2004-0918 – SABA Inc. [Applicant] James S and Sallry K. Lindsey Et Al [Owner]: Application for a Use Permit on a 3-acre site to allow a new community center within a portion of an existing industrial building.  The property is located at 1213 Elko Drive in an M-S (Industrial & Service) Zoning District. (APN: 104-32-029) (Negative Declaration) GC (Continued from January 10, 2005)

Gerri Caruso, Project Planner, presented the staff report.  She summarized the subject application by highlighting the use and site layout of the application and noted related issues.  Staff recommended approval of the Use Permit subject to the following conditions: payment of the City’s traffic mitigation fee, installation of a sidewalk, an arrangement for shared parking agreements, and a three year permit period for the community center.  Staff believed that based on the conditions the compatibility issues have been addressed and therefore recommended approval of the Use Permit subject to the Findings and the Conditions of Approval recommended by staff.

Comm. Simons referred to Condition of Approval #8, regarding the VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines, and commented that he believed that the ratios were not compliant and submitted an updated diagram with percentages to staff. 

Vice Chair Hungerford asked staff if there was a condition stating when operations would begin. Staff responded that a condition of peak hours of use was left out and stated that the applicant’s primary use will be on the weekends and evenings. 

Comm. Sulser asked staff if the manufacturing companies which surround the proposed community center had the traditional 8-5 business hours or if the hours where multiple shifts.  Staff responded that she was not aware of what the hours where for the surrounding lots but the tenants that share the building and parking area are primarily there during standard business hours.  Staff added that it did not mean that a use could not go in at any time and operate on a 24 hours basis.  Staff further stated that the applicant has indicated that they would like to purchase the building and they would have some control with what hours they operate. 

Comm. Sulser commented that he was more concerned with potential parking in the neighborhood and the shared parking arrangements.  Staff stated that the share parking arrangement has not been explored yet. 

Chair Moylan clarified with staff that if the application were to be approved with the recommended conditions it would be incumbent on the applicant to get the shared parking agreement.  He added that if all the neighboring properties were currently running three shifts and there was no parking, the permit would not be granted.  Staff agreed and stated that if a current property owner does not want to take the risk of tying up the property for potential future tenants that may also prevent them from getting the agreements also.              

Comm. Klein asked staff for clarification regarding parking for the office staff and possible small activities during the weekday hours.  Staff stated that she did not want to limit the applicant too restrictively because primarily activities will be on the weekends and evenings. Comm. Klein expressed concerns due to the parking issues on the site. Staff offered to craft a condition to that effect.   

Comm. Klein then asked staff how R&D would be accessing their trash enclosure.  He also asked if they would have to wheel their garbage around the property to the back enclosure. Staff responded that they may have to carry it to the back. Comm. Klein stated that it worried him how that issue is being handled on the property. 

Comm. Babcock commented on the compatibility of industrial uses and asked staff what is observed when determining if a certain use will not reduce the potential of surrounding uses.  Staff responded that they do not do a site by site analysis of the surrounding buildings because someone could go in there and operate by right at any time. 

Comm. Babcock then asked staff if there would be no restriction on the other tenant in the same building as to their hours of operation.  Staff responded that two potential scenarios were given in the study and it was assumed that the tenants would operate standard business hours.

Comm. Babcock noted that she visited the site during the weekend and also during regular business hours and noticed that the parking lot was 80% full but the streets around the site were completely full with cars.  Comm. Babcock asked staff if this area normally had a parking shortage.  Staff responded that when she did a site visit she did not see cars parked along the street on Elko Drive or either of the side streets. 

Comm. Moylan made public a question asked by e-mail if it would be reasonable, if the application were approved, to link the condition of the required extra parking with the sidewalk and staff replied that it was permissible.

Chair Moylan opened the public hearing.

