HomeMy WebLinkAbout247-251 California Drive - Staff ReportCity of Burlingame
Parking Variance for Change in Use From
Retail to Office
Item #
Study Calendar
Address: 247 California Drive Meeting Date: 9/24/O1
Request: Parking variance for three parking spaces for a change in use from retail to office.
Applicant: Jan Haseman
Property Owner: Basim and Linda Azar
General Plan: Service and special sales commercial
APN: 029-211-050
Lot Area: 2975 SF
Zoning: C-1, Subarea B, BACA
Previous Use: first floor and mezzanine used for retail sales; no parking provided on site
Proposed Use: first floor used for graphic design office with limited retail sales and at the rear of the
building and mezzanine used for office; no parking provided on site.
Allowable Use: Personal service, retail, and offce.
History: On July 23, 2001, the owner of London Road Design, Jan Haseman, rcquested 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 is an office use. The result of determining that London Road
Design is 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.
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 first floor and mezzanine in the building, generated a parking deficit
of 12 spaces. The retail use was existing and non-conforming in parking.
The 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 requiremcnt 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 space: 400 SF to office, 1 space: 300 SF).
PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
Use: office retail ---
(London Road Design) (Fat Cat Antiques)
Parking Variance 247 Calijornia Drive
PROPOSED EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
Parking: 0 * * 0 * 15
(deficit 15) (deficit 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 �
intensification of use from office to retail).
where 12 parking spaces are
spaces are required for the
Staff Comments: Planning staff would note that there is some debate about how the previous retail
tenant used this site. Based on a site inspection made by staff before the previous business closed, the
use for the site appeared to be 4198 SF retail and 1063 SF storage. The 12 space parking deficit
number is based on this inspection. Staff would also note that if any of the existing building were to
be used as permanent off-street parking, 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 adj acent to the area with fire rated walls as required by the Fire Department.
Erika Lewit
Zoning Technician
c: Jan Haseman
�
�r`, CiTY o� STAFF REPORT
BURI.INGAME
4� oe
0
�AwTEn vua �'•
To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE:
FROM:
NOVEMBER 27. 2001
CITY PLANNER
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE 12.3.01
�
i � � �In �t� . ����1�1 . l�
APPROVED
BY
strs.�cT: REVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO GRANT A PARIaNG
VARIANCE FOR A CHANGE IN USE FROM RETAIL TO OFFICE USE AT 247
CALIFORNIA DRIVE,ZONED C-1 SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE
COMMERICAL AREA.
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action should include findings for the
variance and should be taken by resolution. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record.
The Action alternatives and the criteria for granting a variance are included at the end of the staff report.
Conditions of approval recommended by the Planning Commission:
2
3
4
C�
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 offce portion ofthe 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 be used only for the business on
site;
that there shall be no more than 12 employees on site at any time, including the owner;
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. on weekends;
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;
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
that this permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its conditions in one year (October, 2002) and
upon complaint thereafter.
REVIEN� liF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO GIiANT A PARKING VARIANCE FOR A CHANGE IN
USE FROM RETAIL TO OFFICE I/SEAT 2-J7 CALIFORNIA DRIVE,ZONED C-1 SUBAREA B, B(IRLINGAMEAVENUE
COMMERICAL AREA. DECEMBER 3, 2001
Planning Commission Action
At their meeting on October 22, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 4-1-1-1 (C.
Bojues dissenting, C. Auran abstaining, C. Vistica absent) to grant a three space parking variance for a change
in use from retail sales to office on the site at 247 California Drive (in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial
Area) which has no on site parking. As a condition of approval the Commission extended beyond the
applicant's request the week day business hours to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. The Planning Commission did not
address the issue of requiring an in lieu fee for the three parking spaces not provided.
Commissioners in support noted: this tenant is a low impact business, there is not a high level of pedestrian
use in this area, the area is improperly laid out for pedestrian oriented retail use, the city, the land owner and
the tenant are stuck; this is a high traff'icked area, cars speed on California, this business does not have a lot of
pedestrian customers, there were none present on three different site inspections; 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 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 effect of the use over time;
orientation of the side street makes it difficult for people passing by to see the store fronts; location is near
parking in the CalTrain lot, city lot on California and other nearby city lots.
Commissioners in opposition noted: previous use was retail, the t� which London Road Design pays is not a
sales tax it is a t� required of corporate direct mailers, not the same meaning to the city; potential tenant
should see the city about code compliance before taking a lease, concerned that retail space is cheaper than
office space so office uses will squeeze out retail users, this is the real issue and this action would create a
precedence and is therefore a mistake; for a variance there must be exceptional circumstances associated with
the property, this was undisputedly a retail store, variances are required by the code, staff must require them; a
business based on computers can get a lot more people into space than other businesses so could expand a lot
with a greater parking impact, this parking variance will go with the property into the future, and cannot be
limited to a given tenant, this is a bad precedence.
