Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-10-2004 PC MinutesPlanning Com nission Minutes CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the City of Dublin Planning Commission was held on Tuesday, February 10, 2004, in the Council Chambers located at 100 Civic Plaza. Commissioner Nassar called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Nassar, Jennings, King, and Machtmes; Jeri Ram, Planning Manager; Michael Porto, Planning Consultant; Janet Harbin, Senior Planner; Kristi Bascom, Associate Planner; Pierce Macdonald, Associate Planner; and Renuka Dhadwal, Recording Secretary. Absent: Cm. Fasulkey ADDITIONS OR REVISIONS TO THE AGENDA - None MINUTES OF PREVIOUS MEETINGS - December 9, 2004 minutes and January 27, 2004 minutes were approved as submitted. ORAL COMMUNICATION - WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS - None PUBLIC HEARINGS 8.1 PA 03-066 Conditional Use Permit for a Large Family Daycare (up to 14 children) Conditional Use Permit application for a large family daycare in a single-family home located at 6851 Langmuir Lane in Dublin. The applicant currently operates a small family daycare in this location and proposes to expand the operation. Cm. Nassar asked for the staff report. Ms. Macdonald presented the staff report. The proposed project is a Conditional Use Permit application for a Large Family Daycare Home in a single-family residence located at 6851 Langmuir Lane. The residence is located near Frederiksen School and Dublin High School. The Applicant, Kelly Childers, currently operates a Small Family Daycare Home licensed by the State of California at the site, and Ms. Childers would like to expand enrollment from eight children to fourteen children. The operating hours for the daycare are 7:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday to Friday. The Large Family Daycare will have two family members as full-time employees, consisting of the Applicant and her adult daughter, also living at 6851 Langmuir Lane. Staff believes that the proposed Large Family Daycare Home would have limited impacts to the surrounding neighborhood related to noise, traffic, and parking. The facility will be properly licensed, and no complaints have been received about the existing Small Daycare Home that would lead Staff to believe that expanding the use would be problematic. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing, take testimony from the applicant and the public, close public hearing, deliberate and adopt a resolution approving the Conditional Use Permit for a Large Family Daycare Home at 6851 Langrnuir Lane. Cm. Nassar opened the public hearing. Kelly Childer's, Applicant stated she is currently running a daycare and wants to expand the operation. She presented letters from her neighbors supporting the project. Cm. Machtmes asked if the letters are from direct neighbors on either side of her property. Ms. Childers stated the neighbor to the right is never home and is okay with the expansion. The letters of support are from her neighbors to the left and across the street. Cm. Machtmes asked how many children would be too many for her facility. Ms. Childers stated she currently has eight. The California State Licensing allows 12-14 so anymore than that would be too many. Cm. Jennings asked if the maximum number of fourteen children includes her children. Ms. Childers stated yes. She has four children, which three of the four are counted towards the maximum number. Her oldest child is eighteen and does not have to be counted. Cm. Nassar asked if there were any other questions; hearing none he closed the public hearing and asked for a motion. On a motion by Cm. King seconded by Cm. Jennings by a vote 4-0-1 with Cm. Fasulkey absent, the Planning Commission approved RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 04 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A LARGE FAMILY DAYCARE HOME CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 6851 LANGMUIR LANE (PA 03-066) 8.2 PA 03-070 Alameda County Auto Auction, Auto Service and Repair Center - Conditional Use Permit. Conditional Use Permit to permit an auto service and repair center for exclusive use by the Alameda County Auction in an approximately 19,850 square foot existing building with an approximately 5,000 square foot outdoor vehicle storage area on a 1.08 acre site. Cm. Nassar asked for the staff report. Ms. Harbin presented the staff report. The Alameda County Auto Auction, located at 6438 Sierra Court, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a new auto repair and service establishment to serve the automobiles to be sold at the auction. The service center is proposed for an existing building located at 6938 Sierra Court, which is in an M-1 (Light Industrial) Zoning District. The new auto service center will be located approximately 1/2 block to the north from the actual auction site on Sierra Court, and will perform minor repairs on the autos to be sold. Major repairs on the auction vehicles would be performed off-site at service centers specializing in a particular area of repair such as transmissions, clutches, and engines. At the present time, all auto service and repair work on vehicles sold at auction is performed at privately owned and operated centers. The Conditional Use Permit findings can be made in the affirmative because the building was originally built and intended for industrial and commercial service uses, such as the proposed Auto Repair and Service establishment. Additionally, Staff has proposed Conditions of Approval as part of this use permit that will ensure the proposed use does not have negative impacts on surrounding businesses and users. The use of the building as an auto repair and service center will also result in a benefit to the light industrial area as some of the minor auto services and storage presently taking place at the auto auction site will be fully enclosed with the proposed auto service center building. