PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED MINUTES OF 12/15/03

 2003-0850 – Indian Community Center [Applicant] Richard T. Peery Trustee [Owner] – Application for a Use Permit on a 1.34 acre site to allow the interim use of a neighborhood Indian community center for three years within a portion of an existing industrial building.  The property is located at 285 North Wolfe Road in an M-S (Industrial & Service) Zoning District. (APN: 205-32-008) (Negative Declaration) EW

Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, presented the staff report. She summarized the application noting that one fourth of the building is being proposed to be used as an Indian Community Center.  She stated that the applicant expects a maximum of 40 users during weekdays and 60 on weekends with programs such as referral and education serving senior citizens and youth. Because it is only for three years, staff felt that there is less concern with the intrusion of non-industrial use into an industrial neighborhood. She stated that the site would work despite insufficient parking noting that the applicant has been working with the neighbors in identifying locations in the vicinity to be used for additional parking. Staff recommended that a parking agreement should be formalized to clearly identify permanent parking availability for the facility. Staff also recommended a ride share car pool to reduce the peak vehicle trips to the site.  Staff was able to make the required Findings and recommended approval of the Use Permit for a period of three years and the off-site parking with agreements.

Vice Chair Moylan asked staff to clarify the intended use.  Ms. Ryan responded that the application is for a community center use and not a church use.

Chair Babcock expressed concerns about allowing non-industrial uses in the industrial zoning which may not necessarily be compatible with other industrial uses.  She asked staff as to what degree of limitation for expansion or changes would the existing industrial uses in industrial neighborhood be subjected to with the presence of such non-industrial uses.  Ms. Ryan responded that industrial uses would be subjected to comply with all standards and regulations, which may create additional costs such insurance and additional reporting requirements. She explained the review process for non-industrial uses in industrial neighborhoods.  She added that the application is only for three years; therefore generating less concerns from staff.

Chair Babcock opened the public hearing.

Mangala Kumar, applicant, stated that group has similar facility in Milpitas and Santa Clara. She provided an overview of the Indio American seniors' needs such as dietary and social mobility. She noted that the group is non-religious, non-political and that one of its goals is to provide a home away from home. She stated that one of the reasons the group wants to move to Sunnyvale is because 11% of the population is Indio American and that there is space available that meets the Center's criteria.  She added that their group has been invited by the City Council to relocate to Sunnyvale. Further, she added that 90-95% of the members do not drive; therefore, there would be no parking issues. She urged the Commission to approve their application. 

Vice Chair Moylan asked the speaker to explain the reluctance in obtaining a written agreement related to parking as expressed in the letter included in the staff report.  Ms. Kumar responded that there would probably be no issue in obtaining a written agreement since a verbal agreement has been obtained and felt that a written agreement is no longer necessary.

Anu Natrajan, one of the volunteers for the Community Center, expanded on the comment stating that the reluctance is the recordation of the parking agreement with the County Clerk.  The property owners are reluctant to put a restriction on their property because of changes in the nature of tenancy.  She stated that the property owner advised them to obtain oral agreements with the tenants, which the Center did.

Comm. Simons asked staff whether the agreement has to be between the property owners and the center.  Ms. Ryan responded that it depends on the nature of the lease contract and whether tenants are given the rights to negotiate such agreements. Ms. Ryan stated that the reason to require a parking agreement to be recorded is to assure that there is sufficient parking for the three years that the center would be there.

Comm. Hungerford asked Ms. Natrajan if they have explored other sites other than industrial neighborhoods.  Ms. Natrajan responded that they have conducted an extensive search including commercial and retail but did not find a site that meets their criteria.  She stated that one of their criteria is to have site that is near public transit because it will encourage the members of the Center to use public transportation.  She added that they have tailored the schedule of their classes to match the traffic pattern with the parking availability on site.  She further added that they are asking for a three-year permit until they find a permanent home for the Center in Sunnyvale.

Comm. Hungerford further asked if the Center is investing in improvements to the building.  Ms. Natrajan responded not much investment but rather putting up a wall to divide the multipurpose room.

Anu Natrajan, member of the Center, thanked the project planner for her support and patience. She stated that they will continue to work with staff as they want the project to be a model center and be successful.  She urged the Commission to delete the last sentence of Conditions of Approval #6.

