Mod to S&A - 2000Dear Planning Commission,
The City Council approved Dr. Wong's second covenant. The problem is the
covenant the City approved is not the covenant that got recorded. Notice the covenant
that got recorded added the words "at any one time". This will make it so even more
doctors can work there by saying they are working on the same patient at the same time
or they are not working at the same time as the other doctors. Dr. Wong's lawyers knew
the City Council members so they were able to tell them their side of the story before the
hearing, I'm not sure they know the whole story. If there is any way you can tell the City
what took place at the Planning Commission level or if you have any advice for me I
would appreciate it.
Dr. Walker's solution of towing would make us look like we are towing a
neighboring Oral Surgeons patients away, the patient would be mad as well as their
general dentist. They do not know the history behind this building.
This is not and never was about competition. If a doctor does what is best for the
patient he will have a successful practice, it has nothing to do with who is down the
street. I feel we have lost our rights as property owners because an Oral Surgeon moved
next to our complex. Dr. Wong's lawyers have even written a letter threatening to sue us.
I wish the two Oral Surgeons would stay and Dr. Wong would leave since he made all the
false promises.
The employees from the Wong building are not allowed to park in their own
parking lot or on the street in front of their building, so they park on White Oaks and
walk through our parking lot and landscaping, or they park on the street surrounding our
building. It's a mess and I expect it will get worse in the future.
The City asked us to put up tow away signs, we did it. The City asked Dr. Wong
to put up signs stating not to park in the neighbor's lot, he has not done it. We have tried
hard to work with the City, I hope they will do something to protect our parking.
Sincerely,
Debbie Follmar
15261 Sobey Rd.
Saratoga, Ca 95070
354-4433
FR~ : Dr. K.~. Follmar ~ FAX NO. : d085560~67 Ma~. ~9 ~001 ~9:~6AM P~
Dear City of C~apbelL May 4, 2001
I am requesting thru the City enforce the covemmt restricting the use of the property
located at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue and that they enforce the City Parking Ordinance which
mandaXes tha~ there must be six parking spaces per doctor/dentist-
I am also writing ibis letter because the City has rcquest~ I post "tow away"signs on my
property, and Dr. Walker has told me I should tow any cars that overflow from Dr. Wong, Dr.
Walker, and Dr. Lohz building on to our property. Since we do not have a gtlard on the
property and Dr. Follmar's office is not located on the property, this will be a very hard thing to
~,mforce. So far any overflow cars that we've seen Mvc simply been asked to leave or a note has
been put on their car_ We have found profanity in the area ofour parking lot next to Dr. Wong's
building and one of our tenants car was keyed after telling som~ne tl~ can't park in our lot.
What kind or retaliation can we expect ifwc start towing? This is not something I want to do
because the last thing a palient needs after having dental surgery is to have no way to get home.
Ttm'e are a few other points I want to make clear for the record. Dr. Walker stated he
needed 6 months for Dr. Loitz to introduce his palieuts to him_ Dur~ this time Dr. Lotiz said
he would not see any otb. is own pati~ts. Oral Surgeons don't have regular patients like general
dentists, patients are usually seen for a consultation, the surgery and a post Ol~rative
appointment, so there ar~ realIy no patients to be introduced. The covenant gave Dr. Walker and
Dr. Loitz $ months to transition their plactic~, whlch encled January 1, 2001. This date has past
),et there ~ still thr~ doclors working in the building.
In a lctter to the Planning Commi-~,sion dated June 13, 2000 one of Dr. Wong's lawyers
states, "Dr. Follmar hms a txactice competing with Dr. Walker and filed a complaint when he
received Dr. Walker's mmouncement of his new practice at the Btu'tding." Our initial complaint
was filexl on January 5, 1999, when this ~g was only on pap~. This compisint was based
on the large size ofthe building on a small 1ot with only 12 parking spaces. When we built our
offices we followed all the planning Commissions recommendations and ended up with !'/2 sq.
ff. of building per Imrklng spot, Dr. Wong's buiidlng has 4I 1 SCl. ft. ofbuild:mg per parking spot.
At th~ tim~ of our complaint Dr. Wong stated that h~ did not know who would be renting
downstairs. We w~¢ not the only n~ighbors to complain, several doctors on the north side of Dr.
Wong's building complained, as well as a representative from the n~ighborhood. When you pull
out o[Dr. Wong's driveway the trat~c flows south and our parI~ing lot is immediately south of
Dr. Wong's. Our parking lot is by far the closest, quickest and easiest to use from Dr. Wong's
building. Our parking lot was also the lot Dr. Wong's construction workers parked in every day.
On April 30, 2001 at noon I was at our property when I saw a lady coming from the Wong
Building, walk through our hnd,waping into our lot and get into her big red truck. She said her
tame is Yvonn¢, she works for Dr. Walker, she's sorry she had to park in our 1oi but there was
no plaoe to park because of the work being done on the street.
Dr. Wong must have known he didn't have enough parking before he moved in, he can~
to us asking to rent spae, e from us. Fie currently rents spaces from thc gas station across the
street (which he could stop at anytime) and every day his employees park on the street
surrounding our property.
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Community Development Department
April 18, 2001
Matt Francois, Esq.
Cassidy, Shimko & Dawson
20 California Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Re~
Recording of Covenant for 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
Dear Matt:
This letter serves as a follow up to our recent conversation regarding the outstanding
requirement for the recordation of a covenant by your clients, the Wongs, relative to their
building at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue.
The applicable covenant, with language as revised by you, reads:
Parking: Prior to building occupancy, applicant shall record a covenant,
running with the land, which shall restrict use of the building site to a
maximum of 2 doctors/dentists. Nothing in this condition shall prohibit
one of the doctors/dentists from performing surgeries necessitating the
temporary presence of an anesthesiologist and/or assisting physician so
long as all of them are engaged in providing simultaneous treatment to the
same patient and the maximum number of persons in the building during
times in which surgeries are performed does not exceed 12; nor shall
anything in this condition prohibit a doctor/dentist from transitioning
patients to another doctor/dentist in connection with the sale of his/her
medical/dental practice for a period not to exceed 8 months, so long as
they are simultaneously providing treatment to the same patient. The
covenant may indicate that this will not prevent the owner from
petitioning the City to change the terms of the covenant, should the City
Parking requirements change, the square footage of the building be.
reduced, or should other changes occur which lessen the parking
demand/requirement. The covenant may also provide that if the property
owner desires to use the building for non-medical office use in the future,
it must be demonstrated that the office use generates a parking demand
(including employees and customers) that does not exceed the 12 parking
spaces provided. The justification must be provided to the satisfaction of
the Community Development Director.
70 North First Street . Campbell, California 95008-1436 . rt~t 408.866.2140 · F.xx 408.866.8381 . TDi)408.866.2790
Matt Francois, Esq.
Re: Covenant for 14419 S. Bascom Avenue - Wong Building
Page 2
Your prompt processing of this. agreed upon covenant would be most appreciated, as
would the receipt of a recorded copy by this office at your earliest opportunity. Please
note that there is interest by neighboring property owners to see this action properly
executed. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (408) 866-2124. Thanks in
advance for your follow through on this obligation.
Sincerely,
GeoffI. Bradley
Senior Planner
Cc~
Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director
Bernard Strojny, City Manager
William Seligmann, City Attorney
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
CASSIDY
S H I M K O
DAWSON
Jeff Bradley
City of Campbell
Planning Department
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Re: 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
April 17, 2001
RECEIVED
CITY OF CAUPBELL
PLANNING DEPT.
Dear Mr. Bradley:
Per your request, enclosed please find a conformed copy of the Amended and Restated
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions dated January 9, 2001, for the above
address.
Should you need anything please contact me.
Kathleen Gilbert
Assistant to Matthew D. Francois
20 CALIFORNIA ST. SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA c~4 I I I TELEPHONE: ( 4 I 5 ) 7 8 8 - 2 0 4 0
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Matthew D. Francois
Cassidy, Shimko & Dawson
20 California Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Order No.:
Do¢~: 15526731
1/16/2001 9:53 AM
CONFORMED COPY: This document
not been compared w4th the original.
.,~N'rA CLARA.COUNTY GLERK~~.
Space above this line for Recorder's Use
AMENDED AND RESTATED
DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS
THIS AMENDED AND RESTATED DECLARATION is executed and delivered as of
the c)~_ day of January 2001, by Dr. Dennis K. Wong and Dora S. Ng, having a business address
at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95032 ("Owner"), in favor of and for the benefit of
The City of Campbell, having a business address at 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008
("City").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Owner is the sole owner in fee of certain real property, commonly known as
14419 S. Bascom Avenue, Los Gatos, California (Parcel No. 414-44-005), and more particularly
described in Exhibit A attached hereto (the "Building Site");
WHEREAS, City approved Ordinance No. 1975 on November 17, 1998, rezoning the
Building Site from Residential to Professional Office use in conjunction with Owner's proposal
to construct a two-story medical office building on the Building Site (the "Project");
WHEREAS, Section 21.50.050 of City's Municipal Code establishes a parking schedule
for "medical, dental clinics"of 6 spaces/doctor;
WHEREAS, Ci'ty approved Resolution No. 3217 on January 26, 1999, granting Site &
Architectural Approval for the Project subject to the following Condition of Approvah
2. Parking. Prior to building occupancy, applicant shall record a
covenant, running with the land, which shall restrict use of the
building site to a maximum of 2 doctors/dentists. The covenant
may indicate that this will not prevent the owner from petitioning
the City to change the terms of the covenant, should the City
parking requirements change, the square footage of the building be
reduced, or should other changes occur which lessen the parking
demand/requirement. The covenant may also provide that if the
property owner desires to use the building for non-medical office
use in the future, it must be demonstrated that the office use
generates a parking demand (including employees and customers)
that does not exceed the 12 parking spaces provided. The
justification must be provided to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director;
WHEREAS, the Project as built includes the 12 off-street parking spaces required by
such Condition of Approval,
WHEREAS, on April 20, 2000, Owner recorded a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions,
and Restrictions for the property in conformance with the above referenced Condition of
Approval.
WHEREAS, on October 3, 2000 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9753
modifying the above referenced Condition of Approval as set forth more fully in Section 1
below:
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals, Owner hereby declares,
covenants, and agrees as follows:
1. Covenant. For the term of this Declaration, use of the Building Site shall be
restricted to a maximum of 2 doctors/dentists at any one time, except that nothing in this
Declaration shall: (i) prohibit one of the doctors/dentists from performing surgeries necessitating
the temporary presence of an anesthesiologist and/or assisting physician so long as all of them
are engaged in providing simultaneous treatment to the same patient and the total maximum
number of persons in the building during times in which surgeries are performed does not exceed
12; (ii) prohibit a doctor/dentist from transitioning patients to another doctor/dentist in
connection with the sale of his/her medical/dental practice for a period not to exceed 8 months,
so long as they are simultaneously providing treatment to the same patient; (iii) prevent the
Owner from petitioning City to change the terms of the covenants contained in this Declaration,
should City parking requirements change, the square footage of the Project be reduced, or should
other changes occur which lessen the parking demands or requirements of the Project; and
(iv) prevent the Owner from using the Building Site for a non-medical office use in the future,
provided that the Owner demonstrates, to the satisfaction of City's Community Development
Director, that the office use generates a parking demand (including employees and customers)
that does not exceed the 12 parking spaces provided for the Project.
2. Successors & Assigns. The covenants contained in this Declaration shall be
binding upon Owner and inure to the benefit of City, and their respective successors and assigns.
3. Running With the Land, Remedy. The covenants granted, reserved or otherwise
set forth herein shall be appurtenant to and run with the land, and shall in all respects constitute
2
covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable California law, enforceable by City at law
and in equity.
4. Enforcement. The covenants made by Owner in this Declaration are for the
express benefit only of City and its successors and assigns, and no other person or entity, nor the
public in general, shall have any right to enforce any of the covenants contained herein.
5. Governing Law. This Declaration shall be construed and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
6. Modifications. This Declaration may not be amended, modified, altered or
changed, as provided for by Section 1, unless in a writing, in recordable form, approved by City.
7. Recordation. This Declaration shall be recorded by Owner in the Santa Clara
County Office of the Recorder in conjunction with the City's issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for the Project.
8. Termination. This Declaration shall remain in full force and effect until such
time as the Building Site ceases to be subject to the Condition of Approval set out in the Recitals
above.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Owner has executed this Amended and Restated Declaration
as of the date first set forth above.
CITY OF CAMPBELL:
OWNER:
William R. Seligrnann
City Attomey
D~K. Wong
Dora S. Ng
Exhibit A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
All'that certain real property situate in the City or Campbell, County of Santa Clara, State of California,
described as follows:
BEGINNING at an iron axle set at the point or intcrscctlon of the Northwesterly llne or thc San Jose-Los
Gains road, with the Northerly line of that ce~taln 3.00 acre tract of land described firstly in the Deed from
,Iame~ Long, et ux, to Cornelius O'Donncll dated August 11, 1873, recorded September 5, 1873 in Book 30
of D~eds, page 2"/3, Santa Clara County Rccordsl thence from said point of beginning South 89~ 13' 40"
West along the said Northerly llne of tl~e 3.00 acre tract, 114.69 fcct to an iron pipe; thence North 0° 47'
20" West and parallel~-wRh the Easterly llne of White Oaks Road for a distanc~ of 86.04 feet to an iron pipc
set on the ~outherly lin6 of that certain tract of land described in the Dccd from Raymond Angelo, et ux, to
Clyde $. ~temel, el ux, dated Septemher 19, 1952, recorded September 22, 1952 in Book 2491 nIT/rial
Records, page 300, Santa Clara County Records; thence North 89' 13' 40" Ems't along said last named line,
177.41 feet to an Iron pipe set at the Soutl~easterly corner thereof on thc said Northwesterly line of the San
lose-I, os Gains Road; thence Southwesterly along the said North'westerly line of the San .lose-Los Gains
Ro~d on the arc of a curve to the left, with a radius of 6,028.50 feet, through a central angle of 1° 00 43"
for an nrc distance of 106.46 feet to the point of beginning, and being shown upon that certain Map
entitled, "Record of Survey of the Lands of R~ymond Angelo", which Map was filed for record on
December IS, 1955 in Book 65 of Maps, at Page 26.
EXCEPTING THEREFROM all that portion of said land as granted to County of Santa Clara by
instrument recorded .lanuary 14, 1971 In Book 9187. page $, Official Records, and as more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at the point of' intersection of Easterly prolongation el' the Northerly linc of that certain parcel of
land conveyed in thc Deed to Snlvatore Cannata and Cnrmelina 3. Cahnata recorded April 6, 1959 in Book
4375 of Official Records, Office of tl~e Recorder, County of Santa Clara, State or California at Page 201
with that certain monument llne established for record on that particular map carried "Record o1' Survey of
· a Monument tine of South Bascom Avenue from Union Avenue to Lark Avenue" Filed for record In Rook
¢:264 or Maps, Office of the Recorder, Co~mty of' Santa Clara, State or California at P~ges d9 to 54; thence
i~frora said point of beginning Southerly along said monument llne to the point or Intersection with the
Easterly prolongation of the Southerly llne of the above mentioned parcel of land: thence Wcsterly along
sold Easterly prolongation and Southerly line to the point of intersection thereof wRh a line parallel with
.and 43.00 feet distant Northwesterly mcasm'cd at right angles from said monument Ilar; thence
Northeasterly along said parallel llne to the point of intersection thereof with the Northerly line of the above
described parcel of land; thence Easterly along said Northerly lln~ and Easterly, I~rolongation to the point of
beglnnlng of this description.
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
State of California '~
County of ~ 7,,~ ~z~.~,,.~-'-~-~ ~ ss.
On I/~/,:2z,-o/ before me,
Date
personally appeared )~.,'~' t 5~
Name and Title of Officer (e.g., "Jane Doe, Notary Pul~lic")
Name(s) of Signer(s)
~personally known to me
[] proved to me on the basis of satisfactory
evidence
to be the person(s) whose name(s) is r~___~.
subscribed to the within instrument and
Comm. # 1125625
Corem Expires Jan 31 2001
WlTNESS/~y. hand and official seal.
Piece Notary Seal Above {: '' Signature of No7 Public '
/
OPTIONAL
Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document
and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document.
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document:
acknowledged to me that he/she~ executed
the same in his/her/~_~ authorized
capacity(ies), and that 15y 'his/hed~i~j
si§nature(s) on the instrument the person(s)~rff
the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
acted, executed the instrument.
Document Date:
Number of Pages:
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
Capacity(les) Claimed by Signer
Signer's Name:
[] Individual
[] Corporate Officer-- Title(s):
[] Partner--[] Limited [] General
[] Attorney in Fact
[] Trustee
[] Guardian or Conservator
[] Other:
Signer Is Representing:
Top of thumb here
1999 National Notary Association · 9350 De Solo Ave,, Re. Box 2402 · Chatsworth, CA 91313-2402 · www.nationalnotap/.org Prod. No. 5907Reom~c Call Toll-Free 1-800-876-6827
CITY OF CAMPBELL
City Clerk's Office
October 10, 2000
Mr. Matthew D. Francois
Casidy Shimko & Dawson
20 California St., Ste. 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Dear Mr. Francois:
At the regular meeting of October 3, 2000, the City Council held a public hearing to consider
your appeal, on behalf of Dr. Dennis Wong and Ms. Dora Ng, of Planning Commission
decision denying a Modification (PLN 2000-66) to a previously approved Site and
Architectural Approval (S 98-24) to alter a Condition of Approval limiting the number of
doctors in the building located at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue.
After hearing public testimony, City Council discussion and consideration, the City Council
took the following action:
Adopted Resolution No. 9753 overturning the Planning Commission denial of a
Modification (PLN 2000-66) to a previously approved Site and Architectural Approval
(S 98-24) to alter a Condition of Approval limiting the number of doctors/dentists using
the site to two on property located at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue in a PO (Professional
Office) Zoning District.
A certified copy of this Resolution is enclosed for your records.
Continued
70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95008.1423 . TEL 408.866.2117 - F^X 408.374.6889 . TOO 408.866.2790
Page 2
Please do not hesitate to contact this office (866-2117) or Sharon Fierro, Community
Development Director, should you have any questions in regard to the City Council's action.
Sincerely,
Anne Bybee
City Clerk
Eric.
cc. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director
RESOLUTION NO. 9753
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF CAMPBELL OVERTURNING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A
MODIFICATION (PLN2000-66) TO A PREVIOUSLY-
APPROVED SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL
(S 98-24) TO ALTER A CONDITION OF APPROVAL
LIMITING THE NUMBER OF DOCTORS/DENTISTS
USING THE SITE TO TWO ON PROPERTY LOCATED
AT 14419 S. BASCOM AVENUE IN A PO
(PROFESSIONAL OFFICE) ZONING DISTRICT.
APPLICATION OF MR. MATTHEW FRANCOIS, ON
BEHALF OF DR. DENNIS WONG. FILE NO. PLN2000-
66.
After notification and public heating, as specified by law, and after presentation by the
Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the heating was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the City Council did find as follows with
respect to application PLN2000-66:
1. An amended Initial Study was prepared for this project that concludes there are no significant
environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration has been prepared.
The approved site plan provides 12 on-site parking spaces which is consistent with the
parking ratio and schedule provided for two doctors/dentists under the Parking Schedule
provided in the Campbell Municipal Code.
3. The conditions of approval for this project limit its use to assure the occupancy does not
exceed provided parking.
4. The project will not create a nuisance due to insufficient parking.
5. The project will not have a detrimental affect on the adjacent property by the placement of a
parking burden on adjacent office uses.
6. Public testimony indicates that the current use of the site is not generating off site parking in
excess of the parking available on site.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the City Council further finds and concludes that the
evidence does not establish that:
The proposed project does aid in the enhancement and the harmonious development of the
immediate area. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the uses will be
detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
City Council Commission k~soluti'on
PLN2000-66 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue - Overturning Planning Commission Denial
Page 2
2. The proposed site layout does provide parking at a ratio of 6 spaces per doctor/dentist.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day ofOctober ., 2000, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST:
COUNCILMEMBERS: Dougherty, Furtado, Watson, Dean, Kennedy
CO UNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
APP ROV~Y-~/3~5~
/~f(e P. Kennedy, ~ayor U
Anne Bybee, City Clerk
ON FILE IN ~¢~ ;'~ *'CC~
A~ST: Art~'l~ E¢¢L~r:, C~ CLERK,
~0/09/00
11:57 FAX ,115 788 2039 CS&I)
002/003
CA$$1DY
SMIM~O
DAWSON
October 9, 2000
VIA FACSIMILE
Sharon Fierro
Community Development Department
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, california 95008
william R. Seligmann
Dempste~, seli~mann & Raineri
3 ~ North Santa Cruz Avenue, ~A
Los Gatos, California 95030
14419 South Bascom Avenue; Modification
of Condition of Approval on Parking
Dear Sharon and Bill:
I wanted to thank you for the process in which
you engaged to come to final resolution on the Wong
building condition of Approval modification- While Drs.
Walker and Wong are obviously pleased with the outcome,
they could not have gotten there without your able
assistance. In particular, I wanted to thank you for your
thoughtful response to the issues raised during the
proceedings and the creativity which you showed in coming
up with the final Condition of Approval which was approved
by the city Council.
~0 C,~LlieORNIA ~"r. SUITE .500 ,SAN FRANCISCO. CA g'~' t I I T~;LEPHONE: ( 4 I 5; 78 8 - :~ 0 ~ 0
F.~.CSII~ILE: ¢4 I 5) 788-;'039
10/09/00 11:57 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~003/003
October 9, 2000
Pa~e 2
I know that Drs. Walker and wong will comply
mssiduously with the revised Condition of Approval- We are
in the process of preparing a Lease amendment which will
implement the Condition of Approval and compliance with it.
Obviously, if you receive any complaints whatsoever
regarding compliance, you should call either me or Matt
Francois immediately so that we may investigate and follow
up.
Again, thank you for all of your assistance and
help.
SKC:bls
cc: Matthew Francois
Irwin Kaplan
Lee walker
Dennis Wong
CASSI DY
S H I M KO
DAWSON
October 3, 2000
VIA FACSIMILE
Jolie Houston
Berliner Cohen-
Ten Almaden Boulevard, 11th Floor
San'Jose, CA 95113
Re: 14419 S. Bascom Avenue; Appeal of Denial for Request
for Interpretation or Modification to Parking Condition
of Approval (PLN 2000-66)
Dear Jolie:
I am in receipt of your October 3, 2000, facsimile regarding
the "proposal" by your clients, the Follmars, to "clarify" the
issues which were discussed at last Friday's meeting regarding
the Follmars' concerns on the proposal of Drs. Walker and Wong to
revise the Condition of Approval on parking. The proposal which
the Follmars have made not only comes at the 11th hour,
notwithstanding Matt Francois's specific request that we receive
your proposal no later than Monday, 12 noon, but also evidences
an intent not to deal with the real issue -- parking impacts --
but some other agenda.
Neither Dr. Wong nor Dr. Walker are willing to accept the
20 CALIFORNIA ST. SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94 I I I TELEPHONE: ( 4 I .5 ) 7 8 8 - 2 0 4 0
FACSIMILE: ( .~ I 5 ) 7 8 8 2 0 3 9
Jolie Houston
October 3, 2000
Page 2
proposal you make. First, it would limit Dr. Walker's use of the
first floor of Dr. Wong's building solely to Dr. Walker, and not
one doctor at any given time as is now permitted by the original
Condition of Approval. Second, it would limit his surgeries to
two a month. Neither of these provisions deal at all with the
voiced concerns of the Follmars regarding the use of Dr. Wong's
building and parking impacts associated with that use.
As we have amply demonstrated numerous times before, Dr.
Walker's practice will reduce rather than exacerbate existing
parking conditions. Indeed, the revised Condition of Approval
which we have proposed and which is supported by Staff not only
reduces actual parking impacts associated with Dr. Wong's
building, but in fact regulates parking in such a way as to be
easily ascertainable, easily enforceable and consistent with the
purpose and intent not only of the original Condition of Approval
but Zoning Ordinance provisions regarding parking.
Once again, the Follmars, for whatever reason are asking
Drs. Wong and Walker to alleviate the overall parking problems
created by all of the medical office buildings in the area within
which Dr. Wong'S building is located. This includes the admitted
Jolie Houston
October 3, 2000
Page 3
contribution of the Follmars and their lessees to the problem --
a fact demonstrated on the record by the Follma~s and Dr.
Noodleman and by the evidence we have produced. I reiterate:
Drs. Wong and Walker are not willing to solve the parking
problems which were created by the uses which existed prior to
Dr. Wong's building, including the uses of the Follmars and Dr.
Noodleman.
We have attempted diligently and assiduously to try to
accommodate the concerns of the Pollmars and Dr. Noodleman. We
have made numerous proposals. We have met with you and the
Follmars. We believe that the final proposal that we have come
up with is fair to all concerned and, as noted, is easily
enforceable and easily verifiable. It is, in short, "common
sense."
As you know, Dr. Walker went so far as to volunteer that he
would have surgery no more than one day a week and on holidays.
