �.a oi lurtp=,�le D� P�Y. Pvd� �rece rrus� ba +r�kded r:W� 2 ........... .. _..... ... _......... ... ... . . _. ... Zt. PE7 TW( fa�,Ghat.'ilr�ac'�fnrtr6� 19,� .........._ .._......_.._........_.......____.._...._.._ ..._ .... ..................... ......... 21 � Ptit 7!_ LessPFfPAYNENTS � � y�n�� y�. Tclal H-r,v.�»rwrx n s i LCiii.d�,� f 23. F�i�A�V�NPICiTN(/s�.birs:/he??honMr�ecyJ _........_........__..._ .... ............._... ..........?:�� ........... .. ......... . .. � �2�. PtIWy.TY pt 1096 f 1� rs duv f Y�'� i+aN�ra a rtwde� a ycu. nG:m i►t+Mw, atlw �he '"". duad�taaMrw�+abova(se�line2atmA-,x-�� N+�ry 24. :5. INTF1�3�:Orwmv�h'tnWM4du►w:*1m�al�ma.a�vts�c��drrrstitit�t �ntic M�tliEil 25. �� i'�da[rlhrdtsOt�7lyr*�dmailFiS'Mt�wi�Mor.9'7%1:0Y1T�1%df�dW��7�. �. ?5. T(?Tll� AAAOlNTf1UEMIDFAYACiLE ryrY'inat2?,246�j ......._._..._...................._ ....................... ........_ a p .eo � ,�,� �c: •7 C�►ff5YGit1E �«' 1 lV�NaE57 riF1011 �A nr. t DOL1.M � � � � � � a�' � � .00 j �I .'JG i � � �� • e• � � i� � t • i � .. . � � •• 1 �� . r� • � � 1} ( Q S .tx: �F Y�ru �ao aY c�En�� c� as vEsc;aiB� av �� ::)F THE �NS7q�;�;-n�vs cH�,K++�a� ��. r �,w.byewr�y rr,.r nrs,wurn, x�:k.da�er+p�ccen�c!�Vp x,lwcA�Yus ancl sratevnwks, hrrs �a�+n�.ai+xrraci ny me srdtr Me besro�myks�e y+�d Dsfef h�b�e, a►�ea' m Uc�de�r �nh.rrrr. �� E / .ti � ,V Z.� �� ir7 �nr %�+ �� 1!!E ONLY I PM1�I'3 �I�A� nr yws "=." Jul 09 O1 11:04a london road 455 OOLDEN Gp►iE AVE., STE 7500 BOEy107*i�1 ` ' SANFRANC{$OQ CAQ410i��825 'F�V.�6S1��1 sTA77. LO�AL �nd �18TR10T 8A4R and u�E TAX aETURN OtJE ON OR 6EfORE Jan 31 � 2001 for Oct t�x�gh Dec 2000 (}OID 5-�41•v108 � a • SR� 6HA � 90ARD Of EQUALIZATION P.o.eox gb2819 SACRAI4fNT0 CA 94279-8022 No hN � � ST-8776Q7 LONDON ROAD fNt. �01�DON ROAD • I NC . 2361 gRO�Da�r REDWOOD Ci7Y CA 94063 [650) 558-1222 p.2 800�32-282G STAiE OF GALIFOFiNA BOARU OF EQUAL17AilON L 2�W0 a4srn �wcs � .wa 1 � , lels-Oi1-��90 is oii:� . �,_.. L 70TAL lt3FlOSS) `,,AL.ES ......___...._ .._.._ ..............._................... ---. t. a � ........._ ........................ »..............,... 2. PURGIWIES SI�GT TO USE tAx ....._.........._...._ ............................ ..._........................_............_.2. ...... .......... • S. T07AL lsddires 1arvJ?r -•-....._............_ ........................................�. ( 4. SALESTOOTNERFiTAILERSFORF'UFIP06ESOFF�SHLE ...._........_ ...................._......._..... 61 5. �l91�R�D6�BLf'�l�i50ffOOE)i'MK)f)lX'T4 . ....... ��.•......... � 4. NOPfTNGv3�f lABO«(r�erandinatak�IKxi) ........._.....__ .............._........,.....�............_........ � 7. SALESTQT}1EU�dfTEDSTATES00VERNIvENT ....,......._ ..............................................._...... 8. SAlES1NItVTERSTATEf)RFOFiEI(�IV(XN�A�AERC:E ...___ ..............._..................,,.................. sa 9. SALFSTAXIIFMlY11tJC;LtJOEDONLINE 1 ...._..._......_._..._ .................................................. � 56 10. tW 8l►D DEBT L06Sf S ON TAXABLE SAIES • .. ....... ......... .... ... ..... .................................. .. . . ' 5T (E) COST OF TAX�AID PIFY�-WSES RESOLD Pf10R TO U6E ............................-............... � (c)IiTlIf7JEDT�J(Ak3LEMERC�IAMDISE ............_..._....._......._._....._ ..................................... (d}('.ASHDISCOUnITSCXJTAxl�B�GSAI.F.S ........_........__.............. .............._................._.... se �a) SECTIONS 8377 8 6378 - 5% STATE TqX E�MPTIONS ........ ... � �`. ' .. .._....._ . ...... 69(q anau+ xb7ect io 601b) a,karn sio�«� �o eopq Ei+. ear a q�y . �� * TS rafuaian Ex�n - baas �� .&733; 6Y�aNt Bt (90THER(deer►v �1 ........................................_....................................��.....,..................... � {l. iOTALNONTAXABLETPANSAC�lONSflEPOFt1'fDONlIt�54Ti�U1qf;(+xx/�iE54thulQrllf ..............._. 11 7Z. 7�SUBJECTTOSTATC�AX(suWractA'na�lhom,tea3j --.....__ .. .........................................._. t2. 13. iiARTIJ(8%�►nulhiotytir�et2by.lM) ......................�.._._......_....._................................................................,...... 13. �q, (�TRANS4CTIONS�1B.lECTTOG�RMVTYiAX�e��61{abo►plfoNnE12J Erna/lOfdllWe ......................._..................................._......._..._........._.........................�,...�.......,............... ��• f�p cpuMrir Tnx v� yr+enrldva.,e ralw ar •oazsl ._..._....._ ........................................................................ taqb). 75. i1DJUSTMENTS FORLUGAL TAX (eea line t5 fmtruclar�) ..........,.,,.. ......................._._....._ .. .... .._...._............. 15. 16. TAANSACTKRJSSiJBJECTTOLCICALTAX/sydor�lbhaCtfne)5foorfromlr�¢TG�11 .........• ......................_ 16, t7. L�GKTAX196fh�Whplyinel6by.01) ......................_....._...._............_..................._............................................ f7. �, pST1�CT TN( (trom Sc:hadla A. Ihie A11) YOIf Mtl�� COIJH.E±E SCFEDUI-E A(NJ FEVERSE (F VOUAFlE£NC+AC'.EDfN9USNESSINATRAN5AGT10t�ST/1XD151F1CT .. ........................,..,.............................18 1a TOTAL STATE.00l1NTV, LOCAL AND OISTf�CT TAX Jdd c j;,e. �a r.rm►: i� a rry ......... .............. ............ ��. T0. OEDUGT salas a uea tan Irr��d by vth�+. stotas and peid cx� 1he prChase q'i�,e 01 fa��hlo P�rsa�d WoPxh1. Purchasct pnce rtuat beix.Yutf�d nN+s 2 .......................................... _........._..._.. 20 21. fVET TAX �ar,rGtroct l'vie 20 trcm Mns 19J � � ..........._.._..........._......�.._.._..._ ........................................................... �ti. y2. Less PF�PAYMEN7S � � Totel AepxytneM S 23. FEAAAINN�(� iAX (aubtractJFte 27 hc r M�e71) _..._.._....._.__ ................................._..................._.......................Y.S. Z4. PEW4LTY d 1096 (.101 � due il your t� VaYment � rt�da, a yax rotum is lied. arier the pE�IY 24. ds dde ehown above Isae Iine 26 �tnrcborre) 25. IMEFE3T:OrorticrMh'arrv�tisd�w�mpw�v�++nar�alr�cflaid�ms+nrvt�nrxr NIFREST 25. w.�+e.nw r,. a�s ars n,..y�,w.a R�urnw:,w� �a. r iw (.o+ocpj n�w awaw c�r �2�. �B. TOTALAlAOUNTDUEAI�?AYARLE¢ioUN�s23,2tb25j _.__..._....._ ................._.......................................2�8 S �� A1 r 0 � � .00 PIFASE ROUniD (�MT$ TO THE .� NEJ1F�Si WFIOLE . �i �/ .Oo °°u"R � �� 1� � •� •• � •� � �e � �• •� . •� � �� , � � � �� I� �iY.00 IF YOU PAID BY CREDI7 CARD AS DESC�iI BED ON PAGE 1 OF ThIE INSTFiUC�701VS CHECK HERE (]. � n.r�ey ceRi�y mer cnis renm. incR+ak+v�r �'�Y+�a acn�duas ar,v,latemerfs. rws nee.r rwrwwa bY mv s,d fo fhe f+esl d mylvpw�lydy�r �nd!?PYN /s a hLa, eanwCl a'!d oomple/e re�hbn. �� us�oN�r L� 1 /- � .� xn�a�er m� nt Aoo� e � � �_ �J � � � � � .� � � � � .�z ....... ................_............... ............._......._..._...................._...... lBl�q�4x+�f,uWYJ►R/5ldli?J'=l .� ..... . ._......_..... . ...... . . L,up� :p cer�ni�, pu •,�.,: a:y,a aae�u+d -A►+urxva �Von++d.,a�+R� .. ... .. w:,ud wauy�md u� �ru ppd pue �;�a7wpt .r�tM "A C�+► �m� aon � n� 1:)(N330 OS ,Bl .....•.. ..•..•....•.••..... •.. h�! Ai! i4Wh� 'EJ �!► > � XYl :-^.�ISIGOPN1b�DOl'A1Nf10�'ilti'lSZM.l01 '6t ' , �� .. . . ._..... . . . . � . .. .. ! :�IFl1'3!'l XVL b'Ai(i11��+5tJVki1 V NI SS ��Si16 NI Q�i�JN3 3tP/ f10A i� �:,n.1!+►.t,v 3',.,1c1:3�+:1S 3l:fkiY�KY.).1lRN rx3a.l.tYeW d�h�Pxi�'6��ikdiDYlMa '�1 .i� ..... ... ..... ..... ....... .... ... . ..._......._. ........................,....._.... ......... (en '�st e��A'��U 96t kVt 11l'JOri '1t .Qt . ....... .. .. .. . l:klt! �N.u2iJ.00iYl�A'l�W��f�PeilRlt l'�;)O1G111y(�I155P101i:7ISPhRil '91 . � �s� .._ ... ................. .... . ....... . ...... ..._... .... .. ....... . .. . �p�+►wu� � i F+..� �) x'� � �+x� t�>y slr:3wlsYxav �si i � �► .,� � ..... .... ._ .. .................._.. .. .... . . ..................... _........ cs�T" �a (�+r: e+-a �k+��+wt' �,rn xVt AL11rtOO 1c1 � -lemi ........................................................ ........................................................_... �rA1��] . 1i! �� I !a�7 �g roc7 ia �uraui AP�+! 1(b'1 A lPi� Y�J ;�L 1� 3f5�S ,i�CNl�l l°i +t � s� .... ... . . _ua�,�� , �r�,� ,�x:,; yrwk;,� r.,1e: e,y.�,e uo s�so� �a zc �� scs aro,. atvst �e: E I � �..�-�le�zt �1mF�t��+u�5�uu�}�u�+uueyaurycl'i�e�N+�i�3tW, : i.........._ ....................-....—........ iEauicuot/t! Jtq�:xei • 1 '7,l I IG�+� XV1:31biS O.l 1: 3f'kY�S SfVOIi'7dSh1M1 -1� .... .... �(�lQ1�Wtrsa+rFl�If�kH�kM71vS]VI'TlJ0631l�Lklii5lVC)U��J1J�6�13�i'/)fdllVONlVl01 �i� ....................................................._. ......................._....._- wup�w�V+�ei��tL�►�Dif� __._....__._.r.. `'� :aoqu �,� tP 1►w+ �,r, f.gyg p � �' u tn�� S 3� 4a � s � kzna l- i�!�wy �nia.i i i.��+�e �� r�r 1 n�wv �►^.-o.� ..- .---r'--. .; A � 4`NOC o� k�nc (V09 iw M+aw 4�V06 ,_: . . .�..::.,.:...+�:55 .::' ...._ ........................... . 3l(3XNl3iV1 9'0 lC• •i. L! SNOi1�35r^3 � .. .... ...... .._...._.. . ...._ . ......_..._.._..... ��Tri'��k3VxV.tNUSI1J�ICXTSf01LSY7�! � ---`-- nQ 95 .. ............ ............ .... .... .. ..... ..................... ....._... ]SKT10?iJ�.�'Y 3�3VYh'10��1�f t�Y " ----- —._�� ..... .- ,_ ... .. ... .. 35; r OJ MC�Ikkl GIt�S'�i S�YN�lifld Qt/d`XYl JO 190a 1W n� -� ..... . . .. . .. .. . . . . . . .... . ..... ........._ .. 53 NS 3�lb�kN1 RIt7 S�`,30 i IB30 CIVH Wl 'Rt vs� - � ... . . .. . .... . ...... .. ........ ...._........._............ i 3Vf7!VO G�CYlYJ1� �M1Y dllltYl S�NS '6 _____—.__ ...._...... ..............................._...,-.._..... �4i?YYNICi�N�13k1'J�2iD31YlStl31NIN1S379'S '9 _—�._ � ........... .. . . . ............ ... ... .. .. ..... ............. � ' iN�`IWFI7AOF>�'+.iLO'1S�] Lr11131tt0153 . ............................. ... .................._....... �:�Cua��fuewdw)NUEh13'IE1VXVL�I7N '9 � .;5 , .. .... ....... .............. ........... .. .... . . .. . . _. xxr,�ii.i Oooe �ci s3Tis 3�[xxv �NON s �! —~' � ......... .. ...._.............. .... .,.. . . 31FI5�! .� S•350d!llld k�G:! Sb�tl7l�i a3-t10 Ol S37VS '1 �._ ................. .. ..........._. ..............._.................... ............ . ... .. .... .. ., .. ., ........ . . iLP� � �a�� 'fYlOJ. 'C . .... ..... ... _... .... .. . ... . . .. . . ... .. ... . _ . ..... . ........... ........ .. . .. .L.... . . . . .. . iMl :35Y101 i:Y31'BFISS�S1A�Nfld 'l .�..._...... . _.._.. - - _ . ..... ....... ..... .............. _._.....•••................. .............................. S3T1P3(SSi�tl01?VlO! �L :t� sr�otionrstst� �txu3td ►.- w p+� �H��li�C1M 1N�IIifM'QrXrl -1311�3H� Q�Y �:t�ilcxl pp' �L („� ' � tl.r' { �x M is�r+r, 7H1 i�i 51N:J:� �� -� fiN':cki 35r 3b r�' � if f ww'u�as�ueMinnd�aa � ro 4 rx-t�u � a��to •� 08�0-il�-fl0ii "T— , r i --`� � � �.kl I °JW � t ! � , _ I �+1L�Iitfl!'iV�'+R-3 ;!O �Jti�Ofl ��rn� �c aivts All10 �f! fl.it3W�� '.wya� etlddWw Cua �:�A�ioo'a�v: a rr Icysq o�x+ dqoep�tr/y,fw lo Ju�7 �!J �V ae x�u )" +�va�!u�ua�aseu�s�ueunzn:.:I�K��i�I;76D/i�(uB1AYtF70YFIM��7�/NMlVI(1JOyt�ft�BOFq?iw� � 't i 32i3N �3N'J SNG'�:?f'id1SNl 3Hl �O t 3t7Vd �VG� G39ik1�S3Q SV Q!1' h"3 ik'13t� 1�8 f�IVd f10A �1 W �� -- ... ... _ .. ......... .. . .. QQ' (i j' �A?... . .. ... ..... .. _..• , . _.. iSiYtl'>:L�''�{4PC�� 310b'1.Vd(A�h'31101N10Y�lVlNlOt '!�L � -.-- 't. �.��! �w+n �:7 hppy�•> y►� 9 n�+ wpN �tw�oui I��+4� ^41 MP �+p ap y1F P�4NP (�p' St ►r3�3un si�Fu�w1�,y,inupK�Al�yo�niu�w�iq�u+mPN�+W�,��+o:IS3i3lN1 'SZ �' 'YL �lliaTr3d laatorulwitZeu9s�c)ono¢iutiv.x{c�pP=�P �+ a41 �I:N'I�1 sr wn�a,.nat r�'np�f v �uxu+ted rkl molC y enp a iUl'i i50t {o.Al PM3d 'IL QQ' � V 1 � .0 ........... ....... . .... . . . .... . .... . ... ......... ......_.............. (!l. " Zi RH i:s+XrK� xV.l'.Xd�MdM13! 'F:Z �i�' CO^v � 1� 7.l �rt^�=�t'.Pu'1 �N3�W�y�3idtli� ' I V 1 s S;N3VAVd3ld�'1 ��% � � aan��; �oa• tao�i �a1-- � � oo• �� > �� .�.� o�� a �. �� > ��' �fi--z � �; �--e-r�--- v Z1 �oo- , 'Z�� .w GV.� JS � 1 £q0y5 �� 1►11� IlfOP1fl31i ' AVh�Y0b8 19EE • a� � • aroa �oar+o� ' 3N I QYOb ►1QQ�101 � i . 'DM ��z � �zat-�c.+-roa tzoe-6Lz+a6 xa o��wr��rs 6[gz� xoe•o�d koitrzi�yna� �4 aaro� � LOi,LL9-L8� V�-k8 !dS yf�pA .�...w.�.�..�. � : � �Q�� voz �u�i u�� u�r aa ��oz '� ��H �4 t�io 8no � � Nan�� x�r� �n w� s�r►s l�sa0 s� �dao�a'�tr.t� sr,�-to�ra� o:s�ti�rrws c�o-u�e•�, 1 t►�od�1 v-�a-#� �09L �.[ ^a `3AH 311d�J N�Gl�'►J 75> T'd zZZT-BSS (OS91 peo� uopuot ebO�iI T� 60 i�C ��;ii �"_--� ilil '�� LONDON ROAD DESIGN Erika Lewit Zoning Technician The City of Burlingame City Hall 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Dear Ms. Lewit, May 7, 2001 This is in response to a letter you wrote our landlord, Mr. Azar, stating that London Road Design is in violation of the City Code. London Road Design is open for retail business at 247 California Drive. We are in the retail business of selling graphic, web, and desktop publishing services to individuals and businesses. As examples of our retail side of the business, we design and produce printed collateral, such as wedding invitations, newsletters, personal stationery, fundraising invitations, business cards and other collateral for the independent businessperson, flyers, and many other items. In fact, we have won design awards for several of our wedding invitation designs. Also offered by London Road are printing services, web site design, as well as photo manipulation and restoration. We are required by law to charge our clients sales tax. We have only just moved to this location. And, as we are very busy, we have not yet had time to complete our store front. However, we have tried, in the meantime, io make it look presentabit on tne sfreei front. 'io aitrac't p�ople aiici business iro�i the local area, we will soon be installing retail signage and interior displays. It is our hope that when everything is finished, we will have a unique store where cus- tomers can come in and browse, or sit in a comfortable environment to peruse or purchase our design products. Sincerely, jan aseman Owner London Road Design 247 California Drive Burlingame California 94010 Tel 650 558 1020 Fax 650 558 1222 London Road Design - Studio Page 1 of 1 ..� Ftoad: Design:�� http://www.londonroad.com/html/03space.html 4/30/O 1 London Road Design - About i HOME � Designing how the world sees you. Page 1 of 1 Put simply, that's what we do. Like trusted partners, London Road Design works with our clients to clearly communicate their messages both in print and on the Internet. We specialize in the design and development of marketing communication programs that set our clients apart from their competition. Design expertise aside, it is the relationships we establish with our clients that set us apart from our competition. Our creative process is based on open communication and we not only welcome client interaction, we look forward to it. The team at London Road is made up of highly skilled design professionals who understand the importance of giving each of our clients and their projects the individual attention they require. Our clients come back to us time and again because they trust that our team will take the time to address their needs, answer their questions and look after their interests just as we would our own. As a result, we deliver designs that our clients can be proud of and we in turn are proud to include industry leaders among our clients. Our numerous longstanding design partnerships stand as testaments to our creative efforts and dedication to our clients. _ • Philosonhv Process Team Employment Londqn Rood Desrgn http://www.londonroad.com/html/O 1 phil.html 4/30/O 1 London Road Design - Process i HOME � Typical Project Analysis Conduct kick-off meeting "' • Introduce the project team • Clarify roles and responsibilities � • Confirm project objectives and goals �.. • Establish design criteria and key messages • Discuss brand strategy and any other issues • Determine schedule requirements, confirm budget and preliminary printing specifications • Develop communication platform, agree on revisions/refinements , .:. Concept Development • Develop multiple concept directions • Present to client • Listen to feedback • Select concept direction for development • Review schedule • Agree on refinements Design Development • Develop the selected concept and create full-color comprehensive layouts • Present comprehensive layouts for approval - Listen to feedback • Review schedule • Agree on refinements Design Implementation • Client review • Listen to feedback • Produce final layouts • Listen to feedback • Review schedule • Agree on refinements • Finalize layouts, and make ready for prepress • Print management, press checks • Delivery to client, client review • Meeting to review procedures and final product Page 1 of 2 http://www.londonroad.com/html/O 1 pro.html 4/30/O 1 London Road Design - Process _ Philosoahv • Process Team Empioyment Page 2 of 2 __:� — -- _ , _ a tonda» Road i�esigrt� i � http://www.londonroad.com/html/O1 pro.html 4/30/O 1 London Road Design - Studio � HOME � Coming soon, an online look at our brand new exclusive bookstore in the retail portion of our new workspace. London Road Ink will soon be opened as a bookstore catering specifically to graphic designers, interior designers, product designers, architects, and people interested in visual design and color. Later this year you will be able to order and purchase online any book or product featured in the retail shop. Page 1 of 1 w __ __-- _ __-. ,�-- s; Works ace • Bookstore '' �.,London Road Design �-��;;,;, � http://www.londonroad.com/html/03bookstore.html 4/30/O 1 CARR, MCCLELLAN, INGERSOLL, THOMPSON & HORN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION MARK D. HUDAK mhudak@cmithlaw.com ATTORNEYS AT LAW 216 PARK ROAD, POST OFFICE BOX 513 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401 1-051 3 June 28, 2001 VIA HAND-DELIVERY Planning Commissioners Burlingame City Hall 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: London Road Design 247 California Drive Dear Commissioners: TELEPHONE (650) 342-9600 FACSIMILE (650) 342-7685 www.cmithlaw.com Our office represents London Road Design and its owners. London Road has taken a long-term lease of the premises at 247 California Drive. These premises had been occupied by Fat Cat Antiques and have been beautifully remodeled by London Road. On May 11, 2001, the Planning Department staff sent a letter to the property owners asserting that London Road is not a retail business because it does not "achieve a contiguous, pedestrian-oriented, retail frontage." We respectfully disagree with the staff's determination because the first floor of the premises is being used for retail sales and related services. We also disagree with the staff determination because it imposes a requirement — that the retail use be "pedestrian-oriented" — which does not appear in the Code and which is inappropriate for Subarea B of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District. We ask that you overturn the staff's determination. London Road's Business London Road was in business in Redwooci City for mar�y years. T�:e co:r.