BACKGROUND:
Jan Haseman, London Road Design, is proposing to use the entire building (5,261 SF) at 247 California Drive,
zoned C-1, Subarea B, Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area for an office use. The previous use of this
building was retail sales (Fat Cat Antiques). No parking is provided on site. A change of use from retail sales
to office in Subarea B requires that parking be provided on site or a variance be granted. The previous retail
use was nonconforming in parking and required 12 on site parking spaces (1:400 SF). The proposed office
use would require 15 parking spaces (1 space:300 SF). The applicant is being required to provide the
difference in parking between the previous nonconforming 12 spaces (not provided on site) and the current 15
parking spaces; or three parking spaces. The variance request is for three paxking spaces.
During the Planning Commission review of this project the applicant contended that at the time he purchased
the site and rented the retail space at 247 California Drive to Fat Cat Antiques the mezzanine area was used as
office space. In 1999 a member of the Planning staff was on the site and the mezzanine area was being used
as retail sales area. The uses used were 4198 SF of retail (first floor and mezzanine) and 1063 SF storage (first
REVIEW t7F THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO GRANT A PARKING VARIANCE FOR A CHANGE IN
USE FROM RETAIL TO OFFICE USEAT 2-l7 CALIFORNIA DRIVE,ZONED C-1 SUBAREA B, BURLINGAMEAVENUE
COMMERICAL AREA. DECEMBER 3, 2001
floor rear of the building). These facts became an issue since the applicant noted at the determination hearing
that if the Commission counted the mezzanine area as office space and included one off street parking space
in the storage area accessed off Hatch lane, only a one space parking variance would be required for using the
entire building as office.. In determining parking for a change in use, Planning Staff always uses the last
known use of areas within the building. In this case, the last observed use of the mezzanine by city staff was
as retail display/sales area; so the parking requirement was based on the square footage of uses proposed by
the applicant: 497 SF retail sales on the first floor; 3978 SF of office on first floor and mezzanine combined,
and 1283 SF of storage for the business on the site.
In the determination discussion of increase in the parking requirement, the applicant's representative also
discussed the possibility of parking a car in the storage area at the rear of the building to reduce this number to
one space. This storage area is accessed by a roll-up door from Hatch Lane. In later plans the applicant never
showed this storage area being used for parking. The Planning Commission staffreport (October 22, 2001)
points out 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 exists from the second floor through
and adjacent to the area with fire rated walls as required by the Fire Department. Condition number 4
addresses this. The use of the storage area to provide permanent off street parking was never included as an
off-set to the parking variance requirement.
History
This project was initiated as a code enforcement action with the graphics design studio claiming to be a
pedestrian oriented retail sales use, and therefore not a change in use from the previous retail antique store.
The applicant requested a determination on the classification (office or retail) of the graphic studio use . In
July Z001 the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the issue of whether a graphic studio is a retail
or office use and determined that it was an office use. (July 23, 2001 Planning Commission Minutes) While
office uses are permitted uses in Subarea B, the determination triggered application of the higher office
parking ratio (1:300SF) and the need for a three space parking variance because the zoning code requires
parking to code standards for any change in use in Subarea B. The applicant subsequently applied for the
parking variance.
City Policy Regarding In-Lieu Fees in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area
In Apri12000, as a part of reviewing and implementing the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Parking
Study (February 16, 2000), City Council adopted Resolution 48-2000 which establishes the city's policy
regarding in-lieu parking fees in the Burlingame Avenue Subareas A and B in connection with applications for
planning applications in variance cases. The property at 247 California Drive is located in Subarea B of the
Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area so is subject to this policy. The applicant is requesting to intensify the
use of a building from retail to ofFice use with no parking provided on site. The request requires a parking
variance for 3 parking spaces.
Resolution 48-2000 establishes the arnount of the in-lieu fee as $34,100 per parking space and lists criteria for
the Council to use in considering whether to allow a variance and to require an in lieu fee. The steps or
criteria to be considered are:
• Some planning applications made for development or intensity may require parking be
provided and the applicant may be unable to provide parking on site;
REi'IcW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO GRANT A PARKING VARIANCE FOR A CHANGE IN
USE FROM RETAIL TO OFFICE USEAT 2a7 CALIFORNIA DRIVE,ZONED C-1 SUBAREA B, BURLINGAMEAVENUE
CUMMERICAL AREA. DECEMBER 3, 2001
To better implement or encourage development in the area consist with community goais and
policies of contiguous pedestrian oriented retail sales, the City Council may wish to offer the
possibility of in lieu fees to a property owner or applicant seeking relief from parking
requirements;
• Any approval of the use of in lieu parking fees should only be used in connection with planning
applications that significantly advance the community's goal of enhancing the contiguous retail
and pedestrian environment of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area.
The policy establishes the standards for eligibility for consideration for an in lieu fee: intensification of a use
requires more parking that cannot be provided on site; the city wishes to encourage the proposed development
because it will support the character of the commercial area; and the in lieu fee should be used as a carrot for
projects which significantly support the community's development goals in the Burlingame Avenue area. If
all three tests are not met the project does not comply with the policy.