Apparently, you have rejected that offer and it is therefore
Jolie Houston
October 3, 2000
Page 4
withdrawn.
Council this evening.
We look forward to reviewing this issue with the City
CC:
Hon. Mayor Jane Kennedy
Hon. Vice Mayor Matthew Dean
Hon. Elizabeth Gibbons
Sharon Fierro
William Seligmann
Irwin Kaplan
Bernard Strojny
Dr. Lee Walker
Dr. Dennis Wong
October 3, 2000
City Council Meeting
Transcript of Agenda Item No. 24
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy, Mayor:
Appeal of Matthew Francois, on behalf of Dr. Dennis Wong and Ms. Dora Ng, on the
Planning Commission denial of a request for modification to previously approved Site
and Architectural Approval application's Conditions of Approval.
Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director:
There is a lengthy background on this application. On January 26, a building was
approved for construction at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue. This was a large medical/dental
building providing 12 parking spaces. Thc City's parking requirements specify that six
parking spaces arc required for each doctor or dentist. Thc provision of 12 parking
spaces equated to two doctors or dentists who could practice from this facility. Because
it was a large building, the Planning Commission did apply a Condition of Approval
reminding thc owner that there was a limitation on thc occupancy of the building.
On June 13, the applicant requested a modification to the Conditions of Approval that
would allow an interpretation of the Condition to allow more than one dentist to practice
from the site. The circumstances are that the applicant, who originally constructed the
building and who was a tenant on the second floor, leased space on the ground floor to a
dentist who is transitioning his practice, being sold from one dentist to another. That was
one set of unique circumstances in that there would be two physicians occupying the
building but would be operating on one patient.
The second set of circumstances was that the physician on the ground floor constructed a
very expensive operating room. He is a medical doctor and a dentist and he does major
surgeries as part of his practice. This major surgery requires the assistance of an
anesthesiologist and oftentimes an assisting physician. The Condition of Approval
modification request was denied by the Planning Commission, appealed to the City
Council and it was referred from the City Council back to the Planning Commission for
reconsideration of a reasonable approach to allow a reasonable practice within this
building.
The applicant has provided a revised proposal for the City Council's consideration this
evening. The Planning Commission, on September 12th, voted to deny the request. The
applicant is requesting that during the times when the major surgery is performed that
requires more than one physician, that we limit the occupancy of the building to not more
than 12 persons. With the provision of 12 parking spaces on the site, the number of
persons in the building would be equal to the number of parking spaces provided on the
site. The applicant is also requesting that we allow a transition period for when the
practice is sold. This is a covenant/condition that will run with the land. It would be
applicable, any time a practice was sold, that there be an allowance to allow up to eight
months for the practice to be transitioned from one physician to another. But at that time,
the two physicians could not operate on different patients. They would be limited to
October 3, 2000 -- City Council Meeting
Transcript of Agenda Item No. 24 - 14419 S. B ascom Avenue - Wong Building
Page 2
operating on the same one patient. So that was the request that was before the Planning
Commission. Again, they are recommending denial of this application.
Staff has received communication from the attorney representing an adjacent property
owner and that has been made a desk item before you this evening. And I have also just
been handed correspondence from the attorney representing the applicant. At this point, I
would answer any questions the Council may have and I know that there are parties in the
audience wishing to speak on this matter.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
Any questions of the staff?. This is a Public Hearing. Anybody wishing to speak come
forward and give their name and address for the record. I have some that I would like to
call. First of all will be Dr. Kenneth Follmar.
Dr. Kenneth Follmar, Sr.:
Good evening. I am Ken Follmar, Sr. I am a board certified oral and maxillofacial
surgeon. I designed, I built and I leased the dental complex immediately south of Dr.
Wong's new building. Because the triumvirate of Doctors Walker, Wong and Loitz want
more than a reasonable compromise, I felt that I really had to be here tonight, be here to
protect the parking interests of the doctors with whom I signed leases. The Planning
Commission took very unusual action by imposing a permanent covenant on Dr. Wong's
building. That recorded covenant is identical to the Campbell City Zoning Code on
doctor occupant per each six parking spots. That building permit approves only 12
parking spaces. The Commission, over the ensuing 21 months and during two separate
appeals and Public Hearings, had refused to modify that covenant. That's your common
sense, a common sense solution. The concerns of the Commission are well founded.
When Dr. Walker signed his lease and when he signed his Campbell business license, he
promised to honor that covenant. Despite that written commitment, Dr. Walker built an
office operating room for major surgery, a surgical center facility. He knew going in that
its use requires two or three additional doctors. Now, we're up to four or maybe five
doctors in the building. Is that common sense? I don't think so.
Dr. Walker claims he will use his expensive surgical center operating room once or twice
each month. I doubt that. I doubt it because it would not be cost effective. What's his
alternative? There are three very fine surgical centers in his immediate neighborhood.
All are available. Doctors Walker and Loitz practice together in Saratoga. The covenant
prevents that in Campbell.
Well, they threw up a smoke screen. They coined the term transitioning. They claim that
they don't practice together. They just transition. But both names are on the office
entrance door in gold foil. The panels on the Medical Practices Act in the State of
California are very explicit. If the licensed doctor consults or treats a patient, he is
actively practicing. Twenty-four doctors practice right next door to Dr. Wong's building,
both south and north. Those 24 doctors need all the parking that is provided with and for
October 3, 2000 -- City Council Meeting
Transcript of Agenda Item No. 24 - 14419 S. B ascom Avenue - Wong Building
Page 3
their offices. When overflow patients from Dr. Wong's new building move into and
pirate neighborhood professional center parking, another doctor is short changed. There
has been no compliance. I wonder what would lead you to believe that those folks would
comply with a watered-down version of that covenant. To dilute that covenant would set
a regrettable precedent. I ask that you support the decision of the Planning Commission,
change nothing. Reaffirm the Campbell City Zoning Code and not change that covenant
and then please enforce it. Thank you for heating me out. I appreciate it.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
Thank you, doctor. Gordon George.
Mr. Gordon George:
I am a contractor that does a lot of TI work and maintenance work at the White Oaks
Dental Center and I have had occasion to kind of watch the parking situation and I was
just here tonight to suggest to you that, before considering any changes in the covenant,
which might possibly increase the parking that is already evident in the street now, you
have some safety issues to address.
At the present, I have witnessed several near accidents in the exit/entrance to the White
Oaks Dental Center. I think that, tight now, we have a problem with the parking that's in
the street that wasn't there a year ago and I don't know if that's something that you can
do anything about, be it at the Roads Commission or whatever, before you add any more
parking to the street. You should consider it because there are going to be some
accidents on that street. Then also another concern is what's going to happen when Dr.
Wong's parking that he's leased now at the Exxon building is no longer available? You
know what's going to happen with the parking at that point. So my only caution to you
now is that you do have a safety issue on that street as far as the exiting and entrance to
the facility there at White Oaks and probably at Dr. Wong's building as well, especially
when you have like the UPS vehicles that are double parking now because they can't get
into Dr. Wong's building. Thank you.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
Thank you very much, Mr. George. Matt Francois.
Matthew Francois, Esq.:
Good evening Mayor Kennedy, Vice Mayor Dean and members of the City Council.
Matthew Francois, Cassidy, Shimko & Dawson, on behalf of the property owner, Dr.
Dennis Wong and Ms. Dora Ng. I just want to start off by telling you how somewhat
disappointed we are by coming back before you tonight.
On August 1st, we thought the Council was fairly clear in asking that a reasonable
common sense approach be taken to resolve this dispute and I want to assure you that we
worked diligently and in good faith to try and make that a reality. The proposal that we
drafted had the staff recommendation of approval before the Planning Commission,
October 3, 2000 -- City Council Meeting
Transcript of Agenda Item No. 24 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue - Wong Building
Page 4
where it was called easily enforceable, clear and simple. Not only that, it was referred to
as self executing and enforcing, given that, if a violation were to occur, every single site
approval for this building would be at risk. The proposal that we drafted is simply this,
on non-surgery days; the existing Condition of Approval would apply, limiting the use of
the building to two doctors/dentists. Not a problem. That's the existing Condition of
Approval and we're not asking for a change.
On surgery days, when arguably there would be more than two doctors or dentists present
because of Dr. Walker's unique surgical practice, which requires an anesthesiologist and
sometimes an assisting physician, we have limited the number of people that can be in the
building to 12. The number of parking spaces for the building is 12.
We sat down with the neighboring property owners to discuss our proposal and asked if
they had any specific grievances or concerns with this and they were unable to articulate
a single one. We even went so far on Friday as to offer to further restrict our practice to
one day a week for surgeries. That was unacceptable to them and in correspondence
dated today to you; they are asking that surgeries be limited to twice a month. I
respectfully submit that parking is not the concern of the property owners. I'm not sure
that their concern is but we are somewhat puzzled that we have taken all reasonable
efforts to meet them more than half way and we're still being met by concerns that are
not legitimately related to parking. Dr. Lee Walker is here tonight and able to explain to
you further his medical practice. If you have any further questions about that, he
submitted a Speaker's Card. I am happy to answer any questions you might have.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
Thank you, Matt. Any questions?
Vice Mayor Matthew Dean:
Well, actually, I have a question for the doctor. That question is, when you were going
through medical and dental school, I believe you had to go through an internship. Now,
I'm not an expert at this, but usually that internship means that you participate with some
formal practice. So when you did that, you actually had a title of a doctor and yet you're
not finished with your internship and I don't consider that an additional practicing
physician and yet I think my concern is that the current proposal we see before us
actually falls short of allowing that possibility to occur. So actually, I think it should be
expanded. So I would be happy to understand about the internship aspect.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
Thank you, Vice Mayor Dean.
questions?
Do you have a comment? Ok.
Thank you. Any other
Councilmember Robert Dougherty:
Yes, I do. I'm not sure how I can express it but let me give it a shot. A medical practice
is a business like a grocery store, like any other business, only you're dealing with health
October 3, 2000 -- City Council Meeting
Transcript of Agenda Item No. 24 - 14419 S. B ascom Avenue - Wong Building
Page 5
issues. And every business has a certain amount of customer turnover that's required.
Now you can't practice on the Internet and do the things that Dr. Walker is doing. He's
got to bring the people into his building. But his practice aside, what we have to decide
up here is what does a medical practice need in terms of parking and what kind of
customer turnover do we have to provide for in the parking lot. Because physicians don't
see a patient and then the patient goes out to the car, they drive away and then another
patient drives up and parks their car, walks in, writes a check for service. That's not what
happens. What happens in a practice is the physician tries to see as many patients per
hour as they can possibly do and still provide a credible service to his patients.
Two doctors, a doctor and a nurse, four patients. I'm having a hard time seeing that in
terms of a business sense of operating customer turnover that you can't do that. Can you
respond to that a little bit?
Matthew Francois, Esq.:
Absolutely, Councilmember Dougherty. What we've tried to demonstrate, in the record
and in correspondence that we've submitted to you, is that Dr. Walker's practice is
unique in terms that these are sophisticated oral surgeries wherein he can see a maximum
of two patients per day. This is not a high volume type practice. When he's doing the
surgeries that require the additional doctors, we have limited to 12 people in the building.
There won't be a problem with parking and we've demonstrated that because of the
sophisticated nature of the operations, that only two patients can be seen that day so
actually parking will be reduced as opposed to a typical dentistry practice like some of
the neighboring property owners where they see 8 to 11 or 11 to 14 patients or people in
their office at the same time. We're talking about 12 people for two practices on surgery
days and 12 parking spaces.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
Thank you.
Vice Mayor Matthew Dean:
I have an additional question. I believe it's a common practice when you go to a dentist
or any other doctor where you actually put under anesthesia, to me that means made
unconscious, that you have someone else drive you to and from. At least that's when I
had my wisdom teeth out, they had to put me out and they definitely did not let me drive.
And I know that I've taken my parents for various procedures and that's a very common
requirement. Someone else drives you to and from. So, I would actually like to see it
raised to 13 because I think it makes more sense because I expect fully that the patient
being operated on will not be driving themselves that's a tremendous liability for the
dentist to absorb to not have that a requirement on the patient.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
Thank you, Matt. The next one will be Dr. Lee Walker.
October 3, 2000 -- City Council Meeting
Transcript of Agenda Item No. 24 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue - Wong Building
Page 6
Dr. Lee Walker:
Hi, I'm Lee Walker. I guess I'll introduce myself first and then I will answer some of
your questions that you pose to me. I am at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue. I am the party
involved here. I'm an oral and maxillofacial surgeon. I am a specialist. I went through
medical school. I went through dental school. I went through two years of general
surgery and four years of residency. I am 37 years old. I just completed school.
I do that because what I do is very, very, very specific and very specialized. I am not an
internal medicine doctor. I don't see 30 patients in a day. I see a few patients. I don no
managed care. I do that because that's what I want to do, I choose to practice that way. I
grew up here. This is my hometown. My mother teaches third grade at Forrest Hills. So
I decided to come back to this town to practice where I grew up.
What I built in my office is what I do in my specialty and although I don't use my
operating room frequently, my specialty requires me to use it. I offer this to you because
I only think that it improves the parking in the area because on those days that I would do
surgery. I would only schedule one or two patients. Now, I have gone a step above. I
have licensed my office. It's in the final stages. It's called JCAHCO (Joint Commission
of Ambulatory Health Care Organizations). I will be the first office in Northern
California to be licensed like that. This is a tremendous thing to bring to my community
but I'm raising the bar. I'm practicing like nobody else in this community by saying
patients can come into my office in a very safe environment with backup power supply,
knowing the way I practice is extremely high level of excellence. But JCAHCO is very
specific. I can only see one patient only, one patient in my office at any one time. And
during those days, one or maybe two, if the second case went late in the afternoon, that's
it. So that obviously is a very low volume and that should only positively impact the
parking in the area.
Describe my surgeries. They asked me to briefly describe what these surgeries are. I
have an anesthesiologist come to my office to put people to sleep and I have an assistant,
which can be a physician but not always, just to help me with the surgery. They are short
cases. They go home afterwards. I would only occasionally do these surgeries but they
are an integral part of my practice. And the reason is that medicine is changing today.
Wherein in the past when you had surgery, you went into the hospital, went to sleep, you
stayed a week and then you went home. Well, as you are aware, insurance companies are
not willing to take that burden any more and they are moving surgeries from a hospital
standing to an office standing. As so, that's what I am reflecting with my practice and I
have built my practice for the 21st Century. I can do hospital cases in my operating room
and pass that savings on to patients but, more importantly, I am an accredited office so I
am showing and demonstrating to patients and the community a very high level of care. I
am not putting you to sleep in the back of an office that's in a garage. It's something real
special. Lastly, the operating room is an integral part of my practice and I have
everything at stake in this. This is my livelihood. This is what I do for my living and I
would very much appreciate your vote in letting me do this, perform what I do. And I
October 3, 2000 -- City Council Meeting
Transcript of Agenda Item No. 24 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue - Wong Building
Page 7
have everything to lose and I certainly will make every effort possible to make sure
everyone parks in my lot and I can only improve the conditions of parking in the area.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
Thank you. Any questions of Dr. Walker? Alan Guggenheim.
Mr. Alan Guggenheim:
Good evening. My name is Alan Guggenheim. I'm the property manager of the medical
building that is directly north of 14419. Our address is 3803 S. Bascom. I just have a
few comments to make. We, for the first and only time that we have ever participated in
any meeting with respect to the meeting with Dr. Walker and this Council, was Friday at
which time a compromise, which was mentioned by Mr. Francois, was offered by myself
actually and I thought we were moving in the right direction but I see no change with
respect to, after that meeting, with respect to what they have offered. They sent to you a
fax at 11:33 on Friday, or sent to the office here, explaining their position and Mr.
Francois said again that he worked diligently and in good faith. However, this meeting
was at 12:30 and the fax went out at 11:33. So I question with respect to how diligently
and good faith they were pursuing any type of compromise because I think again, a
compromise was offered. My problem with respect to unlimited numbers of days of
surgeries, which essentially this offering requires, is that it is totally unenforceable. I find
it is totally a waste of money, of Campbell money, to have somebody going into that
building at all times to count the number of heads. It just doesn't make a lot of sense to
me.
I understand Dr. Walker has a surgery center but he built that surgery center knowing full
well what this covenant was, and it wasn't a mystery to him. Certainly he didn't' sign the
lease not knowing what the covenant was. So I do question that diligent and good faith
methods have been used by the people who are appealing the motion. Thank you.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
Thank you very much, Alan. Debbie Follmar.
Ms. Debbie Follmar:
Hi, my name is Debbie Follmar and I am the property manager and owner of the building
right next door. And I was here before and I really did try to take care of this at the
Planning Commission. I did get your message and I took it very seriously.
Sharon called us and asked us all to meet. I agreed to that. I did say, "Could you please
have all three doctors present." Then, the next thing I know there was a covenant drafted
and we were never informed. We were not included in this meeting. So I complained
that there should be a meeting and could we please have this meeting and have all the
doctors be present. The meeting was the day before the Planning Commission meeting.
Dr. Wong did show up at this meeting.
October 3, 2000 -- City Council Meeting
Transcript of Agenda Item No. 24 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue - Wong Building
Page 8
I found that he is renting spaces at the Exxon building across the street for his staff. It
kind of tells me that there is not enough parking there. I told the Planning Commission
that I would support them at the Planning Commission meeting cause I felt like I had a
strong feeling from you guys but I did say, "please be sure this will work for the future,
for now and it's enforceable." They turned it down. So I am very nervous about this.
They set up another meeting with the doctors and again I asked for all the doctors to be
present. This time, Dr. Walker came and that was the only doctor there and I did ask
about the Exxon situation and he said that was something they were only looking into.
So I thought, boy, that's a conflicting statement of what I heard so I'm still
uncomfortable with this twelve-person idea. If you're an oral surgeon, or if you're a
dentist, and you have an emergency, you can't say, you can't come in because there's too
many people in the building. You'll have to wait until someone leaves. I mean, when
you have an emergency, they need to come in immediately. I know from working in my
husband's office. I did call the Exxon station and they have been renting to Dr. Wong for
four months and they say usually about five cars use their parking. That's what the
owner, Greg, told me.
We complained about this building before it was on paper and I was told that there was
definitely only going to be two doctors allowed and there's always been three doctors in
the building and there is spillover in the parking and it's not good. This has been turned
down three times by the Planning Commission. They're already renting off-site parking.
If patients park in our parking lot, ethically, we can't tow away, as doctors, we cannot
tow away a patient that's been sedated. It just, we just ethically can't do that and if our
parking next door was the size per parking spot per square foot, as Dr. Wong, this is what
got our attention; our 6,212 square foot building would be 14,790 square feet or about
two and a half times the size. That really is an extremely large building. I'm afraid if we
start messing with this covenant that it's going to bring in more problems. So I
respectfully ask you to please keep the covenant. Thank you.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
Thank you very much. Jolie Houston.
Jolie Houston, Esq.
Good evening. My name is Jolie Houston and I'm here on behalf of the Follmars. First
of all, I would like to state for the record that we have tried very hard to work with the
applicants in order to resolve this issue but there are just too many unanswered questions
regarding this covenant. It's not that we have been unreasonable. In fact, we did come
up with another option with more defined terms. We had questions about what a doctor
was. Could we call it a primary doctor or transitioning doctor? How can we make this
covenant with these 12 people work? We submitted that on Monday afternoon and as of
a telephone call today, I was told it was completely unacceptable without really further
questions and I just ant to show that we have, last minute even, we were still trying to
work something out.
October 3, 2000 -- City Council Meeting
Transcript of Agenda Item No. 24- 14419 S. Bascom Avenue- Wong Building
Page 9
I have a few issues with this covenant. This covenant was a condition of approval for this
building. It was added for the building to comply with the City's zoning and to mitigate
the parking impact. This covenant was recorded on April 20, 2000. Within one month,
Dr. Wong sought to modify this parking condition. I submit that he does really not have
standing to petition the change to this covenant because the covenant can only be
changed under three limited circumstances: should the parking requirement change;
should the square footage of the building be reduced; or other changes which will lessen
the parking demand. This applicant has not met any of these changed circumstances.
The parking has not changed, only the use of the building. I also submit to you that this
covenant is a promise. It's a contract made with the City. Dr. Wong accepted its terms,
received the benefit from the City, a large building, and that benefit comes with a burden,
that is restriction on its use. Dr. Wong accepted this covenant knowing this and
immediately sought to have it changed. I submit to you that this was a promise that Dr.
Wong made with no intent to keep it.
Furthermore, the Planning Commission has reviewed this project three times and they
have come up with the same answer, keep the original covenant. That's the common
sense approach. It matches the zoning, it's easy to enforce. Two doctors is two doctors.
I'd also like to submit that the proposed language would be impossible to enforce because
it's just not counting cars in a parking lot. It requires entry into a private office to
actually count people. There would be no way to investigate a complaint on this. It's too
invasive and it's much more difficult than the original covenant. Two doctors means two
doctors.
We also would like to submit that shared parking does not qualify as off-street parking
pursuant to the City code.
However, this throws the whole parking logs that they have submitted, saying that we're
meeting our parking, that our patients are here. We don't have a parking lot. But when
we found out a few weeks ago they were renting spaces from across the street, I have a
hard time seeing that these parking logs are objective since there is parking across the
street. And if this covenant is approved tonight, the parking across the street, that
agreement, can go away and then that submits further parking. So, I'm just saying that
there is a parking problem. We'd like this covenant to stay in place because it is going to
at least preserve the status quo of the parking right now and not make it any worse and it
would be very easily enforced. Do you have any questions? Would you like to see our
proposed covenant or do you have any questions of me?
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
Any questions at this point? I don't think so. Thank you very much.
Vice Mayor Matthew Dean:
Was the proposed covenant provided to staff and to council?
October 3, 2000 -- City Council Meeting
Transcript of Agenda Item No. 24 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue - Wong Building
Page 10
Jolie Houston, Esq.:
Yes.
Vice Mayor Matthew Dean:
So that is this wording (holds up a document). Thank you.
City Attorney William Seligmann:
Mayor Kennedy, members of the Council, I just wanted to make one comment with
regard to the statement made by Ms. Houston with regard to her comment regarding
standing. I think she was referring to provisions in the original covenant that set forth
certain criteria under which the parking could be modified. Those are not the exclusive
conditions under which parking can be modified. You can still modify the entire original
permit under the provisions provided for modification of a Site and Architectural permit
pursuant to our Municipal Code. So bottom line, those are not the exclusive grounds for
modification of this permit.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
Thank you, Bill. Steve Cassidy.
Stephen Cassidy, Esq.:
Good evening, Mayor Kennedy and members of the Council. I am Steve Cassidy of
Cassidy, Shimko and Dawson, Mr. Francois' colleague. I am going to make a very short
presentation regarding some of the issues that have been raised. I know that you have
been thoroughly conversant with this issue as a result of the testimony. I wanted to
emphasize a few points. Number one. There has never been a demonstrated violation of
the covenant, as it exists today. Indeed, there was a request to inspect the premises at one
point. Ms. Fierro sent out an inspector who concluded that there was no violation, even
in face of that complaint. The second point I want to emphasize, and it really does bear
emphasis, the proposal which we have made and Dr. Walker's practice will reduce
parking and I want to emphasize that. And the reason I wanted to emphasize that is
because repeatedly, we have asked, we have asked both the Follmars and Dr. Noodleman,
exactly what their concerns are in the face of this fact, it is a demonstrative fact, it is
undisputable, they have produced no evidence to refute it, this use will reduce parking. It
will reduce the impact of parking. Lastly, the covenant, which they sent to us, by the way
today, which I just got this afternoon when I got back to my office, would have this
effect. It would limit surgeries to two times a month. It would destroy Dr. Walker's
practice and it would limit the practice solely to Dr. Walker. So if he was out of the
office and his patients needed to be treated, another doctor could not be present in order
to treat Dr. Walker's patients. In order to treat Dr. Walker's patients under the covenant,
as it was proposed. That's why it is unacceptable to us and that's why it is an
unreasonable compromise. I respectfully submit to the City Council that the proposal
which we have made, which we have attempted to work with the other parties on several
times, has the beauty of elegance, simplicity and ease of enforcement. Counting heads is
October 3, 2000 -- City Council Meeting
Transcript of Agenda Item No. 24- 14419 S. Bascom Avenue- Wong Building
Page 11
all that is required at any given point in time. That is simple. That addresses the issue. It
limits the number to the exact number of parking spaces at the facility at any given point
in time. When surgeries are being performed, and that is precisely the issue, the purpose
and intent and the spirit of the original condition of approval.
If the City Council has any further questions of any representative of Dr. Walker, we'd
certainly be happy to answer them and we appreciate your thoughtful consideration of
our request.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
Thank you very much. Questions? Bob?
Councilmember Bob Dougherty:
Yes, I have a question. How can the City enter the building and inspect the building and
do a head count without violating Doctor/Patient confidentiality?