�any previ�es a wide variety of products and services for individuals, small businesses, and larger business clients. For individuals, London Road designs, produces and sells custom printed products. These include wedding and birthday invitations, newsletters, and business cards. London Road has won awards for its product designs. For its larger business clients, London Road produces complex documents, such as annual reports. Its customers include public agencies (such as San Mateo County and the City o�, Menlo Park), professional companies (such as Brian Kangus & Faulk), and larger corporations-� � (such as Ampex and Paramount Great America). 'D �, -� ,., z� London Road produces some materials on-site. Other products are designed on-site, the�; � produced or printed off-site and sold through the premises. Either way, the retail sales generate �, � sales tax revenue for the City of Burlingame. � D � m � e z � 00 N 0 0 �i � 6� � C'r C_ � C Planning Commissioners June 28, 2001 Page 2 In addition to these retail sales and services, London Road offers graphic design, web design and desktop publishing. This mix of retail and design services is appropriate for this location. The Premises at 247 California The premises at 247 California Drive consist of a first floor area and a smaller second floor or mezzanine. For many years prior to this lease, the second floor had been in office use for the antique store and for the building owners. London Road has remodeled the upstairs area but has not added any square footage. It remains in office use and the zoning is not affected. The first floor is divided into two parts. The front area has approximately 2,112 square feet, which had been used for retail. The rear area is approximately 1,062 feet and had been used for storage. There is a garage door which opens the rear area to Hatch Lane. London Road has remodeled the first floor. The company is in the process of finalizing its use in this space. The front space will include design, sales and some production area. A bookstore for design materials is planned for the area closest to California Drive. The rear space has been cleared. It is now used for parking and minor storage. London Road Does Not Need A Parking Variance. All of the uses at 247 California Drive are permitted under the Zoning Code, including retail sales, personal services, computer programming, and offices. The staff contends that the combination of design, printing, and sales is not a retail use. It is difficult to see a factual basis for this determination. While the company does not sell premade products at this time (but will, when its bookstore is ready), it clearly produces products for sale to consumers, small businesses, and larger businesses. We would be happy to provide sales taac information showing the level of sales historically made by London Road to establish that it is a retail business. The staff determination is inconsistent with the treatment of other businesses on Burlingame Avenue. For example, both Papyrus and Paper Caper have extensive design services for wedding invitations and other custom products, which are produced off-site and then sold from these stores. If the services offered by Papyrus and Paper Caper are an office use rather than retail, then these uses would be prohibited on Burlingame Avenue. On the other hand, if the "design and sell" services are part of retail, then London Road is engaged in the same type of retail. We also disagree with the staff's requirement that the retail use be "pedestrian-oriented," which we take to mean that the products for sale must be for ordinary consumers rather than business customers. There is no reference in the Code to "pedestrian-oriented" retail uses. We fully appreciate and support efforts to have contiguous, pedestrian-friendly shops on Burlingame Avenue and in Subarea A, but that is not a realistic standard for Subarea B, which allows other Planning Commissioners June 28, 2001 Page 3 uses (including real estate, financial offices, and automotive supply). Since these premises are well off Burlingame Avenue, there is no need for the retail use to be limited to ordinary consumers or pedestrians. For these reasons, we request that you find that the mix of design and sales on the first floor of the London Road premises is a continuation of a preexisting retail use, so that no variance is required. London Road Has Sufficient On-Site Parking If required. If you find that the first floor use is not retail, but office or computer programming,l then you should consider whether London Road prcvides sufficient on-site parking so that no variance is needed. The 2,112 sq.ft. area on the first floor that was devoted to retail would have had a parking burden of 5.28 spaces, based on a 1:400 ratio. The 1,062 rear area was in storage, creating a burden of 1.06 spaces, based on a 1:1000 ratio. Thus, the prior burden was 6.34 spaces. If the front area of 2,112 sq.ft. is considered office use, then 7.04 spaces would be required, or one additional space. If the rear area is used for primarily for parking rather than storage, the necessary space is provided on-site. Since the rear area is serviced by a garage door and is, in fact, used for parking by one of the principals of London Road, any potential parking requirements are satisfied and there is no need for a variance. London Road has improved the building substantially and should be a valued member of our business community. On behalf of its owners, we ask that you consider the circumstances we have outlined and find that no variance is need. We will be at the hearing on July 9 to answer any questions. Thank you for your consideration. Very truly yours, , ��,�% ,, � ,�� Mark D. Hudak MDH:Ij s cc: Larry Anderson, City Attorney Jan Haseman 04050.00001 �BGLIB 1 \ 1109268.1 ' Computer programming is a permitted use in Subarea B. There is no express parking requirement in the Code for this use. a� CITY � � � BURLINGAME a�o9 � eom q�A4TE0 JUNE 6 The City of Burlingame CITY FIALL 501 PKIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650) 558-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3I97 FAX: ((50) 696-3790 April 10, 2001 Jan and Martin Haseman 1740 Lexington Way Burlingame CA 94010 re: code enforcement at 247 California Drive, zoned C-1 Subarea B It has come to our attention that you are operating a business in the City of Burlingame without a business license. In addition this business, "London Road Design", has not been approved for use as office space. Please contact the Planning Department as soon as possible in order to discuss this matter. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Erika Lewit Zoning Technician (650) 558-7252 c: Fred Palmer, code enforcement �� CITY p � � BURLINGAME 0 •,�Coq 90 �AGTEU JUNEb The City of Burlingame PLANNWG DEPARTMENT Apri120, 2001 Basim and Linda Azar 245 California Drive Burlingame CA 94010 CITY IIALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 re: code enforcement at 247 California Drive, zoned C-1 Subarea B TEL: (650) 558-7250 FAX: (650) 69G-3790 It has come to our attention that there is a business located in your building at 247 California Drive which is operating in the City of Burlingame without a business license. In addition this business, "London Road Design", has not been approved for use as office space. Please contact the Planning Department as soon as possible in order to discuss this matter. Thank you for your cooperation. Sincerely, Erika Lewit Zoning Technician (650) 558-7252 c: Fred Palmer, code enforcement � �i� � h,� (i� C�-1 I � C�� S �� 5 �`� �� j w►'�� ju.s� ��5 \ i CQY1-�- O � .�,<, �.��1 � dW ►�-� G�, �,SO P `� l �. - ��- . �.�d rn.�-'�� t,�. �.�r� �.nc� �t i? Q`"r� � V' ��O `fY�. � • I� �G� � ��+ �- �- �� ' 0 � ��. � I�1�'��S --�0 � ��l- -� v�� CITY � � � BURLINGAME .y 0 Tp� 90 �NATED JUNE 6 The City of Burlingame CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: ((50) 558-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURUNGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: ((50) 69G-3790 May 2, 2001 Basim and Linda Azar 245 California Drive Burlingame CA 94010 re: code enforcement at 247 California Drive, zoned G1 Subarea B Dear Mr. Azar, This letter serves as a final notice regarding code violations at 247 California Drive. In our telephone conversation on April 23, 2001, you noted that the business owners of London Road design had obtained a business license fi•om the City of Burlingame. Thank you for resolving that code enforcement issue. However, there is another code violation at 247 California Drive. The previous use on the site was retail and London Road Design is an office use. This change in use triggers the parking requirements on site. The property has no on-site parking and therefore, a parking variance must be obtained for the office use. We discussed this violation during our telephone conversation, but as of this date, no representative for London Road Design has contacted the Planning Department to apply for a parking variance. On April 25, 2001, the realtor for 247 California Drive, Mr. Tim Auren, spoke with Fred Palmer, City Code Enforcement Officer, regarding the property. Mr. Auren asserted that London Road Design was a retail use. He was informed that the Planning Department requires a written description of the business operations in order to make a deterniination regarding its use classification. As of this date, no written description has been received by this department. Please note that the code defines acceptable retail uses as those "which achieve contiguous, pedestrian-oriented, retail frontage such as drug, liquor, variety stores, paint and hardware, apparel, accessory, stationery, florists, household fiirnishings, and furniture." London Road Design is in violation of the City Code. A representative for the business must apply for a parking variance by Friday, May 11, 2001. If no application is received by this date, code enforcemeiit proceedings on this property will ensue. Sincerely, , , - , Erika Lewit Zoning Technician (650) 558-7252 c: Fred Palmer, code enforcement Tim Auren, Realtor 1223 Bernal Avenue Burlingame CA 94010 Jan and Martin Haseman 1740 Lexington Way Burlingame CA 94010 �� CITY � � � BURUNGAME m �Eo9 ' vo �N�no �uue 6� The City of Burlingame CITI' HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAU TEL: (650) 558-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURUNGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650) 6963790 May 11, 2001 Basim and Linda Azar 245 California Drive Burlingame CA 94010 re: code enforcement at 247 California Drive, zoned G 1 Subarea B Dear Mr. Azar, On May 11, 2001 Jan Haseman submitted a letter to the Planning Department in response to my code enforcement letter of May 2, 2001. Ms. Haseman's letter provided a description of her business, London Road Design, located at 247 California Drive. Ms. Haseman states in her letter that London Road Design is a retail business which sells graphic, web, and desktop publishing services. She notes that the services provided by this business include the design of printed collateral, such as wedding invitations and newsletters. The business is required by law to charge clients a sales tax. During a site visit on May 4, 2001, the City Code Enforcement Officer and I observed the following at 247 California Drive: • multiple desks for employee use located on the lower level • a large table, apparently used for meetings, located on the mezzanine level • several bookshelves in a waiting area, comprising approximately 50 SF, located at the rear of the lower level At no time during our site visit were we approached by a salesperson. There was no merchandise displayed for sale, nor was there any posted material to indicate the nature of the business or what merchandise was available for purchase. No copy machines or computers for customer use were visible. Based on the observations made during this site visit and the written description provided by Ms. Haseman, the Planning Department has determined that London Road Design does not meet the code definition of a retail business; it does not "achieve contiguous, pedestrian-oriented, retail frontage such as drug, liquor, variety stores, paint and hardware, apparel, accessory, stationery, florists, household furnishings, and furniture." With this determination, London Road Design will need to seek a parking variance from the Planning Commission for the intensification of use on site at 247 California Drive. If Ms. Hasemen chooses to dispute �he Planning Department determination, this matter will be taken to the Planning Commission for a determination. Please contact (or have Ms. Haseman contact) the Planning Department with a decision by Friday, May 18, 2001. If we do not hear from you by this date, the Planning Department will take the retail determination before the Planning Commission during the next available meeting. Sincerely, w rika Lewit Zoning Technician (650) 558-7252 c: Fred Palmer, code enforcement Tim Auran, Realtor 1323 Bernal Avenue Burlingame CA 94010 Jan and Martin Haseman 247 California Drive (hand delivered 5/14/O1) Burlingame CA 94010 � ITY o PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO �� BURIJNGAMI= a� i . o'� v� �NwTco .wr/e 6. TO: �� O � � �-T � ' � �' �1-,.� �.�� FROM: �( � x�: Z�r �- Cc�\ 1-For �n � a- `D�- . c�-��r' �} r1c`-�- � o� DATE: (Q • ZG ' � 1 �; ��r o x'� r�� -e 10..�.► o-� o� 2-� �- � c�� ry P� 5�� O) N� � r�c�o�r� �� ci � s� lo,� ec� -�'o,� sa,�e_ . ��.5�, � s�-r ob��-ve� � � �-r� l c�- s;�e_ �. 25' x ti �a ' o��' e� cv` " No d,r,- s;-�-� ��'� o��rv�� '.a ` Y Y '��'� ,-,. . 1y J.r.. - -t., 1 �•:. _ �� ;� �� ,�1 .� a \S a ;. , . h '• � } i A . . .. . O`. `` �, ♦ � '� � ♦ • �f� � s'� �4_ � �� ,,\� , . _� . / . {ti , � � • ; ? . �� , �\ // � ��`:�!\` ,4` � . \ � 7 ��V \ �f/ •� � �� `` ,\ �' ,�� \ /� ' � � ' j �' . �\�� ► � • '�' . . ' t '1 '�' '� „j�� ' � �'� � .. `-. � ; � � � •r '�F � �� 7 ,�f��bh � .� .� . ':.+� r � ; ,!�' � s,� . �� '.A ��' �, . �� .n!'�� ._� � ) ` I' 1 \ • s� � ' , , i'�! � .\yo'� '_� ,��'1' � , � ` � � Y � . � 'r - �.'• � � �1e ��r�` .-�' � � 4 , . �. �, � Yv . , n � . i� • � �,. � . • � ,`. `�• � � r ^ �\.t�� `� ' \ � a�-. ..\`�ie .i� - .�a1. !� l� \ , �♦ �� i � # . � t ',�� ,, � 1� �� A ^ � �a `�� L �.�` ! � , � � � 1 - 1 �� . ,� �' `' �. � ','s"� ' �� , �� ,` . � �� - �� ; �S r �li' �� }'��."'' . ' � $� �r� � i ' ` . Z' r'�Y" ' � � . �� ;5'` � 0 � � '� � •� '� �� •' � ` • � ��,' �� `��` i. ��i., `'�, rS1 � -�, f ! i ^ � �T �`��+ �a nti✓� ! � ��' . , ��\� ' f' �,1't' •��.• Jfs a;:� � N � . t `, ,� . t. S.A r� � � t , • � � • \ � , '.. � . .�' : � * �... `, �f'�''./� • � `� ' w � � %: `,+ . _. .