At the public hearing on this action there was considerable discussion about the uses within the tenant space
when it was in retail use. Prior to the retail business closing it was observed that the entire 5,261 SF was used
for merchandise display and retail sales. The applicant contends that this was a closing business sale and in
fact the mezzanine area had been used as an office for the business. In their presentation the present applicant
noted that they would divide the use of the space: 497 SF retail, 3978 SF office; and 1283 SF storage. It was
this proposed use of space which became the basis for calculating the 15 space parking requirement; and
which is reflected in the conditions of approval. When the applicant expressed concern about the size of the
parking variance, it was noted that the parking variance could be reduced by changing use of the areas within
the building and this would reduce the parking requirement; for example storage area could be increased
(parking requirement of 1:1000 SF).
The Planning Commission was concerned that dividing the tenant at 247 California space up in to different
uses would be difficult to enforce, particularly since the parking calculation was based on the division. The
Commission attached conditions which set out the square footage of each use, the number of employees and
the hours of operation. This type of condition is standard, imposed on many businesses with conditional use
permits in the city. The basis used in the proposed conditions came directly from application material
submitted to the Planning Department by the applicant. The only exception is the weekday hours of operation
which the Planning Commission increased from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. in order to allow
employees more time to deal with customers in different time zones. If this business should move, the
conditions of approval go with the property and another business which would agree to operate within these
same conditions ( of space allocation, number of employees and hours of operation) could locate on this site
without any additional city review. If the applicant's business is more successful than they expected and they
wish to add more employees or change their hours of operation to address foreign markets, they may do so by
applying for an amendment to the conditions of approval. Such amendment requests are common practice and
provide the city with the opportunity to review the impact of the operation and determine if the proposed
change will have an impact on the parking in the area.
ATTACHMENTS:
Action Alternatives and Requirements for Findings for a Variance
Monroe letter to Jan Haseman, November 14, 2001, setting appeal hearing
Planning Commission Minutes, October 22, 2001
Planning Commission Minutes, July 23, 2001
REVIEW (�F THE PLANNING COMMISSION .S DECISION TO GRANT A PARKING VARIANC E FOR A CHANGE IN
USE FROM RETAIL TO OFFICE USEAT 2-J7 CALIFORNIA DRIVE,ZONED C-1 SUBAREA B, BURLINGAMEAVENUE
COMMERICAL AREA. DECEMBER 3, 2001
City Council Resolution 48-2000, 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.
Planning Commission Staff Report, October 22, 2001 with attachments
Notice of Public Hearing, appeal, mailed November 21, 2001
Resolution
c
ACTION ALTERNATIVES
1. Cit}� council ma�� vote in favor of an applicant's request. If the action is a variance. use
permit, hillside area construction permit, fence exception, sign etception or exception 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 majorit�� of the Council members seated during the public hearing must
agree in order to pass an affirmative motion.
2. City Council may deny an applicant's requcst. The reasons for denial should be clearly
stated for the record.
City Council may� den�� a request «�ithout prcjudice. This action should be used ���hen the
application made to the Cit�� Council is not the same as that heard b�� thc 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 ��ould like additional information or additional design work
before acting on the project. Direction about additional information required to be given
to staff, applicant and Planning Commission/City Council for the further consideration
should be made ver}� clear. Council should also direct whether an`� subsequent hearing
should bc held before the City Council or the Plaaining Commission.
REQUIREMENTS FOR FINDINGS FOR A VARIANCE
(a) there are eYceptional or eYtraordinar�� circumstances or conditions applicable to the
propert}� involved that do not apply� generally to propert�� in the same district;
(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 propert�• 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;
(d) that thc use of the property ���ill be compatible with the aesthetics. mass, bulk and
character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinit��.
247 California Drive, December 3, 2001
,
�
�� CITY �
� �
BURLINGAME
e
�o qo
"A�T[n �u�[ 6.
The City of Burlingame
CITY HALL 501 PRDvIItOSE ROAD TEL: (650) 558-7250
PLANNING DEPARTMENT BiJRLINGAME, CAI.IFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650) 696-3790
November 14, 2001
Jan Haseman
1740 Lexington Avenue
San Mateo CA 94402
Dear Ms. Haseman ,
At the City Council meeting ofNovember 5, 2001, the Council called up your application for a
three-space pazking variance. This application was to allow the conversion of a retail space to
and office use at 247 California Drive, zoned C-1, Subarea B1. 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�cai,�..���
c: City Clerk
Cl/j� OiI3l!/�lll/�'7l)1C PI.'Ill/ll/l�' C011ll)]ISSJOII Minutes
l)r[oGer2`l, `1001
Department date stamped September 27, 2001, Sheets 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 er 1, 2001 memos shall
be met; 3) that�the 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 ndation 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 ped September 27, 2001, Shee G-1 and G-2, the project shall b eviewed by
the Planning Commission; a d 4) that the project shall meet a1� �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 �C�hair Keighran called for a ice vote on t11e motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.