Stephen Cassidy, Esq.:
Well, Mr. Seligmann can perhaps answer that on behalf of the City but I can give you my
answer. And the answer is twofold. Number one, we actually will agree in the covenant
to allow inspection to occur. Obviously, it would have to take into account the processes
that are being undertaken at the particular point in time. But we can certainly facilitate an
inspection which would allow an inspector, if there were a claimed violation, to come in
and count heads. We will agree to that and we will agree to entry. I think it's a matter of
law, by the way, that the inspector would have the ability to enter the building to ensure
compliance with the covenant. But again, Mr. Seligmann can address that probably more
ably than I can on behalf of the City. But, as I say, we would be willing to agree to allow
an inspector to come in, in the face of a claimed violation, or at any time they wish to
inspect because our fundamental interest, as Dr. Walker said, is to protect the enormous
investment in this building. And Ms. Fierro will assure you, if you ask her, that if there is
any claimed violation of this covenant, she will be the first to report it, enforce the
violation and it will open up all of the covenants and all of the conditions for this building
to the extreme detriment of the investment that both Dr. Wong and Dr. Walker have in
this building and the practices in this building. We have every motivation, every self-
interest to in fact conform to the condition of approval as we have proposed it.
Councilmember Bob Dougherty:
And I guess I have one more question.
space, was he aware of the condition?
When Dr. Walker signed the lease to occupy the
Stephen Cassidy, Esq.:
At the time he signed the lease, he was not. Just to give you the chronology. The lease
was signed, plans were prepared, a building permit application was filed, building
permits were issued, the tenant improvements were substantially complete and then the
business license was applied for. And it was at that point in time that it was stamped with
October 3, 2000 -- City Council Meeting
Transcript of Agenda Item No. 24 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue - Wong Building
Page 12
the notice of this covenant and that was the first time that Dr. Walker was aware of the
covenant.
Councilmember Robert Dougherty:
And lastly, are you representing Dr. Walker or Dr. Wong?
Stephen Cassidy, Esq.:
We represent both.
Councilmember Robert Dougherty:
Okay. Thank you.
Stephen Cassidy, Esq.:
You're welcome.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
Thank you. Any other questions?
Jolie Houston, Esq.:
I would just submit that the right of entry issue here is a serious concern with code
enforcement. I act for other cities and I do code enforcement and I know that with this
covenant, they could allow entry and say that they would do a consensual search, I mean
that's what it will be because a zoning violation would be a criminal violation, but I have
concerns that they are consenting to patient privacy issues that they don't, they really
can't raise at this time. I mean, they may have this agreement for searches or an
inspection but then the patients that are in there, they may not want to have their privacy
invaded for an inspection and I just want to throw that out there that that's another side
issue and I think you should take that into consideration. Cause I know if I was there
getting my teeth pulled or something, I would maybe not want people coming in and
counting my head. Thank you.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
Anyone else wishing to speak? Dr. Follmar.
Dr. Kenneth Follmar, Sr.:
I am Ken Follmar, Sr. Thank you for the opportunity to return to the podium. There were
two statements made I'd like to refute. I have in my possession a letter from Mr.
Francois that says that on September 26, 1999, Dr. Walker signed a lease with Dr. Won.
And in that letter, he states that Dr. Walker knew of the covenant because it lists
specifically in writing that Dr. Walker would honor than covenant. And if you don't
believe me, it can be proven.
The second one, that Dr. Walker and his attorneys have told you, that they only see two
patients a day. Now that is not true either. They have developed a log. They have
October 3, 2000 -- City Council Meeting
Transcript of Agenda Item No. 24 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue- Wong Building
Page 13
developed a log that I have copies of May 9, 10, 11 & 12. And during those four days, 54
patients logged into that office and signed that log. They are referring only to those one
or two days that Dr. Walker wishes to use his surgicenter. They are not referring to the
other 18 days a month when he has a more reasonable, more logical, more oral surgical
schedule. It is not true that he works, only sees only two patients per day. He's only
talking about those one or two days when he uses his surgical center. Thank you.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
At this time, I'm going to close the public hearing. Any discussion or comments from the
Council?
Vice Mayor Matthew Dean:
Well, one. I don't find that Dr. Walker's comments are inconsistent in terms of, he did
just refer to surgical days as the one to two and that's in relation to the JAHCO
requirement that his facility certified to. Second of all, there are many laws that have
been passed in this country that are absolutely ridiculous. Jim Crow laws. Many
thousands and thousands of laws that are absolutely insane. And I'm not saying that the
covenant that was originally established was insane. I am saying there are exceptions to
it that make perfect sense and that meet my test of common sense. I'll also tell you my
father and I, we don't always have the same common sense measure all the time but
that's not a big surprise. I find that we have plenty of options going forward to grant the
appeal and to see how it works. And, if there are problems, I have no doubt it will be
back here for yet another go and then we can address those but I believe that this will
work. I think it can be successful for the doctors.
I think the adjoining buildings will have no impact or minimal impact and that it is
something that we ought to approve and like and support.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
Thank you.
City Attorney William Seligmann:
Mayor Kennedy and Council. Just a comment on what Councilmember Dean had to say.
If it does come back here, the only way that there would be able to be a further
modification is if we did, in fact, find a violation of the condition as worded. I just
wanted that to be perfectly clear for everyone.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
Thank you, Bill.
Councilmember Robert Dougherty:
Before I make any comments, I have a question for the City Attorney. First of all, the
particular situation, if we were to grant the exception, but another doctor comes into that
office, then that other doctor would also be allowed to practice with two or three patients
October 3, 2000 -- City Council Meeting
Transcript of Agenda Item No. 24 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue - Wong Building
Page 14
and if it wasn't surgical days. So all the conditions of approval go with the land and
forever. Is there any way that we can deal with this for this practice basis? Is there any
way that we can do that?
City Attorney William Seligmann:
Certainly. The conditions in effect only apply to this type of practice by the way they're
laid out. But if you wanted to further limit that, you could place a time duration on how
long this permit is good for, which is something we have done in the past. I don't know
if it makes sense with regard to this particular application. I suppose there may be other
ways to tray and tailor it specifically to this type of practice. I think that is what the
condition that was proposed is aimed at doing.
Councilmember Robert Dougherty:
The other question, and I know you hate it when things just pop into my head and the
whole thing about patient privacy popped into my head tonight, but do you have any
concerns about that?
City Attorney William Seligmann:
The concerns I have are really more practical than legal. Certainly, if you wanted to put
in a condition that says something to the effect that at all times that there are persons in
the building, the building shall be open to reasonable inspection by agents of the City for
compliance. I don't see a real problem with that. The problems tend to be more practical
ones such as if there's a surgery in progress, we're not going to be able to go into the
operating room simply because that would violate the sterile nature of the operating
theater. Those are the kinds of issues that I would be more concerned with than with
concerns about violating someone's privacy, unless we're barging into the men's or
women's room or something like that.
Councilmember Robert Dougherty:
Thank you. Hopefully, that shouldn't be an issue and I guess we're relying on staff
discretion on that area. In the way of comments, there's a couple of things about this and
I'd hoped that we wouldn't have it back. Frankly, I'm sorry to see it back but I can
understand why it's back.
I'm bothered that Dr. Wong is renting parking. If he's renting parking, it means that the
building is not adequately parked. I am bothered by the whole idea that this condition of
approval, if we were to grant it, runs with the land. I was not, it did not just occur to me,
about doctor's practices and things. When I go see my doctor, it's hard to find a parking
place, and they've got a lot of parking. Practices have to be economical, it's a business
and when you're in business, there are a couple of things about being in business that just
go with the process. One of them is risk. Sometimes you do stupid things and sometimes
you sign leases, you shouldn't sign. Sometimes you buy things you shouldn't sign. All
kinds of things happen. Dr. Walker doesn't belong in this building. It's the wrong
building for him I think maybe. He needs a little more parking. This probably should
October 3, 2000 -- City Council Meeting
Transcript of Agenda Item No. 24- 14419 S. Bascom Avenue- Wong Building
Page 15
have been built as a smaller building, that's maybe our fault. If there was a way that I
could make this work without going in and counting heads, cause I'm not asking, I don't
want to ask our inspectors to go in and count heads. I am bothered by that. I think when
people go to the doctor, they shouldn't have City inspectors walking in to count, you
know.
So, if we can make this work for Dr. Walker in a way that doesn't continue in a long
frame, limit it to his practice, if we can find a way to do that, we can probably do it. He's
young. He made a mistake. He probably shouldn't have but I wouldn't want to extend it
past the term of his current lease and at the end of his current lease, I would say okay and
then move on. Cause you need to find a better place to do business and go with that and
not have this regular inspection process and allow him a little bit.
I am bothered by this concept of transition. That just doesn't take much to transition a
business. That seems to be excessive. So I am not prepared to accept what we have
before us tonight. I think it needs more work. I think we need to maybe have some other
things happen. But, particularly, I am bothered by the idea that the practices are
supposed to be self contained within twelve parking spaces and they shouldn't be going
out to a gas station to rent spaces. I am not even sure if we can legally allow that. I
mean, the gas station has parking for gas station uses. How can they give those uses for
some other use? That may even be an issue. And we just need to get to it because
ultimately, we're running out of parking places, and we can't keep moving things around.
Businesses have to be able to be sustained within the parking that they have or we can
build out our County transportation system in a way that people don't need to drive their
cars to the doctor' and I'd be just as happy to go out and work on that and absent that, I
think we just need to send this back, consider what we can do to limit the time frame and
limit the number of days that he does the kind of surgery that requires him to have more
than himself as a physician on the premises.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
Thank you.
Councilmember Jeanette Watson:
I think that's getting too limited, Bob.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
I do too.
Councilmember Jeannette Watson:
I don't know how much you can limit a practice. I was out there today and I want to say
that the building north of Dr. Walker's was filled. The parking lot was filled except for
one space but at Dr. Walker's there were six empty parking places. So, I don't think that
the parking problem is necessarily, I mean if they had people over at the gas station, they
could have parked in the lot because there was plenty of room. So, I'm just beginning to
October 3, 2000 -- City Council Meeting
Transcript of Agenda Item No. 24 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue - Wong Building
Page 16
wonder if we just aren't trying to get too specific and that's what really worries me about
that. So, at this point in time, I really am ready to adopt a resolution that overturns the
Planning Commission denial.
Councilmember Daniel Furtado:
I think that as this was originally approved, it was for the idea two physicians practicing
and seeing patients as such and I think that every attempt has been made to comply with
that particular standard and I likewise think that the compromises that were discussed and
proposed still keep in the spirit of that. Now, just because someone does surgery and
they therefore are required to call in an anesthesiologist, who is a physician and therefore
holds a doctorate license, in my mind does not mean that that practice size is increasing
to more patients now because, in fact, one of the physicians is assisting the other
physician's particular case. So, I think it is much too restrictive and too narrow minded
for anyone to say that this violates the two-doctor agreement. Likewise, I can see the
appropriate need to transition practices and I think that was well explained in what that
means and patients going from one physician to another as the physician ultimately
leaves the practice and those kinds of things so I don't believe there was a violation there.
I think the whole issue is about an office, a practice of medicine or in this case, dentistry
or a combination thereof, and I also think it's about parking and I think every attempt has
been made to provide for a reasonable compromise to the parking issue. Quite frankly,
the fact that Doctors Wong and Walker might be renting space from an Exxon station,
perhaps for their staff to park, I just don't see that as a valid issue. In fact, if anything,
it's keeping more in spirit with reserving the parking places at the building site for the
patients to go in and out. So I don't see that as an issue at all and likewise, the proposed
language in an alternate compromise that has been submitted by attorney Houston,
representing the Follmars, in my mind is an attempt to regulate the practice of medicine
and I don't think that's what we're about and I don't think that that's what we should do
to have onerous types of restrictions on kinds of patients and physicians and all these
other things. So I will support the decision to overturn the Planning Commission
decision. I think that their narrow interpretation of only two doctors meaning basically
that no one with the degree of doctor of medicine or dental surgery can walk onto the
practice site without some sort of violation is very inappropriate and I think everything is,
has been, in order. I don't find the testimony to the contrary tonight credible in that
regard and likewise I think we in the City use a very common sense approach in terms of
building inspections and we're not about to violate patient confidentiality and things like
that. I don't think further conditions in that regard are necessary either.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
Thank you, Dan. Matt.
Vice Mayor Matthew Dean:
I was just going to make one comment regarding the transition. A lot of people go to the
dentist just once every six months. So I can very well see the transition period taking
October 3, 2000 -- City Council Meeting
Transcript of Agenda Item No. 24 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue - Wong Building
Page 17
anywhere from eight months to a year to necessitate that. Some people go once a year.
Some people go twice a year and so I think it's a reasonable transition period.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
Thank you. Any other comment? In reference to my feeling on this, I have to agree with
my other colleagues here in reference to supporting the overturning of this. I have a
feeling that we have a dentist that has come into town, who is trying to put something
together, trying to make it work. And, if he can stay within these guidelines, I thoroughly
think that what he is trying to do is good and I think we ought to try to work with him and
see how it goes. Cause I know, as you said, if something does go wrong, it is going to
come back to us and we will know it. So I would support the overturning of the Planning
Commission. Do I have a recommendation from the Council?
Vice Mayor Matthew Dean:
Yes, I'd like to move that we adopt a resolution overturning the Planning Commission
denial of a modification (PLN2000-66) upholding the appeal.
Councilmember Watson:
Second.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion? Roll call.
City Clerk Anne Bybee:
Councilmember Dougherty.
Councilmember Robert Dougherty:
Aye.
City Clerk Anne Bybee:
Councilmember Furtado.
Councilmember Daniel Furtado:
Aye.
City Clerk Anne Bybee:
Councilmember Watson.
Councilmember Jeanette Watson:
Aye.
City Clerk Anne Bybee:
Vice Mayor Dean.
October 3, 2000 -- City Council Meeting
Transcript of Agenda Item No. 24 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue - Wong Building
Page 18
Vice Chair Matthew Dean:
Aye.
City Clerk Anne Bybee:
Mayor Kennedy.
Mayor Jane P. Kennedy:
Aye.
Council
ee ort
ITEM NO:
CATEGORY:
MEETING DATE:
Public Hearing
October 3, 2000
TITLE
Appeal of Matthew Francois of Planning Commission decision denying a Modification (PLN
2000-66) to a previously approved Site and Architectural Approval (S98-24) to alter a Condition
o£ Approval limiting the number o£ doctors in the building at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
The City Council may take one of the following actions:
1. Adopt a Resolution upholding the Planning Commission denial of a Modification (PLN
2000-66) and deny the appeal;
2. Adopt a Resolution overturning the Planning Commission denial of a Modification (PLN
2000-66) upholding the appeal;
3. Refer the application to the Planning Commission for further consideration.
BACKGROUND
On September 12,2000, the Planning Commission held a Public Heating to consider a revised
request to modify a condition of approval restricting the number of doctors/dentists for the newly
constructed dental building located at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue. At the conclusion of the
hearing the Planning Commission voted 4-1-2 to deny the request. The applicant has appealed
the decision to the City Council. The background on this project is as follows:
Original Planning Commission Approval: On January 26,1999, the Planning Commission
approved a site and architectural application allowing the construction of a new two-story
medical/dental office building with twelve parking spaces at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue. To
assure compliance with the City's parking requirements, the Planning Commission added the
condition of approval to restrict the use of the building to two doctors/dentists and required that a
covenant be recorded as a deed restriction
Request to Modify Conditions of Approval: The initial request to modify the condition relating
to parking was considered by the Planning Commission on June 13, 2000. The Planning
Commission voted 5-0-1-1 to deny the request. The applicant appealed the decision of the
Planning Commission to the City Council and a public heating was held on August 1, 2000. The
City Council referred the matter back to the Planning Commission with direction to the parties to
take a reasonable approach in resolving this matter. Subsequent to the public hearing, the
applicant and the adjacent property owner met with staff to discuss a revised proposal.
Current Request to Modify Conditions of Approval: On September 12, 2000 the Planning
Commission held a public hearing to consider a revised modification request. Testimony was
given by Mr. Francois, the appellant, and parties opposing the modification including the
adjacent property owner, the property manager from an adjacent building and a resident affected
City Council Report - October 3, 2000
Appeal of PC Denial of Modification to Condition of Approval for PLN 2000-66 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenu~
Page 2
by overflow parking in the area. The Planning Commission denied the application by a vote of 4
to 1 (two commissioners were absent). The applicant has appealed the Commission's denial. A
meeting between the interested parties is being scheduled prior to the City Council hearing on the
appeal.
ANALYSIS
The underlined test is the revised working proposed by Mr. Francois for Condition Number 2:
2. Parking: Prior to building occupancy, applicant shall record a covenant, running with the
land, which shall restrict use of the building site to a maximum of 2 doctors/dentists. Nothing
in this condition shall prohibit one of the doctors/dentists from performing surgeries
necessitating the temporary presence of an anesthesiologist and/or assisting physician so long
as all of them are engaged in providing simultaneous treatment to the same patient and the
maximum number of persons in the building during times in which surgeries are performed
does not exceed 12; nor shall anything in this condition prohibit a doctor/dentist from
transitioning patients to another doctor/dentist in connection with the sale of his/her
medical/dental practice for a period not to exceed 8 months, so long as they are
simultaneously providing treatment to the same patient. The covenant may indicate that this
will not prevent the owner from petitioning the City to change the terms of the covenant,
should the City Parking requirements change, the square footage of the building be reduced,
or should other changes occur which lessen the parking demand/requirement. The covenant
may also provide that if the property owner desires to use the building for non-medical office
use in the future, it must be demonstrated that the office use generates a parking demand
(including employees and customers) that does not exceed the 12 parking spaces provided.
The justification must be provided to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3284 denying
the requested modification.
Appeal:
On September 15, 2000, the City Clerk received a letter from Mr. Matthew Francois appealing
the Planning Commission's decision to deny the requested Modification.
Mr. Francois objects to the Planning Commission decision based upon the grounds that the
Owners' proposed use of the building is entirely consistent with the following:
1. A reasonable interpretation of the original condition;
2. The letter and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance and Parking Provisions upon which the
condition was based;
3. The City practices for other buildings in the area; and
City Council Report - October 3, 2000
Appeal of PC Denial of Modification to Condition of Approval for PLN 2000-66 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
Page 3
4. The actual parking usage tracked to date.
A copy of Mr. Francois' appeal letter is attached for your review.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternative actions are listed under "City Council Actions" above.
FISCAL IMPACTS
None
Attachments:
1. Draft City Council Resolution upholding the Planning Commission's denial of PLN 2000-66
and deny the appeal.
2. Draft City Council Resolution upholding the appeal and denying the Planning Commission's
denial of PLN 2000-66.
Letter of Appeal submitted by Mr. Francois, dated September 15, 2000
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3301
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of September 12, 2000
Staff Report for Planning Commission Meeting of September 12, 2000
Location Map
o
4.
5.
6.
7.
Prepared by:
Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director
Approved by:
Bernard M. Strojny, City Manager
09~29/00 11:34 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~002/005
CA$$1DY
S H I H KO
DAWSON
September 29, 2000
Honorable Mayor Jane Kennedy
and Members of the City Council
City of Campbell
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Re:
14419 S. Bascom Avenue; Appeal of Denial for Request for Interpretation or
Modification to Parking Condition of Approval (PLN 2000-66)
Dear Mayor Kennedy and City Councilmembers:
We are writing on behalf of Dr. Dennis Wong and Ms. Dora Ng, the "Owners" of 14419
S. Bascom Avenue (the "Building"), to set forth their position with respect to the appeal of the
denial by the Campbell Planning Commission on September 12, 2000, of their appfieafion to
modify a condition of approval regarding parking. See, Planning Co~mission Resolution No.
3301, September 12, 2000. The condition in question required the recording ora covenant
rest~cting use of the Building site to 2 doctors/dentists (the "Condition"). Se_g~e Condition of
Approval No. 2, Plsnning Commission Resolution No. 3217, January 26, 1999.
Thc City Council was quite clear in its deliberations on August 1, 2000, when it referred
this matter back to the Planning Commission that a reasonable "common-sense" approach be
taken to resolve this issue. The Council further directed that the ultimate approach choscm
should not be overly burdensome of City st'iff. We have worked with staff and consulted the
complairfi.ng property owners to come up with such a reasonable common-sense condition.
Notwithstanding th.is fact, the Planning Commission voted to deny our request to modify the
Condition. Below we respond (in summary fashion) to the testimony before and the findings
made by the Planning Commission with respect to this matter.
lssue/Argu ment
The revised Condition would be
difficult to enforce.
Facts/Evidence
The revised Condition is easily verifiable by head
counts. It is no more difficult to enforce than the
existing Condition which requires entry on the
premises to ensure compliance.
Our earlier proposal envisioned the doctors
submitting a schedule of surgeries to the City a
month in advance. The Council said that a
~-0 CALI?ORNIA ST. SUITE 500 SAN FI~ANCISCO. CA ~,~. I I I T~I_EPHONE: ( ~ ] ~ ~ 7 8 tB - 2 0 Zl 0
FACSIHILE: ( 4 I 51 7 8 ~J - ~ 0 3 9
09/29/00 11:34 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~003/005
Hon. Mayor Jane Kennedy
and Members of the City Council
September 29, 2000
Page 2
2. What would happen on non-
surgery days?
3. Further environmental review of
the revised condition is necessary.
The Owners' employees are
parking at the gas station across
the street.
simpler approach which is not unduly
burdensome of City staff should be pursued. We
revised our proposal accordingly to simply limit
the number of persons that could be present in
the Building during surgery times to 12 (i.e., the
number of parking spaces).
On non-surgery days, the existing Condition
would apply, limiting use of the Building to 2
doctors/dentists. A limitation on the number of
support staff is not required by the Parking
Schedule (which simply requires 6 parking
spaces/doctor) nor is it imposed on any other
similarly situated property owner. Dr. Follmar,
the primary complainant, admits to having a
parking demand of 11-14 parking spaces at any
given time and a solo practicing dentist who
leases neighboring space from the Follmars
requires 8-11 parking spaces. Dr. Wong and Dr.
Walker should not be held to a higher and
different standard.
An amended initial study was prepared for the
project concluding that no significant
environmental impacts would occur and a
negative declaration was prepared. Further
environmental review is unwarranted since the
parking impacts associated with Dr. Walker's
surgeries will be significantly less i.(j~., maximum
2 surgical patients per day} than those already
analyzed and permitted assuming a more typical
dentistry or higher volume oral surgery operation
like Dr. Follmar's.
Parking at the gas station: (1) was explored in
response to suggestions made by Drs. FoHmar
and Noodleman to secure additional off-street
parking, (2) cannot be leased, and (3) does not
comply with Campbell's parking requirements
(according to staff).
09/29/00 11:34 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~004/005
Hon. Mayor lane Kennedy
and Members of the City Council
September 29, 2000
Page 3
The project will create a nuisance
due to insufficient parking. The
project will have a detrimental
effect on the adjacent property by
the placement of a parking
burden on adjacent office uses,
The proposed site layout does not
provide parking at a ratio of 6
spaces per doctor/dentist.
The Planning Commission's findings on this issue
conflict with the findings it made when it adopted
Resolution No. 3217. The buflding's 12 parking
spaces (6 for Dr. Walker and 6 for Dr. Wong) will
not be exceeded and thus neighboring properties
will not be impacted nor will the proposed use
create a nuisance due to insufficient parking. The
revised Condition flatly prohibits more than 12
persons in the Building during times in which
surgeries are performed. This provision
completely and adequately addresses the issue of
parking during the limited time in which
technically more than 2 doctors could be in the
Building, Parking demand is already greatly
reduced on surgery days given the nature of Dr.
Walker's surgical practice wherein he sees at
most 2 patients per day, Further, the purpose
and intent of the Condition is to address the high
volume par'king demands associated with full-
time doctors/dentists, which does not apply to the
facts of this case.
Public testimony indicates that
the current use of the site is
generating off site parking in
excess of the parking available on
site.
This "testimony" is at variance with the parking
logs voluntarily maintained (and submitted to the
Planning Commission) by Drs. Walker and Wong
tracking the parking whereabouts of each and
every patient that they have seen since opening
for business on May 1, 2000. Dr. Follmar and
other neighboring doctors admitted that their
staffs park off-site. Dr. Wong and Dr. Walker
should not be responsible for solving the parking
problem of the area which is not of their making.
Hon. Mayor Jane Kennedy
and Members of the City Council
September 29, 2000
Page 4
In addition to our previous testimony before the City Council, the Planning Commission,
and our conversations with City sta.ff (wh./ch we hereby incorporate by reference), we have
obtained a parking study of the area prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants which
finds that several properties in the area (including those owned by the primary complainants
herein) maintain less than 6 parking spaces per doctor/dent/st as required by the Carnpbell
Parking Schedule. We have also obtained an analysis fi:om a land use plasm/ng consultant (Irwin
Kaplan) which concludes: (I) that the City's Parking Schedule was adopted with a traditional
dental and medical practice in mind (assuming more doctors means more patients) and does not
account for practices such as Dr. Walker's where there are two doctors attcncl/ng to a single
patient; and (2) the City has the discretion pursuant to Municipal Code § 21.50.040B to revise
the Condition for the Building in accordance with unique facts and circumstances of this
~t?icular case. We are prepared to submit these supplemental materials to the City prior to or at
City Council bearing on October 3Td if the City deems such additional information necessary.