� � \ i � � .� ., M � �c ' � , s � . T, �,, ' a � .. �"A �� * � ` � ` � �' � � YA �,C . � � � <<�. F ., '+�k. '� i. �. . I, � .� .. \ . l�� * / . �. � ��' �,, _r;t. ' _ 5 - 1 � '�., ` ' � � \ / 7,�( � � . 1 r ' \ � �' � y '%�~ 'tR�� ,�'',� � \ . � � � � •� S 1 . �. � � Ie,' �' � 1 y t �+"3 �'�'.� , . \ � , - .L� � . �,�. -� � i � ' . .� 1.. ` ,�a•� �.. .,�� ,� � ; �,� •� �\ �• '�;�'1 , S �';#.��n,� �' � „�;, ,•-`•' � ,� � � \ ��- � _ � � ', �.` � �� , .- �,� � + # \ � S * _ \ \ .\\ ,,,, r � `C� `r� �'� "� � �'2 , :.., ! ., > f�. \A. '� \ • � `�: ; / F. �'., g , ,� � -9� �$ � � < ��,�'�` ti�,p��ro '� �,,, � '�,��w�,� ��\• �� y, , !�"� � �, � ��► � `L�` .'� ' � ��; •,.' ♦ � !� l:'�� % .t ��,.�h "1 �1 � �'� .i�' n, . ..I 'r `� �:,��,�.`, ` "R� I � �' \ �� 1 �._� � . f` �� J\ ` . � • ,1\ d � � .i "F ) } � J Y...!� � �,`' f� • .��, �i . � . \� ,� `�,-� /.. - �,�� y • y ,4+►� �p�.��' � � \ �- � . >.,1 �` ,�, ^r, �` �,� � , . .✓� �-£g��}!,j ..,�� *,��. � . �. E� � �.\ .�� ' �� Ft� , � � � � *►'� � ' `L' � j �r � `� �� =� : �� 1 � ��„rl'r'' v.; -', �� .� .,.N � ' :` ..,.1/��'� �'� "'� \\ � � �� r� �,�` � f� , v :'� � . ,. • �v T� s \ 20` • �� - �� . ��f . _ , � 'r :?� �� s ��,:; �sr '"� � , �' + ��• ` m � '� � � . � � ''', < ,*�'_ � �` ' f71 '+q-�•�` iy �T' �, '. ♦ + ° f�;, T' � ;� , '�+ ��,. �• '� �% i{� � ' � �� 4�,y6�. � - �'� _ .'`��-. � �.. '�r`,,.` . � �. � . `,� - 'Y�` � 7 , J�C r�a. , � • ` �� .!' .?�' `, � � � : ♦ ,�r ; . * , �iYlr ar �' •� ,. ,� y,, w. '4 , � � ?:�t�,'`�,��'.� ,, i• � ;� .�' � • �� t�r `+F' �'` '' � ;1 �. �- 7� -* `� ' ,� ',� 3 � �" � �►, � � ��. . j _'�- � _ ,� f�; ' � ''/ �• ,.•'� �� \~ � eI* ;,�. �* � ;'¢s �,"'�� ' , r'' ' . ,�• ; ti, �,� � � - .. y� ,� /. v , �4 �� ,� • , � b ` � �� , �• ,;4' � �� ` �� r _ , '��' �` ' �� 3 _ � y ` �t '� ��, r �� , �� j! � � �� '; , ` Y k ,:,,:,.: � �.��. ` '�` � �, ♦ � � 7 . , � -�d�'� 'T � � ., � � � . � ;'. ' '` . a',,r `�.�� i � .. -� . .�,�1 ,"� � ��i ��in /...\-�.� . .,.:�..s�' r �� , -r � / �' .i,` . � �r(� CITV o� CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD , 1�- BURLINGAME, CA 94010 a TEL: (050) 558-7250 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Application for determination of use at 247 California Drive, zoned C-1, Sub Area B. (APN: 029-211-050) The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, July 23, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed July 13, 2001 (Ylect.r�� r��Jc r �o n�her ,sicle) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the �ipplication and pla»s for this Projeet niay be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Plaiinin� Departmcnt at 501 Primrose Road, Burlin�ame, Califurnia. If you cl�allengc the subject application(s) in court, you may E�e limited to raising only those issues you or someoiie else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city at or prior to the public hearing. Property owners who rcceive this notice are responsible f'or informing their tenants about this notice. For additional information, �lease call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. Margaret Monroe �'�'�'l � � �.i•�.L�� // City Planner PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE (Plecrse rc�fer tn ntlrc i�� side) � Item No. 1 Meeting Date: 7/09/O1 Study Item City of Burlingame Use Deterrrcination at 247 California Drive Request: Use determination that the graphics design use on the first floor of the building is a pedestrian oriented retail sales use consistent with the retail uses permitted in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and is therefore not required to have on-site parking because it continues the nonconforming parking use. Applicant: Jan Haseman, London Road Designs APN:029-211-050 Property Owner: Basim and Linda Azar Lot Area: 25'x119' or 2975 SF General Plan: Service and special sales commercial Zoning: C-1, Subarea B, BACA Adjacent Development: Retail and service commercial and office use CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically exempt per Section 15301 — Existing facilities, Class 1(a), interior or exterior alterations involving such things as interior partitions, plumbing, and electrical conveyances. Previous Use: First floor used for retail sales and second floor mezzanine used as office; no parking provided on site. Proposed Use: First floor used for graphic design office with very limited retail sales, mezzanine used for office; no parking provided on site. Summary: The applicant, Jan Haseman, representing London Roads Designs, is requesting a determination on the use of the first floor of the building located at 247 California Drive, Zoned C-1 Subarea B, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. The site was previously occupied by Fat Cat Antiques, a retail sales use. London Roads Designs is a firm which produces and sells custom printed products. Printing occurs off site. The employees use computers to produce complex documents such as annual reports as well as newsletters, invitations and business cards. The first floor is occupied by a number of employee desks. The company's web site states that they specialize in "the design and development of marketing communication programs" in print and on the internet. The web site does not mention the design of invitations or business cards. At the time of city inspection there was no cash register observed, there was no merchandise displayed for sale, and no business license had been applied for so the Planning Department had not previously reviewed this use at this site. This is a code enforcement item which began in April 2001. Study of Use Determinntwn at 2a7 Ca[ifi�rnia Drive July 9, 2001 Staff would note that as a part of this determination request the applicant submitted no plans to document the size of the tenant space or on-site improvements and uses. Parking requirements, in the event a variance is required, cannot be calculated at this time because staff is unable to determine the total square footage by use in the building without plans. In his letter of June 28, 2001, Mark Hudak, the applicant's attorney, notes that the site has "been beautifully remodeled". There are building permits on file issued in January 2001 to the tenant for gas, electrical and air. This type of permit does not require planning department review or approval because they do not change the envelope of the structure, its footprint or its support members. Decorating improvements (paint and carpet) do not require building permits. The property owner did not sign the application for the use determination; however, a number of registered letters with return receipts were sent to the property owner as a part of the code enforcement process. Because the receipts were returned signed staff feels that the property owner is aware of this problem and the ensuing application for determination. (Correspondence attached) Issue: If the proposed graphics design use is determined to be a retail commercial use, consistent with the pedestrian oriented retail requirements of Subarea B, then the applicant's use is allowed as a matter of right and no additional parking is required because no change in use has occurred and the nonconforming parking status of the site continues. If the applicant's proposed graphics design use is determined to be an office use similar to that of an architect's office, then the nonconforming parking status of the first floor use is voided; and the applicant must obtain a parking variance for the area of the building in which the use has changed. Office uses are allowed on the first floor in Subarea B, so long as parking is provided to code on site Standards which Establish the Classification of the Uses in Subarea B, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area The General Plan designates the site Service and Special Sales commercial. In the Land Use Element (page L-5) it notes that the Burlingame Avenue- Park Road Center, of which the site is a part, includes outlets providing a wide range of consumer goods and services for Burlingame residents and residents of adjoining communities. It also includes business service establishments, business and professional offices, civic buildings, and some residential uses. "The following organization of uses within the center is recommended: shopping goods outlets should, in the main, be located along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road in a pedestrian precinct; convenience goods, stores, restaurants, and consumer service outlets should not occupy ground level street frontage space in the heart of the center but should be in more peripheral locations;..." By this description both retail sales and office uses are permitted on the proposed site because it is out side of core area. � Stu�ly of I7se Determination at 2�17 California Drive July 9, 2001 The Zonin� Code addresses consistency with the General Plan in CS 25.04.080 stating that "(A)pproval of a zoning, rezoning, variance or use permit pursuant to this title shall be based on a finding that the approval is consistent with the general plan and applicable specific plan adopted by the city council. Applications for a zoning, rezoning, variance or use permit shall be denied if found to be inconsistent with the general plan or applicable specific plan." The City Council established Subareas A and B in 1982 to implement the General Plan. This code establishes the need for consistency with the general plan and their right to make specific plans and use zoning to implement them. The Zoning Code defines retail sales(CS25.08.558) as establishments engaged in selling commodities or good in small quantities to ultimate customers or consumers. However this zoning definition of "retail" is further refined in its application in the specific implementation plan for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area in both Subareas A and B. In the C-1 zone, which is the base zoning for the Subarea A and B overlay zones, CS 25.36.040 (2) (A) defines Subarea B as being inclusive of all the requirements and allowances of Subarea A, which means that allowed: "retail uses are those which achieve contiguous, pedestrian-oriented, retail frontage such as drug, liquor, bakeries, variety store, paint and hardware, apparel, accessory, restaurants and coffee shops, florists, furniture and draperies."(CS 25.36.040 (1)(A). Office uses are specifically prohibited on the first floor in Subarea A by not being mentioned as allowed (CS 25.36.040 (1)) However, in Subarea B office uses, except health services and in the areas with street frontage on Chapin Avenue, Primrose Road, Donnelly Avenue or the west side of Lorton, are allowed as a matter of right, with one proviso, parking. (CS 25.36.040 (2) (D)) The subject property has street frontage on California Drive. The General Plan provides for offices in the peripheral area which was designated as Subarea B in 1982. Code section 25.36.040 (d) addresses the parking requirements for Subareas A and B. This code section establishes the nonconformity presently allowed for the retail and mezzanine office use previously present at 247 California in CS 25.36.040 (d) (1), noting that uses permitted and existing before October 1981 "shall be exempt from parking requirements until the vacation of the premises by the use occupying the premises" at that time. CS 25.36.040 (3) notes that "any new development. .. shall provide on-site parking, except that the first floor of such new development in Subarea A shall be exempt from parking requirements if the first floor is used for retail or other personal service uses." The proposed use is in Subarea B. Conclusion: Based on the General Plan designation as implemented by the zoning, the Burlingame Avenue commercial area is planned as an area in which the objective is to promote "pedestrian oriented" 3 Stucly of Use Determirrulu�n at 2-17 California Drive July 9, 200I retail sale and service businesses. The zoning code defines retail sales as establishments engaged in selling commodities or goods in small quantities to ultimate customers or consumers. But to support the more specific development objective of the General Plan for the Burlin�ame Avenue Commercial Area (Subareas A and B inclusive) the zoning code amends the definition of retail sales and service and limits it to "pedestrian oriented" sales and service commercial. Although the zoning does distinguish between Subarea A and B by allowing some additional more bulky retail uses and first floor office use in Subarea B as directed by the General Plan, the zoning code also requires that these retail and office uses support the "pedestrian oriented" character of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area by requiring them to provide parking to code for both the first and second floor retail and office uses on site. In the case of the applicant's request, the graphics design studio does not appear to meet the criteria of "pedestrian oriented" retail sales since quantities of goods on display and for sale directly to customers walking into the site are not a part of this business and no means of collecting small quantities of cash for goods sold is apparent. However the site does appear to meet the requirement for office use. The first floor is filled with computer desks and employees using those computers, in a fashion similar to an architect's office. If the determination is that the use is indeed an office use, the applicant should be directed to apply for a parking variance within 30 days. Margaret Monroe City Planner Attachments: Application for a Determination at 247 California Drive Jan Haneman letter to Erika Lewit, May 7, 2001, describing business Copy of Web site description of business, April 30, 2001 Mark Hudak letter to Planning Commission, June 28, 2001, reasons to determine retail use Code enforcement correspondence: Erika Lewit letter to Jan and Martin Haseman, April 10, 2001, use not approved Erika Lewit letter to Basim and Linda Azar, property owners, Apri120, 2001, business on site without business license and unapproved use Erika Lewit letter to Basim and Linda Azar, May 2, 2001, unapproved use Erika Lewit letter to Basim and Linda Azar, May 11, 2001, making determination that business is an office use. Staff generated diagram of site, part of site inspection notes. Aerial !� in N 8 0 d � � � � 3 �� 42.5' � o� �n \� c� � r `, �l'� �� o z � o ~ o � ° � � � � so� 68 ��,�- i P� �.�.o� � . e�� " . � �n N ,6 RECEIVED JUL - 9 2001 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. Cit�� council ma}� vote in favor of an applicant's reyucst. If the action is a variance. use pernlit, hillside area constn�ction permit, fence exception, sign exception or esception to the antenna ordinance, the Council must make findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given properties and request. Actions on use permits should be b}� resolution. A majority of the Council members seated during the public hearing must agree in order to pass an affirmativc motion. City Council mav deny an applicant's request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on thc project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission/City Council for the further consideration should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be held before the City Council or the Planning Commission. REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same distnct; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to properiy or improvcmcnts in the vicinity and will not bc detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. 247 California Drive, December 3, 2001 iL .. . .. �� CITY � � � BURLINGAME <�, � oe °y� n �Fniio .iuW[ b• The City of Burlingame . CITY IiAL.L 501 PRD�QROSE ROAD TEL: (650) 558-7250 PLANNING DGPARI'MENT BURLINGAME, CAI.IFORNiA 940103997 FAX: (G50) 696-3790 November 14, 2001 Jan Haseman 1740 Lexington Avenue San Mateo CA 94402 Deat' Ms. Haseman , At the City Council meeting of November 5, 2001, the Council called up your application for a three-space parking variance. This application was to allow the conversion of a retail space to and office use at 247 California Drive, zoned C-1, Subarea B 1. A public hearing will be held on December 3, 2001, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. We look forward to seeing you there to present your project. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, �� Margaret Monroe City Planner MM/s 2a�cat.�..