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit for an auto repair and service establishment for minor auto repair and service limited to serving the Alameda County Auction in an existing building, subject to conditions of approval. Cm. Nassar asked if there were any questions for staff; hearing none he opened the public hearing. Adel Saadeh, Owner stated he is in agreement with staff and available for questions. Cm. Jennings asked staff if parking was adequate. Ms. Harbin stated yes and explained the parking for the area. Fred Falender, 6918 Sierra Court is concerned with the proposal and that it will change the neighborhood. The neighborhood is well maintained and feels the project is not compatible with the surrounding areas. He is opposed to the project. Ms. Harbin explained that there are other auto type uses in the area allowed by a Conditional Use Permit. The conditional use permit is for auto auction service use only and is not open for any other use types. ~mnin,q Commi,','.c~m~ 8 q:'e[~n~a~ 10, 200.1 Cm. Nassar asked for clarification of activity in the building. Ms. Harbin stated it would be very minor auto repairs and service work such as changing oil, tune-ups and minor detailing work. There would not be any hazardous waste or materials or a lot of noise. Mr. Falender asked if there is a condition that prohibits them working on cars outside. Ms. Harbin responded yes. There is a condition in the resolution for the Conditional Use Permit, which prohibits repair and service in .the parking area. All work must be performed in the building. Cm. King asked Mr. Falender if the conditions are firmly enforced would that meet his concerns. Mr. Falender said it would meet his concerns if they don't junk up the outside of the building. Brad Brown, Business Owner at 6948 Sierra Court stated he owns the building that shares the north side parking lot. He has concerns with the use for that area. The conditions cannot be enforced 24/7. It is guaranteed to turn into a big mess and he is opposed to the project. Cm. King asked Mr. Brown if he has had experience with businesses like the proposed Auto Auction. Mr. Brown responded yes. His business was previously in San Ramon that was near automotive repair. There were problems with paint, which caused a mess. He does not believe it is the right business for the location and that the conditions cannot be enforced everyday. Cm. King asked if the conditions proposed are firmly enforced adequately to meet Mr. Brown's concerns. Ms. Harbin stated yes. The City's Code Enforcement program is very efficient in enforcing non- compliance issues. Ms. Ram stated that if the applicant does not comply with the conditions the use permit could be revoked. Brad Steen, 6908 Sierra Court stated he is in agreement with Mr. Brown. The experience that he has had with car repair facilities is less than desirable. The detriment that can happen with a facility like this is a concern. He suggested that the Planning Commission look at the automotive facility on Golden Gate Drive, which has deteriorated. He asked what recourse is there if the guidelines are not met. Ms. Ram stated to contact Planning Staff the Code Enforcement Division and speak to the Code Enforcement Officer. He would go out and talk to the operator/owner of the site to see if he could get compliance. It is usually monitored for a few months. If the City cannot achieve compliance, the permit would be recommended for revocation before the Planning Commission. Ms. Harbin stated additionally the businesses mentioned do also major auto-repair and service work, not minor as proposed under this Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Steen asked if the Conditional Use Permit for the Golden Gate Drive area has the same conditions and zoning. Ms. Ram stated the Golden Gate Drive development might have been prior to the City incorporating. She is not aware of the conditions for that area but are available in Planning if Mr. Steen would like to review them. Mr. Steen suggested for the Planning Commission to drive by the Golden Gate development area before making their decisions. Rick Duernling, 6978 Sierra Court stated his family has been in Dublin since 1974 as a business owner. He is concerned that the Auto Auction will change the character of the businesses on Sierra Court. He also has concerns with the environmental impacts that will occur with oil, paint, noise and the traffic and parking issues. He explained on the day of the auctions there are parking problems. Cm. Jennings asked the Applicant to describe minor repairs as part of his