Pradeep Joshi, one of the founding members of the Center, stated that he appreciates the cultural diversity of the City.  He stated that the Center has been looking for a site for three years and that the City Council has encouraged them to move to Sunnyvale.  He assured the Commission that the Center would be a good neighbor and will comply with the conditions of approval and code regulations and that the Center would not be an embarrassment to the City.  He also urged the Commission to modify Condition of Approval #6.

Michael Chidaybaray, member of the Center, stated that they have conducted an extensive search for a facility. He stated that finding a site that is close to transit that is within their price range was very difficult.  Retail sites are three times the industrial building charges. He elaborated on the lease agreement that tenants were given exclusive rights to negotiate parking agreements.

Vice Chair Moylan commented that there should be no issue in recording the parking agreement if the tenant has been granted such authority. 

Vice Chair Moylan asked the speaker if there has been any conversation with property owners about this recordation requirement.  Mr. Chidaybaray responded most of the owners are unwilling to agree on the recordation as it could potentially limit their ability to use the space in the future.

Narendra Pathak, resident, complimented the Commission of their performance and staff support of their application. He stated that Sunnyvale is the prime location for the Indio American Community. Further, he stated that members who are senior citizens will be using the public transportation since they do not drive.  He urged the Commission to modify Condition of Approval #6.

Talat Hasan, Chair of the Board of Trustees for the Center, thanked the Planning Commission and staff.  She provided the Commission the schedule of classes and activities and the maximum number of members that could potentially be on site at one time. She assured the Commission that there would be no parking issue and that they are willing to work with staff and will abide with the Conditions of Approval.

Comm. Simons asked Ms. Hasan if she had considered alternatives to address the parking concerns that would enforce and ensure that there is adequate parking without obtaining a parking agreement. Ms. Hasan responded that the Commission could grant the permit and have staff monitor or audit the center periodically or require some kind of reporting mechanism.

Comm. Simons asked staff whether there is any workable solution that is not onerous to staff.  Chair Babcock assisted Comm. Simons and asked staff whether Transportation Demand Management were ever discussed with the applicant.  Ms. Ryan responded yes to both questions and agreed that Transportation Demand Program and parking must work together.  She suggested a condition requiring TDM and an agreement for an alternative transportation to the site. 

Comm. Hungerford asked staff if it is appropriate to have a condition to require an members arriving to use public transportation or is it better to have a recorded parking agreement.  Ms. Ryan responded that a condition could be crafted to require Transportation Demand Management balancing access and ensuring parking adequacy to be reviewed every six months for assurance and compliance.  Ms. Ryan also suggested requiring a periodic information report to the City.

Ms. Stala stated that there are only three drivers of the 56 members.  She agreed that a Transportation Demand Management would work better.

Datta Nadkarni, Executive Director of the Center, explained a typical behavior of the senior citizens.  He stated that although some of the members drive in their homeland, they are uncomfortable driving here in the City.  They prefer taking public transportation. He assured the Commission that there would no parking issues as members are mostly seniors whom do not drive.

Chair Babcock closed the public hearing.

Comm. Simons offered a friendly amendment that the TDM shall be reviewed every six months.  The amendment was accepted.

Vice Chair Moylan commented that he was able to make the required Findings. He concurred with Chair Babcock about the concerns on non-industrial use creating possible restriction to existing industrial users; however, he felt that the presence of the Community Center is less a concern than the housing units nearby. Further, he was pleased that a Fire Station nearby will help mitigate some safety concerns.

Comm. Simons was pleased that approval of this Use Permit is on a trial basis, which is unusual, allowing the Commission an opportunity to review the performance of the Center after two years.

Comm. Hungerford supported the motion.  He commented that there is an evolution of non-industrial uses in industrial neighborhoods, which concerns him; however, he was pleased that the Use Permit is on a temporary basis with an opportunity to review after two years. He cautioned the Commission that approval of non-industrial uses is changing the character of this industrial neighborhood. 

Chair Babcock concurred with Comm. Hungerford's concerns and wondered if approval of this non-industrial uses is restricting existing industrial uses. She was also pleased that the Use Permit is only on a temporary basis allowing flexibility.  She was also pleased that the applicant demonstrated genuine concerns and eagerness to work with the community and staff.  She commented that it is very interesting to see a TDM Program condition on a senior center.

FINAL MOTION:

Ms. Ryan stated that the decision is final unless appealed to City Council within the 15-day appeal period.