�� c: City Clerk City ofl3ufli�r�vne Plvu�ri�g Co�nmissiort Mmu�es OctoGer 2`l, 2001 Department date stamped September 27, 2001, Shzets G-1 and G-2, site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 2). that the conditions of City Engine 's and Recycling Specialist's Oct ber 1, 2001 memos shall be met; 3) that e approval of Building Departm t demolition and construction p its for the d ed garage shall be su ' ect to a Certified Arborist's repo ddressing the impact of the new age dation on the two existing Re ood trees and the future impact f the existing Redwood trees on e new detached garage structure. If th borist's report indicates that the etached garage cannot be built i he location as shown on the plans date s mped September 27, 2001, Shee G-1 and G-2, the project shall b eviewed by the Planning Commission; d 4) that the project shall meet a�he requirements of the Californ Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded b C. Key. Actirl �Ch�air Keighran called for a Vistica'absent). Appeal procedures vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 6. 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE B ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B, APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN OFFICE USE (JAN HASEMAN, APPLICANT; BASIM AND LINDA AZAR, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report, 10.22.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. C. Auran recused himself since he was the leasing agent for this site. He stepped down from the dais. Commission had no questions of staff. Acting Chair Keighran opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, attorney, representing the applicant, 216 Park Road; Jan Haseman, London Road Design; and Basim Azar, property owner, were present to respond to questions. In their presentation it was noted that this is a difficult location within the Burlingame Avenue Commercial area for pedestrian oriented activity, code would like to link Howard and Burlingame Avenue but it is not a reality, California Drive is too busy to be pedestrian friendly, use is in the middle of auto related uses, next door is an auto repair which parks cars across the sidewalk as a part of their business; other sites in the area are vacant or have low day time activity, Christy's restaurant is the only draw on the block; if the code were applied strictly this site would be vacant. London Road Design is upscale, has a good list of clients, is a low impact business in �uhich 4 employees walk or use public transit to work. In fact there are 8 full time employees, one part-time and occasionally a customer generated by this business, don't know why need to provide 15 parking spaces; there are many 5,500 SF sites in the area which generate far more parking demand such as La Pinata; this business generates $1 million in taxable sales a year, so is not just an office but also retail and internet business. A central issue of debate is the use of the mezzanine, when purchased the property two years ago the mezzanine was an office use, provided photos of the area taken before the area was remodeled by London Road, City staff report 1999 inspection which noted merchandize for sale on mezzanine, this was not a formal inspection but a shopping trip, don't know why one trip should justify concluding a change in use. Opposed to conditions of approval proposed which would limit the number of employees on site, restrict the uses within the building or suggest blocking off space in order to meet the parking requirement and avoid a variance, and restrict the hours of operation, this is giving the wrong message to businesses; it is also unfair to have a condition which restricts the tenant from subletting the storage area. If the Commission would determine that the mezzanine area was indeed office space previously, only a one space parking variance would be required; if a different, mixed use parking requirement of 1:350 SF were used because this is an office/retail use the applicant would be only a fraction of a space over the number of parking spaces required for the previous retail use. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. 6 G![j� OI�I3lll"Illl(�:UIlE' PI271IIlflg' COI7lI77ISSlOII Miilutes O�tobcr 22, 2001 Commission discussion: the previous use was retail, the tax which London Road Design pays is not a sales tax it is a tax required of corporate direct mailers, not the same; at a previous meeting C. Auran had mentioned that potential tenants should see an attorney about code compliance before taking a lease; concerned that retail space is cheaper than office space, so if can use retail space for office applicant is home free, that is the real issue and this action creates a precedence and is a mistake. The staff report points out that to grant a variance there must be exceptional circumstances on the property; this was undisputedly a retail store, variances are required in the code for good reason, and staff must require them; a business based on computers can get a lot more people within the space, and can expand a lot within this space; this parking variance will go with the property into the future, it is hard to approve because it is a bad precedence. If property owner wanted to open a restaurant here it would have a greater impact, see this as innocuous, can variance be limited to this user. CA Anderson noted vaziance cannot be limited to a given tenant or use. Once the variance is in place growth within office use could be unlimited. CA Anderson noted that variance could be conditioned to defined the number of employees, hours of operation and by other factors which would reduce the effect of the use within the context of the issues in the azea affected. Commission discussion continued: Agree that this is a low impact business, also that there is not high pedestrian use in this area, need to find a way to wordsmith to regulate number of employees and hours of operation to make this fit better, it is a change in use that could set a poor precedent. CA Anderson noted that Commission could limit the future growth by conditions on the use on the site as has been commonly done before in such circumstances. If the city had tried to design a bad intersection and street configuration, no one could have done better than what we have here; if apply conditions to establish number of employees and hours of operations the applicant may always come back and ask for adjustment and the change can be evaluated in the context of what is going on in the area at that time; these concerns need to be addressed now, if as proposed they do not work someone will complain, if it is OK may ask for more later; for now we need a place to start and these are numbers proposed by the applicant. Findings for a variance need to be based on facts, and the fact is that the area is improperly laid out for pedestrian oriented retail use, the tenant, landowner, and city are stuck; we need to get the best for all, support the conditions in the staff report. Agree and to add to findings this is a high trafficked area, cars speed on California, this business does not have a lot of pedestrian customers, been to the site to inspect three time and there have been no customers on site, would like the conditions to address the number of employees and customers because of parking problems in the area. Would approval set a precedent for all of C-1 zone. CA Anderson noted no, this site is in Subarea B, to avoid broad precedent need to make findings which address this specific site or property which make it different from any other place in Burlingame. Given the use and low pedestrian traffic not need restriction on business hours, people could be locked inside working on computers on internet, not time dependent for customer service. CP Monroe noted that for retail customers a single parking space is used about eight times a day; for an office worker a single space would be used once all day, thus the impact of office workers on parking is greater, and has a particularly negative effect on the peak retail usage times which, in the Burlingame Avenue area, are lunch time and early evening; she also noted that after the recent downtown parking study the Council has discussed a policy of requiring in lieu parking fees for new parking variances in order to facilitate construction of additional parking to meet the increase demands created by changes in uses in the downtown area. C. Mink made a motion to approve the three space parking variance with the conditions in the staff report based on the findings stated in the discussion and on the fact that the vehicular traffic load and the off Burlingame Avenue position of the building requires the City to make a mature decision about what to do 7 Cllf� OFIjUI�Ifl��L17L' P%dIl/IIII�' CO/IL771SS70/1 Minutes October 22, 2001 with the site, by keeping the conditions as proposed and limiting the number of employees the city establishes a way to keep contact with the business and landowner and with the effects of the use, the motion is taken by resolution with the following conditions of approval: 1) that the office use on this premise shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 23, 2001 (two 11 x 17 sheets), that the retail portion of the business shall not exceed 497 SF, that the office portion of the business shall not exceed 3,978 SF, and that the storage portion of the business shall not exceed 1,283 SF; and that any storage space will only be used for the business on site; 2) that there shall be no more than 12 employees on site at any time, including the owner; 3) that the business may not be open for business except during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. during the weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., noon, on weekends; 4) that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; 5) that any expansion of the office or retail areas within the premise shall require an application to the Planning Department and review by the Planning Commission; and 6) that this permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in one year (October, 2002) and upon complaint thereafter. The motion was seconded by C. Key. Comments on the motion: to add to the findings would note that the orientation of this side of the street makes it difficult for people passing by to see store fronts, this is compounded by the awkward configuration of the public streets in the area; suggest that the hours of operation could be extended, since the time change for international work will affect the hours of operation, suggested 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. weekdays and 8 a.m. to 12 noon on week-ends, maker of the motion and second agreed to the proposed change. It was also noted that this location is near parking in the CalTrain lot, city lot on California and other nearby city lots. Acting Chair Keighran called for a voice vote on the motion to grant a three space parking variance for a change in use from retail to office use at 247 California Drive. The motion passed on a 4-1-1-1 (C. Bojues dissenting, C. Auran abstaining and C. Vistica absent) Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. C. Auran took his seat on the dais. 7. 1160 BROADW Y B ZONED C-1, BRO AMENDMENT T COMMERCIAL DESIG� RETAIL BUILDI (RAYMOND LEE, � DESIGNER; BONA A/LAMB PARTNERS RUBEN HURIN AY COMMERCIAL AREA B APPLICATION FOR VIEW TO REMODEL AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL DESIGN ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND D, PROPERTY OVVI��) PROJECT PLANNER: Reference staff report, 10.2 O1, with attachments. CP onroe presented the report, re iewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditi s were suggested for consi ration. Commission had no estions of staff. Acting Chair Keighran opened th ublic hearing. John Weisb g, property owner; Dave De nchenzi and Todd Morgan, Regional representa 'ves of Walgreen's, together r resented the project. The app 'cant noted that after the commission approval t ey went back to Walgreen's discuss the 18 inch sill heig for the four windows along Broadway. Walgr en's was unable to arrange th 'r floor plan without putting th backs of the cashiers to the windows, causing s rious operational security iss s. In response developer has come up with two options: install the 18" sills and place 2'-6" high display wi dow above the sill in three of the four windows, the fourth window would be left open to the sill; or insta benches on the outside of the building in front of three of the four windows, these 6 foot long benches would extend into the public right : .� ,��'ity of Iiurlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2001 4. 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVI: — ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B— APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF USE (TAN HASEMAN APPLICANT• BASIM AND LINDA AZAR, PROPERTY OWNERSI C. Auran noted that he was listing agent for this site and must recuse himsel£ He stepped down from the dais. Reference staffreport, 7.23.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed general plan and zoning code as they apply, noted that either use being considered is allowed in Subarea B, however the change in use to office would require on site parking to current code requirements. Commission asked if staff knew when the applicant occupied this site, staff noted a building permit for electrical upgrade was issued in January 2001, perhaps the applicant has more information. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Mark Hudack, attorney, 216 Park Road, and Jan Haseman, London Road Design,'represented the project. They noted that when Subarea B was drafted in 1980 things were different, today retail sales operates differently, the code should be flexible and not force uses into categories; this business is a hybrid operation they do $1 million in retail taxable sales, but they do not sell in the traditional "pedestrian oriented" way; they are also not asking to be located on Burlingame Avenue, they are located next to an auto repair shop; hoping will find that they are a retail use so that they will not be required to find additional parking; debated the way staff had arrived at the parking requirement for the present use, contradiction in staff report one place says mezzanine is now in office use another it was retail; how mezzanine counted could affect parking requirement for future variance; discussed providing one on site parking space. Commission asked when this business occupied this space, applicant noted the end of January or first part of February 2001; how many clients walk in as opposed to having appointments, would like more walk-in but oriented to appointments. Commissioner did site inspection, this is not retail in traditional sense, no display area (did see a piece of office furniture and one picture on the wall for sale), no invitations or cards, what one would ask to purchase is not clear at the door. The work is done on the computer and customized for the client. Applicant noted work done recently for local businesses, and customized wedding invitation. Commission noted that the number of employees 8 to 10 indicates an office compared to number of employees at retail, why not be an office and ask for a parking variance. Applicant responded cost of in lieu fee for additional parking is high and limit the options for the use of the property in the future, one must come up with a hardship on the property for a variance to be granted. There were no further comments from the floor. Commission comment: can not buy that this is retail, retail in this size space has fewer full time employees and more visitors, this bigger impact on parking because employees park all day, customers tum over during the day; prefer to see this as office and apply for parking variance; agree sounds as if this use is being forced into retail category, this location is appropriate for this proposed use; this proposed use does not meet the definition of retail, do not want to set a precedent for the future; how big would the parking variance be 1, 2, or 3 spaces. CP Monroe noted that it was unknown since staff needed plans to scale of interior use azeas before and proposed not provided. The public hearing was closed. C. Luzuriaga moved tp determine that the proposed use does not constitute a retail sales use as defined in the code and finds that the use is an office use for the reasons stated during the public hearing; and directed that the applicant apply with in 30 days for a pazking variance to support the office use. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion which deternuned the proposed use was an office use and directed the applicant to apply for a parking variance within 30 days. The motion passed on a 4 � City of 13urlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2001 5-0-1-1 (C. Auran abstaining, C. Bojues absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. 5. 