Please feel fi:ce to contact Dr. Walker, or the undersigned prior to the hearing if you have
any other questions or concerns. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Respectfully Submittcd,
CASS]DY, SHIN{KO & DAWSON
Matthew D. Francois
CC:
Stephen Cassidy
Sharon Fierro
h-win Kaplan
William Seligmann
Bernard S trojny
Dr. Lee Walker
Dr. Dermis Wong
Irwin M. Kaplan, AICP
2852 Alida Street
Oakland, CA 94602-3451
(510) 530-1771
Re~
ro~
From:
Date:
Appeal from the Planning Commission denial of the request for a Modification to a
previously approved Site and Architectural Approval (PLN2000-66) for 14419 South
Bascom Avenue. Campbell, CA
Stephen K. Cassidy
Irwin Kaplan
September 25, 2000
Background:
In its Zoning Ordinance, the City of Campbell establishes the Site and Architectural Approval
process that allows the imposition of special conditions to assure that an approved use will meet
the criteria required by the findings. More importantly, perhaps, Section 21.50.040B. gives the
Commission the authority to make a determination as to how much parking shall be provided
"for uses not provided in this Section."
Unforeseen Circumstances:
When the parking schedule was adopted more than a decade ago, it could not have anticipated
the dramatic changes and the degree of sophistication of surgery performed outside of hospitals.
The type of outpatient surgery performed by Dr. Walker that requires more than one person with
a medical degree to be present, was the exception, rather than the rule a decade ago (assuming
that such surgery was performed at all outside of hospitals). The ordinance, however, speaks
only to the "medical and dental clinic" as it would have existed at that time, unaware that there
might be circumstances where a medical or dental office might have more doctors than patients.
This is an example where a Zoning Code lags behind the changes that have taken place.
Recognizing that change is ongoing and that zoning codes are slow to catch up, the City of
Campbell adopted Section 21.50.040B, authorizing the Planning Commission to determine the
parking requirements "for uses not provided in this Section."
Zoning Codes typically use surrogate measures to calculate parking demand, such as the number
of seats in a theater or restaurant, the number of classrooms in a school, or the number of beds in
a care facility. Surrogate measures, for example, assume there is a correlation between the
number of beds in a hospital and the combined total of patients, employees and visitors that can
be expected (in all but the most extreme cases) to occupy the facility at any given time.
Campbell's ordinance uses the number of doctors as a surrogate measure for the total number of
people that will occupy the premises of a medical and dental facility at one time. The underlying
assumption is that the more doctors there are, the more patients there will be. This may have
been true when the ordinance was adopted, but it is no longer the case. The ordinance didn't
anticipate two (or more) people with medical degrees caring for a single patient. As adopted, this
provision of the Code is no longer relevant and as such, is precisely the type of circumstance that
was contemplated when the City adopted Section 21.50.040B granting the authority to the
Planning Commission make a determination as to how much parking shall be provided "for uses
not provided in this Section."
Conditioned Approvals:
The area surrounding the subject property is fully developed, which means that the buildings and
the parking that are already there do not change, even though rapidly evolving technologies,
markets and cultural trends change the activities that take place within these buildings. Cities
such as Campbell increasingly have to accommodate circumstances that didn't exist when the
original structures were built. The challenge is to balance orderly growth with the opportunities
presented by a constantly evolving marketplace. Fewer and fewer Bay Area communities have
the luxury of planning on a blank slate and since much of the development is relatively new and
still sound, redevelopment is not an option. Since changes in zoning laws typically lag behind
changes in the economy, there are circumstances that legitimately warrant Planning Commission
intervention, rather than reliance solely upon literal administration of the Code. While staff lacks
the authority to interpret the code, the Planning Commission is empowered to make the
judgments to assure that the best interests of the community are served. In this case,
Modification (PLN2000-66) to a previously approved Site and Architectural Approval was the
vehicle suited to this process and staff recommended approval of the revised conditions as the
mechanism to achieve the City's best interests. Obviously, the most effective conditions are
those that approximate what the marketplace demands, so that they will tend to be self-enforcing,
rather than rely solely upon labor-intensive code enforcement activities. In the final analysis, the
Planning Commission's ability to impose conditions tailored to the unique circumstances of the
project is the connective tissue between the ordinances of the past and the trends of the future.
In order for a process of conditioned approvals to maintain the integrity of the Code, it should
also be pointed out that the Site and Architectural Approval process requires specific findings to
be made. This means that each request is unique and to be considered on its merits, so that an
action on one request does not set a precedent for another.
In summary, if it weren't for the Site and Architectural Approval process that allows the
Commission to tailor its approvals to fit the circumstances and the provision in Code Section
21.50,040B that specifically gives the Planning Commission the authority to accommodate
unforeseen circumstances, the community would be deprived of the tools needed to respond
rapidly in an era of change.
08'21/00 15:38 FAX 415 788 2039 C$&D ~. ~002/003
CASSID¥
ShIMkO
DAWSON
September 21, 2000
Dr. Richard Noodleman
3803 South Bascom Avenue
Suite 200
Campbell, California 95008
Re: pLN 2000-66; Request for interpretation
Modification of Condition of Approval
14419_South Bascom Avenue; Campbell, california
Dear Dr. Noodleman:
We have appealed the Planning Commission denial of our
request for a modification/interpretation of the parking
Condition of Approval for 14419 South Bascom Avenue. The purpose
of this letter is to renew our offer made several times
previously to meet at any time or place with you to discuss your
concerns and attempt to come to a resolution acceptable to all.
We are willing to discuss any reasonable proposal which
relates to the actual parking related impacts caused by the
practices of Drs. Wong and Walker. We caution, however, that
neither Dr. Wong nor Dr. Walker can solve :he parking problem for
the area which exists and is not caused by Dr. Wong's building or
the practice of Drs. Wong or Walker; and we note again that our
proposal to modify the Condition of Approval demonstrably reduces
~0 CALIFORNIA ~. 5UUE ~00 SAN F~NClSCO. ~a g41 I I ~LEPHONE; ( 4 I 5 ) 7 B 8o204 0
09,/21/00 15:38 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~003/003
September 21, 2000
Page 2
parking impacts rather than increases them. (See, Ms. Follmars
evidence that Dr. Follmar's practice involves 6-8 staff members
attending to 5-6 patients at any given time, for a parking demand
of 11-14.)
Please let us know ~f you wish to meet to discuss the
concerns of the Follmars. We will be pleased to attend, pending
the appeal to the City Council.
Very truly yours,
Cassidy, Shimko & Dawson
Stephen K.
Attorneys for Drs. Lee
Walker and Dennis Wong
SKC:bls
cc: Hon. Vice Mayor Matthew Dean
Matthew Francois
Irwin Kaplan
Hon. Mayor Jane Kennedy
Lee Walker
Dennis Wong
09/15/00 14:10 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~anl/003
CASSIDY
S H I M KO
DAWSON
S~'ptcmber 15, 2000
VIA FACSIMILE AND FEDERAL EXPRESS
Anne Bybcc
City Cl~rk
City of Campbell
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3301
De. ar Ms. Bybee:
Wc submit this letter on behalf of Dr. Dennis Wong and Ms. Dora Ng, thc "Owners" of
14419 S. Bascom Avenue (the "Building"), to appeal the denial by the Campbell Planning
Commission on September 12, 2000, of our r~uezt for a modification to a condition of approval
regarding parking. S~ee. e.g, Plavning Commission Resolution No. 3301, S~tembcr 12, 2000..
The condition in question required thc recording of a covenant restricting ~o of the Building site
to a maximum of 2 doctors/dentists (thc "Condition"). See, Condition of Approval No. 2,
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3217, January 26, 1999. Wc seek review oft. he Planning
Commission's decision by the Campbell City Council pursuant to Campbell Municipal Code
§ 21.80 et seq.
This appeal is brought on the grounds that thc Owners' proposed usc of the Building (and
associated proposed modification) is entirely consistent with: (1) a reasonable interpretation of
thc Condition, (2) the letter and intent of thc City's Zoning Ordinance provision upon which thc
Condition is based (see, e._&,. Campbell Municipal Code § 21.50.050), (3) City pravtic~s for other
buildings in the area, and (4) thc actual parking usage tracked to date. As such, by adopting
Resolution No. 3301, the Planning Commission prejudicially abus~l its discretion in that they
fail~i to proceed in the manner required by law, their decision is not supported by thc findings,
and the findings arc not support~ by ~ubstantial evidence in thc record. Code of Civil Procedure
§ 1094.5.
2.0 CAI. IIF01~NIA 5T SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO.
09/15/00 14:11 FAX 415 788 2039 ¢$&D ~003/003
Ms. Anne Bybee
September 15, 2000
Page 2
Thank you for your prompt calendering of this matter on thc next available City Council
Agenda. Please feel free to contact the undersigned if you have any questions regmding our
request.
Very truly yours,
CASSIDY, SHIMKO & DAWSON
Matthew D, F~anc0~s
Attorneys for Dr. Dennis Wong
and Ms. Dora Ng
Stephen K. Cassidy
Sharon Fierro
William Seligmann
Dr. Lee tL Walker
Dr. Dennis IC Wong
09/.~5/00 11:25 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~002/003
CASSlDY
S H I M KO
DAWSON
September 15, 2000
As you know, we continue to remain puzzled by the
TELF~PHONF_: I ~ i 5 ) 7 8 ~ - P_ 0 ~ 0
FAr~SIMILr'; [~, ~ 5) 7~ ~-~ ODD
directed.
VIA FACSIMILE
Sharon Fierro
Community Development Department
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, California 95008
William R. Seligmann
Dempster, Seligmann & Raineri
3 ~ North Santa Cruz Avenue, #A
Los Gatos, California 95030
Re: PLN 2000-66; Request for Interpretation
Modification of Condition of Approval
14419 South Bascom Avenue, Campbell, C~iforni~
Dear Sharon and Bill:
As I am sure you understand, we were very disappointed
in the deliberations and decision of the Planning Commission on
the application to modify the parking Condition of Approval
which, we had worked out with you and discussed with the Follmars
representatives. Obviously, we will appeal the Planning
Commission's decision to the City Council. In the meantime, I
wanted to let you know how much we appreciated your efforts in
comin9 to the ~common sense" resolution which the City Council
09/~$/00 11:25 FAX 415 ?$$ 2039 C$&D ~003/003
September 15, 2000
PaHe 2
opposition of the Follmars and Dr. Noodleman to our proposal,
since it demonstrably reduces parking impacts rather than
increases them. Nevertheless, we continue to be ready, willing,
and able to meet with you, the Follmars, and Dr. Noodleman at any
time or place to discuss their concerns and attempt to come to a
resolution acceptable to all concerned. I note in this
connection, however, that neither Dr. Wong nor Dr. Walker can
solve the parking problem for the area which clearly exigt$ and
is not caused by Dr. Wong's building or the practice of Drs.
Wong or Walker.
Please let me know if you wish to convene another
meeting to discuss the concerns of the Follmars and Dr.
Noodleman. We will be pleased to attend, pending the appeal to
the City Council.
SKC:bls
cc: Hon. Vice Mayor Matthew Dean
Matthew Francois
Irwin Kaplan
Hon. Mayor Jane Kennedy
Le~ Walker
Dennis Wong
09/15/00 11:37 FAX 415 ?88
cc~&t)
~002
CA.~$1DY
.~HIMKO
DAWSON
September 15, 2000
Jolie Houston
Berliner cohen
10 Almaden Boulevard
Suite 1100
san Jose, California
Re:
Dear Jolie:
95113
PLN 2000-66; Request ~or interpretation
Modification of Condition of Approval
19419 South Bascom Avenue= Campbe.ll, Californi~
We have appealed the Planning Commission denial of our
request for & modifiCation/interpreDation 'of the parking
Condition of kpproval for 14419 South Bascom Avenue. I a~ sure
that come~ as no surprise to you.
The purpose of this letter is to renew our offer made
several times previously to meet at any time or place with you
and =he Follmars tO discuss their concerns and anCempt uo come
a remolution acceptable to all concerned. We are willin~ to
discuss any reasonable proposal which relates ~o the actual
parking related impacts caused by the practices of Drs. Wong and
Walker. I caution, however, that neither Dr. wong nor Dr.
walker can solve the parking problem f~r the area which exists
09/15/00 11:3~ FA~ ~15 ?$$ 1353 CCS&I) ~003
September 15, 2000
Page 2
and is not caused by Dr. Wong's building or th~ practice of Drs.
Wong or Walker; and I note again that our proposal to modify the
condition of Approval demonstrably reduces parking impacts rather
than increases them. {Se~, Ms. Follmar'S evidence that Dr.
Follmar's practice involves 6-8 staff members attending to 5-6
patients at any given ti~e, for a parking demand of 11-14.)
Please let me know if you wish to meet to discuss the
concerns of the Follmar~. We will be pleased to attend, pending
Uhe a~rpeal to the City Co,nell-
SFaC:bis
co .'
Hon. Vice Mayor Matthew Dean
MAtthew Francois
Irwin Kaplan
Hon. Mayor Jane Kennedy
Lee Walker
Dennis wong
CO0/CO0(~ ,~ J.T :~*[ 00/~I/$0
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Community Development Department · Current Planning
September 14, 2000
Matthew D. Francois, Esq.
Cassidy, Shimko & Dawson
20 California Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Re: PLN2000-66 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
Dear Applicant:
Please be advised that at its meeting of September 12, 2000, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 3301 denying the request for a Modification (PLN2000-66) to a
previously-approved Site and Architectural Approval, to alter Condition of Approval No.
2 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3217, which required the recordation of a
covenant limiting the number of doctors/dentists using the site to two, on the above-
referenced property.
This action is effective in ten days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. The time
within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by California
Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 866-2144.
Sincerely,
Sharon Fierro
Community Development Director
Dr. Dennis Wong/Dora Ng (Property Owners)
14419 S. Bascom Avenue, #200
Los Gatos, CA 95032
70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95008.1423 · TEL 408.866.2140 · FaX 408.866.8381 - TDD 408.866.2790
RESOLUTION NO. 3301
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL DENYING A MODIFICATION
(PLN2000-66) TO A PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED SITE AND
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL (S 98-24) TO ALTER A
CONDITION OF APPROVAL LIMITING THE NUMBER OF
DOCTORS/DENTISTS USING TIlE SITE TO TWO ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14419 S. BASCOM AVENUE IN
A PO (PROFESSIONAL OFFICE) ZONING DISTRICT.
APPLICATION OF MR. MATT FRANCOIS, ON BEHALF OF
DR. DENNIS WONG. FILE NO. PLN2000-66.
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the
Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the heating was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission did find as follows
with respect to application PLN2000-66:
1. An amended Initial Study was prepared for this project that concludes there are no significant
environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration has been prepared.
The approved site plan provides 12 on-site parking spaces which is consistent with the
parking ratio and schedule provided for two doctors/dentist under the Parking Schedule
provided in the Campbell Municipal Code.
The conditions of approval for this project limit its use to no more than two doctors/dentists
and requires a deed restriction reflecting this condition to be filed with the County Recorders
Office.
4. The project will create a nuisance due to insufficient parking.
5. The project will have a detrimental affect on the adjacent property by the placement of a
parking burden on adjacent office uses.
6. Public testimony indicates that the current use of the site is generating off site parking in
excess of the parking available on site.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes
that the evidence does not establish that:
The proposed project does not aid in the enhancement and the harmonious development of
the immediate area. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the uses will be
detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
Planning Commission Res,, mion No. 3301
PLN2000-66 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue - Matt Francois for Dr. Wong
Page 2
2. The proposed site layout does not provide parking at a ratio of 6 spaces per doctor/dentist.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of September, 2000, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Doorley, Hemandez, Jones, Gibbons
Lindstrom
Francois, Lowe
None
APPROVED:
Elizabeth Gibbons, Chair
ATTEST:
Sharon Fierro, Secretary
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
Attachment #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
PLN2000-66
Francois, M.
Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Matt Francois, on behalf of
Dr. Dennis Wong, for approval of a Modification (PLN2000-66) to a
previously-approved Site and Architectural Approval (S 98-24) to alter a
Condition of Approval limiting the number of doctors/dentists using the site
to two, on property located at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue in a PO
(Professional Office) Zoning District. A Negative Declaration was
previously approved for this project. Planning Commission decision final in
10 days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. (Referred back to the
Planning Commission on August 1, 2000, by City Council for consideration
of revised language on the proposed Modification to the Condition of
Approval.).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
Grant a Negative Declaration for this project; and
Adopt a Resolution, based upon the attached findings, APPROVING the requested
modification to the previously adopted Condition No. 2 of project approval granted under
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3217, subject to the attached conditions of approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An amended Initial Study was prepared for this project that concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the project. Consequently, a Negative Declaration is
recommended in accordance with Section 15074(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines.
SUPPLIMENTAL STAFF REPORT
Staff facilitated a meeting on Monday September 11, 2000 between adjacent property owner Ms.
Deborah Folmar and her attorney, Jolie Houston and the property owners of the dental building,
Dennis and Dora Wong and their attorney, Matthew Francois. A revised memorandum dated
August 17, 2000 (Attachment 3) proposed by Mr. Francois was discussed. In it, revised language
limits the maximum number of people on site to twelve when oral surgeries are being performed.
This language is very clear and easily enforceable compared to previous submittals. While the
adjacent property owner still has concerns about adequate parking, the proposed language does
limit the building occupants to the number of parking spaces provided, clearly adequate.
The modified language also addresses the transition period for the transfer of the dental practice
from Dr. Loitz to Dr. Walker. As with many types of businesses, the value is in the "good will"
of the business, not in physical commodities. Good will is the return business that is generated by
the trust a patient has in the care provider. Dr. Walker is purchasing Dr. Loitz's practice and for
Planning Commission Supplemental Staff Report
PLN2000-66 -- 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
Page 2
a period of eight months there will be two dentists operating from the same first floor office. Mr.
Francois described the scenario as follows: Dr. Wong will continue to serve his dental patients
from the second floor office. Dr. Loitz and Dr. Walker will be consulting and serving the same
one patient during this overlap, so while the patient may be referred to Dr. Loitz for oral surgery,
Dr. Walker will be introduced and actually perform the operation, with Dr. Loitz assisting. Mr.
Francois explained that they will not have individual patients that are not shared as described.
For non-surgery days, the current wording of Condition Number 2 remains the same, limiting
occupancy to not more than two doctors/dentists.
Staff believes that the revised language is more easily enforced and provides a reasonable
approach to allow the building to be used without jeopardizing off-site parking on adjacent
properties.
Attachments:
1. Recommended Findings for Approval
2. Recommended Conditions of Approval
3. Letter requesting a modification to the wording of the previous condition of approval dated August 17, 2000
4. Site plan
Location Map
Prepared by: ~~ ~~"'~"-~
· e'~S har'b"n Fierro
Community Development Director
REVISED FINDINGS
Attachment #1
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF FILE NO. PLN 2000-66
SITE ADDRESS: 14419 South Bascom Avenue
APPLICANT: Matthew Francois, Esq.
P.C. MEETING: September 12, 2000
Findings for Approval of request to Modify a previously approved Condition of Approval to allow a medical office
building on property located at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to File No. PLN2000-66.
1. An amended Initial Study was prepared for this project that concludes there are no significant
environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration has been prepared.
2. The approved site plan provides 12 on-site parking spaces which is consistent with the parking ratio
and schedule provided for two doctors/dentist under the Parking Schedule provided in the Campbell
Municipal Code.
3. The conditions of approval for this project limit its use to no more than two doctors/dentists and
requires a deed restriction reflecting this condition to be filed with the County Recorders Office.
4. The proposed modification to the condition of approval would allow the presence and practice of
additional doctors/dentist during oral surgeries and assures adequate parking by restricting the
number of people present in the building at that time to a maximum of 12, one parking space
allocated for each person, matching or exceeding the actual parking spaces available.
5. The proposed wording of the revised condition limits use of the building when the practice is being
transferred or sold to limit the maximum number of dentists/doctors in the building to not more than
three so long as two of the doctors/dentists are attending to the same one patient and that the time of
the transfer/overlapping practice will not exceed a total of eight (8) months.
6. The project will not create a nuisance due to insufficient parking.
7. The project will not have a detrimental affect on the adjacent property by the placement of a parking
burden on adjacent office uses.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and
concludes that:
1. The proposed project will aid in the enhancement and the harmonious development of the immediate area.
The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the uses will be detrimental to the public health, safety,
peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such
proposed use.
2. The proposed site layout provides parking at a ratio of 6 spaces per doctor/dentist.
REVISED CONDITIONS
Attachment #2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FILE NO. PLN 2000-66
SITE ADDRESS: 14419 South Bascom Avenue
APPLICANT: Matthew Francois, Esq.
P.C. MEETING: September 12, 2000
The applicant is herby notified, as part of this application, that he/she is required to meet the following conditions
in accordance with the Ordinances of the Cit of Campbell and the State of California. Additionally, the applicant
is herby notified that he/she is required to comply with all applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell
and the State of Califorma that pertain to this development and are not herein specified.
1. The project is subject to all conditions of Planning Commission Resolution Number 3217, except as
modified below:
2. Condition Number 2 shall be modified as follows:
Parking: Prior to building occupancy, applicant shall record a covenant, running with the land,
which shall restrict use of the building site to a maximum of 2 doctors/dentist. Nothing in this
condition shall prohibit one of the doctors/dentists from performing surgeries necessitating the
temporary presence of an anesthesiologist and/or assisting physician so long as all of them are
engaged in providing simultaneous treatment to the same patient and the maximum number of
persons in the building during times in which surgeries are performed does not exceed 12; nor shall
anything in this condition prohibit a doctor/dentist from transitioning patients to another
doctor/dentist in connection with the sale of his/her medical/dental practice for a period not to
exceed 8 months, so long as they are simultaneously providing treatment to the same patient. The
covenant may indicate that this will not prevent the owner from petitioning the City to change the
terms of the covenant, should the City Parking requirements change, the square footage of the
building be reduced, or should other changes occur which lessen the parking demand/requirement.
The covenant may also provide that ff the property owner desires to use the building for non-medical
office use in the future, it must be demonstrated that the office use generates a parking demand
(including employees and customers) that does not exceed the 12 parking spaces provided. The
justification must be provided to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
09/11/00 14:40 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~002
CAS$1D¥
~ h I M KO
DAWSON
August 17, 2000
VIA FACSIMII.F,
Sharon Fierro
Community Development Director
City of Campbell
70 N. Pixst Street
Campbell, CA 95008
William Seligmann
Dempster, Sehgmann & Rameri
3 ~ North Santa Cruz Avenue, #A
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Sharon and Bill:
We are writing to respond to 2 points raised by Bill regarding our draft proposal (dated
August 3, 2000) to amend the condition of approval regarding parking for 14419 S. Bascom
Avenue (the "Building"). Bill raised the following two points with respect to our draft proposal,
noting the need to: (l) specify the total maximum number of persons who can be in the building
during times in which surgeries are performed and (2) specifically reference the transition of
practice provision in the language of the condition. We have amended our draft proposal
accordingly:
Nothing in this condition shall prohibit one of the doctors/dentists from
performing surgehes necessitating the temporary presence of an
anesthesiologist and/or assisting physician so long as all of them are
engaged in providing simultaneous treatment to the same patient and
the total maximum number of persons in the building during times in
which surgeries are performed does not exceed 12; nor shall anything
in this condition prohibit a doctor/dentist flora transitioning patients to
another doctor/dentist in connection with the sale of his/her
medical/dental practice for a period not to exceed 8 months, so long as
they axe simultaneously providing treatment to the same patient.
We note that the 8 month period was included to allow Dr. Walker and Dr. Loitz to transition
practices from May 1, 2000 (when the Building opened for business) until lanuary 1, 2001. Bill
suggested a further provision that would limit transitions to once every five or ten years. We are
not amenable to including that provision for the following reasons: (1) it is unnecessarily
20 CALIFORNIA ST. SUITE 500 ,5,AN FRANCISCo. CA 94 I t I TELEPHONE: ( ~- ~' )7 ~, 0 - ~. 0 ~ 0
:,2
09/11/00 14:41 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~003
Ms. Fierro and Mr. Seligrnann
August 17, 2000
Page 2
cc.'
restrictive of both Dr. Walker and Dr. Wong's ability to sell their medical/dental practices;~
(2) the City has ample enforcement ability g/yen the 8 month limitation and the simultaneous
treatment of the same patimt provision, again conditions which are not hnposed on any other
doctor/dentist in the community; and (3) it is not consistent with the "common sense" approach
the Council urged be taken to resolve th/s matter.