Akber Kazmi, applicant, thanked the Planning Commission for the opportunity to explain and present their project.  He also thanked staff for their help in developing their project and developing their support.  Mr. Kazmi listed the benefits of the community center to the City of Sunnyvale.  He stated that the community center would provide families and youth a place to get together and do constructive activities. He also stated that there would be opportunities to attend computer classes, career classes, and counseling would be offered relating to family and young.  Mr. Kazmi then stated that the community center is open to everyone as well as outside citizens who might help the City’s economy as well as revenue spent in the City.  He then thanked planning staff for recommending approval of the permit but he stated that he did not communicate to staff clearly what the intended use would be.  He then noted that the whole area of the community center would not be used simultaneously.  He referred to the floor plan in the report and stated that they will use the meeting room and dinning room one after the other.  He highlighted that because the whole building will not be used at the same time the parking requirement should be reduced.  He then referred to the recommendation of the permit for three years and stated that they are non-profit organization and they would be purchasing the property and would like to stay in Sunnyvale for a very long time.  However, he stated that if the permit is granted for three years and the permit in not renewed it would be disastrous for them since they purchased the building and would have made many improvements.  Mr. Kazmi asked the Commission to remove Condition of Approval #1B and #7A.  He also stated that he would be happy to work with the Planning Division to put together a plan where public transportation can be utilized if the Planning Division determined they need additional parking spaces. 

Comm. Simons thanked Mr. Kazmi for attending the public hearing.  He then spoke about the exceptions the applicant was proposing and asked Mr. Kazmi if he could specifically talk about how the application could be conditioned to give the use the match that he is requesting. Mr. Kazmi suggested conditioning the application to state that with change of ownership the application would be cancelled and work out a plan with the Planning Division to see how they can utilize public transportation so people do not have to use their cars.  He explained the reasons for moving into Sunnyvale and stated that typically people will carpool when coming to the community center.  Mr. Kazmi then suggested wording one of the conditions to limit the number of people attending the meetings. 

Comm. Simons stated that perhaps the applicant was speaking about engaging in a Transportation Demand Management Program and asked to hear a comment from staff later in the hearing.

Chair Moylan asked Mr. Kazmi what “SHIA” was and what constitutes a member of SABA.  Mr. Kazmi stated that it was an ethnic group of Muslim belief and gave a brief explanation. 

Comm. Moylan further asked if it was a religious community.  Mr. Kazmi responded that it was more of a community that shares common beliefs and culture. 

Comm. Moylan asked Mr. Kazmi if it was necessary to be part of the community in order to attend the community center.  Mr. Kazmi responded that there are certain requirements that need to be met to be a member but attending the meetings are open to the public.             

Comm. Moylan further asked Mr. Kazmi how often, in the San Jose community center, non-members attend.  Mr. Kazmi responded that a lot of people from a neighboring church in San Jose often show up. 

Comm. Moylan clarified with Mr. Kazmi that the application shows that he is a tenant of the building but not an owner.  Mr. Kazmi stated that they have a contract with the owner of the property stating that they will purchase the building contingent upon the approval of the Use Permit. 

Harriet Rowe, member of the public, stated that she keeps seeing people asking for the industrial areas to be used other than industrial purposes.  She referred to page 8 of 10 in the staff report and stated that she had some concerns with the second paragraph under staff discussion.  She referred to the review of appropriateness for places of assembly in the industrial areas which the City Council will be reviewing and suggested waiting until the review was over to make any decisions on giving the applicant a 3 year permit.  She then referred to the first Finding in Attachment A and stated that she had concerns with it.  She added that she would not have a problem with the Commission granting the 3 year permit with the understanding that after the review they might be asked to leave. 

Akber Kazmi, applicant, pointed out that because of the economic situation there are a lot of areas in the City that are empty and not utilized and therefore are not bringing in taxes or revenue to the City. He stated that if the properties were converted to multi-purpose use it would be beneficial for the City’s long term.      

Chair Moylan spoke about the study the City Council will be reviewing regarding places of assembly in industrial areas and asked Mr. Kazmi if he would accept a Condition of Approval which states that the maximum amount of people using the facility at any given point is 200.  Mr. Kazmi stated that he would agree to that condition. 

Chair Moylan noted that the parking requirement is unrelated to which rooms the users are in at one time. Mr. Kazmi stated that he understood that requirement.