1504 BERNAL AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION OR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECI�`�NING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FI T AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BARRY AND MONI�A EHLERS, APPLICANTS AND�ROP TY OWNERS; ANTHONY K. NGAI, R ference staff report, 7.2 O1, with attach.ment CP Monroe presen d the report, reviewed criteria and Pl nning Department com ents. Four co rtions were suggested consideration. The ere no qu stions of staff. Ch 'rman Vistica opened the pu ic earing. Barry and Monica Ehlers prop y o ners, Anthony Ngai, arc tect, represented the project el addressed the 8 issues clearly on the revi d plans, did pop out and area 0. feet by 1 foot in dep n the orth elevation to add articulation, this ten beyond the declining heigh envelope; there �vere o questions om the commissioners or from floor. e public hearing was closed. C. Keig n co nded the applicant on the responsiveness to e commission's conce , feel that the declining eigh exception on the north elevati benefits the esign and moved approval f the revised project by r s ution with the following conditio • 1) that e project shall be built as shown n the plans submitted t e Planning Department date stampe uly 6, 2001, Sheets A1.0 through A5.2, site plan, floor pl an building elevations; 2) that any chang to the size or envelope of the second floo which would ' clude a ding or enlarging a dormer(s) or a ing the roof height or pitch, shall be sub ct to desig review; 3 that the conditions of the Cit ngine 's and Recycling Specialist's April 16, O1 me os shall be me • and 4) that the project sh meet all th requirements of the California Building a F e Codes, 1998 e ition, as amended by e City of Burl game. The motion was seconded b . Dreiling. Chairman Vistica called or a voice v te on the motion to appreve tl� desibn review and d ining height envelope special permit. e moti passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bojues ab nt) voice vote. peal procedures were advised. This it�m co clu ed at 8:26 p.m. 6. 10 BE�,VEDERE CQURT ONED` R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIG VIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTIO PE IT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND RY DECK ADDITION (RICHARD AND D RA BI NCHINA, APPLICANTS AND P PE Y OWNERS; JOHN Reference staff re ort, 7.23.01, with a chments. CP Monroe pre ented the report, re ' wed criteria and staff comments Five conditions were s gested for consider on. Commissioner ask about a study outlining tree otection requirements, sta oted compliance uld be added to the conditio of approval. Chairm istica opened the public hearing. 'chard B' china, property owner, represented e project. He asked how to get the trees evaluated, CP Mo e ted that he could ca11 staff. Commission asked what material would be used in construction of the dec , a licant noted a synthetic wood material would be used for both decks. There were no further comments fro the floor and the public hearing was closed. 5 � .� RESOLUTION NO. 4a-2oo0 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING POLICY REGARDING IN-LIEU PARKING FEES IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE SUBAREAS A AND B IN CONNECTION WITH APPLICATIONS FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS IN EXCEPTIONAL CASES WHEREAS, the City is currently studying the parking needs and possible parking improvements in the Burlingame Avenue area; and WHEREAS, the City expects that there will be some additional development and increased intensity of use in the area over the coming decade; and WHEREAS, some of the planning applications made for that development or intensity may require that parking be provided pursuant to the City Zoning Code or environmental review, and in some of those applications, a property owner or applicant may be unable to provide parking on-site; and WHEREAS, the property owner or applicant may wish to propose that a parking in-lieu fee be paid to the City in mitigation of the need to provide parking; and WHEREAS, in order to better implement or encourage development in the area consistent with community goals and policies, the Planning Commission or the City Council may also wish to oi%r this possibility to a property owner or applicant seeking relief from parking requirements; and WHEREAS, any approval ofthe use ofin-lieu parking fees should only be used in connection with planning applications that sigt�ificantly advance the community's goal of enhancing the contiguous retail and pedestrian environment of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area; and WHEREAS, any approval of tlie use of in-lieu parking fees should not involve the City in the financing of any project, either directly or indirectly; and WHEREAS, the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Parking Study dated February 16, 2000, prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates details the costs of increasing the number of public parking spaces in the Burlingame Avenue Area, and explains that the least expensive and feasible project in the area would be improvement of Parking Lot 7, and this study and analysis provides the most appropriate basis for the cost basis for these fees; and WHEREAS, the costs that might be incurred in such a parking improvement project show PARKING IN-LIEU FEES 1 that the cost per additional parking space would be approximately $ 34 ,100 in Year 2000 dollars, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The policy statement and parking in-lieu fee set forth in Exhibit A is approved. %�' /l, • � � Mayor I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City ofBurlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the � �th day of Ao r i 1 , 2000, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCII.NIEMBERS: COFFEY , GALL I GAN, JANNEY, SP I NELL I 0' MAHONY NOES: COLTNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE C�iLt/�i, V - `�/i�fit�2� City Clerk C:\W PS 1�FILES�RESO�parkin�'ee.pin.wpd PARKING IN-LIEU FEES 2 � EXHIBIT A POLICY REGARDING APPROVAL OF LAND USE APPLICATIONS FOR PAYMENT OF PARKING IN-LIEU FEES IN SUBAREAS A AND B OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA This policy only encompasses land use applications for approval of development projects within Subareas A and B of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area as defined in Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code. 2. An applicant for approval of a development within the areas designated in paragraph (1) above may request approval of payment of a parking in-lieu fee pursuant to this policy in order to satisfy in whole, or in part, the parking requirements of the Burlingame Zoning Code or the parking required to reduce a potentially significant environmental impact to less than significant pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. 3. In addition to meeting the requirements for approval of a parking variance, the applicant shall demonstrate and the Planning Commission or the City Council must also deternune that the proposed development project, including the parking solution proposed, significantly advances the community's goal of preserving and enhancing the contiguous retail and pedestrian environment of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. 4. Any in-lieu fee approved upon request of the applicant pursuant to this policy shall be fully paid by the applicant before the time that the first building pernut for the development project is issued. 5. The parking in-lieu fee shall be in the following amount: $ 34,100 per parking space 6. On May 1 of each year (hereinafter Adjustment Date), the approvable in-lieu fee shall be adjusted to an amount equal�to the greater of: a. The in-lieu fee in effect immediately prior to the applicable Adjustment Date; or b. The product obtained by multiplying the in-lieu fee then in effect by a fraction, the numerator of which is the Index as defined below, published for the month of February immediately prior to the Adjustment Date, and the denominator of which is the Index published for February, 2000. Index means the Consumer Price Index-Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI-V�, All Items, for San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA (1982-84=100) published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Should the Index no longer be published, the City shall select a comparable index that it determines measures the increase and decrease in the cost of living in the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose area. PARHING IN-LIEU FEES A-1 7. Nothing contained in this policy nor any approval of any in-lieu fee shall be interpreted or construed as conveying any entitlement or property interest of any kind to any person in any City property, parking area, or parking space nor any right or entitlement to compel or request improvement, construction, or provision of any City property, parking area, or parking space whatsoever. PARKING IN-LlEU FEES A-2 City of Burlingame Cost Estimate for 3-Level Parking Structure at Lot J Scope of Work Three level parking structure, 310'x130' foot print, total 340 stalls. Includes 33 stalis in adjacent surface lot and 8,620 retail floor area. Lot Area Existing Lot J 37,040 sq.ft. Retail Only 15,525 sq.ft. Lot J with Retail Total 52,565 sq.ft. Floor Area Parking Stall Costs Slab on Grade Elevated Slab Existing Lot Added Spaces Slab on Grade Elevated Slab 53,555 sq.ft. 70,070 sq.ft. Total 123,625 sq.ft. 75 spaces 265 spaces Totai 340 spaces $536,000 $1,822,000 Subtotal $2,358,000 Other Costs Site Work Foundation designed to bridge over cuivert Additional Reinforcement to stiffen the exterior for a future 3rd floor New Drain System 1 Elevator Exterior Spandrels Utility Stubs for Retail Elastomeric Coating over Retail Exterior Walls at Retail Signs & Graphics Sprinkler System Electronic Parking Meters � Subtotal Contractor Overhead & Profit Contingency Total Construction Cost Construction Indirect Cost Property Acquisition Relocation Expense & Legal Fee Total Project Cost Total Construction Cost per sq.ft. of floor area per total stall ' per added stall Total Project Cost per sq.ft. of floor area per total stall per added stal! 9908 Cost Estimate 1.xls $67,000 $200,000 $371,000 at $3/sq.ft. of floor area $100,000 $70,000 $176,000 $30,000 $28,000 $94,000 $30,000 $105,OQ0 $204,000 at $600/meter $1,475,000 $3,833,000 $575,000 15% of Subtotal $958,000 25% of Subtotal $5,366,000 ' $1,878,000 35% of Total Const. Cost $1,707,750 at $110/sq.ft. of lot area $75,000 $9,026,750 $43.41 $15,800 $20,200 $73.02 $26,500 $34,100 4/6/005:31 PM , , � ." . City of Burlingame Cost Estimate for 2-Level Parking Structure at Lot J Scope of Work Two level parking structure, 310'x130' foot print, total 212 stalls. Includes 33 stalls in adjacent surface lot and 8,620 retail floor area. Lot Area Floor Area Parking Stall Costs Existing Lot J Retail Only Lot J with Retail Slab on Grade Elevated Slab Existing Lot J Added Spaces Slab on Grade Elevated Siab $536,000 $911,000 Subtotal $1,447,000 Othe— r Gos� Site Work Foundation designed to bridge over culvert Additional Reinforcement to stiffen the exterior for a future 3rd floor New Drain System 1 Elevator Exterior Spandrels Utility Stubs for Retail Elastomeric Coating over Retail Exterior Walls at Retail Signs & Gr2phics Sprinkler System Electronic Parking Meters Subtotal Contractor Overhead & Profit Contingency Total Construction Cost ConstruCtion Indirect Cost Property Acquisition Relocation Expense & Legal Fee Total Project Cosi Total Construction Cost Total Project Cost 9908 Cost Estimate 1.xls per sq.ft. of floor area per total stall per added stall 37,040 sq.ft. 15,525 sq.ft. Total 52,565 sq.ft. 53,555 sq.ft. 35,035 sq.ft. Total 88,590 sq.ft. 75 spaces 137 spaces Total 212 spaces $67,000 $200, 000 $266,000 at $3/sq.ft. of floor area $100, 000 $70,000 $117, 000 $30,000 $28,000 $63, 000 i30,000 $53,000 $127,000 at $600/meter $1,151,000 $2,598,000 $390,000 15% of Subtotal $650,000 25% of Subtotal $3,638,000 $1,273,000 35% of Total Const. Cost $1,708,000 at $110/sq.ft. of lot area $75,000 $6,694,000 $41.07 $17,200 $26,600 per sq.ft. of floor area $75.56 per total stall $31,600 per added stall $48,900 4/6/005:31 PM � -. .'._ . ..,T.- ...... .... .. .._., . -.r}. ".. �-r__..�.,.,.�_ ------'� . -. .-__.,.�,�..__�-__-�-'-r. . .. ��,.�.wf,.._ . City of Burlingame Parking Variance for Change in Use From Retail to Office Item # Regular Action Calendar Address: 247 California Drive Meeting Date: 10/22/O1 Request: Parking variance for three parking spaces for a change in use from retail to office. Applicant: Jan Haseman APN: 029-211-050 Property Owner: Basim and Linda Azar Lot Area: 2975 SF General Plan: Service and special sales commercial Zoning: C-1, Subarea B, BACA CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Construction or conversion of small structures; (b) construction or conversion of apartments, duplexes and similar structures, when not in conjunction with the building or conversion of two or more such structures. Previous Use: first floor and mezzanine used for retail sales; existing and non-conforming in parking (12 parking spaces required, no parking provided on site) Proposed Use: first floor used for graphic design office with limited retail sales, with the rear of the building used for storage and mezzanine used for office; non-conforming status of parking is lost because the use on site is intensified from retail to office (15 spaces required, no parking provided on site). Allowable Use: Personal service, retail, and office. Current Proposal: At the September 24, 2001, study meeting for this parking variance application, the Commission asked the following questions of the applicant and of staff (September 24, 2001 Planning Commission Minutes): • when this use was discussed during the use determination hearing, the applicant indicated that a one space variance would be required, the current staff report indicates that three are required; what has caused this discrepancy; • if an in lieu fee is assigned, will the applicant or owner be responsible for paying it; • can the applicant provide a conunercial application which describes the pattern of use on site; • what is the typical length of stay by a client and how many clients are expected to visit in a day; • how much would the office area need to be reduced to have the on-site parking requirement match that of the previous retail use; and ' • how are the regulations for this site different compared to the architect's office over Cheese Please or the office use in the Federal Auto Parts building. The applicant has submitted a letter date stamped October 15, 2001, in response to the Commission's questions. The letter makes the following statements in support of the parking variance: 1. The applicant asserts that the mezzanine level has been used as office since 1979. Pictures were submitted (see attachment to letter) showing that portions of the mezzanine were divided prior to it's being remodeled by London Road Design. If there were any antiques stored in this area for the prior retail use, they may have been being processed before being taken to the first floor retail space or they were displayed for close-out sales to get rid of inventory. 2. The applicant asserts that the proposed office use will have very little impact on parking. Therf; will be very few clients visiting the site because London Road Design conducts a majority of their retail business over the Internet. A Commercial Application submitted shows that presently there; . . ;�� .� Parking Vuriance 247 California Drive are a total of 9 employecs on site and a maxiinum number of 10 persons on site at one time, including employees, owners and clients. In 5 years the maximum number of employees will grow to 12 persons. In response to the Commission's questions staff would note the following: 1. Planning staff would note that there is some debate about how the previous tenant used this site. This has resulted in the applicant maintaining that a 1 space parking variance is required, while staff maintains that a 3 parking space variance is required. Based on a site inspection made by staff 6months before the prior business closed, the use for the site appeared to be 4198 SF retail (first floor and mezzanine) and 1063 SF storage (first floor at the rear of the building). The 12- space parking deficit number for the prior retail use is based on this inspection. Planning staff noted in the original use determination report (see July 23, 2001 Planning Commission minutes) that if the Planning Commission determined that London Road Design was an office use, a parking deficit of 3 spaces would result. 