business. Mr. Saddeh responded tune-ups and smog check. Cm. Jennings asked if there was anything else that is considered minor. Mr. Saddeh stated changing sensors on the vehicle. Cm. Jennings asked if they are planning to do oil changes. Mr. Saddeh stated they would have the oil changed down the street and pay $25 rather than deal with the mess. Cm. Nassar asked if they have a permit to handle hazardous materials. Mr. Saddeh responded they are planning to get a hazardous waste permit. Cm. Nassar stated there are concerns with the vacant office space and the future use of the space. Mr. Saddeh stated that they have no use for it and can stay vacant. The only part they have a use for is the warehouse portion of the building. Cm. Nassar asked Mr. Saddeh if he was opposed to screening or fencing the property. Mr. Saddeh responded he is not opposed to fencing. He is purchasing the building and is not going to do anything to jeopardize a building he is paying 2.7 million dollars for. They will not do any repairs outside and they are not open to the public for repairs. Cm. Nassar asked his opinion on needing security for the area. Mr. Saddeh stated there is no reason for security but they do have a security guard, which will cover both the auction site and this site. There are no repairs being done on the outside. All auto bodywork is done at another facility in San Francisco. Cm. King asked who are the customers of the auction. Mr. Saddeh responded the public. Cm. King asked who owns the vehicles that are sold. Mr. Saddeh stated they own some of the vehicles and some are consignment. Cm. Machtmes asked what attracted him to this particular building. Mr. Saddeh stated the location is closer to the auction site. Cm. Machtmes asked if they looked at other buildings in Dublin. Mr. Saddeh responded yes but they were not for sale. Cm. King asked if he has received any complaints from City Staff regarding the current business. Mr. Saddeh stated there are a few issues they are working out at the auction site and that is one of the reasons they are purchasing this building. Cm. King asked the nature of the complaints. Ms. Ram stated storage of materials outside, detailing and repairs of cars under canopies. He has been extremely cooperative with the City to reach compliance. Mr. Saddeh stated he wants to reach compliance with the City and will do what is required. Cm. Machtmes asked Mr. Saddeh if his escrow was contingent on his conditional use permit. Mr. Saddeh responded yes. Cm. Jennings asked if a hazardous material permit is required. Mr. Saddeh responded yes. Cm. Nassar if there were any further questions, hearing none he closed the public hearing. Cm. King stated that the business owners that have come forward and have very valid concerns. The area is zoned for this type of business subject to a conditional use permit. He would like to vote for approval, however, with a condition for screening the fence and limited to certain type of repairs. Cm. Machtmes had concerns with the use type and how realistic it would be to have the use permit revoked. Cm. Jennings asked if there are similar uses in the surrounding area. Ms. Harbin stated Smart Auto Glass is in the area. Cm. Nassar suggested a modification to the conditions to specify the type of services allowed, the fence, and possibly staff and the applicant to meet with those concerned. After much discussion, the Planning Commission continued the item to March 9, 2004. 8.3 PA 03-033 Stage 1 Planned Development Rezoning and West Dublin BART Specific Plan Amendment for a residential, hotel, and restaurant/retail development on property at 6600 Golden Gate Drive. Ampelon Development Group, on behalf of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) has submitted an application for a Stage 1 Planned Development Rezone/Development Plan for a 210-unit apartment complex, 150-room hotel, and 7,500 square foot ancillary restaurant/retail pad at 6600 Golden Gate Drive. Cm. Nassar asked for the staff report. Kristi Bascom presented the staff report and explained that the proposed project consists of a West Dublin BART Specific Plan amendment, Planned Development Rezoning, and related Stage 1 Development Plan to permit 210 apartments, a 150-room hotel, and 7,500 square foot restaurant/retail pad on approximately 7.26 acres at 6600 Golden Gate Drive, adjacent to the future West Dublin BART station. The high-density residential portion of the development would be located on the southwest corner of St. Patrick Way and Golden Gate Drive, and is proposed as a four-story building wrapped around structured parking. The hotel portion of the project would be located closest to Highway 580, and is proposed as a five-story hotel with surface parking and some parking within the future BART garage, which will be built on a separate parcel. The restaurant/retail portion of the project would be located at the end of Golden Gate Drive, closest to the future BART station pedestrian bridge entrance. The single-story building will.share the same surface parking lot as the hotel, and could be developed as either a full-service quality restaurant or a retail establishment. At this time the Applicant is considering both possibilities. This flexibility can be preserved as long as total vehicle trips