Vistica �bsent). Appeal procedures we°Xe 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, properiy 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 which 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 detertnine 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
Crty ofl3mlif,g,v��e Plv» li�,g GDl�ll]]1S.SlOL Miuutcs
October `l `l, 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 variance 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 area 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
City of �13urlii�une Plvluiilg Cominrssion Minutes
October 22, `1001
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 BROADWA
AMENDMENT T�
RETAIL BUILDI
DESIGNER; BON
RUBEN HUR1N
Y B ZONED C-1, BRO WAY COMMERCIAL AREA B APPLICATION FOR
COMMERCIAL DESIG VIEW TO REMODEL AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL
(RAYMOND LEE, S,EAR DESIGN ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND
A A/LAMB PARTNERS LI1k1ITED, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER:
Reference staff report, 10.2 O1, with attachments. CP �1�Q,�onroe presented the report, re iewed criteria and
staff comments. Five conditi s were suggested for consicleration. 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 the backs
of the cashiers to the windows, causing s�rious operational security issU�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�l 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
E'�
.�!'ity ofBurlingame 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 LINDA 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 staff report, 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 a11 day, customers turn over during
the day; prefer to see this as office and apply for pazking 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 variance to support the office use. The motion was
seconded by C. Keighran.
Chauman 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 1�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 1' AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
(BARRY AND MONI EHLERS, APPLICANTS AND�ROP TY OWNERS; ANTHONY K. NGAI,
6.
R ference staff report, 7.2 Ol, 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 �vere o questions om the commissioners or from t 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 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 approve tli 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.
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 pi
1ort, 7.23.01, with at�
Five conditions were
;ction requirements, s�
Chairmar3J0�istica opened the public hearing. It�
He asked how to get the trees evaluated, CP Mon�
material would be used ��in construction of the dec
for both decks. There were no further comments
CP Monroe pre ented 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.
5
RESOLUTION NO. 4g-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 cunently 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 implernent or encourage development in the area consistent
with community goals and policies, the Planning Commission or the City Council may also wish to
offer this possibility to a property owner or applicant seeking relief from parking requirements; and
VVHER�AS, any approval ofthe use ofin-lieu parking fees should only be used in connection
with planning applications that significantly advance the community's goal of enhancing the
contiguous retail and pedestrian environment of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area; and
WHEREAS, any approval of th'e 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 incuned in such a parking improvement project show
PARHING IN-LIEU
FEES
0
that the cost ner additional parking space would be appro�cimately $ 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.
%�•�s�.C�' !l, • � �
Mayor
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk ofthe City ofBurlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting ofthe City Council held on the »th day of
Ap r i 1 , 2000, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COLTNCILNIEMBERS: COFFEY, GALL I GAN, JANNEY, SP I NELL I 0'MAHONY
NOES: COLTNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCII.MEMBERS: NONE
C�G-/1•ULL- �J- `��2-{�/
City Clerk
C:\W P51 �FILES�RESO�parkingfee.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
1. 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 determine 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 permit for the development project
is issued.
5. The parking in-lieu fee shall be in the following amount:
$ 34 ,� 0o per parking space
6. On May 1 of each year (hereinafter Adjustment Date), the approvable in-lieu fee shall b�
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 ofwhich 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 deternunes measures the increase and decrease
in the cost of living in the San Francisco-Oakland-San 7ose area.
PARII�NNG 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-LIEU
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 stalls 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
Total 340 spaces
$536,000
$1,822,000
Subtotal $2,358,000
Other Costs
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 & 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
$105,000
$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
Siab on Grade
Elevated Slab
Existing Lot J
Added Spaces
Slab on Grade
Elevated Slab
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.
Total
Subtotal
Other Costs
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 & 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 stall
9908 Cost Estimate 1.xls
75 spaces
137 spaces
212 spaces
$536,000
$911,000
$1,447, 000
$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
$30,000
$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
$75.56
$31,600
$48,900
4/6/005:31 PM
City of Burlingame
Parking Variance for Change in Use From
Retail to Office
It m
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 commercial 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:
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. There
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 Variance
247 California Drive
are a total of 9 employees on site and a maximum 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 offce 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
existing 12 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 offce 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.
�
Parking Variance 247 California 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 first floor and mezzanine in the building, generated a parking deficit
of 12 spaces. The retail use was existing and non-conforming in parking.
The 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 intensiiication 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).
PROPOSEll EXISTING ALLOWED/REQ'D
Use: office retail ---
(London Road Design) (Fat Cat Antiques)
Parking: 0 * * 0 * 15
(deficit 15) (deficit 12) 1 space : 300 SF for all
areas intensified from
office to retail use
* Existing non-conforming in parking (no on-site parking provided where 12 parking spaces are
required for a retail and storage use).
** Parking variance required (no on-site parking provided where 3 spaces are required for the
intensification of use from office to retail).
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;
Parking Yariance
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:
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 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'rstica called the September 24, 2001, regular meeting of the
Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m.
II. SEATING NEW COMMISSIONERS
Chairman Vistica welcomed Cers. Key and Mink. He noted that both Commissioners have served
previously on the Commission, for 8 and 25 years respectively, and thanked them for being willing to serve
on an interim basis to December 31, 2001.