2. The applicant has several options for re-arranging space within the proposed business so that the parking deficit for the proposed use (currently 15 spaces) matches the existing parking deficit (12 spaces). The parking requirements are as follows: storage is 1 parking space: for 1000 SF; retail is 1 parking space: for 400 SF; and office is 1 parking space: for 300 SF. The applicant could remove both of�ce and retail square footage and replace it with storage or remove office square footage and replace it with a combination of retail and storage to reduce the parking deficit to match the existingl2 space deficit. 3. The previous retail use (antique shop) at 247 California Drive had no on-site parking and so was non-conforming. This is a similar situation to long time uses in the other nearby commercial zones, such as the office space over Cheese Please. When a non-conforming use changes (parking is a use), the site is evaluated for its non-conforming status. If the site cannot be made conforming, a variance is required. If the use over Cheese Please has always been office, the type of office may change without triggering new parking requirements and a possible parking variance. In the case of the application at 247 California Drive, a permitted retail use that is non-conforming in parking is being changed to a permitted office use that has more intense parking requirements and therefore, a parking variance is required. History: On July 23, 2001, the owner of London Road Design, Jan Haseman, requested a use determination from the Planning Commission for the proposed use of 247 California Drive. London Road Design is a firm that produces and sells custom printed products. The Planning Commission determined (July 23, 2001 PC Minutes) that London Road Design did not fit the code definition of a pedestrian- oriented retail business and was an office use. The result of determining that London Road Design was an office use means the new use must comply with parking on site or receive a variance. As a part of their action, the Planning Commission directed the applicant apply for a parking variance for the new use in the building at 247 California Drive. � ,.�.l.-,rr �. . Parking Variance 247 Calcfornia Drive Summary: The commercial building at 247 California Drive was formerly used as a retail shop (Fat Cat Antiques) with no on-site parking. The combination of retail and storage uses on site for the antique business, occupying the frst floor and mezzanine in the building, generated a parking deficit of 12 spaces. The retail use was existing and non-conforming in parking. Thc applicant, Jan Haseman, is proposing to use the entire building (first floor 3186 SF and mezzanine 2075 SF) for an office use. No on-site parking will be provided. The intensification of use within the building (497 SF retail, 3978 SF of office, 1283 SF of storage) generates a parking requirement of 15 spaces. The first floor of the site will be used for a combination of office, retail, and storage. The mezzanine level will be used for a combination of office and storage. The applicant is requesting the following: Parking variance for 3 spaces (additional spaces required because of intensified use from retail, 1 parking space: 400 SF to office, 1 parking space: 300 SF). PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D Use: office retail --- (London Road Design) (Fat Cat Antiques) Parking: 0 * * 0 * 15 (deficit 15) (defcit 12) 1 space : 300 SF for all areas intensified from office to retail use * Existing non-conforming in parking (no on-site parking provided required for a retail and storage use). ** Parking variance required (no on-site parking provided where 3 intensification of use from office to retail). where 12 parking spaces are spaces are required for the Staff Comments: Staff would note that if any of the existing building were to be used as permanent off-street parking as discussed at the time of the determination hearing, proper fire separations would have to be created between the parking area and the remainder of the building, including enclosing all required exits form the second floor through and adjacent to the area with fire rated walls as required by the Fire Department. Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant side setback and parking variances the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; � - -� Y� �pel4 iT':.> � ryw i�r.Mn �.�w��a.� . : . Parking Variance 247 California Drive (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution and should include findings for the parking variance. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: that the office use on this precnise shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 23, 2001 (two 11 x 17 sheets), that the retail portion of the business shall not exceed 497 SF, that the office portion of the business shall not exceed 3978 SF, and that the storage portion of the business shall not exceed 1283 SF; and that any storage space will only be used for the business on site; 2. that there shall be no more than 12 employees on site at any time, including the owner; 3. that the business may not be open for business except during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during the weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on weekends; 4. that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; 5. that any expansion of the office or retail areas within the premise shall require an application to the Planning Department and review by the Planning Commission; and 6. that this permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in one year (October, 2002) and upon complaint thereafter. Erika Lewit Zoning Technician c: Jan Haseman 4 .. . . __ _ ..�..��__-�.--- _.... _____ . �.---- ------ -- ---�- - , , � .� ,,,.� . , . CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA September 24, 2001 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman V' tica called the Septemb 24, 2001, regular eeting of the Plannin ommission to order at 7• p.m. II. SEATING N COMMISSI ERS Chairm Vistica welco Cers. Key and Mink He noted that b Commissioners have served previ sly on the Co ' sion, for 8 and 25 years spectively, and th ed them for being willing t/ o,s�rve on n interim basis to ecember 31, 2001. � III. ROLL CALL Present: mmissioners Auran eighran, Key, Mink, Oster ' g and Vistica Abs t: Commissioner ojues (arrived at 7:07 p.m. taff Present: City anner, Margaret Monroe• lanner, Catherine Keylon; City Attorney, L Anderson � IV. / MINUTES V.APPROVAL O V1. / FROM THE VI1. STUDY I ENDA The minute of the September 10, 2 1 meeting regular of th lanning Commiss' n were approved as ma' d. Ite 3, 1819 Montecito ay, was continued to t October 9, 2001, m eting at the request of t applicant. The agend as then approved as mended. / C. Bojues a R There were 7:07 p.m.) public comments. 1. 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE (JAN HASEMAN APPLICANT; BASIM AND LINDA AZAR. PROPERTY OWNERSI CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. C. Auran recused himself because he was the leasing agent for the property. C. Key noted that she knew the property owner and had eaten in his restaurant for years, he had told her in July that this item was going to the Commission but they had not discussed it so she did not feel it was necessary for her to recuse herself from this action. Commission questions: how are the regulations different for this site and use compared to the architects office over Cheese Please or the office use in the Federal Auto Parts building; could staff fill in the missing square footage numbers on page 2; if an in lieu fee is assigned which party is responsible for paying it, the property owner or the tenant; when discussed determination applicant indicated that they would have a one space parking variance, how did it become3; could the applicant discuss the pattern of use of the site, how many employees come and go during the day and how often, how many come and stay all day, how many are part time and what are thcir schedules, and how would this pattern of movement affect the parking usage; what is the typical length of stay by a client and how many clients are expected to visit each day; how much would the office area need to be reduced to have the on-site parking requirement match that of _ ,1 l . R— City ofBurlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 24, 2001 the previous retail use. The applicant s attorney noted that he would be unable to attend the next Planning Commission meeting. There were no further questions by the commission. Chairman Vistica set this item for the regular action calendar at the October 22, 2001, meeting providing the information requested has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department in time. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. Vlll. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Irems on rhe c sent calendar are considered to be routi . They are acted on simultaneously unless separate di ussion and/or action is equested by the applicant, a member of t p blic or a commissioner prior to the time the Comn:is on votes on the motion o adopt. C airman Vistica ask if any member of the commissi or audience wanted to remove a item from e consent calend . There were no requests. 2/ 1424 BERN AVENUE ZONED R-1 AND SEC D STORY ADDITION AND STEWA ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT/, �LICATION FOR DESIGN REV W FOR A FIRST ?W DETACHED GARAGE REDO REYES, DESIGNER; JON AND Y MC GOVERN, C. eighran moved approval of e consent calendar based on the acts in the staff report, staff and c mmission comments, the fin ' gs in the staff report and with th recommended conditions in the staff report by resolution. The mot' n was seconded by C. Bojues. C irman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve and ' passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Ap al procedures were advised. IX. REGULAR ACTIO 3. 1819 MONTEC AND HILLSID SAGOO, RYS PATEL, P P� C�b WAY - ZONED R-1 AF AREA CONSTRUCTION P �HITECTS, APP�ICANT TY OWNERS)CONTIN l �ATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO V ANCE IT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDIT N(BINEY ARCHITECT; NATUBHAI D. AND ABEN TO TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, O1 PLANNING This i�m is continued at the request o�"the applicant. 4. 1� LOMA VISTA AVENUE NED R-1 APPLICATION FOR DES N REVIEW AM AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR IGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND ORY ADDITION AND DOREEN CAUCHI, PLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWN S; IBARRA ASS Reference staff report, .24.01, with attachments. Planner Keylo presented the report, rev' wed criteria and Planning Depart ent comments. Five conditions were su ested for consideration. Chairman Vistica pened the public hearing. Vincent Cauch' property owner, repres ted the project. He apologized for t e incomplete plans and explained that he 1 oked at various ways t lter the plans but a 12 sided turret th is over engineered, there did not seem to e many choices. Not i ent to make turret higher, � CARR, MCCLELLAN, INGERSOLL, THOMPSON & HORN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW 216 PARK ROAD, POST OFFICE BOX 513 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 940 1 1-05 1 3 MARK D. HUDAK mhudak@cmithlaw.com October 15, 2001 BY HAND Planning Commission City of Burlingame 510 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: London Road Design 247 California Drive Dear Commissioners: TELEPHONE (650) 342-9600 FACSIMILE (650) 342-7685 www.cmithlaw.com RECEIVE[� OCT 15 2001 CI p�ANNBNG DEPAME Our office represents London Road Design, the tenant at 247 California Drive. This letter is offered in support of London Road's application for a parking variance. With this letter, I am also submitting statements from Jan Haseman, the principal of London Road, and Basim Azar, the building owner. There are several issues to consider. Use Of Mezzanine The chief issue seems to be a dispute about the prior use of the mezzanine area in the premises. The staff contends that the mezzanine area was retail and is now being converted to office, necessitating a three space variance. We believe that the staff is incorrect and that, at most, only a one space variance is required. Historically, the mezzanine sp�ce was used for offices, going back as far as 1979, according to Mr. Azar. Indeed, the mezzanine was divided up for individual offices. We are including photographs taken by London Road during the remodeling which show these offices beforc the dividing walls were removed. Unquestionably, the mezzanine was an office use. The Planning Department contends that the mezzanine was used for retail, based on personal shopping that was done by a staff inember during the last half of 1999 while the premises were leased by Fat Cat Antiques. The staff inember says that she made several purchases during that time and that she saw merchandise up on the mezzanine. While we do not question the staff inember's veracity, we do question the significance of what she saw. For example, Fat Cat could have been processing new antiques that had arrived and readying them for sale on the first floor. Since Fat Cat's lease was up at the end of 1999, the store could have been trying to sell off its remaining inventory and using the mezzanine as a temporary sales area. REC�IVED Planning Commission October 15, 2001 Page 2 OCT 1 5 2001 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Given the passage of time, there is no way to know the exact circumstances or what the staff member actually saw. From the building owner's perspective, when Mr. Azar bought the building, the mezzanine was an office use and had been for many years. He never authorized any other use and would not have agreed to let Fat Cat change to a less intensive use, thereby giving up the right to have offices on the mezzanine. Our calculation of the variance is based on the mezzanine's historical use as an office and the continuance of that use by London Road, so no additional parking is required for this portion of the space. We feel that the materials submitted with this letter allow the Commission to conclude that the office use by London Road on the mezzanine does not require any additional parking. Retail Parking The second issue is the proper standards to be applied to London Road's use on the main floor. When the current Code was adopted in 1980, retail and office uses were clear and distinct, so the Code included only a limited number of classifications. Some businesses that are prevalent today did not even exist two decades ago. Unfortunately, the Code has not kept pace. Today, the use of computers and the Internet has altered the nature of retail business. The Planning Department has asked us to provide a layout showing what portion of the premises are "retail" and what portions are "office" on the first floor, but London Road's business does not work that way. During out prior proceeding-on these premises, we provided sales tax returns showing that London Road had taxable retail sales of over $1 million. These sales cannot be ignored in calculating the parking requirements. Under Section 25.70.040, "offices" must provide one space for every 300 SF while "retail stores" provide one space for every 400 SF. There is no separate requirement for "pedestrian friendl�' retail space. Even though the Commission felt that London Road's business did not provide "pedestrian friendly" retail, the fact remains that the business has a strong retail component and its parking requirements should be based on the 1:400 ratio rather than the 1:300 for traditional office. At worst, given the hybrid nature of the use, some middle ground should be struck. When some credit is given for the retail component of London Road's business, less than one additional parking space is required for the first floor use. Parking Impact and In Lieu Parking Fee London Road's decision to relocate to Burlingame was based in part on convenience to its employees. Of the eight employees, three live in Burlingame and can walk to work while another takes the train in each day. The remaining employees park in the long term lots. � Planning Commission October 15, 2001 Page 3 Most of the company's sales are made through presentations at the clients' offices or through the Internet. Relatively few customers need to come to the business premises. While London Road hopes to develop more customers in the local business community, there is relatively small need for client parking. With these factors in mind, the space at 247 California is over 5,000 SF and has very little parking impact compared to other spaces that size in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District, whether retail or office. During the study session on this item, one Commissioner commented about the possibility of imposing an in lieu parking fee. The in lieu fee may be appropriate for new developments or conversions that create disproportional parking impacts that cannot be mitigated