We also note that the above language is even more restrictive than what is allowed under
the existing condition of approval (which simply limits the use of the Building to 2
doctors/d~ntists and does not refer to a limitation on support staff), and it is certainly more
restrictive than the practices of other neighboring doctors/dentists. For example, as pointed out by
Dr. and Mrs. Ken Follmar li in correspondence to the City dated May I, 2000, their oral surgery
practice requires 6-8 staff(including Dr. Follmar) to treat 5-6 patients at the same time, resulting
in a demand of 11-14 parking spaces. A solo practicing dentist who leases neighboring space from
the Follmars requires 8-11 parking spaces. Dr. Walker, by comparison, sees a maximum of 2
surgical patients per day. Notwithstanding this disparity, which underscores the true nature of this
dispute wirier is over labels and not occupancy levels, Drs. Wong and Walker have agreed to the
above specified restrictions in a good fa/th effort to resolve any and all concerns regarding parking
associated with the Building.
We are confident that th/s revised proposal adequately addresses the parking issue. Please
feel free to contact us if you would like to further discuss any o£these provisions. If not, we look
forward to meeting with the neighbors prior to the Planning Comm/ssion heating on September
12, 2000, in an effort to resolve any outstanding issues regarding parking.
Matthew D. Francois
Hon. Mayor Jane Kennedy
Hon. Vice Mayor Matthew Dean
Hon. Elizabeth Gibbons
Stephen Cassidy
Irwin Kaplan
Bernard Strojny
Dr. Lee Walker
Dr. Dennis Wong
Although the sale ofa mcdical/deutal practicc docs not occur frequently, file suggested condition
would esscmially proh/bic Dr. Wong and Dr. Walker (and thcir successors) from selling their pract/ce (the value of
wh/ch is primarily al,n-/veal from goodwill and the continuation of the pat/¢nt base) if filcy were to decide to r¢localc
or become disabled pr/or to the cxpiration of 5 ycar pcrioc[
CITY OF CAMPBELL
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
AMENDED INITIAL STUDY
Planning Commission Hearing
September 12, 2000
Project Description
Modification of conditions of approval for a two-story 4930 square foot medical office
building located at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue.
The Proposed modifications would revise Condition of Approval Number 2 limiting the
maximum number of dentist/doctor on the site to two to allow the maximum to be
exceeded under the following circumstances:
When oral surgeries are being performed the maximum occupancy of the building
is limited to twelve. This limitation is more restrictive since it mandates one
parking space per person that will meet or exceed the actual parking demand.
The modified language also addresses the transition period for the transfer of the
dental practice from one doctor/dentist to another. During a period not to exceed
eight months during the transfer, two dentists may be counted as one for the
purposes of Condition Number Two if they are attending to the same one patient
at the same time.
For non-surgery days, the current wording of Condition Number 2 remains the
same, limiting occupancy to not more than two doctors/dentists.
Project Address: 14419 S. Bascom Avenue, Campbell California 95008
Application Number PLN 2000-66
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Campbell, 70 N. First Street, Campbell CA
95008
Contact Person: Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director
Project Sponsor's Name: Matthew Francois, Cassidy, Shimko, Dawson, Attorneys at
Law, 20 California Street, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94111
General Plan Designation: Professional Office
Zoning: Professional Office
Location of project: West side of S. Bascom Avenue, one parcel north of the
intersection with White Oaks Road
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECI~..,r Yes
Significant
WILL THE PROPOSED PROJECT Unless No Infor-
RESULT IN THE FOLLOWING No Not It Is Apparent Cum- mation
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Impact Significant Mitigated Mitigation ulative Sources
A. LAND USE AND PLANNING:
1. Result in conflicts with existing General x "o o o o 2,3,
Plan designation or zoning.
2. Result in conflicts with environmental plans or x o o o o 1,2
policies adopted by agencies with
jurisdiction over the project.
3. Affect agricultural resources or operations x o o O o 3
(e.g., anpacts to soils or farm lands).
4. Disrupt or divide the physical x o o o o 2,3
arrangement of an established community.
B. POPULATION AND HOUSING:
1. Cummulatively exceed official regional or local x o o o o 2,3
population projections·
2. Induce substantial growth in an area either x o o o o 2,3
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects m
undeveloped areas or infrastructure expansion).
3. Displace existing housing, especially x o o o o 2,3
affordable housing.
C. GEOPHYSICAL:
1. Result in. or expose people to, fault rapture, x o o o o 2,3
2. Result in. or expose people to gound x o o o o . 2,3
shaking or liquifaction.
3. Result in. or expose people to seisrmc x o o o o 2.3
seiche or tsunarm.
4. Result in, or expose people to, landslides or x o o o o 2,3
or mudslides
5. Result in erosion, changes to topography, or x o o o o 2
unstable conditions from excavation or grading.
6. Result m, or expose people to subsidence x o o o o 3
of the land.
Page 1
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLio£ Yes
Significant Significant
WILL THE PROPOSED PROJECT Unless No knfor-
RESULT IN THE FOLLOWING No Not It Is Apparem Cum- marion
ENX, ffRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Impact Significant Mitigated Mitigation ulative Sources
7. Result in, or expose people to, expansive soils, x o o o o 3
8. Affect unique geologic or physical features, x ' ,.o o o o 3
D. WATER:
t. Change absorption rates, drainage patterns, o X o o o 2,3
or the rate and amount of surface runoff.
2. Expose people or property to water related x o o o o 3
hazards such as flooding.
3. Discharge into surface waters or other alter- x o o o o 2,3
ation of surface water quality.
4. Change the amount of surface water in any x o o o o ,3
water body.
5. Change currents or the course or direction of x o o o o 2,3
water movements.
6. Change the quantity of ground water, either x o o o o 2,3
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts.
7. Alter direction or rate of flow of ground water, x o o o o 2,3
8. Adversely effect ground water quality, x o o o o 2,3
E. AIR QUALITY:
1. Violate any air quality standard or contribute x o o o o 1,2,3
to an existing or projected air quality violation.
2. Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, x o o o o 2
3. Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, x o o o o 2
or cause any change in climate.
4. Create objectionable odors, x o o o o 2
F. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION:
1. Increase vehicle trips or traffic congestion, x o o o o 2.3
2. Create safety hazards from design features x o o o o 2.3
(i.e., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or from incompatible uses.
Page 2
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKL,o £ Yes
Significant Significant
WILL THE PROPOSED PROJECT Unless No Infor-
RESULT IN THE FOLLOWING No Not It Is Apparent Cum- marion
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Impact Significant Mitigated Mitigation ulative Sources
3. Obstruct emergency access to nearby uses. x o o o o 2,3
4. Provide insufficient parking capacity, o 'o x o o 2,3
5. Create hazards for pedestrians/bicyclists, x o o o o 2
6. Conflict with adopted policies supporting x o o o o 2,3
alternative transportation.
7. Affect rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts, x o o o o
G. BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS:
1. Disturb any endangered, threatened, or rare x o o o o 2,3
species or their habitats (e.g., plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds).
2. Affect or eliminate heritage trees, x o o o o 2.3
3. Affect locally designated natural communities x o o o o 2,3
(e.g., Shoreline).
4. Disturb wetland habitats (e.g., fresh and x o o o o 2,3
saltwater marshes, and riparian comdors).
5. Affect dispersal or migration comdors, x o o o o 2,3
H. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES:
1. Create conflicts with adopted energy x o o o o 1,2,3
conservation plans.
2. Use non-renewable resources m a wasteful and x o o o o , 1,2
inefficient manner.
I. HAZARDS:
1. Create a risk of accidental explosion or release x o o o o 2
of hazardous substances (e.g., oil, pesticides,
chemicals, or radiation).
2. Interfere with an emergency response or x o o o o 2
evacuahon plan.
3. Create any health hazard or potential x o o o o 2
health hazard.
Page 3
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKL.o r Yes
Significant Significant
WILL THE PROPOSED PROJECT Unless No Infor-
RESULT IN THE FOLLOWING No Not It Is Apparent Cum- marion
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Impact Significant Mitigated Mitigation ulative Sources
4. Expose people to existing sources of potential x o o o o 2,3
health hazards.
5. Increase fire hazards in areas with flammable x o o o o 2,3
brush, grass or trees.
J. NOISE:
I. Increase existing noise levels, x o o o o 2,3
2. Expose people to severe noise levels, x o o o o ' 2,3
K. PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Create a need for new or altered £~e protection, x o o o o 2
2. Create a need for new or altered police services, x o o o o 2
3. Create a need for new or altered school services, x o o o o 2
4. Require increased maintenance services, x o o o o 2,3
5. Create a need for new governmental services, o x o o o 2,4
L. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
1. Create a need for new or altered power or x o o o o 2,3
natural gas systems.
2. Create a need for new communication systems, x o o o o 2,3
9~
3. Require new or altered water treatment or x o o o o _,~
distribution facilities. -
4. Create a need for new or altered sewer service, x o o o o ~,~
5. Require new or altered storm water drainage, x o o o o 2,3
6. Require new or altered solid waste disposal, x o o o o 2,3
M. AESTHETICS:
I. Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway, x o o o o 2,3
2. Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect, x o o o o 2
3. Create light or glare, x o o o o 2
Page 4
II. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKL. ~' les
Significant Significant
WILL THE PROPOSED PROJECT Unless No Infor-
RESULT IN THE FOLLOWING No Not It Is Apparent Cum- marion
ENVIRONMENT)~L EFFECTS: Impact Significant Mitigated Mitigation ulative Sources
N. CULTURAL RESOURCES:
1. Disturbance of paleontological resources, x ,.o o o o 2,3
2. Disturbance of archaeological resources, x o o o o ~,o
3. Affect historical resources, x o o o o 2,3
4. Affect unique ethnic cultural values, x o o o o 2,3
5. Resmct existing religious or sacred uses within x o o o o
the potential impact area.
O. RECREATION:
1. Increase in demand for parks or other x o o o o 2
recreational facilities.
2. Affect existing recreational opportunities, x o o o o 2
P. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF
SIGNIFICANCE:
1. Does the project have the potential to degrade x o o o o
the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self sustaining levels, threaten to elim-
inate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or resmct the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate
important examples of Califorma history?
2. Does the project have the potential to achieve x o o o o
short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals?
3. Does the project have impacts that are x o o o
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable?
4. Does the project have environmental effects x o o o o
that will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Page 5
1. CEQA Guidelines-
2. Project Plans prepared by Greg Benton 12.23.98
3. Campbell General Plan, Zoning Ordinance
RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
The following explanations are keyed to the letter of the item contained in the Environmental
Checklist.
Water
The parcel presently contains a single-family house structure with a deep front yard that
has been paved. The proposed site plan will increase the amount of impermeable
coverage only slightly, as the front 15 feet+ of the parcel and the perimeter will be
landscaped in planting.
Transportation
The proposed square footage of the building would require the provision of 15 parking
spaces if the use of the building were general office. The building is proposed to be used
for two dentists, one on teach floor, which requires 12 spaces under the City Zoning
Ordinance. The approval of the building will be conditioned upon the recordation of a
covenant limiting the use of the building to a maximum of two doctors except under the
following conditions:
1. During times when oral surgery is being performed, the total occupancy of the
building is limited to a maximum of 12 persons, or one parking space per person.
This will allow an unspecified number of physicians to attend to the same patient
and not exceed the parking spaces available.
2. For a maximum period of eight months during the transfer or sale of a dental or
medical practice to another doctor/dentist, two doctors/dentists may practice on
the same one patient at the same time and may be considered as one
doctor/dentist.
Government Services
The project will require an increase in city services due to the increase in square footage,
use and area. The increase is not significant.
P. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIlZlCANCE
1. As discussed above, this project does not have the potential to significantly degrade
the quality of the environment, including effects on animals or plants, or to eliminate
historic or prehistoric sites.
2. As discussed above, both short and long-term environmental effects associated with
this project will be less than significant.
3. When impacts associated with this project are considered alone or in combination
with impacts of other projects, they are not significant.
4. The above discussions do not identify any substantial adverse impacts to people as a
result of this project.
Amended Initial Study
Planning Commission Meeting
September 12, 2000
V. DETERMINATION
X
The proposed project COULD NOT have any significant effect on the environment and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted.
Although the project as proposed could have had a significant effect on the enviroment,
there will not be any in this case because measures to mitigate those effects have been
added to the project and therefore a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is
hereby adopted.
The Proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and therefore an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
~~ Date:
Sharon Fierro
Community Development Director
::PERCOLA'
BASINS
Ct.
4 I 7/31
Attachment #7
3 8 8 / I 5
~ 6/8
27/15
4~5/52
32
'2
RCOL
ASINS
LOCATION MAP
14419 S. Bascom Avenue
;unrise
ITEM NO. 9
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
SEPTEMBER 12, 2000
PLN2000-66
Francois, M.
Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Matt Francois, on behalf of
Dr. Dennis Wong, for approval of a Modification (PLN2000-66) to a
previously-approved Site and Architectural Approval (S 98-24) to alter a
Condition of Approval limiting the number of doctors/dentists using the site
to two, on property located at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue in a PO
(Professional Office) Zoning District. A Negative Declaration was
previously approved for this project. Planning Commission decision final in
10 days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. (Referred back to the
Planning Commission on August 1, 2000, by City Council for consideration
of revised language on the proposed Modification to the Condition of
Approval.).
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
Grant a Negative Declaration for this project; and
Adopt a Resolution, based upon the attached findings, APPROVING the requested
modification to the previously adopted Condition No. 2 of project approval granted under
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3217, subject to the attached conditions of approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
An amended Initial Study was prepared for this project that concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the project. Consequently, a Negative Declaration is
recommended in accordance with Section 15074(b) of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines.
DISCUSSION
Background: The Planning Commission, at its meeting of January 26, 1999, approved a Site and
Architectural Application allowing the construction of a new two-story office building on the
project site. Condition of Approval No. 2 limited the building use to a maximum of two
doctors/dentists and the provision of 12 parking spaces for this building.
The applicant submitted a request for a Modification to that Condition. The Planning
Commission considered that request for Modification on June 13, 2000, and adopted a resolution
denying the Modification to the Condition. The applicant subsequently appealed to Council.
Council held a hearing on August 1, 2000, and referred the matter back to the Planning
Commission with the request that all parties be reasonable in reaching a compromise. Since that
time, several meetings and phone discussions have occurred between City staff and the applicants.
A meeting will occur on September 11, 2000, which will include the applicant and a neighboring
property owner and their legal counsel.
Planning Commission Staff Report
PLN2000-66 -- 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
Page 2
Applicant's request: The applicant has submitted a request that the Planning Commission consider
new wording of Condition No. 2. The applicant's letter requests that the wording of Condition
No. 2 be modified as follows:
Parking: Prior to building occupancy, applicant shall record a covenant, running with the land,
which shall restrict use of the building site to a maximum of 2 doctors/dentist. Nothing in this
condition shall prohibit one of the doctors/dentists from performing surgeries necessitating
the temporary presence of an anesthesiologist and/or assisting physician so long as all of
them are engaged in providing simultaneous treatment to the same patient and the other
doctor/dentist does not see patients during that time. The covenant may indicate that this will
not prevent the owner from petitioning the City to change the terms of the covenant, should
the City Parking requirements change, the square footage of the building be reduced, or
should other changes occur which lessen the parking demand/requirement. The covenant may
also provide that if the property owner desires to use the building for non-medical office use in
the future, it must be demonstrated that the office use generates a parking demand (including
employees and customers) that does not exceed the 12 parking spaces provided. The
justification must be provided to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
Analysis: Condition No. 2 restricts the number of doctors/dentists that may operate from this
facility because the building provides only twelve parking spaces. Section 21.50.50 of the
Campbell Municipal Code provides the parking schedule for medical and dental clinics. This
section specifies that 6 spaces should be provided for each doctor. The application presented to
the Planning Commission previously indicated the intended use of this building as medical building
to accommodate two dentist/doctors.
The original language of Condition number 2 remains the same during normal conditions where
only two doctors/dentists are allowed to practice from the building. The proposed amendment
applies only when a surgery is scheduled that requires more than one doctor/dentist, including an
anesthesiologist. During such surgeries, all doctors/dentists and/or anesthesiologist must be
working on the same patient, the other doctor or dentist is not seeing patients at this time. Staff
believes that this is a reasonable restriction on the use of the building given the 12 parking spaces
provided by the project. Staff is providing an additional sentence, restricting the maximum
occupancy of the building during surgeries to 12 persons.
Attachments:
1. Letter requesting a modification to the wording of the previous condition of approval dated August 3, 2000
2. Recommended Findings for Approval
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval
4. Site plan
Location Map
Prepared by:
Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director
Attachment #1
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF FILE NO. PLN 2000-66
SITE ADDRESS: 14419 South Bascom Avenue
APPLICANT: Matthew Francois, Esq.
P.C. MEETING: September 12, 2000
Findings for Approval of request to Modify a previously approved Condition of Approval to
allow a medical office building on property located at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to File No. PLN2000-66.
An amended initial study was prepared for this project that concludes there are no
significant environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration has been prepared.
The conditions of approval for this project limit its use to no more than two
doctors/dentists and require a deed restriction reflecting this condition to be filed with
the County Recorders Office.
The proposed modification to the condition of approval would allow the presence and
practice of additional doctors/dentist during oral surgeries when the other
doctor/dentist is not seeing patients in the building.
The approved site plan provides 12 on-site parking spaces which is consistent with the
parking ratio and schedule provided for two doctors/dentist under the Parking
Schedule provided in the Campbell Municipal Code.
The proposed wording of the revised condition limits use of the building when more
than two doctors/dentists are present by requiring that the other doctor in the building
not see patients at that time and that all doctors/dentists conducting the surgery will be
attending the same one patient.
The project will not create a nuisance due to insufficient parking.
The project will not have a detrimental affect on the adjacent property by the
placement of a parking burden on adjacent office uses.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes
that:
The proposed project will aid in the enhancement and the harmonious development of the
immediate area. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the uses will be
detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
2. The proposed site layout provides parking at a ratio of 6 spaces per doctor/dentist.
Attachment #2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR FlLE NO. PLN 2000-66
SITE ADDRESS: 14419 South Bascom Avenue
APPLICANT: Matthew Francois, Esq.
P.C. MEETING: September 12, 2000
The applicant is herby notified, as part of this application, that he/she is required to meet the
following conditions in accordance with the Ordinances of the Cit of Campbell and the State of
California. Additionally, the applicant is herby notified that he/she is required to comply with all
applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to
this development and are not herein specified.
The project is subject to all conditions of Planning Commission Resolution Number
3217, except as modified below:
Condition Number 2 shall be modified as follows:
Parking: Prior to building occupancy, applicant shall record a covenant, running with
the land, which shall restrict use of the building site to a maximum of 2
doctors/dentist. Nothing in this condition shall prohibit one of the doctors/dentists
from performing surgeries necessitating the temporary presence of an
anesthesiologist and/or assisting physician so long as all of them are engaged in
providing simultaneous treatment to the same patient and the other doctor/dentist
does not see patients during that time. The covenant may indicate that this will not
prevent the owner from petitioning the City to change the terms of the covenant,
should the City Parking requirements change, the square footage of the building be
reduced, or should other changes occur which lessen the parking
demand/requirement. The covenant may also provide that if the property owner
desires to use the building for non-medical office use in the future, it must be
demonstrated that the office use generates a parking demand (including employees
and customers) that does not exceed the 12 parking spaces provided. The justification
must be provided to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2000 Page 20
Chairperson Gibbons read Agenda Item No. 9 into the record.
9. PLN2000-66
Francois, M.
Public Heating to consider the application of Mr. Matt Francois, on
behalf of Dr. Dennis Wong, for approval of a Modification
(PLN2000-66) to a previously-approved Site and Architectural
Approval (S 98-24) to alter a Condition of Approval limiting the
number of doctors/dentists using the site to two, on property located
at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue in a PO (Professional Office) Zoning
District. A Negative Declaration was previously approved for this
project. Planning Commission decision final in 10 days, unless
appealed in writing to the City Clerk. (Referred back to the Planning
Commission on August 1, 2000, by City Council for consideration of
revised language on the proposed Modification to the Condition of
Approval.).
Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, presented the staff report as follows:
· Informed the Commission that a meeting was held between the adjacent property owner and
the applicant and others on Monday, September 11th.
· Advised that the Commission denied approval of a previous request to modify the Condition
of Approval limiting the number of doctors on site to two. That denial was appealed to
Council. Council referred the matter back to the Commission for final resolution. Council
instructed the Commission to come up with a reasonable and enforceable modification.
· Condition of Approval No. 2, which limits the use of this site to only two doctors/dentists,
was imposed due to the parking requirement of six spaces per doctor. Twelve spaces are
provided on site, hence the restriction to two doctors.
· Dr. Wong, the building owner, occupies the second floor with his dental practice. Mr.
Walker and Dr. Loitz occupy the first floor as Dr. Walker transitions Dr. Loitz practice,
which he purchased from Dr. Loitz. During oral surgeries, both an anesthesiologists and an
assisting dentist are required, which exceeds the two-doctor maximum for the building.
· The applicants request that as long as Dr. Walker and Dr. Loitz work on the same patient,
they be counted as a single doctor. This arrangement is not to exceed 8 months and shall
terminate in January 2001.
· Staff finds this request reasonable and recommends approval.
· Advised that the applicant and the neighboring property owners are available this evening.
Commissioner Hemandez asked what the restrictions would be for the building.
Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that the building occupancy would be limited to 12 people.
Chairperson Gibbons opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 9.
Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2000 Page 21
Mr. Allen Guggenheim, 12296 Via Roncole, Saratoga:
Advised that he is the property manager for the adjacent property located at 3803 S. Bascom
Avenue.
Asked how this proposal could be enforced.
· Questioned the City's ability to enforce this modification.
· Stated that the building was built with limited parking.
· Advised that parking problems have already occurred with this building including overflow
parking coming onto their lot next door.
Mr. Matt Francois, Attorney for the Wong Building:
· Advised that he is representing the building owners, Dr. Wong and Ms. Ng.
· Stated that he concurred with the comments in the supplemental staff report, finding that the
modification is clear and enforceable and provides sufficient restrictions and is consistent
with the Zoning.
· Added that this is a transition phase only.
· Informed that a meeting was held with the Follmars.
Commissioner Doorley asked Mr. Francois if the neighbors agree with the compromise.
Mr. Matt Francois replied they did to the extent possible.
Ms. Jolie Houston, Berliner Cohen, 10 Almaden Avenue:
· Said that there are three area of consideration: enforceability, Conditions of Approval and
the CEQA analysis.
· Said that the number of people in the building must be counted, not just cars.
· Added that should the City seek to inspect the building, entry could be denied by Dr. Wong
or Dr. Walker.
· Asked for the added Condition that entry be allowed by the City to verify compliance.
· Objected to findings 1, 6 and 7.
· Suggested that a parking study was needed that objectively can determine parking needs for
these uses. Added that a parking study was required when the CEQA review was done for
the site.
· Advised that Dr. Wong is already using off-site parking with staff parking vehicles at the
Exxon Service Station.
Commissioner Doorley asked Ms. Houston what her involvement is in this matter.
Ms. Jolie Houston replied that she is the attorney for the Follmars.
Commissioner Doorley asked if Ms. Houston participated in the meeting on Monday, September
11th.
Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2000 Page 22
Ms. Jolie Houston replied that she was in attendance.
Commissioner Doorley asked whether Ms. Houston found the mediation process to be
acceptable.
Ms. Jolie Houston:
· Replied"not really."
· Added that the parking logs are not accurate since there is parking occurring off site at the
Exxon site by employees of the Wongs.
· Stated that parking is a problem in this area, an impact that is not going away.
· Informed that parking on the street is causing a double parking situation.
Commissioner Doorley asked if the mediation process is a mutually agreeable solution.
Ms. Sharon Fierro clarified that no mediation process took place. This was simply a meeting
with staff acting as a facilitator. Added that staff was unaware of Mr. Guggenheim's interest in
the matter or he too would have been invited to this meeting.
Commissioner Doorley asked if the problem was simply competing dental practices.
Ms. Jolie Houston replied that the problem was truly a parking issue and invited the Commission
to ask that same question of the adjacent owners.
Dr. Ken Follmar, II:
· Advised the Commission that the problem is not a competition in practices.
· Added that he and Dr. Walker do different procedures. His is a traditional dental office.
· Stated that he feels Dr. Walker is a very qualified young man.
Chairperson Gibbons asked Dr. Follmar what issues he has with the proposed modification.
Dr. Ken Follmar, II, replied that he was at the public heating when the building was originally
approved. The Commission asked Dr. Wong at that time if he objected to the parking restriction
and he stated that he did not. Dr. Wong knew of the restrictions.
Chairperson Gibbons asked what part of the language of the proposed amendment causes
concern.
Dr. Ken Follmar, II, replied the fact that there are no controls.
Ms. Deborah Follmar:
· Stated that she has been trying to work with the City and is finding the experience frustrating.
Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2000 Page 23
· Said that after the last Council meeting, she agreed to attend a meeting but wanted to see all
of the doctors attend. However, an urgent, last minute meeting was called on Monday,
September 11th and neither Dr. Walker nor Dr. Loitz was present, while Dr. Wong was
present.
Added that there are still lots of questions.
· Stated that she is not happy to change the covenant.
· Said that the Wong building is too large.