III. ROLL CALL
�
IV. MINUTES
V.APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Vl. ,. I'ROM THE FLOOR
VI1
1.
STUDY ITEMS
Present: Commissioners Auran, Keighran, Key, Mink, Osterling and Vistica
Absent: Commissioner Bojues (arrived at 7:07 p.m.)
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Keylon;
City Attorney, Larry Anderson
The minutes of the September l0, 2001 meeting regular of the Planning
Commission were approved as mailed.
Item # 3, 1819 Montecito �ay, was continued to the October 9, 2001,
meeting at the request of the applicant. The agenda was then approved as
amended.
�
C. Bojues arrived. (at 7:07 p.m.)
There were rw public comments.
247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE ZONED Gl, 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 their 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
City of Burlingante Planning Commission Minutes
September 24, 2001
the previous rctail 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.
V111. ACTION 1TEMS
COnSCnt Cale[lda[' - Iten:s on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on sin:ultaneously unless
separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the
Conamissfon votes on the motion to adopt.
Chairman Vistica asked if any member of the commission or audience wanted to remove any item from
�he consent calendar. There were no requests.
2. 1424 BERNAL AVENUE ZONED R-1 APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE ALFREDO REYES,
STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JON AND KELLY MC GOVERN,
PROPERTY OWNERS�
C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, staff and
commission comments, the findings in the staff report and with the recommended conditions in the staff
report by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on
the motion to approve and it passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS
3. 1819 MONTECITO WAY - ZONED R-1 APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE
AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (BINEY
SAGOO, RYS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; NATUBHAI D. AND NARMADABEN
PATEL, PROPERTY OWNERS)CONTINUED TO TUESDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2001 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING
This item is continued at the request of the applicant.
4. 1�1 LOMA VISTA AVENUE ZONED R-1 APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT
AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (VINC$NT
AND DOREEN CAUCHI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; IBARRA ASSOCIATES.
DESIGNER�
Reference staff report, 9.24.01, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, revi.ewed criteria
and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Vincent Cauchi, property owner, represented the project. He
apologized for the incomplete plans and explained that he looked at various ways to alter the plans but a 12
sided turret that is over engineered, there did not seem to be many choices. Not irrtent to make turret higher,
�
CARR, MCCLELLAN, INGERSOLL, THOMPSON & HORN
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
MARK D. HUDAK
mhudak@cmithlaw.com
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
216 PARK ROAD, POST OFFICE BOX 513
BURLINGAME, CAL[FORNIA 9401 1-05 1 3
TELEPHONE (650) 342-9600
FACSIMILE (650) 342-7685
www.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:
RECEIVE�
OCT 1 5 2001
CITY OF BURLINGAMF
PLANNING DEPT
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 space 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
before the dividing walls were removed. Unquestionably, the mezzanine was an office use.
The Planning Departrnent 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.
RECEIVED
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
floor.
The second issue is the proper standards to be applied to London Road's use on the main
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 friendly" 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,
,� / �% i
; ' ' _ �! ��__.
Mark D. Hudak
MDH:Ijs
Enclosures
cc: London Road Design
Basim Azar
21759.00001 �BGLIB 1 \ 1119218.1
RECE►V�E�
ocr 15 200�
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DFPT
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.
, J �._.. _.
` asim ar
RECEIi�ED
OCT 1 5 2001
CITY OF BURLINGAMF
PLANNin�� nr�T
21759.00OOI�BGLIBIU 119215.1
RECEIVED
STATEMENT OF JAN HASEMAN 0 C T 1 5 2 0 01
IN SUPPORT OF VARIANCE APPLICATION
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DFPT
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 felt that this retail component was not "pedestrian friendly" 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 park 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 protruding from their installation area 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 l 19217.1
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 Hasem
Principail, ndon Road Design
RECEIVEd
OC7 1 5 2001
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT
21759.00001 �f3GLIB 1 \1119217.1 2
� ...._ _ .._ _ � �-�—..,...n___._.:_,_--- —
�---. �,.. - .. _ y,
��: . . �, =_ . � -_.�-----�--s..=._ ...-
---� _
�
��
r '�
D �
Z T
Z
zc
n �o
�r
� Z
� L�
--� D
�
�
0
n
�
�
cn
N
O
O
�i
�
rn
l /
�
�
�
��
r�
j,r, .
�
q
- r. �
;, � y
�
_ �. �. ..._.�sa:�._.. �.�.
c� �
r� � O T
�0 n 1'1
z T � �
z � ~, �
� � � i�
17r N �
r� z �
� � O !'�'�
�a r � �
� �,e
��_;�.. -_ - --
n
D � O
z � —1
z c° r—'
� � cn
� r �
� � O
� G� O
� �� _..
N
rn
�
�
�
�
��
�'f
..:.�%
ti
-- - �
�
�
�-
';� -
� , . . __.
1
r_ a ,
_._ _..� �, . _`~ �. A' ,�
_ A �,,. , '_. .. . .. Nk¢.. .