in any other way. The adopted policy statement makes clear that the applicant must request or propose the in lieu fee as a mitigation measure. In this instance, neither the property owner nor the applicant has proposed using an in lieu fee and neither would pay it if one were imposed as a condition of granting a variance. We feel that an in lieu fee would be overkill, given the minimal impacts from this project. Basically, the "intensification" arises from definitions, not any actual parking impact from this project. This is a very difficult location and it is unrealistic to think that a true "pedestrian friendly" retail store would be attracted to this space. If the Commission begins imposing an in lieu fee in this area, few tenants will be able to afford it and this block of California Drive will be in worse condition. London Road has greatly improved this space. Its business is permitted in this subzone and is wholly appropriate for the location. The company wants to be valuable part of our business community. We ask that the Code be applied in a realistic manner and that the variance application be granted. ' ' Sincerely, A// �:/, - Mark D. Hudak MDH:Ij s Enclosures cc: London Road Design Basim Azar 21759.00001 �BGLIB 1 \ 1119218.1 RECEIVED ocr 15 200� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. STATEMENT OF BASIM AZAR IN SUPPORT OF VARIANCE APPLICATION I am the owner of the commercial building located at 247 California Drive. I am submitting this statement in support of the application by my tenant, London Road Design, for a parking variance for these premises. Since 1979, I have owned and operated Christie's Restaurant, which is located next to the 247 California building. Over the years, I was in the 247 California premises many times and observed the businesses that were conducted there. When I first began at Christie's, the 247 California space was occupied by Thor Thorstensen. He had a business installing marine engines and the space was often used for storing vehicles. The mezzanine area was used for office. Some years later, the space was taken over by Fat Cat Antiques. Fat Cat Antiques used the first floor for selling its antiques. The mezzanine area was subdivided for office space. I purchased the building two years ago. At that time, I thoroughly inspected the premises. The mezzanine was still divided into offices and that was the use in existence when I bought the building. I bought the building on this basis. I did not authorize any different uses by Fat Cat Antiques. I understand that Burlingame wants to have "pedestrian friendly" retail in this block. The Planning Commission should understand that it is very difficult to have retail stores this far from Burlingame Avenue. There are offices and automotive uses on our block but little in the way of traditional retail to attract shoppers to this area. One large space in the block has been for lease for months, with no offers. Some of the other shops are struggling to stay in business. The City is not doing much to promote shopping on California Drive, compared to what is being done for Burlingame Avenue, and this makes it hard to find a true retail tenant. As it is, 247 California is right next to a shop that installs automotive accessories, which makes the space in my building unattractive for "pedestrian friendly" retail. London Road Design is a good tenant for this space. They spent a lot of money to bring the space up to current standards. They have a low impact business that fits into this location. These facts should be considered in applying the parking standards for this location. � asim RECEIVED OCT 1 5 2001 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNIn1f_ nr�T 21759.00001 �BGLIB 1 \l 119215.1 RECEIVED STATEMENT OF JAN HASEMAN OCT 1 5 2001 IN SUPPORT OF VARIANCE APPLICATION CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT I am the owner of London Road Design, the tenant at 247 California Drive. I ask that the planning Commission consider the following facts and circumstances relating to our application for a parking variance. First, when I first viewed the space at 247 California Drive as a potential location for our business, I was told that the mezzanine had been in use as an office and that we could continue the use. When I went upstairs, I saw that it had been divided into several offices, which was consistent with what I was being told. We leased the space on this basis. While we were renovating the space, I took some pictures of the construction, which are attached to my statement. The offices are clearly visible in these photos. Our design called for the mezzanine to be totally open, so we removed the walls that had enclosed the offices. Second, our business has a strong retail component. During our last proceeding, we provided the Commission with sales tax statements showing annual sales in excess of $1 million. Even though the Commission fclt that this retail component was not "pedestrian friendl}�' for purposes of establishing a precedent on Burlingame Avenue, the fact remains that we have a retail business with substantial sales. At the same time, we have a very low impact on the surrounding area. Most of our sales result from presentations we make at our customers' offices. We also do some business over the Internet. Few of our customers actually drive into Burlingame, so there is little parking impact compared to our retail sales volume. In addition, our employees create a relatively small parking burden. We usually have eight employees (one part-time). Three of our employees live in Burlingame and walk to work. Another takes CalTrain each day. One of the reasons we took this location was its proximity to the train station and other public transportation. The employees who do drive to work pazk in the long term lots in the area, keeping the short-term street parking free for customers of the businesses in the area. While we cannot guarantee that the same number of employees will always be Burlingame residents or take public transportation, we do take this into account. Third, it is unrealistic to expect a traditional retail operation to take this space and use it all for "pedestrian friendly" retail. We are too far from Burlingame Avenue to get many window-shoppers and there is not much pedestrian traffic, except for diners on the way to Christie's Restaurant. We are located right next to a shop that installs automotive accessories, so there is usually one or more cars protnzding from their installation azea while they work on it. This gives the immediate area an industrial look and is a real negative for our image. We spent a lot to improve this space and move our business here from Redwood City. We want to fit into the business community and be a success in Burlingame. Like other businesses, our company is suffering with the weakening economy and we could not afford the 21759.00001 �BGLIB 1 \l 119217.1 11�1. ...._ .._ _---_____..�_ti additional cost of an in lieu parking fee. Since our business has so little impact, we feel that an in lieu fee would be unfair. /;� �, / Jan Has �m Principall, , ndon Road Design RECEIVEp ocr 15 200� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 21759.00001 �BGLIB 1\l I 19217.1 2 :. i f j �t' .,.�a�„ � i . � � z � � `� � ,� i ' � S b � '� �T€ .: r �S;' l z. 7 •? -! f �._4.'��y"'�„''u .p`«w � • � �4uj� . .� . �: r :;; I s . �� . • � .• .'. � � � '� ��- ; � � � . i'-i ,.y ��~ , � . :,. .. _ . ` # 1. t.1 M. y .. � . .. . �. . ' � . S , ; ; ._._. ...._ . . , ;,,„' _ # ,�� t�,�� s f �` � ; . .. ;� r y�-�. ��, ,� : �. ,� � � .. tt , � � � ,- F� :i;�[''` ��ve,�t�%.� "^��_ r . � ,�,x�w��..� . . -- � t. � c .,��..� a-,yi.�.,�«,�a ({ � �.r .' � :Y - . `R'i'� ' � ± ;>y�. � f' . �.�y� . � . {� •'� . j!l ' � -s�s^ r. ' � '�. _i ` li ' '��J`r�.a$ 2� , � � n` 4� �� °t�x� � � ��, 4Yf+4f'tbj�ty�. � '{ • h � � •}'n'/'' i ' � 'f r '� � � r� ° ��,,�1 51 � �� ,' ;L : �.�.a��:.4 �. 4 '_ � # � � � ; J' - � t � , � ��.n.,�r�-irt�;tk::7'iy,�'` ,� . � . � r 1 �.� ti�` �F � � � 'ia. � � ,y�' � � � , � r� t 4:° y� � .F� � � - ( � t�r � ' � i�` P dA'� y .� � . .. . � t �� !{�' �} t'�h i + �y`��' '�jy, r-U �i;i`r' tF4.� .s;j� ��. ��1 p'i, � 1� .e A s� �I : �� ' �� k .,� .. .�Y ......� � ' E � r 1¢ � ' . e 4 �} �' . � ��. , � , ! },'t�� .. �� +�_ . +, � e� +y�� fW... � ,� �.�`' '�� r.r. r�YY� � ...war..a.ic.a _ �i �?�. .a F :�i7. R• ,..� , _ � ��.�. �' .. �-. . - ._. . . i . �, _ ��., .. . . . = � �} . . . ' � � I�^+ + . • t ' �1 �� • � � - ' .,, . "�� ,:.? .. � . . . � - ;�� :� . .. . - � _ .. ;t�� . � . ..: . .. . �... .. : : . . -� ��.- .. . . . . � -��: � . . . � ��! .� } a• i� ,�a � . . �r�, ��'fL f 1 ; f � � . � � �y Y �� .. y J .;,' '$�a: i�.'•' �' ' ' . �' '� 7 • �� i5 �� i� �� M! : � I �� .Y '.I ! t t k`"��nt` �. 1 � '� �r � �: �� "'Y��y� Y � a Y�� n � l f � I . �.:.'1� �- .�.,� a. � �� ' �t t 4� i KTit i'�� .� �. . � � 1 r r' � s� F� € r` � i'i'�'� *�� :, � i x = � �� 1 �,., rt �h � ,. �' r.. r � r'M�. ,... . . � . .. M.` � 4 r i ; 5� _ , t� �i. � � � . 4 � t17.. Ch4 Y � .j' q{] !�`. ..��a4 d7 , �i?�Y . . i ." �- S —�'�I �_TW,'`.a.... r 4'� . _� ` �f .. � �.. . . .g �C;. t �,. Re:�eived: B/20/ 1 1�:25AM; 650 696 37a0 -> CARR McCLELLAN; Pfl�e 2 Sent By: CITY OF BURLINCiAME PLANNING; 850 898 3790; Sep-20-01 10:39AM; Page 2/2 C!T'Y OF BURI.INCAME PL.ANIJTTVG DEI'AR'IMf;NT SQ1 I�RtMRASE ROAD P(GSOj SS8-7250 F(650} 69G-3�90 . COMMER,CI�L, App,i,ICAT�OI�g E C E I V E D .. ..p� PLANNiN(} COMMiSSION APPLICATION SUPPL,EMENTAL FORM �r.f OCT 1 5 2001 CITY OF BURLINGAME 1. Pr�oposed usC ofthe site DEsi n and Ketail Sales PLANNING DEPT. 2. Days and houis ofoperation M-F 8: 30-5 : 00 :deekends 8: 00-12 : 00 (app .) 3. Number of trucks/servicc vehicles to be parked at site (by rypel rione 4. Current ancl ro'cctcd maximum number of em lo ees inclu ' owner at this Iocation: Existing In 2 Years In 5 Ycars Haurs of AM to Af�cr S:QO AM to After S:OU AM to After 5:00 4peratian PM PM PM PM PM PM Wcckdays Ful l-time 8 0 9-10 � 0 9- I 0 0 Part-time 1 0 1-2 0 1-2 0 Week�nds � Full-time 1 0 1 � 1 0 Part time � Q 0 0 0 0 p S. �rrent and ro'ectcd maximum number of visitors/customcrs who ma come to �e Existing In 2 Ycars �n 5 Years Hours of AM to After 5:00 Op�ti�n PM � PM Weekdays 2-3 0 Wcckends 5 _ 10 0 AM to After 5:40 PM PM 3-4 0 5-10 0 AM to Aftcr 5:00 PM PM 3-4 0 5-10 0 6. What is thc maximum numbcr of aplc expecttd on sitc at any one time ('include awncr, employees and visitorsJcustomets); l� 7. Whcre ddwill the ownec and cmployves park7 i h r e e wa 1 k, o n e t ak e s p ub 1 i c transportation. Employees park in long-term lots. S. Where dolwili the customers/visitors park? S tre e t an d s ho r t- t e rm 1 o t s. 9. PresentormostreGentuseofsite Present - London P.oad Design 10. List of other tenants oa property, thoir numbcr of omployces, hvurs of operation (ausch list if ncccssarY) co�c�,�a�..�x�c ��f-Pc��/� ��.-� ��. �� CITY OF E3URLINGAMF PLANNING DC-.PARTMBNT >Ol PRIMROSB ROAD P(650) 5>F�725p F(Gi0) 6y6-3790 a ' x Rr�, c i Tr o�. BURtJNGAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION '�'q � b...o Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Perniit Other Parcel Number: Project address: �� I �N��i `�� V�l Y� APPLICANT ' t �,� � � ��9-►� / Lti,o a� r�� • Name:� � A'ddress:�� fv�� City/State/Zip:�U�iNa1 K �i� �' "1 T�� Phone (w): �� 7J D � � �� h�: � SD • �S� —�D 11 �� "�" � �� ZL� ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (h): (�� PROJECT DESCRIPTIOP PROPERTY OWNER Name: f/�'!�M � LN'��- Address: � V� ��0�� Y«- City/State/Zip: f��/�/�� `'L Z"� � Phone (w): �h�� - i�� Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this project. ��1j.1�. �� :. � 1 . . % � : I AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I given herein istrue and correct t� Applicant§ signature: -eby certify under penalty of perjury that the information � best of my knowledge and belief. �-- Date: "' �" v ! I know about the proposed ap�ation and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner§ signature: Dat��_�� / R E C E I V E D �'CAPP FRM JUL 0 3 2001 Il I l CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DGPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 � CITY p �`j' Q 6URlJNGAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION �'o � � — Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other Parcel Number: .„ _ . Project address: `�-�- � . APPLICANT �ON�"N �O� T�%�� Name��J� ��'J�-�-��i Address:11 �T � �V�%Gl�� City/State/Zip:�l,Q/� � Q��Z r1�o�iC (w;: G S� l O Zo �h�: �SD) 357-go ? ► (�: � �� 5�$' I zzz, ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: Address: City/State/Zip: Phone (w): (h): av� PROPERTY OWNER Name: Address: City/State/Zip: PIlOnP ��'J�: (h): c�:. Please indicate with an asterisk * the contact person for this project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �� II1�(.. AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the b st of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: Date: �0 5 � I know about the propo plication and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date: ` � �� `' �� Date submitted: .��N � �, '� � 20 c,rr 0� U,= pCA�f vl vGYO£p T '�f PCAPP.FRM � � VARIANCE APPLICATION LONDON ROAD DESIGN 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE This variance application is submitted by London Road Design for the premises it leases at 247 California Drive in Burlingame. London Road seeks a one-space parking variance. The premises had been occupied by an antique store which had retail sales on the first floor and office uses on the partial second floor. London Road extensively remodeled the premises to obtain a more contemporary look. London Road has continued the office use on the second floor. The first floor is devoted to design services, retail sales, and storage. Earlier this year, London Road requested a determination as to whether the mixed uses on the first floor required additional parking on-site. At that time, the staff determined that the premises needed 15 parking spaces for the combination of uses. The parking burden for the prior retaiUoffice use was 14 spaces. At the public hearing on the matter, the Planning Commission favored the project but prefened that the applicant request a variance rather than having its mixed use declared a retail use, since that determination might set a precedent for uses on Burlingame Avenue itself. Based on these comments, London Road did not appeal the Planning Commission's decision and therefore applies for a one-space parking variance. a. Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. The premises are located within Subarea B of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District. Recently, Section 25.36.040 of the Burlingame Municipal Code was amended to require that retail uses within Subarea B be "pedestrian-oriented." The 247 California Drive property is located at the outskirts of the Burlingame Avenue commercial area and well away from normal pedestrian "window shopping" routes, making it difficult to offer the same type of "pedestrian friendly" retail and services as are found on Burlingame Avenue itself. b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result from the denial of the application. London Road is a hybrid business. It offers design services, custom printed materials, and on-site sales of design-oriented goods. A portion of London Road's sales are directed to commercial customers, so the business on site is not entirely "pedestrian-oriented" as required by the recent amendments to the Code. However, the hybrid use is appropriate for the ��pir �a I v E� 21759.00001 �BGLIB 1 \I 115410.1 SEP 1 1 2001 CITY OF BURLINGAME Drive setting and it may not be feasible to attract a completely "pedestrian-oriented" retail business, given the distance from Burlingame Avenue. c. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health safety, general welfare or convenience. All of the proposed uses on the property (retail, service, and office) are permitted uses in Subarea B. The proposed variance will have only minimal impact on the surrounding area. There is ample on-street parking on California Drive. The property includes a large storage space at the rear, with a garage door that opens onto Hatch Lane. The owners of London Road often park in this space. Although the Planning Commission felt that this space was not a legal on-site space (which would have satisfied the one space differential between the prior use and current mixed use), it can be considered a mitigating factor. d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? The proposed variance will not affect the exterior of the 247 California Drive property, so there is no impact on the appearance of the surrounding properties. The only effect on surrounding properties arises from the impact of having one less parking space than would be required by the Code formula. This impact is offset because London Road has significantly improved the property, benefiting the surrounding properties (which are also being updated). Respectfully Submitted, , �� , d ✓/ f ._. . _ Mark D. Hudak Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn 216 Park Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Attorneys for Applicant London Road Design 21759.00001 �BGLIB 1 U 115410.1 2 } t� '..r �'ity of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2001 4. 