generated by the entire project is at or below that which has been studied and documented in the Initial Study and Addendum. The Applicant is requesting a waiver of the City's Inclusionary Zoning Regulations under Section 8.68.040.E, which states "The City Council, at its discretion, may waive, wholly or partially, the requirements of this ordinance and approve alternate methods of compliance with this chapter if the applicant demonstrates, and the City Council finds, that such alternate methods meet the purposes of this chapter." The Planning Commission does not take action on the Inclusionary Zoning waiver request, and it will be reviewed by the City Council at a future public hearing. The applicable City departments and agencies have reviewed this application, and their comments have been incorporated into the Stage 1 Development Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the Dublin General Plan, West Dublin BART Specific Plan (with the proposed amendments), and represents an appropriate project for the site. The Applicant for the project spoke gave a brief outline about the project. Cm. Machtmes asked the Applicant's relationship to BART. The Applicant responded that they are the Master Developer for the entire project. He further indicated that they were selected through a competitive process and since then have been working with BART to get the Entitlement process completed through the cities. They are currently working with the City of Dublin for Stage I PD and a PUD through the City of Pleasanton. They selected a design team and stated that they presented the preliminary concept of the station to the City Council. He also indicated that the preliminary design concept would be presented to the Planning Commission within the next month. They are currently in the process of selecting a design team for the BART Garage. Cm. Machtmes stated that the reason for his question was to understand if the Applicant is in a position to talk about the best possible use surrounding the BART station. In other words, based on the surrounding uses of the other BART stations in the Bay Area, would the Restaurant/Retail use proposed for the site in Dublin an appropriate use. The Applicant stated that the Fruitvale Station in Oakland is a larger area and therefore a Residential/Retail mixed use was possible. The Pleasant Hill BART Station, he pointed out was not well connected. Although there is an oasis of parking with surrounding uses being office and residence, it does not have any retail. The residents were opposed to retail uses due to traffic issues. The Applicant pointed out that the proposed project is designed to give a Transit Village look and once implemented would be a welcome change to the existing conditions. This design was more successful in the Eastern Dublin area due to the availability of land. The current project site has a limited area, which has imposed restrictions on designing large-scale development on it. (.'om.ds,mm 13 q:'e~rua©, 10, 2004 Cm. King wanted to know if the plan for the proposed projected included any open space or park area in it. The Applicant pointed out that a pedestrian bridge from the station will end in a Plaza area connected to the garage which has been designed for landscaping in order create a pedestrian friendly environment. Hearing no other comments, Cm. Nassar closed the public hearing and opened it for discussion among the Commissioners. Cm. Machtmes voiced his concerns regarding the Restaurant/Retail use and if it constitutes the highest and best use for a property intending to connect to a BART station. He understands the fact that the future improvements along the Golden Gate may enhance the surrounding uses but he fails to see how the change of the current use from Hotel to Restaurant/Retail use would help achieve the intended goal. Cm. King agreed with Cm. Machtmes' opinion and stated that a pedestrian friendly atmosphere near the BART station is always a welcome site. Cm. Machtmes asked when rezoned, would the use be obligatory or permitted. Ms. Bascom stated that the current land use designation for the site under the West Dublin BART Specific Plan was Hotel/Lodging. The Applicant is requesting the rezone to Commercial B to permit restaurant/retail uses in a separate 7500 sq. ft. building. If the Commission so desired to leave flexibility of uses then it could leave the designation open to allow any Commercial B uses as allowed by the West Dublin BART Specific Plan including specialty retail, restaurants offices, entertainment, and similar pedestrian-oriented uses, and not limit the 7,500 sq. ft. building to only restaurant or retail. Cm. Nassar opened the public hearing and asked the Applicant to clarify the concerns the Commission had. The Applicant stated that the uses being suggested by the Commission were discussed with Staff and based on those discussions and the impact a larger hotel would have on traffic were the reason why they decided to scale down the hotel and request a rezoning of a portion of the area to commercial uses. Hearing no other comments or questions, Cm. Nassar closed the public hearing. Cm. Machtmes suggested that the uses allowed on the Commercial B portion of the property should remain as described under the West Dublin BART Specific