· Added that while Dr. Wong is trying hard right now, she was concerned that they will not
continue to try once the change is approved.
· Informed that Dr. Wong is having employees park at an Exxon gas station.
· Expressed concern over what would occur should that off site parking no longer be available.
· Said that there is no viable solution. It is not possible to have offending cars towed as those
people need to find their car following extensive dental surgery and get home. Having those
cars towed would be unethical.
· Advised that she has several properties in Campbell and that she complies with all City
requirements.
· Added that she recently installed sidewalks at the City's request in front of one of her
properties in Campbell.
· Asked the Commission to be sure that their action solves the problem now and in the future
and that it can be enforced.
Commissioner Hernandez expressed his appreciation for Ms. Follmar's comments. Asked if the
site could even accommodate the parking for two doctors.
Ms. Deborah Follmar replied that there are occasional problems with overflow parking in their
lot. Added that her property cannot accommodate the parking needs of adjacent properties.
Commissioner Hemandez asked Ms. Follmar if it would be possible to provide evidence in the
future of parking infractions.
Ms. Deborah Follmar replied that she did not know.
Ms. Sharon Fierro:
· Advised that she sent the Code Enforcement Officer to the site. A head count was conducted.
· Added that if the City is denied access in the future to ensure compliance, she would
immediately refer the matter back to the Planning Commission. It is the purview of the
Planning Commission to re-evaluate the Conditions of Approval should problems occur.
Commissioner Hernandez asked how the parking would be enforced. If a problem comes up,
how can it be demonstrated?
Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2000 Page 24
Ms. Deborah Follmar replied it would be obvious if people visiting the Wong Building park in
her lot. Added that having employees of that building parking on the street is causing visibility
problems while exiting her property.
Mr. RudolfHerz, 1888 White Oaks Road:
· Stated that he is here to speak on behalf of the local residential neighbors.
· Added that the parking problem from these commercial properties transfers onto their
residential street.
· Stated that he read the agreement and does not agree that it is more easily enforced.
· Suggested the added language "any violation will make this null and void."
· Asked the Commission to "think about us poor property owners."
Chairperson Gibbons closed the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 9.
Commissioner Jones:
· Stated that he remembers the original approval at which time concern was expressed by the
Commission about the size of the building and the small number of parking spaces. It was
made clear to the owner that the site could accommodate only two doctors.
· Said that he would not support any Modification to Condition of Approval No. 2.
Commissioner Hernandez asked how the determination is made that there is a parking problem.
Chairperson Gibbons stated that logs kept by the doctors seemed to indicate that a problem
exists.
Commissioner Hernandez stated if there are 12 spaces, allowing 12 cars, does that represent 12
people occupying the building at one time? Again asked if a problem exists at this time.
Ms. Sharon Fierro:
· Replied that the City was called one time with a parking complaint. At that time the Code
Enforcement Officer visited the site. That staff member did not notice any violations of the
limitation to the number of doctors in the building to two.
· Said that it is an unusually large building for the site.
· Added that potential problems were the reasoning behind the Condition of Approval limiting
the number of doctors on site.
· Added that staff can only respond to complaints.
· Said that the Walker practice is maintaining parking logs to protect their interests. They ask
their clients where they parked to assure that no complaints are generated.
· Assured the Commission that she would send staff out to investigate complaints and again
clarified that denial of access to the building to verify compliance would result in referral to
the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2000 Page 25
Commissioner Hemandez asked if access can be required.
City Attorney William Seligrnann advised that access can be required any time they are open for
business. Added, that if a surgery is in progress, the operating room could not be entered.
Commissioner Hemandez stated that limits to 12 people in the building are even more restrictive
than the current Conditions.
Commissioner Doorley:
· Stating that this is very frustrating and vexing situation.
· Added that Council has referred this matter back to the Commission seeking a common sense
solution.
· Suggested that a common sense solution does not seem to be the focus of the applicant as no
attempt has been made to address the adjacent property owners' concerns.
· Said that he wished this proposed solution would solve the problem but that he did not
believe it would as it was not reached by a consensus.
· Advised that it makes more sense to limit the building occupancy to 12 at all times rather
than at times in which surgeries are occurring at Dr. Walker's Office.
Ms. Sharon Fierro:
· Stated that the parking off site at the Exxon station is not a requirement imposed by staff.
· Added that the Exxon site is not even located in Campbell but rather San Jose.
· Said that the property owner (Dr. Wong) is voluntarily doing this off site parking but it would
have to be a formal and permanent arrangement in order to impact parking on the site.
Chairperson Gibbons:
· Stated that there are two doctors on the first floor who are transitioning a practice in a
partnership that finishes in January 2001.
· Added that she has no problem not counting the anesthesiologist as a doctor in this situation.
· Warned that if this matter comes back, approval for the whole site is at risk.
City Attorney William Seligrnann advised that this matter would come back only if there is a
violation or if the use is creating a nuisance. If so, the Commission can open all Conditions of
Approval for consideration.
Chairperson Gibbons stated that the applicant (Dr. Walker) has an enormous risk, having spent
$500,000 in improving the building for his use. Added that she is not uncomfortable with the
enforcement of this amended Condition.
Commission Hemandez asked for the time frame should a complaint require Planning
Commission review.
Planning Commission Minutes of September 12, 2000 Page 26
Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that it would require a 10 day notice of Public Hearing and
approximately two weeks to be agendized for the Planning Commission or about 30 days total.
Commissioner Lindstrom stated that lots of money was invested in this site and it seems that no
parking violations have occurred to date.
Commissioner Jones questioned which practice gets what number of spaces from the 12
available. Again stated that the parking restrictions were made perfectly clear when the building
was originally approved.
Chairperson Gibbons stated that she had no problem with the proposed wording as it is more
restrictive than the existing language and represents a solution for the long tenn.
Commissioner Doorley again stated that the limitation should be for 12 people in the building at
any given time.
Chairperson Gibbons stated that that is not realistic and does not take into account multiple
people arriving in one vehicle or people utilizing public transportation such as the bus.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Jones, seconded by Commissioner Doorley,
the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3301 denying a request for
a Modification to a previously-approved Site and Architectural Approval to
alter a Condition of Approval limiting the number of doctors/dentists using
the site to two, on property located at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue (with the City
Attorney recommending changes to the Findings as follows)
1. Striking Findings 4 and 5;
2. Modifying Findings 6 and 7 by eliminating the word "not;"
3. Adding an additional Finding that reads: Public testimony indicates that
the current use of the site is generating off site parking in excess of the
parking available on site; and
4. Adding the words "does not" to the last two Findings.
by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Doorley, Gibbons, Hernandez, Jones
NOES: Lindstrom
ABSENT: Francois, Lowe
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Gibbons advised that this decision is final in 10 days, unless appeal in writing to the
City Clerk.
Chairperson Gibbons adjourned for a short break at 10:27 p.m.
Attachment #4
RESOLUTION NO. 3301
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL DENYING A MODIFICATION
(PLN2000-66) TO A PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED SITE AND
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL (S 98-24) TO ALTER A
CONDITION OF APPROVAL LIMITING THE NUMBER OF
DOCTORS/DENTISTS USING THE SITE TO TWO ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14419 S. BASCOM AVENUE IN
A PO (PROFESSIONAL OFFICE) ZONING DISTRICT.
APPLICATION OF MR. MATT FRANCOIS, ON BEHALF OF
DR. DENNIS WONG. FILE NO. PLN2000-66.
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the
Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission did find as follows
with respect to application PLN2000-66:
1. An amended Initial Study was prepared for this project that concludes there are no significant
environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration has been prepared.
The approved site plan provides 12 on-site parking spaces which is consistent with the
parking ratio and schedule provided for two doctors/dentist under the Parking Schedule
provided in the Campbell Municipal Code.
o
The conditions of approval for this project limit its use to no more than two doctors/dentists
and requires a deed restriction reflecting this condition to be filed with the County Recorders
Office.
4. The project will create a nuisance due to insufficient parking.
5. The project will have a detrimental affect on the adjacent property by the placement of a
parking burden on adjacent office uses.
6. Public testimony indicates that the current use of the site is generating off site parking in
excess of the parking available on site.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes
that the evidence does not establish that:
The proposed project does not aid in the enhancement and the harmonious development of
the immediate area. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the uses will be
detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3301
PLN2000-66 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue - Matt Francois for Dr. Wong
Page 2
2. The proposed site layout does not provide parking at a ratio of 6 spaces per doctor/dentist.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of September, 2000, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Doorley, Hemandez, Jones, Gibbons
Lindstrom
Francois, Lowe
None
APPROVED:
Elizabeth Gibbons, Chair
ATTEST:
Sharon Fierro, Secretary
OB~i/O0 1~:11 FA% ~15 788 ~0~ CS&D ~00~/00~
CASStD¥
.~HIMKO
August 31, 2000
'VIA FACSIMILE
Sh axon Fi erro
Community Development Director
City of Campbell
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
William Seligmann
Dempster, Seligmann & Raineri
3 ½ North Santa Cruz Avenue, #A
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Re: Sign for 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
Dear Sharon and Bill:
Now that it appears that we have reached consensus on the language for the proposed
modification to the parking condition of approval for 14~19 S. Bascom Avenue, we thought it was
appropriate to re-visit the issue of Dr. Walker's sign. As you may recall, the City previously
declined to approve a sign with Dr. Walker and Dr. Loitz's names on it given the uncertainty
regarding the condition of approval. Bill acknowledged to Steve Cassidy and myself that this was
not so much a legal matter as a practical matter and should be postponed until the Planning
Commission had acted on the proposed modification to the parking condition of approval.
The revised condition of approval clearly delineates Dr. Loitz's limited role in Dr.
Walker's practice and provides the City with ample enforcement ability if that role is exceeded.
Dr. Walker has paid a considerable sum of money to purchase Dr. Loitz's practice (and associated
goodwill) and it is important therefore that the relationship between the two doctors be
prominently advertised on the sign. The proposed sign would be no different than a~y other sign
for similarly situated medicaYde~tal practices in ~he surrounding commtmity. Dr. Walker has been
and will continue to suffer severe economic hardship if the City continues to prevent him from
posting the sign. Further, nothing in the City's Sign Ordinance authorizes the City to prohibit the
approval of this wall-mounted sig.u which bas absolutely no bearing on parking or occupancy
levels.
;~0 CALIFORNIA ~T. SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94 I I ! TICLEPHONE: { 4 I ~5 ) 7 /~ ~ -~ 0 4 0
FAC,~IMll -E: ( 4 I 5 ) 7 B ~, - :~ 0 ~ g
087~1/00 1~:1~ FA~ ~15 788 ~0~ CS&D ~00~/00~
Ms. Fierro and Mr. Seligmann
August 31, 2000
Page 2
In conformance with our previous discussions on this matter, we are confident that the City
will act on the sign issue in accordance with the Planning Commission's actions on the revised
condition. Please feel free to contact us if you have any further questions regarding this matter.
Very truly yours,
Matthew D. Francois
CC:
Hon. Mayor Jane Kennedy
Hon. Vice Mayor Matthew Dean
Hon. Elizabeth Gibbons
Stephen Cassidy
Irwin Kaplan
Bernard Strojny
Dr. Lee Walker
Dr. Dennis Wong
~.o¥- c,~a
O~CHAgO'
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Community Development Department · Current Planning
August 25, 2000
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell has set the time of
7:30 p.m., or shortly thereafter, on Tuesday, September 12, 2000, in the City Hall Council
Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California, for a Public Heating to consider the
application of Mr. Matt Francois, on behalf of Dr. Dennis Wong, for approval of a Modification
(PLN2000-66) to a previously-approved Site and Architectural Approval (S 98-24) to alter a
Condition of Approval limiting the number of doctors/dentists using the site to two, on property
located at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue in a PO (Professional Office) Zoning District. A Negative
Declaration was previously approved for this project.
Interested persons may appear and be heard at this heating. Please be advised that if you
challenge the nature of the above project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
you or someone else raised at the Public Heating described in this Notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Campbell Planning Commission at, or prior to, the
Public Hearing. Questions may be addressed to the Community Development Department at
(408) 866-2140.
Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. Appeals must be
submitted to the City Clerk in writing within 10 calendar days of an action by the Commission.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, listening assistive devices are available
for all meetings held in the Council Chambers. If you require accommodation, please contact the
Community Development Department at (408) 866-2140, at least one week in advance of the
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CAMPBELL
SHARON FIERRO
SECRETARY
PLEASE NOTE:
When calling about this Notice,
please refer to File No. PLN2000-66
Address: 14419 S. BascomAvenue
70 North First Street - Campbell, California 95008.1423 · TEL 408.866.2140 · F^X 408.866.8381 - TDD 408.866.2790
08Z17/00 10:55 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~002/003
CASSIDY
SHIMKO
DAWSON
August 17, 2000
VIA FACSIMILE
Sharon Fierro
Community Development Director
City of Campbell
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
William Seligmann
Dempster, Seligmann & Rained
3 XA North Santa Cruz Avenue, #A
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Sharon and Bill:
We are writing to respond to 2 points raised by Bill regarding our draft proposal (dated
August 3, 2000) to amend the condition of approval regarding parking for I44I 9 S. Bascom
Avenue (the "Building"). Bill raised the follow/ug two points with respect to our draft proposal,
noting the need to: (1) specify the total maximum number of persons who can be in the building
during times in which surgeries are performed and (2) specifically reference the transition of
practice provision in the language of the condition. We have amended our draft proposal
accordingly:
Nothing in this condition shall prohibit one of the doctors/dentists from
performing surgeries necessitating the temporary presence of an
anesthesiologist and/or assisting physician so long as all of them are
engaged in providing simultaneous treatment to the same patient and
the total maximum number of persons in the building during times in
which surgeries are performed does not exceed 12; nor shall anything
in this condition prohibit a doctor/dentist from transitioning patients to
another doctor/dentist in connection with the sale of Ns/her
medical/dental practice for a period not to exceed 8 months, so long as
they are simultaneously providing treatment to the same patient.
We note that the 8 month period was included to allow Dr. Walker and Dr. Loitz to transition
practices from May 1, 2000 (when the Building opened for business) until January 1, 2001. Bill
suggested a further provision that would limit transitions to once every five or ten years. We are
not amenable to including that provision for the following reasons: (1) it is unnecessarily
;~0 CALIFORNIA ST. 5UrFE 500 .SAN FI:;'ANCISCO, CA 94 I I I TELEPHONE: ( .~. I ..~ } 7 8 ~J - E 0 m 0
FACSIMILE: (~1 I 5) 785 203g
08/17/00 10:56 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~003/003
Ms. Fierro and Mr. Seligmann
August 17, 2000
Page 2
restrictive of both Dr. Walker and Dr. Wong's ability to sell their medical/dental practices;~
(2) the City has ample enforcement ability given the 8 month limitation and the simultaneous
treatment of the same patient provision, aga/n conditions which are not imposed on any other
doctor/dentist in the community; and (3) it is not consistent with thc "common sense" approach
the Council urged be taken to resolve this matter.
We also note that the above language is even more restrictive than what is allowed under
the existing condition of approval (which simply limits the use of the Building to 2
doctors/dentists and docs not refer to a limitation on support staff), and it is certainly more
restrictive than the practices of other neighboring doctors/dentists. For example, as pointed out by
Dr. and Mrs. Ken Follmar II in correspondence to the City dated May 1, 2000, their oral surgery
practice requires 6-8 staff (including Dr. Follmar) to treat %6 patients at the same time, resulting
in a demand of 11-14 parking spaces. A solo practicing dentist who leases neighboring space from
the Follmars requires 8-11 parking spaces. Dr. Walker, by comparison, sees a maximum of 2
surgical patients per day. Notwithstanding this disparity, which underscores the true nature of this
dispute which is over labels and not occupancy levels, Drs. Wong and Walker have agreed to the
above specified restrictions in a good faith effort to resolve any and all concerns regarding parking
azsociated with the Building.
We are confident that this revised proposal adequately addresses thc parking issue. Please
feel free to contact us if you would like to further discuss any of these provisions. If not, we look
forward to meeting with the neighbors prior to the Planning Commission heating on September
12, 2000, in an effort to resolve any outstanding issues regarding parking.
Matthew D. Francois
cc.*
Hon. Mayor Jane Kennedy
Hon. Vice Mayor Matthew Dean
Hon. Elizabeth Gibbons
Stephen Cassidy
Irwin Kaplan
Bernard Stxojny
Dr. Lee WaLker
Dr. Dennis Wong
Although the sale of a medical/dental practice does not occur frcquemly, the suggested condition
would essentially prohibit Dr. Wong aud Dr. Walker (mad their successors) fi:om selling their practice (thc value of
which is primarily derived from goodwill and the continuation of flae patient base) if they were to decide to relocate
or becomc disabled prior to the expiration of 5 year pehod.
.o¥' cAaC~
CITY OF CAMPBELL
City Clerk's Office
August 7, 2000
Matthew D. Francois, Esq.,
Cassidy, Shimko & Dawson
20 California Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 9411 !
Dear Mr. Francois:
At the regular meeting of August 1, 2000, the Campbell City Council opened a public hearing
to consider your appeal of Planning Commission decision regarding approval of Modification
(PLN 2000-66) to a previously approved Site and Architectural Approval (S98-24) to alter a
Condition of Approval regarding parking for property located at 14419 South Bascom Avenue,
Campbell.
At your request, the City Council referred this matter to the Planning Commission. Please
contact Sharon Fierro, Community Developmem Director, should you have any questions in
regard to the City Council's action.
Sincerely,
Anne Bybee
City Clerk
cc. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director
70 North First Street - Campbell, CaJifc~rnia 92008 14~3 . T~ t ~08.866.2117 . FAX 408.374.6889 · TDD 408.866.2790
08/03/00 11:03 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~002/004
CASSIDY
ShIMKO
DAWSON
August 3, 2000
VIA FACSIMILE
Sharon Fierro
Community Development Director
City of Campbell
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95005
William Seligmaun
Dempster, Seligmann & Raineri
3 V, North Santa Cruz Avenue, #A
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Sharon and Bill:
We arc writing to revise our proposal for reconsideration by the Planning Commission m
light of comments made by the City Council at the Council hearing last Tuesday night. We think
that our revised proposal mflect~ the "common sense" approach urged by Vice Mayor Dean
(among others) to bring closure to this matt~. In short, Dr. Walker agrees to limit his surgeries
to tim~ in which Dr. Wong is not present seeing patients. In order to implement this proposal,
we intend to submit the following language to amend the existing condition of approval:~
Nothing in tiffs condition shall prohibit one of the doctors/dentists
~om performing surgeries necessitating the temporary presence of
an anesthesiologist and/or assisting physician so long as all of them
am ~gag~ in pwviding simultaneous treatment to the same
patient and the other doctor/dentist does not see patients during
that time.
We further seek an imerpretation from the Planning Commission that Dr. walker and Dr.
Loitz have the ability, in conformance with the parking condition and pursuant to the custom of
the medical profession, to transition patients jointly for a period of 6 months, e.g., until
j anuery 1,2001, in conj uncti on with Dr. Walkc'r' s purchase of Dr. Loitz's practice. During this
As we have mentioned previously, we think that our proposal merits an
interpretation or clarification of the existing condition of approval, and that we applied for and
continue to process a modification to the condition as directed by planning staff.
08/03/00 11:04 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~003/004
Ms- Shin-on Fierro and Mr. W~am S¢ligmann
August 3, 2000
Page 2
period of time, Dr. Loitz would introduce his patients to Dr. Walker, but they would not each see
their own separate patients at the same time.
At the Council hearing, Bill indicated that further environmental review of thc proposal
may be necessary prior to reconsideration by thc Planning Commission. We think that further
environmental review is unnecessary becausc, as wc have d~monstratcd, thc parking impacts
associated with Dr. Walker's surgeries will be significantly less (c.g., maximum 2 surgical
patients per day) than those already analyzed and permitted assuming a more typical dentistry or
higher-volume oral surgery operation-~ The proposed use is, thus, entirely within the scope of
the potential significant environmental impacts that were identified and mitigated (e.g., by the
requiremmit for 12 off-street parking spaces) in the previous mitigated negative declaration
prepared for the project, and an initial study to d~termine whether to prepare a subsequent or
supplemental negative declaration would be unwarranted? If; however, sta;ffshould dc~m
fiu'ther environmental review necessary, we believe the appropriate mechanism would be in the
nature of an add~-ndum to the negative declaration.4
In closing, wu welcome your comments on our rmrised proposal. We would like Io
discuss with you the necessary findings that the Planning Commission will have to make prior to
acting upon our revised proposal. We continue to be willing to me~t with the neighboring
property owners to discuss our revised proposal in a good-faith effort to resolve any outstanding
issues regarding parking.
~ e.e., Letter fi.om Deborah Follmar to Sharon Fierro dated May 1, 2000
(stating that one of the dentists who rents office space from the FollmarS at their adjacent facility
uses "8-11 parking spaces" and noting, apparently in ret-~r~nce to the Follmar's own office:
"[i]t's not unusual to have 5 or 6 pati~ts in different rooms at one time").
See, e.e., Public Resources Code § 21166; CEQA Guidelines § 15162 (requiring
subsequent cnvironmemtal review when "substantial changes" are proposed in a project or occur
with respect to the circumstances under which a project will be undertaken which will require
"major revisiond' to a previous environmental document due to "new sign~cant environmental
effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects,"
emphasis added).
Se..e., e.g., CEQA Guidelines § 15164 ("lain addendum to an adopted negative
declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none
of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subseque, nt EIR or
negative declaration have occurred.").
08/03/00 11:04 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~004/004
Ms. Sharon Fierro and Mr. William Seligmarm
August 3, 2000
Page 3
Please feel free to call Steve Cassidy or me with any comments or thoughts you have
regarding this revised proposal.
Very truly yours,
Matthew D. Francois
cc: Hen_ Mayor Jane Kennedy
Hon. Vice Mayor Matthew Dean
Hon. Elizabeth Gibbons
St~hen Cassidy
Irwin Kaplan
Bernard Strojny
Dr. L~ Walker
Dr. Dennis Won§
08/03/00 11:19 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~002/003
CAS$1DY
SHIMKO
DAWSON
August 3, 2000
~,a FACSIMILE
lolie Houston
Berliner Cohen
Ten Almaden Boulevard, 11 ~ Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear Ms. Houston:
We are writing on behalf of Dr. Dennis Wong and Ms. Dora Ng, the owners of 1~,~19 S.
Baseom Avenue who have requested a modification to a parking condition of approval for their
property. Your clients, Dr. and Mrs. Kelmeth Follmar II, have gone on record opposed to the
project based on concerns with inadequate p0xking. At the August 1 $~ Campbell City Council
hearing, the Council, m referring this matter back to the Planning Commission for
reconsideration, urged that a "common sense" approach be used to resolve the matter. Along
those lines and pursuant to your recent conversation with Steve Cassidy, we attach hereto our
correspondence to the City which outlines generally the revised proposal that we will submit to
ths Planning Commission for their consideration.
We believe that we have amply demonstrated that Dr. Walker's use of the property to
perform high-end, low-volume oral surgeries will not result in a park~g problem either to your
client's property or to any other neighboring property. Dr. Walker's surgical practice will
actually reduce parking demand because he will see less patients on days when he performs
surgeries than he does on days when he performs more typical higher volume dental operatious,
which are unquestionably in conformance with the existing condition of approval.
In short, we honestly believe that we have adequately addressed any and all legitimate
issues regarding parking associated with the proposed use of the building. We trust, therefore,
that our revised proposal will completely resolve this matter, but if there is some other issue that
~-O CALIFORNIA .~T. =;ur'rE ..~OO e"AN
08/03/00 11:19 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~003/003
Ms.//olie Houston
August 3, 2000
Page 2
you would like to discuss, please contact Steve Cazsidy or me so that we can attempt to resolve
your client's concerns.
Very truly yours,
Matthew D. Francoi,
CC:
St~hen K. C~ssidy
Sharon Fierro
William Seligmmn
Bernard Sttojny
Dr. Lee Walker
Dr. Dennis Wong
05/01/00 16:54 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~002/004
CASSIDY
S h I M K.O
DAWSON
August 1, 2000
Honorable Mayor Jane Kennedy
and Members of the City Council
City of Carnpbell
70 N First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Re:
14419 S. Bascom Avenue; Appeal of Denial for Request for Interpretation or
Modification to Parking Condition of Approval (PLN 2000-66)
Dear Mayor Kennedy and City Councilmembers:
We are writing on behalf of Dr. Dennis Wong and Ms. Dora Ng, the "Owners" of 14419
S. Bascom Avenue (the "Building"), to set forth their position with respect to the appeal of the
denial by the Campbell Planning Commission on June 13, 2000, of our application to modify a
condition of approval regarding parking. S~, Planning Commission Resolution No. 3284, June
13, 2000] The condition in question requir~i the recording cfa covenant restricting use of the
Building site to 2 doctors/dentists (thc "Condition"). See, Condition of Approval No. 2,
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3217, January 26, 1999. As we zee it, the i~sues md the
resolution to those issues are fairly straight-forward.
