2003-0947 – Vimal Kumar [Appellant]: Appeal of a decision by the Administrative Hearing Officer approving a Use Permit to allow a restaurant in an existing commercial building (formerly Michael’s Restaurant).  The property is located at 803 E. El Camino Real in a C-2 (Highway Business) Zoning District.  (APNs: 211-25-002 and 003) KD

Kelly Diekmann, Project Planner presented the staff report. He noted that the appeal was on the parking calculation methodology used by staff.  He explained that the standard sit-down restaurant methodology was used where the parking ratio of 1/110 square feet for a restaurant use. He noted that the gross floor area includes the sitting room, kitchen and service areas and the basement being used as office storage resulting in a parking demand of 104 spaces. He reported that one of the approved Conditions of Approval requires that a driveway needs to be closed resulting in two additional parking spaces bringing the total provided spaces to 205.  He noted that the parking demand for the nearby hotel is 98 (96 units plus two employees on site) with a combine parking demand for the project site of 203 where 205 would be provided. He stated that the appellant asked that the parking analysis and ratios be re-evaluated using only the ground floor since the basement would not be used as part of the restaurant, banquet or any sitting area.  Staff reported that the applicant’s approach would be inconsistent with how the parking ratios are applied to all types of uses in the City.  Staff recommended that the Planning Commission deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Administrative Hearing Officer using the parking ratio of 1/110 square feet for an 11, 396 square-foot building.

Comm. Klein commented that he was unable to determine where the 197 square feet addition would be and he asked staff why there is an increase in the required setback. Staff stated that the addition is at the ground floor and the setback requirement is changing because the existing restaurant has a covered entrance projecting farther out to the parking lot that would be removed. As a result, an increased setback of 55 feet from 35 feet is achieved.

Comm. Klein further asked staff whether the setback would change at the west property line.  Staff responded that the addition fills in a small corner of the existing building with no effect to the west side setback.

Comm. Hungerford asked staff whether there were any precedent where the Use Permit is granted only for the ground floor and that the basement would only be used for storage and if so, was it difficult to enforce. Ms. Ryan responded that no Use Permit was ever issued that is parallel to the application.  However, she commented that it is consistent for restaurant to have combination of space, kitchen, dining, lobby, office and storage. This particular application is divided where the storage and office is at below grade and the kitchen and dining area is at grade level.  She noted that the reason the below grade level cannot be used for dining is because it needs to comply with the State’s accessibility requirements.   An elevator would need to be installed and if so, then there would be an opportunity to use the space for other restaurant use.

Further, Comm. Hungerford asked staff if there is a connection between landscaping and extra parking spaces. Staff responded that because one of the driveways is being closed, there was an opportunity to add the required landscaping and add two parking spaces.

Vice Chair Moylan clarified with staff whether one owner owns the two parcels with one of the parcel being triangular in shape while the other has all the buildings and asked staff what is the total required parking.  Staff responded that the appellant owns the two parcels and confirmed Vice Chair Moylan’s assessment of the shape and character of the parcels.  He added that the appellant’s method of parking calculation did not include the basement.  Staff explained that if most streamlined parking ratio is used, the required parking would be 162 plus 18 for commercial storage totaling 180 spaces resulting in a parking deficiency of 22 spaces.

Vice Chair Moylan asked why the driveway has to be removed.  Staff responded that it is a city requirement for safety reasons.

Further, Vice Chair Moylan asked staff whether the size required for the impervious surface area is the maximum.  Staff responded that the size is the threshold and when a development crosses this threshold, the project is subject to meet the impervious surface requirements such as implementing stormwater control measures. 

Furthermore, Vice Chair Moylan asked whether it would be a good trade off for parking with permeable surface to advance the goals of the General Plan.  Staff responded that if the 22 parking spaces are taken away there would be impact to adjacent properties. 

Chair Babcock asked staff whether the Use Permit could be transferred if the type of restaurant service is changed from buffet to sit down.  Staff responded that the Use Permit can be transferred as long as the use is consistent with the definition of a restaurant and not classified as a fast food restaurant or a bar.  However, the project would still be subject to the same parking requirement. 

Further, Chair Babcock asked whether the application would be subject to Planning Commission review.  Staff responded as long as the permit is exercised within the time limit as conditioned.

Chair Babcock opened the public hearing.

Vimal Kumar, appellant, commented that he owns the two parcels and that the former restaurant, Michaels, used the basement as banquet facility.  He felt that the parking requirement is excessive. He modified his request from 64 to 82 parking spaces.  He requested that the basement should not be included in the total square footage of the building.  He agreed that the current use complies with the required parking.  However, he stated that he is more concerned about potential future redevelopment of the site because of its lot size, the setback requirements and landscaping. 

Vice Chair Moylan asked the appellant whether he is asking for 10% lower that is 180 parking spaces and commented that the site is already meeting the required 203 parking requirement.  Mr. Kumar responded yes and understands that the approved project already meets the required parking.  However, he was more concerned for future redevelopment of the site.  He stated that it would be difficult to market site with the excess parking requirements and requested to have 82 spaces instead which would be more reasonable.

Vice Chair Moylan clarified with the appellant whether he is asking for a Variance or a Use Permit.  Mr. Kumar responded that the Use Permit has been granted but he is appealing the total parking requirements.

Staff commented that the action before the Commission is an appeal on the methodology of the parking calculation of the approved Use Permit and if the Commission denies the appeal, the appellant could apply for a Variance.

Chair Babcock closed the public hearing.

Comm. Hungerford commented that the formula and methodology used is consistent when evaluating similar applications and supported staff’s recommendation.  

Comm. Klein concurred with Comm. Hungerford and that it is important to retain consistency.  He commented that if there is no consistency in the process, there would be continuous evaluation of parking permits for every restaurant that changes certain percentage.

Vice Chair Moylan commented that the appellant recognizes the unusual aspects of the parcels and suggested that the appellant could apply for a Variance for the parking spaces he deemed appropriate.

Chair Babcock supported the motion.

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