Plan. On a motion by Cm. King seconded by Cm. Machtmes by a vote 4-0-1 with Cm. Fasulkey absent, the Planning Commission approved 2004 RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 05 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A WEST DUBLIN BART SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT, ADOPT AN ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY AT 6600 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE (APN 941-1500-046) TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICT, and APPROVE A RELATED STAGE 1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN PA 03-033 RESOLUTION NO. 04 - 06 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO BOTH THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLANS AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL EIR FOR THE WEST DUBLIN/PLEASANTON BART STATION AND TRANSIT VILLAGE PROJECT AND CERTIFY THAT IT REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE SEIR FOR THE HOTEL, RESIDENTIAL, AND RESTAURANT/RETAIL PROJECT PROPOSED AT 6600 GOLDEN GATE DRIVE (APN 941-1500-046) PA 03-033 8.4 PA 99-062 - Sybase Corporate Headquarters Facility Site Development Review Amendment Perimeter Fence. Sybase is proposing to enclose their Corporate Headquarters with a fence. The fence is proposed to ring the development leaving a portion of the parking area adjacent to Dublin Boulevard outside of the fenced area and available for visitors. Cm. Nassar asked for the staff report. Mr. Porto presented the staff report. He stated that the Applicant, Sybase, is proposing to enclose their site with a fence. They would like to put a perimeter fence 6-feet in height around their property along the Hacienda frontage, Central frontage, along the common access with Site 15 A, along the common property line and along the front of the project. Additionally, they are proposing to put a 4-foot fence around the front of the property around the visitor's parking lot and another 4-foot fence which would be serpentine in nature along the front of the property along the Dublin Blvd frontage connecting from Building B to Building A. This particular fence would be in front of a visitor parking area, but the visitor parking would not be gated. The fence would be a wrought iron fence and would be grey in color to complement the existing structure. There are also Pilasters proposed in the project which would have lights with Sybase logo and additionally, the applicant is proposing to redesign two of the driveways to permit the ability for cars entering that area to exit in case they can't get access to the site. The Applicant's request for the fence is mainly because of security. They have very large parking lots located away from the buildings, an on-site day care center and worldwide data center. The applicant is also a contractor for Department of Defense and hope to prohibit unauthorized site access. There are three issues relative to Staff analysis of the project: 1. Aesthetics - the applicant has proposed a well though out plan. The applicant has created a presentation visualizing the property with and without the fence for the review of the Planning Commission. Mr. Porto explained in detail the Applicant's plan for the fence and the location of pilasters and the gated entrance. 2. Perception - the fence would signal that this is a secure facility since security is an issue and that the site has limited access points. 3. Additionally, the action on this item in an affirmative manner would set precedence for all future applications requesting a fence. It would allow fencing on a case-by-case basis and it will open doors for existing and future users to request that they be able to fence their sites also. In conclusion, the Applicant's request is primarily for security reasons and Mr. Porto stated that it was a reasonable request. The project design is well thought out, an attractive design and complements and blends with the building on the site. The Planning Commission has three options: 1. Approve the request as proposed. 2. Deny the request. 3. Ask the applicant to modify the design. Cm. King requested for a visual presentation of the parking lots in relation to the buildings. Mr. Porto pointed out the location of the parking lots through a map on the wall. Cm. Nassar opened the public hearing and asked for the applicant. Ernest Piccone, Facilities Manager, stated that the reason for this request is based on providing security for the employees. Sybase has designed the fence in a manner that it is in obtrusive and have tried to integrate it into the design of the building so that it did not look like an add on. The applicant has worked with Staff to satisfy any and all of their concerns. He discussed the design, traffic and security issues in great detail. They have had Mr. Piccone stated that Sybase realizes that the fence is not the "cure-all" for the issues stated, but it is part of an overall security plan. Cm. King asked if they currently have gates for the parking area. Mr. Piccone said no. Cm. King asked if they had the gates would they remain open during the day. q)&mmtij Comm£*sw~ ! 