Issue
Proof/Conclusion Fro,m Evi_'dence
Parking Ordinance/Condition
intended to apply to full-time
doctor/dentist
Opponents urge City to take narrow view
that anyone with M.D. or D.D.S. behind
their name must meet the requirements et
the Condition. What about nurse-
practitioners or dental hygienists?
Purpose/Intent of Condition
Thc building's 12 parking spaces (6 for
Dr. Walker and 6 for Dr. Wong) will not
be exceeded and thus neighboring
properties will not be impacted.
As a matter of courtesy to the Council and staff, we do not belabor points we have
previously made in our earlier correspondence to the City on the proposed modification, but
rather incorporate by reference herein said correspondence.
;~0 CALIFORNI/~ ~T. SUITE ~,OO ~AN FR&NCI$C0. CA 04 I I ! TELE~HONE: ( ..ni 5 ~ 7 ,El ~ - ~ 0 d. {3
08/01/00 16:54 FAI 415 788 2039 CS&D ~003/004
Hon_ Mayor Jane Kennedy
and Members of the City Council
August 1, 2000
Page 2
e
Effect of Dr. Walker's Use
Dr. Walker sees a maximum of 2 patients
on surgery day~ and thus parking
demand is greatly diminished. Assisting
physicians presence is temporary and
only to treat Dr. Wnlker'$ patient, much
like a dental hygienist or dental nssistnnt.
Practice of Modern Medicine
Not a high volume, molar extraction type
of practice, Requires anesthesiologist and
occasional assisting physician.
Other Adjacent Usersz
Noodleman Property 0803 S. Bascom
Avenue): 23 doctors, 38 anesthesiologists,
114 parking spaces.
FoHmar Property (14455-14495 Bascom
Avenue): 5 dentists, 38 parking spaces.
]But see, letter from D. Follmar to $.
Fierro dated 5/1/2000 admitting that one
dentist uses "84 1 parking spaces."
FoHmar Property (14501-14521 Bascom
Avenue): 13 doctors, 56 parking spaces?
Kaiser Medical Facility (220 Hacicuda
Avenue): 23 doctors, 107 parking spaces.
In short, the City Council should seriously ask itself why it is that Dr. Wong is being held
to a different and higher standard than any other similarly situated medical/dental clinic in the
City. Since the Building opened for business on May I, 2000, Drs. Wong and Walker have
voluntarily maintained parking logs in order to ensure that their patients are in fact parkiug m
their lot. Planning Commissioner Lindstrom commended Dm, Wong and Walker foe
maintaining such logs to ensure lack of a parking problem with neighboring properties. It is
We are reformed that the City has previously found uses similar to Dr. Walker's,
consistent with the 6 parking spaces/doctor requirement of the Parking Schedule. This was
eonftrmed by a parking study performed by Hexagon Transportation Consultants on July 24,
2000.
Even though this property is in San Jose, given the serious parking deficit of 22
parking spaces under the Campbell ordinance, it is likely not in conformance with San Jose's
zoning ordinance either.
O&/O1/O0 16:54 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~004/004
Hon. Mayor Sane Kennedy
and Members of the City Council
August 1, 2000
Page 3
their lot. Planning Commissioner Lindstrom commended Drs. Wong and Walker for
maintaining such logs to ensure lack of a parking problem with neighboring properties. It is
significant to note that during this nearly 3 month time period, there has not been a single
reported incident of either one of Dr. Wong or Dr. Walker's patients failing to park in the
Building's designated parking area. Thus, Mrs. Follmar's unsubstantiated claim that Dr. Walker
and Dr. Wong's patients are parking in their lot docs not ting tree.
The Planning Commission focused on one particular day of Dr. Walker's parking logs
e(.~, May 10, 2000) and found it dispositive of the issue that the Condition could not be
interpreted or modified to allow thc Owners' use. Reliance on the parki,g logs in this matter is
problematic and does not support the City's position because: (1) the logs reflect Dr. Walker's
dentistry practice which is unquestionably in conformance with the Condition and wherein he
sees more patients than he would in bis surgical practice for which he seeks clarification from
the City and (2) the quick succession of patients equates to follow up procedures that take 10-15
minutes of Dr. Walker's time. The parking logs inadvertently omitted to track the patient's
check out time, which although increasing stafftime and burden, would have verified this to be
the case aud demonstrated the lack ora parking problem.
Based on the foregoing, the Owners respectfully request that the City Council adopt a
resolution finding that the proposed use of the Building by Drs. Wong and Walker as set forth
above is in conformance with the Condition and thus overturn the Planning Commission denial
of PLN 2000-66.
Please feel free to contact Dr. Walker, or the undersigned prior to the hearing if you have
any other questions or concerns. Thank you for your consideration of this manor.
Respectfully Submitted,
CASSIDY, SHIM]KO & DAWSON
CC:
Stephen K. Cassidy
Sharon Fierro
Tim J. Haley
William Seligmann
Dr. Lee R. Walker
Dr. Dennis K. Wong
Matthew D. Francois
Council
eeport
ITEM NO:
CATEGORY:
MEETING DATE:
17.
Public Hearing
August 1, 2000
TITLE
Appeal of Matthew Francois of Planning Commission decision regarding Approval of a
Modification (PLN 2000-66) to a previously approved Site and Architectural Approval (S98-24)
to alter a Condition of Approval regarding Parking - 14419 South Bascom Avenue.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
The City Council may take one of the following actions:
1. Adopt a Resolution upholding the Planning Commission denial of (PLN 2000-66) and deny
the appeal;
2. Adopt a Resolution overturning the Planning Commission denial of(PLN 2000-66) upholding
the appeal;
3. Refer the matter to the Planning Commission for further consideration.
BACKGROUND
On January 26,1999 the Planning Commission approved a site and architectural application for a
new two-story medical/dental office building with twelve parking spaces at 14419 S. Bascom
Avenue. A condition of approval restricted to use of the building to two dentists/doctors in order
to comply with the Zoning Ordinance requirement of six parking spaces per doctor.
Matthew Francois, representing the property owner, filed an application to modify the condition
restricting the building to two doctors/dentists. On June 13, 2000 the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 3284 denying the requested modification. The applicant appealed the
Planning Commission's decision and the heating was set for the City Council meeting of July 18,
2000. The hearing was continued to August 1, 2000 at the request of the applicant.
On Wednesday July 19, 2000 the applicant met with the City Attorney and the Community
Development Director to discuss alternative approaches to comply with the provisions of the
Zoning Ordinance and condition restricting parking. Based on those discussions, the applicant has
now submitted a letter requesting that the matter be referred to the Planning Commission for
consideration of alternative solutions, see attached letter. If granted, the applicant will meet with
adjacent tenants and property owners to explore options prior to presenting the matter to the
Planning Commission.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternative actions are listed under "City Council Actions" above.
FISCAL IMPACTS
None
Cily Council Report - August 1, 2000
Appeal of PLN 2000-66 - 14419 South Bascom Avenue
Pale 2
Attachments:
1. Letter requesting referral to Planning Commission submitted by Mr. Francois
2. City Council StaffReport dated July 18, 2000
Prepared by: ~ ~
Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director
Approved by:~ger
KENNETH E. FOLLMAR. D.D.S.. M.S.D.
KENNETH E. FOLLMAR. II, D.D.S.. INC,
ORAL & M A X I L L O F A C I A L SURGERy
1451! SOUTH BA$COM AVENUE
LOS GATO$. CALIFORNIA 9=;032
1408) 356-3~46
July 31, 2000
City of Campbell
70 N First Street
Campbell CA 95008
Sharon Fierro
Community Development Directo l Ec , E )
CITy OF CAMp8
PL41vIV/IVG D£;ET!L
Re: The Wong-Walker
Parking Problem at
14419 S. Bascom Ave.
Campbell CA
Dear Sharon,
The July 27, 2000 letter to you from Matthew D. Francois appears to be public
property as judged by its distribution. We assume our input is warranted.
In this letter Mr. Francois requests that Dr. Wong's restrictive parking covenant
be watered down through interpretation, special concession, and manipulation in
order to accommodate the special business interests of Dr. Walker. The covenant
clearly limits occupancy to two doctors, not two and a half, or three, or more, full time
or part time, nor at Dr. Walker convenience. Such special treatment for Mr. Francois'
client would violate the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City of
Campbell's zoning code. It would increase the parking crunch in a neighborhood
already experiencing a parking space problem.
Dr. VVong gladly accepted the restrictive covenant in order to get the building
permit, but upon building completion he was back to the planning commission
seeking to negotiate compromise, almost before the ink was dry on the covenant
recordation.
Interpreting what two doctors means should have been discussed before
construction began. The covenant leaves no room for interpretation. The express
terms in the covenant state that the owner may only petition the city to change the
terms of the covenant under three limited circumstances: 1. Should parking requirements change,
2. Square footage of the building be reduced,
3. Should other changes occur which lessen the parking demand/requirement.
Mr. Francois' proposal does not identify any of these circumstances. Further, his
proposal would create an enforcement nightmare.
It is unreasonable for Dr. Walker and Dr. VVong to demand that their
neighborhood and the City of Campbell adjust to meet their special personal needs.
They simply did not plan ahead to provide for their needs. In effect they painted
themselves into a corner and now expect the general community to come to their
rescue. The neighborhood surrounding Dr. Wong's building should not be expected
to be an extension of Dr. Wong's commercial enterprise. There are no "excess"
parking spaces outside Dr. Wong's property.
Cars already spill over into neighborhood parking areas and the use of Dr.
Wong's building has just begun. What happens one or two years down the road
when the Wong and Walker practices mature and expand?
Dr. Wong claims he told Dr. Walker that only one doctor could occupy the suite
he wanted to lease. Dr. Walker leased that suite anyway. He gambled that the
neighborhood would somehow accommodate the excess parking needs created by
his involvement with additional doctors working within that very suite. In his letter, Mr.
Francois implied that the problem lies with Dr. and Mrs. Ken Follmar I1. Mr Francois is
trying to put the saddle on the wrong animal. Dr. Walker's problem lies with Dr. Wong,
who built a huge building on a small lot and provided limited parking. The problem
also lies with Dr. Walker, who leased a suite which simply could not meet his needs
as revealed in his stated planned usage. That usage will expand as his now young
practice grows.
Dr. Walker wishes to operate an out-patient ambulatory surgical center for
major surgeries, and yet there is already a surgical center available to him just a block
down the street. Such major surgical care requires the services of the primary
surgeon, a doctor assistant, a doctor anesthesiologist, and two non-doctor
assistants, all at one time. Any surgical team of smaller size would compromise
patient safety as well as the required absolute, sterile technique. Business staff
personnel are in addition to surgical staff. Does Dr. Walker intent to rent this facility to
other doctors in the community as they do one block down the street? All the
ingredients are there...except parking. The office is designed so additional doctors
can treat patients at the same time in that suite. That is why the office is so large.
Dr. Walker also wishes to schedule patients with himself and Dr. Loitz during a
six month trial period to "transition patients jointly." This enhances the parking space
requirements beyond covenant limits. Who will replace Dr. Loitz six months down the
line? All this generates enforcement proJ;)lems of significance.
In the planning staff report of June 13, 2000 the staff recommended that the
planning commission "deny the requested modification to the previously
adopted condition number 2 of project approval granted under Planning Commission
resolution number 3217.
Following the June 13, 2000 official public hearing, at which numerous
neighbors spoke against a change in Dr. Wong's covenant, the planning commission
voted unanimously not to change Dr. Wong's covenant. Because his clients request
for a change in the covenant was denied, in his July 28, 2000 letter Mr. Francois wrote
the demeaning statement that, "the Planning Commission prejudicially abused its
discretion."
Does that reveal a sense of community?
Most Sincerely,
Kenneth E. Follmar, DDS., MSD.
Isabelle I. Follmar
City of Campbell
Community Development Department
70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008
To:
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Date: July 27, 2000
From:
Bernard M. Strojny, City Manager
Subject:
Modification to the Site and Architectural Approval to alter a Condition of Approval
regarding Parking - 14419 South Bascom Avenue.
Attached please find a facsimile transmittal from Matthew Francois concerning Item Number 17 on the
August 1, 2000, City Council Agenda. The Community Development Director received the transmittal
after the deadline for inclusion in the August 1~t staff report and did not have time to review and analyze
the proposal. Staff will confer with the interested parties to evaluate the merits of this new proposal
prior to any hearing by the Planning Commission, should the City Council refer the matter back to the
Commission for further consideration.
07/27/00 14:20 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~002/003
CASSIDY
SHIMKO
_~ DAWSON
July 27, 2000
vIA FACSIMALE
Sharon Fierro
Community Development Director
City of Campbell
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 9500g
Dear Sharon:
Thank you for meeting with Bill Seligmann, Steve Cassidy, and me last week to discuss
the parking Condition of Approval for 14419 S. Bascom Avenue. We felt the meeting was
helpful and constructive towards a mutual understanding of both the City's and Dr. Walker's
concerns and we felt positively towards moving forward with you on reaching a solution of the
ma~er.
Based on our meeting, h=re is our understanding of the City's concerns with respect to
our proposal to modify the condition of approval: (1) parking demand created by on-site
physicians, (2) enforceability, (3) physicians/dentists within the same o£fice devoted to other than
the same patient, and (4) 5 month Planning Commission review.
We have had an opportunity to talk with Dr. Walker at length about your concerns and, as
promised to Bill Seligmaun, we submit a refined proposal outlined below which we believe
addresses all of the City's concerns raised at our meeting.
1. As customary with others in the medical commtmity, Dr. Walker and Dr. Loitz wish to
have the abihty to tr~n.~ition patients jointly for a period of 5 months, e._~, until January
1,200I, in conjunction with Dr. Walker's purchase of Dr. Loitz's practice. During this
per/od of time, Dr. Loitz would introduce his patients to Dr. Walker, but they would not
each see their own separate patients at the s~me time.
2. For a period of 5 months, Dr. Walker would submit reports to the Community
Development Department ten (10) days prior to the end of the month specifying the date
upon which surgeries are scheduled for the upcoming month. This date shall bc the same
day of the week for that month, to ease enforcement issues for the City. Dr. Wong will
not see patients when Dr. Walker has surgeries scheduled.
20 CALIFORNIA ST, SUITE 1300 SAN FR~.NCISCO. CA ~'~ I I t TEL[PHONE:
FACSI~IL k";
07/27/00 14:21 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~003/003
Ms. Sharon Fierro
luly 27, 2000
Page 2
3. Following the 6 month trial period, Dr. Walker seeks to transition to a process whereby
he can perform surgeries on any day or any part of the day of a week when
Dr. Wong is not present seeing patients. Dr. Walker agrees to send month-end reports to
the Community Development Depatm~ent verifying his compliance with this condition.
4. 6 month review by the Planning Commission to demonstrate compliance with the
condition.
Unfommately, the offer made by Deborah Follmar to Dr. Walker and me after the luly
18"' City Council hearing to lease additional spaces from their adjacent modical facility, for
which they have 8 excess parking spaces, is no longer available.
In closing, we honestly believe that this arrangement is a reasonable and well-thought out
solution to the coneems of all parties. It is even more restrictive than what is currently
permissible under the spirit and intent of the condition and the City's Parking Ordinance upon
which it is based. Further, it is certainly more restrictive than what is practically occurring in
other medical/dental clinics in the area. And, the reporting requirements that we propose fully
address the City's concerns with enforcement-
Please feel free to contact Steve Cassidy or me to discuss any of the points raised in this
correspondence. As soon as we come to a mutual agreement on the conditions of the proposal,
we are amenable to meeting with Dr. and Mrs. Kenneth Follmar II to discuss the matter. We
look forward to an amicable resolution of this dispute and the opportunity to seek
reconsideration, based generally on the terms specified above, by the Planning Commission at
their next regularly scheduled meeting,
Very truly yours,
Matthew D. Francois
Stephen K- Cassidy
Hon. Elizabeth Gibbons
Irwin Kaplan
lion. Mayor lane Kennedy
William Seligrnann
Bernard M. Strojny
Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc.
40 South Market Street, Suite 600 · San Jose, CA 95113 · Ph (408) 971-6100 Fax (408) 971 ~6102
July 24, 2000
Mr. Matthew D. Francois
Cassidy Shimko Dawson
20 California Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Re: Medical/Dental Parking Study in Campbell
Dear Mr. Francois:
At your request Hgxagon completed a parking supply study for five medical/dental office
buildings in or near Campbell, California. The purpose of the study was to determine the number
of off-street parking spaces that are supplied versus the number of doctors in each building. The
parking spaces were counted to determine the supply. The number of doctors was determined by
looking at the building directory and by talking to office staff to see if any doctors regularly used
the buildings but were not listed on the directory.
The attached table lists the offices that were surveyed and shows the number of spaces per doctor
for each one. The parking supply ranged from 4.1 to 7.2 spaces per doctor. The offices in San
Jose had about 4.1 parking spaces per doctor, whereas the offices in Campbell had 5.7 and 7.2
spaces per doctor. The City of San Jose parking requirement for medical offices is one parking
space for each 200 square feet of building area. The parking requirement in Campbell is six
spaces per doctor.
Please note that Hexagon did not survey the usage of the parking spaces, only the number of
spaces provided. We are not prepared to comment on whether the number of parking spaces
provided is adequate.
Sincerely,
gon Trans~tation Consultants, Inc.
ak
President
Parking Supply Survey
Address
3803 S. Bascom Ave.
14455-14495 S. Bascom Ave.
14501-14521 S. Bascom Ave.
14525-14547 S. Bascom Ave.
3988-3994; 3996-4000 S. Bascom Ave.
Number of Number of Spaces Spaces per
City Doctors Regular Handicap Doctor
Campbell 20 111 3 5.7
Campbell 5 35 I 7.2
San Jose 13 53 2 4.2
San Jose 8 32 I 4.1
San Jose 10 39 2 4.1
Ave rage 5.1
07/21/00 16:15 FAX 415 788 2039 CSAD ~002/002
CASSIDY
E) AWSON
July 21, 2000
_VIA FACSIMLE AND U.S. MAIL
~ Bybec
Office of the City Clerk
City of Campbell
70 North Fix~-t Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Re: PLN 2000-4J6; 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
Dear Ms. Bybee:
We are writing on behalf of Dr. Dennis Wong and Ms. Dora Ng, the owners of property
at 14419 South Bascom Avenue, who have on file an appeal of the denial of their reques! for a
modification to a condition of approval regarding parking ~cheduled for hearing beforo the
Campbell City Council on August 1, 2000.
Based on the discussions we have had to date with planning staff and other interested
parties, we believe that it would be beneficial to refer the matter back ~o the planning
Commission for further consideration of alternative solutions. Therefore, we request that the
City Council on August 1, 2000, act to return the matter to the planning Commission for further
consideration and we would agree to withdraw ou~ appeal conditioned on such referral by the
City Council.
1-bank you for your consideration of this matter.
Matthew D. Francois
cC:
Stephen K. Ca~sidy
Sharon Fierro
$ohe Houston
William Seligmann
Dr. Lee Walker
Dr. Dennis Wong
~0 CALtF'ORN~A ~{'. SUITE 500
'i-'F_L.F_.PHON[: ( ''~ ! 5 ) 7 0 ~ ' E. 0 ,,d. 0
CITY OF CAMPBELL
City Clerk's Office
July 21, 2000
Matthew Francois
Cassidy, Shimko & Dawson
20 California Street,//500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Dear Mr. Francois:
At the regular meeting of July 18, 2000, the Campbell City Council approved your request to
continue the appeal, on behalf of Dr. Dennis Wong and Ms. Dora Ng, of the Planning
Commission decision regarding Approval of a Modification (PLN 2000-66) to a previously
approved Site and Architectural Approval (S98-24) to alter a Condition of Approval regarding
parking at property located at 14419 South Bascom Avenue.
Please note that the Appeal will be considered at the next regular City Council Meeting which
is scheduled to be held August 1, 2000 at 7:30 p.m.
Please do not hesitate to contact this office (408) 866-2117) or Sharon Fierro, Community
Development Director, should you have any questions in regard to the City Council's action.
Sincerely,
Anne Bybee
City Clerk
Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director
70 North First Street - Campbell, California 95008.1423 · TEL 408.866.2117 - F~,X 408.374.6889 · ~.D~a 408.866.2790
11.
Mayor Kennedy declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone in the audience
wished to be heard.
There being no one wishing to be heard, Mayor Kennedy closed the public hearing.
M/S: Watson/Furtado - that the City Council adopt Resolution 9708 approving the
Engineer's Report, ordering the improvements, and confirming the diagram and
assessments for the City of Campbell Lighting and Landscaping District LLA-1 for
Fiscal Year 2000/01. Motion adopted by the follovdng roll call vote:
AYES : Councilmembers: Dougherty, Furtado, Watson, Kennedy
NOES : Councilmembers: None
ABSENT: Councilmembers: Dean
Appeal of Matthew Francois of Planning Commission decision regarding Approval
of a Modification (PLN 2000-66) to a previously approved Site and Architectural
Approval (S 98-24) to alter a Condition of Approval regarding Parking
(Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
REQUESTED CONTINUANCE TO AUGUST 1 COUNCIL MEETING
This is the time and place for a public hearing to consider an Appeal of Matthew
Francois of Planning Commission decision regarding Approval of a Modification (PLN
2000-66) to a previously approved Site and Architectural Approval (S 98-24) to alter a
Condition of Approval regarding Parking.
Community Development Director Fierro -Staff Report dated July 18, 2000.
Mayor Kennedy declared the public hearing open and asked if anyone in the audience
wished to be heard.
Matthew Francois, Attorney for the Appellant, appeared before the City Council and
requested that the matter be continued to the August 1 City Council Meeting. Mr.
Francois also stated that he would be meeting with City Staff to attempt to resolve the
issue.
Debbie Follmar, 15261 Sobey Road, Saratoga, appeared before the City Council and
stated that there are currently more physicians working at the location than were
approved by the Planning Commission which is negatively impacted parking and
traffic.
There being no one else wishing to speak at this time, M/S: Dougherty/Watson - to
continue this matter to the August 1~t City Council Meeting. Motion adopted by a
4-0-1 vote, Vice Mayor Dean absent.
Minutes of 7/18/2000 City Council Meeting 5
Council
Reporr
ITEM NO:
CATEGORY:
MEETING DATE:
Public Hearing
July 18, 2000
TITLE
Appeal of Matthew Francois of Planning Commission decision regarding Approval of a
Modification (PLN 2000-66) to a previously approved Site and Architectural Approval (S98-24)
to alter a Condition of Approval regarding Parking- 14419 South Bascom Avenue.
CITY COUNCIL ACTION:
The City Council may take one of the following actions:
1. Continue the application as requested by the applicant;
2. Adopt a Resolution upholding the Planning Commission denial of (PLN 2000-66) and deny
the appeal;
3. Adopt a Resolution overturning the Planning Commission denial of (PLN 2000-66)
upholding the appeal;
4. Refer the application to the Planning Commission for further consideration.
BACKGROUND
Request for Continuance
The applicant has requested a continuance of the appeal to the City Council meeting of August 1,
2000.
Planning Commission Meeting: On January 26,1999 the Planning Commission approved a site
and architectural application allowing the construction of a new two-story medicalJdental office
building with twelve parking spaces at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue. During the heating the
Planning Commission noted that the building seemed too large for only twelve parking spaces.
The applicant, Dr. Wong, assured the Commission that the project would meet the City's parking
requirement of six parking spaces per doctor because there would only be two dentists/doctors,
resulting in the twelve parking spaces that were provided. In approving the project, the Planning
Commission added the condition of approval to restrict the use of the building to two
doctors/dentists and required that a covenant be recorded on the property restricting its use.
An application by Matthew Francois to modify this condition was considered by the Planning
Commission on June 13, 2000. The modification requested that the condition of approval be
amended to include a definition of doctor to include 'primary' doctor but to exclude 'assisting'
doctors. The Planning Commission voted 5-0-1-1 to deny the request. The applicant
representing the doctors has appealed the decision of the Planning Commission.
Applicant's request: The applicant's letter requests that the wording of Condition No. 2 be
modified as follows:
City Council Report - July t8, 2000
Appeal of PLN 2000-66 - 14419 South Bascom Avenue
Page 2
Parking: Prior to building occupancy, applicant shall record a covenant, running with
the land, which shall restrict use of the building site to a maximum of 2 doctors/dentists.
For purposes of this condition, "use of the building site" means the full time occupancy by a
doctor or dentist who provides primary care to patients on a permanent basis (the "Primary
Physician"). For the purposes of determining whether a doctor or dentist is a Primary .