_ � i� �'�
'tu�*^ .. � ,
i
a�� � � :
. � � h'S{��f3. r .-, r....
��...�aa,... ». ,��,..... �., .. ,.s..
; � `:
. � �4t
j
0
� ..� .v_. ���iY.�
I�� � .
..k
y �'
; � � _
, . .s'.��i. �.fl�vC�tf!4F,
� � .,-...-._� . . _:',H�.ry�-.,.o�� -
�
. i �.
��t
�
�
A€
�` .
E�`°-`_` ;
t. � �
' ' ° f� "� '"` = �
r ,..
1 � d � `� �`
i
, ..�MJ�. �e� .,�� i�i�n� �����
. . �++. � � f.,F ".��. � �k' _-
�
. • � ..,a. � . '
. . � �.u.t.S,.�r>iss w :^ � 'F
_� �f P
i
� ` � �
tRe #. 4 ` � � � � � t
� � {� ��� 4 q�
� .}� 4
' . f 9• w��+ty� �R �:�� i * �' r
� �� � a . �' �` � �� r
j' + ? �� `''' fi 4�'
, j
$ T � t;�
t< i: .. � � � `��;
. �� � � ��'� ' ��+
. , ,
'. �, j I r� �
• �:
jU �' S �� ,
: ^4�. .,� � �.ri..
� ;1 7'Z:� . ,.
IZ :
f
�1 � .1 i
,��„ �'i` � e,�
� {
.�� rF„
.., �� : i: � ':.
+�. . .. . �t� � `.
ii ' �.� �
..i s> : . : �. � .
�
� � ;,:�s
� . _ , 3 .. .
� �� !
y `�� .,,
j rs
i y , ;'r .� ��
�: ', ;� , f .; �
� ', ... . . ,.: ��.,. �,. n-f : 1i s..�
� ` rl
. �ry:
t �� ' s4.
7 . F . � �III�N�'••!
r]
�' 1. �f t .. �:-...
� �i
ti
h'
�i H"'T-rtT+9 � f �
� j �
{ � �! i i� �Tsftl7i! ��fi �. Ft � i ,f 4 .
, , r�1`�� ,¢ �� s x f�€�����
+ 7 t�b3f � r� i � t' xiv e :� r� _,r: +
� 'trl's� �i � �.. t I� �6i�d ��'�r
F �1 t hn�n�� F�h�rr : 1� ���t ,*���i �'
�� 1� I .�� ak � f
� : i�S4�� lt � ' i �' i '�tl
� �� � . ry�'�
. �._ �,�. ..� _._.� _...,.., � . .. ..�:�i .
�
, . �����.���I .
. ..._. .L �v'✓�.-...A s...aricv�..�..., ...,e . ... �, ...... _. . _.
_, �
�,W'
. . . "'T" ..._ . . .-
;
� ,
� �.. .. ,
� .
n� +�' 1�4 i
u
,! }
. � � t f .s'�,�dy �� �.
. � , . . '�� � • �
:. � � � J . � : .,
� � . Y ,� ���*— � i
� ,� .� = ;
# 6� � a � - - — _.,, r
� � �: — '" � /
it —' �
'� `. ; - �y� �r�
! 1 +
� ' tr { . � FaY
�;.��
! � ' £ ��ir � �
�I . � �' • . $�' . ��� Kf � .
.�
j `F�-� "�b
� � � , .,�'y?r g �.
; .,
- � - ;� •�`""'."`�;i:t ..i '� :i � � "*'_`� !
, # � f .� �
, � ���t :�
�, � �� !- f= a �
; c, *:� � �: �. � - �
�,. ,.1 ;�_..�, � � ��
:��
i; � :� w � � y
t�I� � L�� ��"�'' 1 �`s�i
1 :,�, � , �� �
. . i �:_,.. ..
os ::'
� . 4
r
E ,I
j �::��. .+ ' ,
_, � .
� k. ��� �:
s�` z�` "!�'
4
. I _.. _—_ . .. . .
������
� +.v r � ��� .
f� t
,.
,
i S . 2tl
h;
� 1 yLJ .: k s ;�
� � �� � .. t ro- ,
; -�t'`�� �S� ,'�:
�� ,t� �
' ,� ,� z� ��t ��,���5
.i.�..6'"1,�.'�.r;� 4�.' �`� l, � ::
�,t
�
^<�
. -.,�,�.,_,�—�
.;il�L6s:�rw..,.- _..__.