Chair Moylan closed the public hearing. 

Comm. Simons asked staff if the were any responses regarding condition 8A, a potential TDM program, and ownership transfer and limiting the use to the owner. Staff stated that it is possible to craft a condition about a TDM program similar to the one the India Community has and stated that it is very limited as to what they can do and explained briefly.

Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, added that if the Commission was inclined to recommend a TDM program she would think of that as a tool that the tenant would utilize to help them not use as many parking spaces.  She added that there is not enough information to see what they are trying to achieve.  Ms. Ryan stated that they could monitor on their own to see how effective they are being in making sure members and attendees are carpooling or using alternate transportation.

Staff stated that a condition could be crafted to limit the times that the community center is used and also add a condition that the assembly area can not be used simulataneously with classrooms in training. 

Staff then referred to the bicycle parking brochure submitted by Comm. Simons and stated that it appears to be one Class I and 13 Class II spaces and stated that the condition can read that they be consistent with VTA standards. 

Comm. Babcock asked staff why parking requirements were tied to square footage of building and not number of people in the building.  Staff stated that in some cases it is tied to square footage but in some places like schools it is tied to the number of adults they have.

Chair Moylan asked staff if the condition to add one sidewalk was still appropriate.  Staff stated that there is no control over if the applicant becomes an owner or not so the amount of square footage that they were changing in the building was looked at.  Staff also stated that in most cases buildings do not have three frontages like the current building and therefore looked for the best opportunity to do something that seemed a fair amount of sidewalk.  Staff added that the Elko frontage was a good solution because it connected to an existing sidewalk down the street and it improved the sidewalk system in the area. 

Chair Moylan then asked if a new Use Permit would be required if the current tenant became the new owner and then wanted to change the use of the rest of the building. Staff responded yes.

Comm. Babcock stated that she did not have any doubt that the group would make a wonderful addition to Sunnyvale but she felt that it would be a huge mistake to allow those types of uses in an industrial area.  She stated that it severely limits and prohibits certain types of uses in the vicinity.  She added that the parking deficiency for the application is a huge shortage. Comm. Babcock stated that she would prefer to wait until the Study Issue comes forward. 

Vice Chair Hungerford stated that he is concerned about people using the building especially when youth are involved.  He stated that during his site visit he noticed that the adjacent building has tanks of hazardous substances and staging areas for the hazardous waste.  He stated that it was an active industrial area with a lot of hazardous chemicals in the area and felt that the use was incompatible with putting a place of assembly right next to it.  Vice Chair Hungerford added that the delivery of chemicals to the tanks often occur during off-hours because they do not want trucks of ammonia on site during rush hour.  He stated that it was perfectly permitted to have those uses there and that is why it is an industrial area.  He felt it bothersome to put a place of assembly there. 

Chair Moylan asked Vice Chair Hungerford to clarify where he saw the hazardous tanks.  Vice Chair Hungerford responded that it was in the back of the building. 

Comm. Simons supported the motion and stated that he understood the issues presented by the maker and the second of the motion.  He then presented a new concern which included conditioning a proposal for a three year use when there is a purchase involved and include such a significant investment. 

Comm. Klein supported the motion and stated that he was also concerned with the issues brought up relating to the hazardous tanks and is worried about parking in general.  He hoped that the applicant could find another location that is closer to residential areas and more hospitable in Sunnyvale. 

Comm. Sulser supported the motion and agreed with a lot of what the Commission said and stated that there is a lot to like about the project and hopes to see it again in a different location.

Chair Moylan stated that until Vice Chair Hungerford pointed out his observation regarding the hazardous materials, he was ready to approve the use.  He stated that with regards to the economic argument they are most likely to continue being in the situation were they have vacant properties for quite a while.  He felt that the use going in the property would improve the area especially with the introduction of the sidewalk which would only occur if the parking could be mitigated.  He stated that it seemed to him that the use would improve the situation of the neighborhood however, because there is a safety issue with the people using the facility, it is a big concern for him and chose to support the motion.   

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