6 ,7:'e6rua~ 10, 2004 Mr. Picone said they would have to set hours for the gates. Cm. King asked if Sybase discussed any alternatives to the fence. Mr. Piccone stated they plan to install cameras in addition to the fence. The way the parking lot is established, anyone can walk in from any direction. Cm. King asked if any of the businesses in the surrounding areas have experienced similar incidents. Mr. Piccone stated that he did not know. However, Sybase is setting up a meeting between Sybase's Security Director and Dublin Chief of Police to discuss security issues and at that time they may possibly also discuss if the surrounding offices are encountering similar problems. Cm. King asked if a 4-foot fence could accomplish the same level of security as a 6-foot fence. Mr. Picone stated that Sybase had considered a 4-foot fence but in the end decided against it due to the fact that people can climb over it easily. A 6-foot fence may be a little harder to climb over. Sybase also felt that having a 6-foot fence would not detract the appearance of the existing site. Cm. King asked to see slide with the parking lots and inquired what was to the east of it. Mr. Porto stated that the Villas apartments were on the east side of the parking lot and the JPI apartments were on the North East side. Cm. Nassar stated that he understood the security issues for Sybase and also understood that the kind of business that Sybase is in where security is a big concern. However, he pointed out that the issue before the Commission is also a precedence setting issue. Future businesses may want to fence their buildings once Sybase is allowed to do so. Therefore, Cm. Nassar suggested increasing security measures for Sybase's Data Center rather than surrounding the property with the fence. Mr. Piccone pointed out that one of the reasons Sybase is requesting the fence is for the security of its employees as they are experiencing problems when they walk to their cars in the parking lot at night. Cm. Nassar pointed out that this would hold true for any office complex. Mr. Piccone stated that the security concerns are due to the large parking lot, if the lot were smaller it would not have been a problem. Mr. Porto asked Mr. Picone to point out the existing security measures undertaken by Sybase. Mr. Piccone indicated that the existing parking has a mounted camera and a call box. 17 2004 Cm. Nassar asked Staff if the fence could be closer to the office building. Mr. Porto stated that Staff has been meeting with Sybase on this issue since August 2003. The original plans submitted were different in terms of look and approach. Sybase did design the fence to be closer to the building, but since the issue was the size of the parking lot and its distance from the building entrance, Sybase feels that the current design integrates better with the concept and the building itself. Staff then based on Sybase's concerns, met with the Police and Fire departments and discussed the issues with them and proposed modifications to the design of the fence and the current proposal is the product of those discussions. Mr. Porto added that Site 15A to the west of the parking lot is currently owned by Alameda County. The County was also part of the discussions and is comfortable with the proposed project. Mr. Piccone added that Sybase's additional concern was parking. There have been instances, especially during the holidays, where people used Sybase's parking lot to park their cars. Cm. Nassar asked Staff if the height of the fence was an issue with Staff. Mr. Porto responded that the area near the berm where the proposed fence would be 4-feet in height and since it would be behind the hedges, the fence would be 'invisible' and therefore would be acceptable. Closer to the buildings where the fence height would increase, it would create an impression that it is not accessible from street. Cm. Machtmes asked Mr. Piccone if Sybase currently had any card key access areas. Mr. Piccone indicated that there was card key access area inside the building in the lobby area. There is a guard currently stationed there. Visitors to the building are required to sign-in and although they are issued a temporary badge they are not given access into the building. Cm. Machtmes asked if this were true for any side or back access. Mr. Piccone stated that it was correct. Cm. Machtmes wanted to know if there was a back up system available in case the Data Center was to break down. Mr. Piccone stated that there was an off-site Data Center at another location, which could perform basic functions, but it would be unable to run their worldwide operations. Cm. Machtmes expressed his thoughts regarding possible alternatives to address some of the issues and he also stated that the issue of the parking lot should be separated from issue of security of the Data Center within the buildings. They both have different needs. :~)(anni~] (,Vmmi.