ReCeived: 9/20/ 1 1�:25AM; Q50 696 3700 -> CARfl MCCLELLAN; Pape 2
Sent By: CITY OF BURLIN(3AME PLANNINO; 850 896 3790; Sep-20-01 10:39AM; Page 2/2
Cl7Y OF B[1R1.[NCAMB PLANNITVG DBPARI'MEtV!' S01 17tlMRpSg Rp,�D p(b,sp� SS8-7Zso F(650) 696.3790
- co�MERCIAi. ArpLICAT�Or� E C E I V E D
.,..4N� PLANNiNQ Cp�yT$$jON APPLICATION SUPPLEMENTAL FORM
} OCT 1 5 2001
CITY OF BURLINGAME
1. P1'OPOSCd 11SC Ufti10 S1te Desi n and itetail Sales PLANNING DEPT.
2. Days and hou� ofoperatio M-F S: 30-5 : 00 ;deekends 8: 00-12 : 00 (app .)
3. Number of trucks/service vehicles to be parkod 8t aite (by type rlone
4. Currcnt and ro'ected maximum number of em lo oes inclu ' owner at tbis tocation:
Existing In 2 Years In S Ycars
Hours of AM to After S:flO AM to After S:U(1 AM to Af%r S:QO
Operat�on pM PM PM PM PM PM
Weekdays
Fu11-tune 8 � 9-10 � 0 9-10 0
Part-time
1 0 1-2 0 1-2 0
Weekends
Fuil-timc 1 0 1 0 1 0
Part time �`
d 0 0 0 0 p
. G�rrent and
Hours of
Operation
Weekdays
Wcckends
ro'ected maximum nuenber of visitors/customcrs who ma come to the site:
Existing In 2 Years �n 5 Years
AM to After 5:00 AM to Aftcr S:UO AM to After 5:00
PM PM PM PM PM PM
2-3 0 3-4 0 3-4 0
5-10 0 5-10 0 5-10 0
6. What is thc maximum numbcr of �oplc expected on site at any ane timo (include owner,
employaes and visitorsJcus#omers): 1
7. Where ddwill the owner and cmployoes park7 ''� 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.
8. Where doJwil! the customers/visitors psuk? S t r e e t an d s ho r t- t e rm 1 o t s.
9. 1'resentormostreCetttuSeOfsit� Present - London F'.oad Design
10. List of other tenants on property, thoir numbcr of employcea, h�urs of oparation (attech list if
nocessary)
coN�,�c��c,.�
` -� � -�� �,� �-I _
� //4
���,-�Q� �,�.
CITti' OF BURL1NGAh1E PLANNING DF.PARTMF,NT �01 PRIM11ROSF'. ROAD P(6ip) ii�7�gp F(65p) 696-3790 tj , r}�-
A, c�.��>��
��� ciTr o.n .
BURIJNGAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
�F:�
'�,.
Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit Variance
Special Permit Other Parcel Number:
Project address: Z� I �N�l/r� `��� �1[il Y�
APPLICANT ' t�� PROPERTY OWNER
Nan�S� ��u�r� / � a�, r�� • Name:_ _f%trl�M � �`
A'ddress:�� r �-�!V ���� v��, �'
City/State/Zip:pU�1N�/7'�G� V� 'l��l�
Phone (w): ��'� • � ��
�h,: 6Sb • �iS�—�b11
(�� ��J����Z��
ARCHITECT/DESIGNF.R
Name:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone (w):
�h�� —
Address: � v''��1,C'O�V'� Y��-
City/State/Zip:���fil�'/E �`'L Z"� �
Phone (w);
(h):
(fl:
Please indicate with an asterisk *
the contact person for this project.
� . � � � � � �i1��il�.►.. '�� : � 1. . %� : �
' i_[ - �-���. .. � .,._�.
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the infoimation
given herein istrue and correct e best of my knowledge and belief.
Applicant� signature: Date: " � � �
I know about the proposed ap � ation and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this
application to the Planning Commission.
Property owncr§ signature: Dat,�/� _ �� �� /
RECEIVED �`�"��F�",
JUL 0 3 2001
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790
��� CITY 0�
BURLINGAME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
�'b,.
Type of application: Design Review.
Project address:
Special Permit
`� � �-(�l. � � �L U�
Conditional Use Permit Variance
Other Parcel Number:
.� v�
APPLICANT �NW�'N �o� ���I
Name��ol � ���i
Address: ��1%��,� �l�'�%Gl��
City/State/Zip: ��J�/l ��`�0 �--
Y11ViiC �w): ��`O��
(h). �5�� �J57� g0'j �
(�: � �� 5�' i zz-z
ARCHITECT/DESIGNER
Name:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Phone (w):
(h):
i��
PROPERTY OWNER
Name:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Ph�nP (;x�l•
i �•
(h):
c�:.
Please indicate with an asterisk *
the contact person for this project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ���!� �L,
AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information
given herein is true and corrcct to the b st of my knowledge and belief.
Applicant's signature: Date: �O 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:_
,
�' L �' Date submitted:
.��,,w, o � ` �.-1�
�� �� y� _, , ��or
P�q �!V%vG,vf�
T; �%;
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
retail/office use was 14 spaces. At the public hearing on the matter, the Planning Commission
favored the project but preferred 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 ��c�ir � I v E�
SEP 1 1 2001
21759.00001 �BGLIB 1\ l l I 5410.1
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PLANNING DEPT.