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE — ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B— APPLICATION FOR DETERMINATION OF USE (JAN HASEMAN, APPLICANT; BASIM AND L1NDA AZAR, PROPERTY OWNERS�_ C. Auran noted that he was listing agent for this site and must recuse himself. He stepped down from the dais. Reference staffreport, 7.23.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed general plan and zoning code as they apply, noted that either use being considered is allowed in Subarea B, however the change in use to office would require on site parking to current code requirements. Commission asked if staff knew when the applicant occupied this site, staff noted a building permit for electrical upgrade was issued in January 2001, perhaps the applicant has more information. Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Mark Hudack, attorney, 216 Park Road, and Jan Haseman, London Road Design,'represented the project. They noted that when Subarea B was drafted in 1980 things were different, today retail sales operates differently, the code should be flexible and not force uses into categories; this business is a hybrid operation they do $1 million in retail taxable sales, but they do not sell in the traditional "pedestrian oriented" way; they are also not asking to be located on Burlingame Avenue, they aze located next to an auto repair shop; hoping will find that they are a retail use so that they will not be required to find additional parking; debated the way staff had arrived at the parking requirement for the present use, contradiction in staff report one place says me7��nine is now in office use another it was retail; how mezzanine counted could affect parking requirement for future variance; discussed providing one on site parking space. Commission asked when this business occupied this space, applicant noted the end of January or first part of February 2001; how many clients walk in as opposed to having appointments, would like more walk-in but oriented to appointments. Commissioner did site inspection, this is not retail in traditional sense, no display area (did see a piece of office furniture and one picture on the wall for sale), no invitations or cards, what one would ask to purchase is not clear at the door. The work is done on the computer and customized for the client. Applicant noted work done recently for local businesses, and customized wedding invitation. Commission noted that the number of employees 8 to 10 indicates an office compared to number of employees at retail, why not be an office and ask for a pazking variance. Applicant responded cost of in lieu fee for additional parking is high and limit the options for the use of the property in the future, one must come up with a hardship on the property for a variance to be granted. There were no further comments from the floor. Commission comment: can not buy that this is retail, retail in this size space has fewer full time employees and more visitors, this bigger impact on parking because employees pazk all day, customers turn over during the day; prefer to see this as office and apply for parking variance; agree sounds as if this use is being forced into retail category, this location is appropriate for this proposed use; this proposed use does not meet the definition of retail, do not want to set a precedent for the future; how big would the parking variance be 1, 2, or 3 spaces. CP Monroe noted that it was unknown since staff needed plans to scale of interior use areas before and proposed not provided. The public hearing was closed. C. Luzuriaga moved tp determine that the proposed use does not constitute a retail sales use as defined in the code and finds that the use is an office use for the reasons stated during the public hearing; and directed that the applicant apply with in 30 days for a parking vaziance to support the office use. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion which deternuned the proposed use was an office use and directed the applicant to apply for a parking variance within 30 days. The motion passed on a 4 . �• City of l�urlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 23, 2001 5-0-1-1 (C. Auran abstaining, C. Bojues absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. 5. 1504 BERNAL AVENUE — ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION OR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECI��ING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FI T AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BARRY AND MONI EHLERS, APPLICANTS AND�ROP TY OWNERS; ANTHONY K. NGAI, R ference staff report, 7.2 O1, with attachment CP Monroe presen d the report, reviewed criteria and Pl ing Department com ents. Four co itions were suggested consideration. The ere no qu stions of staff. Ch 'rman Vistica opened the pu ic earing. Barry and Monica Ehlers prop y o ers, Anthony Ngai, arc tect, represented the project el addressed the 8 issues clearly on the revi d plans, did pop out and area 0. feet by 1 foot in dept n the orth elevation to add articulation, this ten beyond the declining heigh envelope; there �uvere o questions rom the commissioners or from floor. e public hearing was closed. C. Keig n co nded the applicant on the responsiveness to e commission's conce , feel that the declining eigh exception on the north elevati benefits the esign and moved approval f the revised project by r s ution with the following conditio • 1) that e project shall be built as shown n the plans submitted t e Planning Department date stampe uly 6, 2001, Sheets A1.0 through A5.2, site plan, floor pla an building elevations; 2) that any chang to the size or envelope of the second floo which would ' clude a ding or enlarging a dormer(s) or a ing the roof height or pitch, shall be sub ct to desig review; 3 that the conditions of the Ci ngine 's and Recycling Specialist's April 16, O1 me os shall be me • and 4) that the project sh meet all th requirements of the California Building F e Codes, 1998 e ition, as amended by e City of Burl game. The motion was seconded b . Dreiling. Chairman Vistica called r a voice v te on the motion to approve t design review and d ining height envelope special permit. e moti -passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Bojues ab nt) voice vote. peal procedures were advised. This item co clu d at 8:26 p.m. 6. 10 BE�VEDERE CQURT ONED R-1— APPLICATION FOR DESIG VIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTIO PE IT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND RY DECK ADDITION (RICHARD AND D RA BI NCHINA, APPLICANTS AND P PE Y OWNERS; JOHN Reference staff staff comment: outlining tree p4 �ort, 7.23.01, with at� Five conditions were �ction requirements, s Chairmar�J�istica opened the public hearing. � He asked how to get the trees evaluated, CP Mory material would be used ��in construction of the dec for both decks. There were no further comments , CP Monroe pre nted the report, re ' wed criteria and i for consider on. Commissioner ask about a study compliance uld be added to the conditio of approval. hard B' china, property owner, represented e project. e ted that he could call staff. Commission asked what , a licant noted a synthetic wood material would be used fro the floor and the public hearing was closed. � RECEIVED JUL 0 3 2001 m�o� 25' �,� ��n a N � .'I DOWNSTAIRS RESTROOM � STAIIiS UPwARDS Lower Level � � � 25' 0 Upper Level 25' RECEIVED JUL 1 3 ZU01 CITY OF BURLINGAS��E PLANNING DEPT. London Road Design 247 California Drive W w �� ciTv o� CITY OF BURLINGAME euRUNcnr�nE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD I, o�� e BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (G50) 558-7250 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Application for parking variance office use at 247 California Drive, l, Subarea B. (APN: 029-211-050) for an zoned C- PUB�IC HEARING NOTICE The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Monday, October 22, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed October 12, 2001 (Please refe�• to ntlter side) CITY OF B URLINGAME A copy of tlie applicaCi�n aiid plans for tl�isrprojcct;�nay be reviewed prior to the meeting at the;�,�lanning Depairtment at�'�501 Primrose Road, . �.,,. .. Burlingame, California. ° " If you challenge tlie subjecl application(s) in court, you may,;be limited to raising only �hose,issues you ar someone:else�raise�i at the,public hearing, described in the notice or,in wrttten conespondenceYieliver�d to the city r at or prior to the public hearing _ k; .'t, e' ,�';�"� ` •"g '�' � �;' <- ' t f. �; _.. -t Property o ers who receive this notice_are respo"'" n's�"�i�e,for i orming their tenants abo�t this; riotice: . For addtttonal information, ple�se call (650) 558-7250. Thank you. , � " ��.,,,, � �� M { � � �� as�,:a � � �` ' ��`'� � � f �� Margaret Monroe. _r, '' � .• ��9 ,,, City Planner �"�.�`, �`� �, -�=`� �. � , �� F � \�� PUBLIC�1=1Ei�AF31I�G1V�OTICE � �� (Please refer to other side) —� ,; 1. - . �...: , . .,�., _ . RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND A THREE-SPACE PARKING VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a three- space parking variance for a change in use from retail to office at 247 California Drive, zoned C-1 Subarea B, Basim and Linda Azar, property owner, APN: 029-211-050; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on 9ctober 22, 2001, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Construction or conversion of small structures; (b) construction or conversion of apartments, duplexes and similar structures, when not in conjunction with the building or conversion of two or more such structures. 2. Said parking variance is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such parking variance are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, Joseph Bojues, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 22nd day of ct r, 2001 , by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for parking variance 247 California Drivc effective November 5, 2001 1. that the office use on this premise shall conform to the pIans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 23, 2001 (two 11 x 17 sheets), that the retail portion of the business shall not exceed 497 SF, that the office portion of the business shall not exceed 3978 SF, and that the storage portion of the business shall not exceed 1283 SF; and that any storage space will only be used for the business on site; 2. that there shall be no more than 12 employees on site at any time, including the owner; 3. that the business may not be open for business except during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. during the weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. on weekends; 4. that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and rire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; 5. that any expansion of the office or retail areas within the premise shall require an application to the Planning Department and review by the Planning Commission; and 6. that this permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in one year (October, 2002) and upon complaint thereafter. O � 0 r � , v " _� �/ � �9 � J � L� Fl . � �n — N ZG15 ��ZO� , 53.51 E 5�2� 3� a� � ot O �o�. v, ,00� _o EAS P R� R. PARCE� I � �g � S� 812 -a�'3 CANE �------- ( Sg.E� �s, Z I O � Z � � I J ( � � oG�� J 'z � � J d �EST ��a � Q o � '�5� �W c, �a.�3 � :� _ -�� 'U5 I =�Z � N a �� N N � IQ � � � � J N � �' `' I J� — � O � �; `O 2�� m N � O '° �v � ,a�,�Gyz ,os ,�oi 25��' /R�VE `� � D �� ,os � ! . O2�► — 2�1 — O SO (V Z �c��p �e� A��F�RNIA ooz �.��d ONb'7H�/H a N r \�'C" ; C M,OE.Iy!V 2�� l..Q�t J4i i Z�,q1p8' ,SZ �SZI ,I� �'V6 I M o�.ivn 3 J a5' � O O � � o � I , �5 ,� � � � �� , W m O �' (�i � O. m S - O �� i" m \J m m "' m p v — `8 g9' � Q m s a d - �o Sj os � O'^ °' � - � I r ^ uVi V � ,OS oGl OS EE � '.b ,sZ x SZ = ,SZI � Jv ,e� ;- S9 0 .f377b' "�, N HJ1 t/H N :� N � � � ,o�, � ,� 5z .�s „ N „ r ,os oo� h � m � I ��-;� �� a � � j °� _ ' os � � �I � S' � � � '�' N � Z o m� ^� � d � � b� � � � � � � d h � "SE so � Z �'� m ` - — N O I b �� O� ,o� OO �� o � N OO O � �� ' 9 i .� .OS ,S9 a� SZ ep SZV ,os ,05 .SE I �_1—, N01b'07 � � '3� y � � N01cy07 � m� � OOZ 3 ,OE of7 S „ OS 59 ,OL `� .06 .nQ� v, ,08 �`�gJ,,ot �OS „ ,� ,� ,0 I w I .� o � I O� O-- o -- N— : OZ I i � I ,N J� I I O � O6 o co �nw� � � � �NrN � N rvb �� I I I I NI I \ ,C01 ' O �. I � r� i�� m ;m I I O � ... � I I^ I I I � W � � �v � � � I � -06 ---- � ►� � �o � I Q � �, I N I � m � � k\� _ � � � � m I I Q - � Q o p `' a ►- ',os I,os o i - -- , t _ �,;, CITY� 0\ CITY OF BURLINGAME . �14�`*`" ►��p- - PLANNING DEPARTMENT I BURLINGAFAE � ri01 f'RIMRC)SL� FiOAD �' ��,��;� � �URLINGAP.��. C;A ��4010 ''•\ �'� / - _ T;_ L . (:i.`;(;) ,`i::'c; dJ 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Appeal of a Planning Commission approval of an application for parking variance for an office use at 247 California Drive, zoned C-1, Subarea B. (APN: 029-211-050) The City of Burlingame City Council announces the following public hearing on Monday, December 3, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed November 21, 2001 (Please r-efc:r lo otherside) PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE �r CITY OF B URLINGAME A copy of the aPplication and plans�for this Project may be reviewed prior to the meeting at. the Planning Department at_' S01 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.' � If you challenge the subject applicati�n(s) in court�, you ma�be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing, described in the notice or �n w�iiten c�,ocrespondence�delivered to the city at or prior tb the public hearing ; ��'�� '�;� r �' � � � �� ^ { . - • � �:, f r': {[ f , � :. . �" �. r� 3 . . . . ..3 Property tenan�s 558-725 Margare City Pla (Please refer to other side) their (650) � RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND A THREE-SPACE PARKING VARIANCE RESOLVED by the CITY COLTNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for a three-space parkin� variance for a change in use from retail to office at 247 California Drive, zoned C- 1 Subarea B Basim and Linda Azar propertv owner, APN: 029-211-050; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on October 22, 2001, at which time said application was approved; WHEREAS, this matter was called up City Council and a hearing thereon held on December 3, 2001 , at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303 - Construction or conversion of small structures; (b) construction or conversion of apartments, duplexes and similaz structures, when not in conjunction with the building or conversion of two or more such structures. 2. Said parking variance is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such parking variance are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed zhat a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. ' MAYOR I, ANNE NIiJSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regulaz meeting of the City Council held on the 3�d day of December, 2001 , and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK i. i. . . .. .. .. EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for parking variance 247 CALIFORNIA llRIVE effective DECEMBER 3, 2001 tlie office use on this premise shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 23, 2001 (two 11 x 17 sheets), that the retail portion of the business shall not exceed 497 SF, that the office portion of the business shall not exceed 3,978 SF, and that the storage portion of the business shall not exceed 1,283 SF; and that any storage space will only be used for the business on site; 2. that there shall be no more than 12 employees on site at any time, including the owner; 3. that the business may not be open for business except during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. during the weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., noon, on weekends; 4, that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; 5. that any expansion of the office or retail areas within the premise shall require an application to the Planning Department and review by the Planning Commission; and 6. that this permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in one year (October, 2002) and upon complaint thereafter.