~sitm 18 ~Fe~rua~ 10, 2004 Mr. Piccone stated that the proposed fence would also secure the electrical and back up generator area for the Data Center. It is currently accessible for anyone to damage it. He enquired the Commission as to how it would treat the two issues separately. Cm. Machtmes stated that since the building itself was secured adequately; the fence would just be an additional layer of security and hence may not necessarily be linked with the parking lot issue. He stated while he understood Sybase's concerns, he also was sympathetic to the precedence issue. He asked Staff for all the alternatives that were considered prior to coming up with the fence. Mr. Picone asked if the Commission is going in the direction for Sybase to not have the fence. Cm. Machtmes stated that an alternative to the fence could be another structure, a barrier, or a tall shrub. Mr. Porto explained that during Staff discussions with Police Department, the issue of having a landscaped barrier was discussed. The Police Department had concerns regarding the inability to look into the parking lot with the landscape. Staff felt that having fence would allow the officers patrolling to look into the parking lot to ensure its safety. The proposed project is an acceptable compromise because the design is upscale, provided the visual ness, integrates with the existing building and did not encircle the building but encircled the site. Mr. Porto concluded by saying that Staff did ensure that all other alternatives were considered prior to deciding on the fence. Cm. King stated that bearing in mind all of Sybase's concern, a fence is not the cure. Mr. Piccone agreed that although it was not the cure it is just an enhancement to the existing security measures. Mr. Piccone listed some of the incidents that have occurred in Sybase's parking lot. Brad McInroy, Vice President Operations, clarified some of the issues raised by the Commission. He stated that Sybase has a very experienced security team who advised that having the fence was a key element for their security strategy. He also stated that the fence was also being proposed to provide security for the children in the on-site day care facility. Cm. Machtmes suggested enclosing that area alone. Mr. McInroy stated that it was not discussed previously and elaborated the reasons for having the fence around the parking instead of a particular area. Cm. Nassar stated that at this point although the Commission is not trying to project that it is against the project, but are only trying to find out the best possible solution for everyone involved. Based on the Commission's decision on this issue, it may create precedence and the Commission is ensuring that they have covered all aspects. ,?~ni~td Commi,~shm 19 q:'e6n~a©, t 0, 200 ~ Cm. Jennings stated that fencing was a great idea and what took Sybase this long to do it. Mr. Mclnroy stated that the reason was due to the fact that Sybase was involved with issues of signage for their property, which took some time. Hearing no other comments or questions, Cm. Nassar closed the public hearing. Cm. Nassar asked that in order to avoid setting precedence, could a standard be set for all future fence applications to determine if the project requires it. Mr. Porto stated that the issue of fencing was not part of the original project approval 2 years ago. Based on the design of the parking lot and the expanse of it may have alerted the Commission of the security issues at that time. Mr. Porto pointed out that the issue of approving the fence falls back on the Commission. Ms. Ram summarized Cm. Nassar's concerns by asking the Commission if they wanted to see criteria for evaluating the need for a fence in the future. Ms. Ram stated that the difficulty with these kinds of projects are that they are not conditioned or in other words they are not use permits where findings could be made and it depends on the Commission whether they would like to approve these projects or not. Ms. Ram and Mr. Porto explained to the Commission that all future applications for fence can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and that Staff would point out to the Commission at that time their reasons for approving the current project. There was a discussion regarding adding landscaping along the fence to enhance its appearance. The public hearing was reopened and Mr. Piccone stated that there are trees currently planted in the parking lot and along the perimeter of the fence. Hearing no other comments or questions, Cm. Nassar closed the public hearing. Cm. King voiced his concerns about setting precedence and wondered how the Commission would separate a future fence application to the application presented by Sybase. Mr. Porto responded that Sybase was a single-use tenant for that site and has the necessary capital to carry out their request. The neighboring Microdental office site was originally planned for a campus office site but is currently multi-tenant use. Similarly, Emerald Point is also a multi-tenant use and does not have a huge parking lot like Sybase and is not zoned campus office and that could be a differentiating factor. Cm. Machtmes stated that in order to vote or better evaluate the project, he would need a matrix or more information from Staff on all the alternatives that were considered for the project. ~.h~i] Commisswn 20 q:~raa~.~ t0. 2004 After much discussion, the Planning Commission continued the item to March 9, 2004. NEW OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS - none OTHER BUSINESS (Commission/Staff Informational Only Reports) Ms. Ram discussed upcoming schedule with the Planning Commission. ADIOURNMENT - The meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Pla~ommiss~on C~hairperson ATTEST: Plan* '< 21 rFe~rtta~ tl), 2004