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,
_ � /j �� � , ��. �
�'w � ��/%- �''\ '
Mark D. Hudak
Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, Thompson & Horn
216 Park Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Attorneys for Applicant
London Road Design
21759.00001\BGLIBIU 115410.1 2
C�ty of fiurlingame 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 LINDA 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 staff report, 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 iind 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 a11 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 tg 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 variance to support the office use. The motion was
seconded by C. Keighran.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion which determined the proposed use was an off'ice
use and directed the applicant to apply for a parking variance within 30 days. The motion passed on a
4
City ofb'urlingame Planning Commission Minutes
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 DEC��IVING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FI T AND SECOND STORY ADDITION
(BARRY AND MONI�A EHLERS, APPLICANTS AND�ROP TY OWNERS; ANTHONY K. NGAI,
6
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,
arch 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 rth elevation to add articulation, this ten beyond the declining
heigh envelope; there �vere o questions om the commissioners or from t 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 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.
July 23, 2001
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.
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 pi
�ort, 7.23.01, with att
Five conditions were
�ction requirements, s
. CP Monroe pre ented the report, re ' wed criteria and
i for consider on. Commissioner ask about a study
compliance uld be added to the conditio of approval.
Chairman�J�istica opened the public hearing. 'chard B' china, property owner, represented t'l�e project.
He asked how to get the trees evaluated, CP Mo e ted that he could call 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.
�
�� �,
Nbh Barcn
�" Y1l 6WIf,N � SGI10.8mkuM
J �G�ao�E BariN
� P�CG�tl
� CLIENT MEETINGS �RE♦ Clr�
� F�CCW
CNv
hEEaC 9ar�N
v U
DOWNSTAIRS
RESTROOIA
�
NITCNENETTE
O F,� APE�
GooW
�L� ���
i �
a
3
a
STAIqS W W�RDS
I�;���
HP l50p
Cda l�aa�
�
li3l�nq�MWA I� 1NFNtlNo�O�pWN
NVItlO
1HpItl�K�d�MVM
xl'l�STi �E�
D�SPU� AREA
/�
(/
(
�
-...�/
�
� �
� CO SULTAT N
� AR
� �
/��,�
J <
1
�
S
COUDITERTOP
AND D�SPLAY AREA
�
DI PLAV ARE
CONS TATION
AREA
� �
DISPUYAREA ��
RECEIVED
JUL 0 3 2001
CITY Of BURLINGAME
25'
6ack Door
w„�ao..�
Work Bench
?
N
�
�
DOWNSTAIRS
RESTROOM
�
STAIRS UPWARDS
Lower Level
�
m
�.
/ 25'
/
�
�
0
Upper Level
25'
REC�IVED
JUL 1 3 1U01
CITY OF BURLINGA�.1E
PLANNING DEPT.
�
w
London Road Design
247 California Drive
r,�r�" ��T� �r, CITY OF BURUNGAME
euRUH�an�E PLANNING DEPARTMENT
� 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
o,��:-.- BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 558-7250
247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE
Application for parking variance
office use at 247 California Drive,
1, 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 rE��er to other sicic )
CITY nF BURLINGAME
A copy of Che application and plans for this projcct n�ay be reviewed prior
to the meeting at the Planning Department at 5p1 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California.
If you challengc the stihject application(s) in coLtrt, you may be limited to
raisiug only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city
at ��r prior to the public hearinb.
Property owners who receive this notice are responsible for informing their
tenants about this notice. For additional i��i'ormation, please call (650)
558-7250. Thank you.
Mar�arct Monroe .�i�l �'�=� ��,'�.'`: "=�"� "�,�/
����� -�'`_ �
City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Please rc fer to oihe�- sicic)
�
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 ubarea
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
October 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
hercto. 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 October, 2001 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
1
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for parking variance
247 California Drive
effective November 5, 2001
l. 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 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.
CITY
/�r� a�,\ CITY OF BURLINGAME
'-�- PLANNING DEPARTMENT
i 6URLINGAME 501 PR�MfiCSF_ ROAD
����� BURLINGAME. CA 94010
�
��-�-'—/` TCL: (350) 55£: ,.,,50
. c
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. (AYN: 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 IIall Council Chambers located at
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California.
Mailed November 21, 2001
(Plense r�%��r to othc�i• side)
PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE �
CITY OF B URLINGAME
A copy of the application and plans for this project may be reviewed prior
to the mecting at the Plailtiin�� Deparhnent at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California. �
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, yot� may�be limiCed to
raisin� only those issues you or someone else raised at tlle public hearing,
described in the notice oc in written con'espondence delivered to the city
at or prior to the public hearing. �� � � � °
Property owners who receive this notice are resporisible far informing their
tenants about this notice. For additional information, ple-ase call (650)
558-7250. Thank you.
.��� � ` , .�� � ;
Margaret Monroe ������ ��
City Planner
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Pleasc� rc�fe�- to other side)
_�.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
AND A THREE-SPACE PARKING VARIANCE
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL 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 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 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. '
MAYOR
I, ANNE MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3`d day of December,
2001 , and adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COLJNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COLTNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
I_ . . .
EXHIBIT "A"
Conditions of approval for parking variance
247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE
effective DECEMBER 3, 2001
t�ie 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.