Physician as set forth in this condition, none of the following shall constitute a "use of the
building site"(i) the temporary presence of a doctor or dentist who is necessary to assist the
Primary Physician in the treatment of the same patient, such as an assisting surgical
physician or anesthesiologist; (ii) a doctor or dentist who attends to patients, or substitutes
for the Primary Physician, when the Primary Physician is not present; or (iii) a doctor or
dentist who, in conjunction with the sale of a medical and/or dental practice for a temporary
period of time in providing transitional treatment to the same patients. The covenant may
indicate that this will not prevent the owner from petitioning the City to change the
terms of the covenant, should the City Parking requirements change, the square footage
of the building be reduced, or should other changes occur which lessen the parking
demand/requirement. The covenant may also provide that if the property owner desires
to use the building for non-medical office use in the future, it must be demonstrated
that the office use generates a parking demand (including employees and customers)
that does not exceed the 12 parking spaces provided. The justification must be provided
to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
Analysis:
Matthew Francois, representing the doctors who own/occupy the building, initiated an
application to modify wording of the condition of approval to find that a doctor/dentist who is
temporarily assisting other doctors does not constitute the practice of more than one doctor. Staff
and the Planning Commission did not support this interpretation and recommended denial of the
requested modification.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3284 denying
the. requested modification.
Appeal:
On June 22, 2000, the City Clerk received a letter from Mr. Matthew Francois appealing the
Planning Commission's decision to deny the requested modification to this Condition of
Approval.
Mr. Francois objects to the Planning Commission decision based upon the grounds that the
Owners' proposed use of the building is entirely consistent with the following:
1. A reasonable interpretation of the original condition
2. The letter and intent of the City's Zoning Ordinance and Parking Provisions upon which
City Council Report - July 18, 2000
Appeal of PLN 2000-66 - 14419 South Bascom Avenue
Page 3
the condition was based
3. The city practices for other buildings in the area and
4. The actual parking usage tracked to date.
A copy of Mr. Francois' appeal letter is attached for your review.
ALTERNATIVES
The alternative actions are listed under "City Council Actions" above.
FISCAL IMPACTS
None
Attachments:
1. Draft City Council Resolution upholding the Planning Commission's denial of PLN 2000-66
and deny the appeal.
2. Draft City Council Resolution upholding the appeal and denying the Planning Commission's
denial of PLN 2000-66.
3. Letter of Appeal submitted by Mr. Francois
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3284
5. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 13, 2000
6. Staff Report for Planning Commission Meeting of June 13, 2000
7. Location Map
Prepared by: ~ ~
Tim J. Haley, As~6ciate Planner
Reviewed by:
Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director
Approved by:
Bernard M. Strojny, City Manager
Ms. Sharon Fierro
Community Development Dept.
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Dear Ms. Fierro,
July 8, 2000
Before Dr. Wong's dental building at 14419 S. Bascom was approved we, along
with other neighbors, voiced our concern about the building being too large for the lot
and that there was not enough parking. The problems we saw coming have now become
reality because the covenant restricting use of the site to a maximum of 2 doctors/dentists
is not and never has been complied with by the tenants.
Listed below are the reasons I can say without a doubt the covenant is not being
followed:
1.When Dr. Lotiz and Dr. Walker started their "parking sign-in sheet" they each had their
names documented next to their patients.
2. On a daily basis patients for Dr. Lotiz, Dr. Walker and Dr. Wong park in our parking
lot and ask our tenants for directions to their office.
3. We have some of the same delivery and sales people as the Wong building and they
have told us all three of the doctors are working. One person told us there were
several doctors working downstairs in Dr. Walkers and Lotiz office.
4. It is common knowledge among the dentists in our area that there are at least three
dentists working in the building.
5. On June 21 ! called Dr. Lotiz and Dr. Walker's office and asked their receptionist,
Heather, what days the doctors work. She said Dr. Walker works Monday through
Friday and Dr. Lotiz works Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. She went on to say
they both see their own patients and Dr. Lotiz's first available appointment for a
consultation is July 13 at 8:30 or 10:00. Dr. Wong works Monday through Friday.
We have had complaints from our tenants over the parking. The main complaint is
that there is no parking on the street due to the fact that all employees from Dr. Wong's
building are required to park on the street. When the parking is full on the street it is hard
to see oncoming cars when pulling out of our parking lot. Delivery truck drivers have
also complained that they can no longer park on the street in front of our building to
make deliveries. One driver complained that Dr. Wong's parking lot is too small to turn
around in, so he has to pull forward into the driveway blocking the driveway while
making the delivery, then back up on to Bascom Avenue using only the aid of the mirror
on the rear of the truck. He said he hates that building because the parking lot is too
small and it creates an unsafe situation for him. While the truck is blocking the driveway
it is obvious that any patients going to the Wong building will go to the next available
parking lot, which is ours. Once we saw a UPS truck parked in the driveway and another
delivery truck double parked on the street, in this case not only did the driver have to
back onto Bascom but he had to back into the second lane of traffic.
It is wrong that Dr. Wong is complaining about the covenant now that the
building is built. In the planning stages he told the Planning Commission he needed the
space to be OSHA compliant. There are about 25 OSHA complaint dental offices in his
neighborhood and several are in the 800 to 900 sq.it, range. None are as large as Dr.
Wongs office at 2740 sq. ft. The reason Dr. Wong's office is so big is because it has 6
dental chairs. None of the other 25 offices have this many chairs. This worries me
because he must plan on having a lot of dental hygienists or maybe like Dr. Walker he
too plans on having other doctors "temporarily assist" him. The Planning Commission
was very clear and went to great lengths to let Dr. Wong know this large building was
only approved because there can never be more than two doctors. Dr. Wong gladly
agreed to this. Dr. Wong has 4930 sq. ft. on a small lot that only has 12 parking spaces.
Next door we have 6212 sq. ft. and 36 parking spaces for 5 doctors. If we had the same
ratio of parking spots to sq. ft. as Dr. Wong we would have 14,790 sq. ft. or about 2 ½
times what we currently have. Dr. Wong should appreciate how generous the Planning
Commission has been to him and not go back on his word and ask for more at the
expense and safety of the public and his neighbors.
In reality working within the covenant should not be hard for Dr. Walker. Since
Dr. Loitz is retiring that leaves just one doctor downstairs. At the last Planning
Commission meeting Dr. Walker stated he only does big surgeries requiring multiple
doctors once or twice a month. For those few times he can do his surgery at Serono
Surgery Center a block down the street. We welcome Dr. Walker to the community, we
just don't welcome the parking problems and cars he generates into our parking lot.
I respectfully ask that the Planning Commission enforce the current covenant.
Sincerely,
Deborah Follmar
c.c. Anne Bybee
Tim Haley
William Seligmann
Code Enforcement
A PROFESSIONAL
CASSIDY
S H I N KO
DAWSON
RECEIVr.:D
JUL 0 3 2000
CITY CLERK'S OFFICB
June 30,2000
Anne Bybee
C~.ty Clerk
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Dear Ms. Bybee:
We are writing on behalf of Dr. Dennis Wong and Ms. Dora Ng, the owners of 14419
South Bascom Avenue to confirm a continuance of the July 18, 2000, City Council hearing to
hear our Appeal of the denial by the Campbell Planning Commission on June 13, 2000, of our
request for a modification to a condition of approval regarding parking. See, e.g., Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3284, June 13, 2000.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you
have any questions regarding this correspondence.
Very truly yo~
Matthew D. Francois
CC:
Dr. Dennis K. Wong
Dr. Lee R. Walker
Stephen K. Cassidy
20 CALIFORNIA ST SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94 I I I TELEPHONE: ( 4 I $ ) 7 8 8 - 2 0 4 0
07/06/00 14:16 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~002/005
CA$$1DY
SHIM KO
DAWSON
June 30, 2000
VIA FACSIMILE
Sharon Fierro
Community Development Department
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, California 95008
William R. Seligmann
Dempster, Seligmann & Raineri
3 ~ North Santa Cruz Avenue, ~A
Los Gatos, California 95030
Re: 14419 South Bascom Avenue; Request for
Interpretation or Modification to
Parking Condition of Approval (PLN 2000-66)
Dear Sharon and Bill:
As you know, we have filed an appeal to the City
Council on the Planning Commission's decision to reject the
application of Dr. Dennis Wong and Ms. Dora Ng, the owners of
14419 South Bascom Avenue, for an interpretation of, or
modification to, Condition of Approval No. 2 of Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3217. I have discussed with both of
you a proposal which Doctors Wong and Walker believe will address
the concern~ expressed by the Planning Commission and come within
the letter and intent of the ~two doctor" limit of Condition of
Approval No. 2. Sharon asked that I set out this proposal in
ZO CALIFORNIA ST SU~ ~00 SAN ~RANCI~CO. CA ~a [ I I ~LEmHONK; [ ~ I 5 ) 7 ~ ~ ' ~ 0 4 0
~'AC~INIL[: [ 4 I 5 7 7 ~ 8 ' 2 0 3 9
07/06/00 14:16 FAX 415 785 2039 ¢S&D ~003/005
June 30, 2000
Page 2
writing for your consideration.
As I indicated to both of you, Dr. Wong does not see
patients or occupy his office on one week day each week. The day
of the week varies according to Dr. Wong's schedule and patient
load. On that day, no other personnel are present in his office,
other than his receptionist and an assistant. Accordingly, 10
parking spaces are available On that day for use by patients of
Dr. Walker. Dr. Wong will enter into an agreement with Dr.
Walker by which he will maintain his one-day-per-week-off custom
and by which Dr. Walker would agree to perform his surgeries on
Dr. Wong's day off.
It seems %0 us that this addresses all concerns
expressed not only by the Planning Commission, but by Dr.
Follmar, as well as City Staff. First, we have demonstrated that
when Dr. Walker is performing surgery he will see one, or at most
two, patients per day. Total parking demand on Dr. Wong's day
off would be 8 (6 for Dr. Walker and 2 for Dr. Wong). This
leaves a balance of 4 parking spaces, which in fact will not be
used by anyone, unless they are parking on Dr. Wong's property
without right from off-site.
As I noted to Bill, Dr. walker would further agree to
use only anesthesiologists from the Surgery Center at the
07/06/00 14:17 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~004/005
June 30, 2000
Page 3
adjacent building at 3803 South Bascom Avenue, owned by Dr.
Noodleman. As we mentioned at our Planning Commission
presentation, approximately thirty anesthesiologists are
connected with that office. They, of course, park at Dr.
Noodleman's facility when they are attending patients either at
Dr. Noodleman's facility or elsewhere in the neighborhood- This
would further reduce parking impacts, although we would be more
than willing to have the anesthesiologist move his car to Dr.
Wong's property when the anesthesiologist is assisting Dr.
walker.
The Planning Commission, in its deliberations, was
amenabl~ to the notion of having an anesthesiologist present
during Dr. Walker's surgeries, recognizing that the presence was
temporary and only as-needed. The same circumstance, of course,
pertains to an assistin~ physician. Since, as we have amply
demonstrated, Dr. Walker's practice is not high volume, patient
driven, but rather focused and selective, we think that this
arrangement meets the concerns of all to resolve the parki~9
demand issue.
If you believe this proposal has merit, we would like
to meet with you to discuss appropriate language to implement the
proposal. We also think that it might be opportune to request
07/06/00 14:17 FAX 415 788 2039 ¢S&D ~005/005
June 30, 2000
Page 4
reconsideration by the Planning Commission of its decision in
orde: to consider this proposal. If you concur, we would put the
appeal to the City Counsel on hold while we pursued that
reconsideration-
Please consider this proposal and let us k~ow your
thoughts. We 10ok forward to meetin9 with you to work out
appropriate language for presentation to the Plannin~ Com~ission
or City Council.
~ Stephen K.
SKC:bls
cc: Matt Francois
Lee Walker
Steve Walker
Der~%is Wong
'~ 05Z22/00 15:44 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~002/003
CASSID¥
SHII,4KO
DAWSON
Jure 22,2000
~ FACSIMI. I,E AND FEDERAL EXPRESS
Anne Bybee
City Clerk
City of Campbell
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Resolution No, 3284
Dear Ms. Bybec:
Wc write on bchslf of Dr. Dennis Wong and Ms. Dora Ng, the "Owns'rs" of 14419 S.
Bascom Avenue (the "Building"), to appeal the denial by the Carnpbcll Planning Commission on
June 13, 2000, of our r~quest for a modification to a condition of approval regarding parking.
See., ..~.~., Planning Commission Resolutio~ No. 3254, Sunc 13, 2000. The condition in question
required the re:cording of a cov~mant restricting u~c of the Building site to a maximum of 2
doctors/dentists (the "Condition"). ~ Condition of Approval No. 2, Planning Commission
Kesolution No. 3217, January 26, 1999. We seek review of thc Plauuing Commission's decision
by the Campbell City Council pursuant to Campbell Municipal Code §21.80 .qt seq.
This appeal is brought on thc grounds that the Owners' proposed use of thc Building is
entirely consistent with: (1) a reasonable interpretation of the Condition, (2) the letter and intent
of thc City's Zoning Ordinance Frovision upon which the Condition is based ~ c.g., Campbell
Municipal Code § 21.50.050), (3) City practices for other buildings in the area, and (a) the actual
parking usage tracked to date. As such, by adopting Resolution No- 3284, the Planning
Commission prejudicially abuscxl its discretion in that they failed to proceed in th~ manner
rcquir~l by law, their decision is not supported by the finding, and the findings are not
supported by substantial cv/dence. Code of C/vii Procedure § 1094.5.
CALIFORNIA ST ~$UITE. 500 .'~,AN lrl'~ANCI,-~CO. CA ~)4 I I I TELEP~'I0NE: ~[ ~ I ,~ ] 7 t~ ~ - ~ O 40
F'e, CS, iMiLE: {~ I ..~) 7OO-PO,-~
064~/00 15:44 FAI 415 788 ~039 CS&D ~003/003
Ms. Anne Bybee
June 22, 2000
Page 2
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you
have any questions regarding our request.
Very truly yours,
Stephen K. Cassidy
Sharon F~erro
Tim ~[. Haley
Wilham Seligrnann
Dr. Lee R. Walker
Dr. Dennis IC Wong
'O&CHA~O'
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Community Development Department · Current Planning
June 16, 2000
Matthew D. Francois, Esq.
Cassidy, Shimko & Dawson
20 California Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Re: PLN2000-66 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
Dear Applicant:
Please be advised that at its meeting of June 13, 2000, the Planning Commission adopted
Resolution No. 3284 denying the request for a Modification (PLN2000-66)' to a
previously-approved Site and Architectural Approval, to alter Condition of Approval No.
2 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3217, which required the recordation of a
covenant limiting the number of doctors/dentists using the site to two, on the above-
referenced property.
This action is effective in ten days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. The time
within which judicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by California
Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (408) 866-2144.
Tim J. Hale~
Associate Planner
CCi
Dr. Dennis Wong/Dora Ng (Property Owners)
14419 S. Bascom Avenue, #200
Los Gatos, CA 95032
70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95008.1423 · TEL 408.866.2140 · ~^X 408.866.8381 · T[~O 408.866.2790
RESOLUTION NO. 3284
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL
DENYING A MODIFICATION (PLN2000-66) TO A
PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED SITE AND
ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL (S 98-24) TO ALTER A
CONDITION OF APPROVAL LIMITING THE NUMBER
OF DOCTORS/DENTISTS USING THE SITE TO TWO
ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14419 S. BASCOM
AVENUE IN A PO (PROFESSIONAL OFFICE) ZONING
DISTRICT. APPLICATION OF MR. MATT FRANCOIS,
ON BEHALF OF DR. DENNIS WONG. FILE NO.
PLN2000-66.
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the
Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission did find as follows
with respect to application PLN2000-66:
An initial study was prepared for this project which Concludes there are no significant
environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration was previously granted for this project.
The proposed modification to the condition of approval would allow the presence and
practice of additional doctors/dentist in the building without providing additional parking.
The approved site plan provides 12 on-site parking spaces which is consistent with the
parking ratio and schedule provided for two doctors/dentist under the Parking Schedule
provided in the Campbell Municipal Code.
The proposed wording and possible occupancy fails to address the potential parking
demand associated with a medical practice where more than two doctors/dentists are
present.
5. The project will create a nuisance due to insufficient parldng.
The project will have a detrimental affect on the adjacent property by the placement of a
parking burden on adjacent office uses.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes that:
Planning Commission Reso._.don No. 3284
PLN2000-66 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue - Matt Francois for Dr. Wong
Page 2
The proposed project will not aid in the enhancement and the harmonious development of
the immediate area. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the uses will be
detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
The proposed site layout does not provide parking at a ratio of 6 spaces per doctor/dentist.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13* day of June, 2000, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Commissioners:
Gibbons, Hemandez, Keams, Lindstrom, Lowe
None
Jones
Francois
APPROVED:
Elizabeth Gibbons, Chair
ATTEST:
Sharon Fierro, Secretary
Attachment #5
Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2000
Page 5
Commissioner Francois advised the Chair that he would have to recuse himself from Agenda
Item No. 2 as a family member is a party to this application. He left the dais to sit in the
audience.
Chairperson Gibbons read Agenda Item No. 2 into the record.
2. PLN2000-66
Francois, M.
Continued Public Heating to consider the application of Mr. Matt
Francois, on behalf of Dr. Dennis Wong, for approval of a
Modification (PLN2000-66) to a previously-approved Site and
Architectural Approval (S 98-24) to alter a Condition of Approval
limiting the number of doctors/dentists using the site to two, on
property located at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue in a PO (Professional
Office) Zoning District. A Negative Declaration was previously
approved for this project. Planning Commission decision final in 10
days, unless appealed in writing to the City Clerk. (Continued from
the Planning Commission meeting of May 23, 2000.)
Mr. Tim J. Haley, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
· Advised that the applicants are seeking the modification of a Condition of Approval for a
previously approved Site and Architectural Approval.
· The original Site and Architectural Approval was granted on January 26, 1999, and allowed
the construction of a new two-story office building with the provision of 12 parking spaces.
· Condition of Approval No. 2 required that a covenant be filed limiting the number of
doctors/dentists using the site to two.
· The applicants are seeking to modify that restriction.
· Staffs position is that the need for the limitation was made clear at the time of approval.
Staff is not supportive of any changes to the Condition.
Advised that the requirement for six spaces per doctor is fairly consistent with other cities in
the area.
Said that the building on this site consists of 4,930 square feet. Typically, a building of that
size would require 21 spaces for general office use. For medical office use, the parking
requirement is based upon the number of doctors.
Staff recommends denial.
Chairperson Gibbons opened the Public Heating for Agenda Item No. 2.
Mr. Ken Follmar, II, 14511 S. Bascom Avenue, Los Gatos.
· Said that more parking is needed.
· Agreed that while some medical procedures require more doctors, the limitations on this
building were known in advance.
· Stated that this building was overbuilt for the site.
Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2000 Page 6
Mr. Matt Francois, Attorney, Cassidy, Shimko & Dawson.
· Advised that they are here seeking clarification about an ambiguous Condition of Approval.
· Stated that Dr. Walker is both a physician and a dentist who performs complex surgeries
which require an anesthesiologist and assisting physician.
· Said that Dr. Walker's practice is in conformance with the six parking spaces allotted to it.
· Stated that Dr. Walker should be treated no differently than any other physician.
· Proposed that the covenant be modified and narrowed.
· Stated that he is willing to work with staff to modify the covenant language in a way that
pleases the City and allows Dr. Walker's practice.
Commissioner Lindstrom clarified that Mr. Francois is seeking is to modify the limitation on the
number of doctors permitted in this building.
Mr. Matt Francois said that what he is trying to convey is that there is no excess parking on the
part of Dr. Walker's practice.
Ms. Sharon Fierro clarified that this is a two-story building. Dr. Wong, a dentist, is occupying
the second floor. Dr. Walker is occupying the first floor, with Dr. Loitz and an anesthesiologist
assisting as needed. Dr. Walker cannot guarantee that there is no overlap.
Dr. Leigh Walker, 14419 S. Bascom Avenue:
· Stated that he is a sole practitioner, occupying the first floor of the building.
· Advised that he hired an architect to create a state-of-the-art facility.
· Said that he trained for 13 years following college to prepare for his current specialty.
· The City received a complaint when he sent a notice advising the start of his practice in this
location.
· Said that he has been in this location now for five weeks. Advised that he has maintained a
parking log since he started and there has not been one violation. Stated that he is willing to
continue to maintain the parking log.
· Expressed his understanding of his neighbors' concerns.
· Stated that he is a licensed physician in California and requires the assistance of an assisting
. physician and anesthesiologist one or two times per month to perform one or two surgeries.
Commissioner Hernandez sought clarification. Dr. Walker states that he is a sole practitioner
with assisting physicians a couple of times each month but that the announcement for his new
practice lists a parmership/joint practice.
Dr. Leigh Walker replied that it is his practice. He spent $225,000 in improvements. He is
associated with Dr. Loitz as a way of introducing himself into the community, a common
practice.
Commissioner Hemandez stated that this is a way of trading off on the good will of an
experienced doctor.
Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2000 Page 7
Commissioner Keams stated that at the time of original approval for this new building, the
applicant stated that there was no problem with the limitations on the number of doctors.
Dr. Leigh Walker stated that he believes his practice is a sole practice. All he is asking for is a
clarification.
Commissioner Hemandez asked if Dr. Loitz sees only the same patients as Dr. Walker, at the
same time?
Dr. Leigh Walker:
· Stated that there are just one or two patients the entire day for the entire staff.
· Advised that he is seeking JCHO accreditation. Under this accreditation, it is unethical to
operate in more than one room at a time.
· Said that his whole office is geared to treat one patient at a time. It sometimes takes six to
eight hours for one patient.
Chairperson Gibbons asked if Dr. Loitz practices elsewhere.
Dr. Leigh Walker replied that Dr. Loitz does practice elsewhere, this is not his primary location.
Chairperson Gibbons asked how many days Dr. Loitz has been working at this location in the
five weeks since the practice opened.
Dr. Leigh Walker advised that Dr. Loitz has been there every day during the transition. Dr. Loitz
is helping to start up this practice, advising in all matters including how to set up the books.
Chairperson Gibbons asked if Dr. Loitz has regular office hours at this location.
Dr. Leigh Walker stated that Dr. Loitz has not seen patients except with him.
Commissioner Hemandez asked Dr. Walker how long Dr. Loitz would be associated with the
practice in this way.
Dr. Leigh Walker replied about six months and only on special occasions thereafter. Dr. Loitz
haq no long-term commitment to this practice.
Commissioner Lowe commended Dr. Walker for starting his new practice in Campbell. Asked if
Dr. Walker was aware of the covenant when establishing his practice at this location.
Dr. Leigh Walker replied that he was not aware of the covenant at that time.
Chairperson Gibbons advised that the Dr. Walker's business license approval form clearly stated
the hmit of two doctors for the building.
Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2000
Page 8
Dr. Paul Beaupre, 16178 Greenwood Road, Monte Sereno.
· Advised that he is an anesthesiologist.
· Stated that he has been in the community for 15 years and thanked the Commission for its
time.
· Stated that the issue is that it is more cost effective to open an office operating room.
· Said that Dr. Walker's facility will retain the highest accreditation possible.
· This practice has one patient for one surgery at a time. No other patients are treated. The
focus is on one patient. Said that the State of California sets standards for the number of
patients at a time.
· Advised that he does not bring support staff with him as Dr. Walker's office staffis trained to
assist should emergencies arise.
· Reiterated that the entire office staff is focused on one patient.
Commissioner Lindstrom asked for clarification on the accreditation mentioned.
Dr. Paul Beaupre said that the accreditation is JCHO (Joint Commission of Hospitals) and has
the strictest of standards.
Commissioner Lowe asked why such extensive facial surgery is not conducted within a hospital.
Dr. Paul Beaupre replied that such surgeries can be done safely out of traditional hospitals.
Insurance companies insist upon it.
Dr. Stinson Humphrey, 15715 Gum Tree Lane, Los Gatos.
· Advised that he has practiced 20 years as an oral surgeon and is now retired.
· Added that it is difficult to get people into hospitals in these days of managed care.
Dr. Ken Follmar, 20770 Montalvo Lane, Saratoga.
· Advised that he is a retired oral surgeon.
· Said that he owns the building to the south of Dr. Wong's building. His building has 36
. spaces and all spaces on his site are used.
· Expressed fear that the overflow of parking needed by Dr. Wong and Dr. Walker will end up
on his lot.
· Advised that Dr. Wong has added a hygienist with her own patient load.
· Said that Dr. Wong knew of the restriction to two doctors for his new building. This
information should have been shared with Dr. Walker.
· Said that Dr. Walker's mailed announcement stated a partnership "in our new office at 14419
S. Bascom Avenue."
· Additionally, the stationary fi-om the office lists both Dr. Walker and Dr. Loitz.
Mr. Rudi Herz, 1888 White Oaks Road.
· Advised that he is a past president of the local homeowners' association.
Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2000 Page 9
· Stated that White Oaks Road is an "endangered" residential neighborhood. There are many
auto repair facilities at one end and several dental buildings.
· Said that they have had many complaints about the dentists and none about the auto repair.
· Advised that the dentists ask their employees to park on the street so that patients can park in
their lots. Added that he cannot prove this claim. However, on weekdays, street parking on
White Oaks Road is loaded and on weekends there is none.
· Added that this overflow parking on White Oaks is inconvenient when guests can't park in
fi'ont of residents' homes.
· Stated that the parking requirements for dentists are improperly set.
Ms. Jolie Houston,'Attorney, Berliner, Cohen, 10 Almaden Boulevard, 11~ Floor, San Jose.
· Stated that she submitted a letter earlier which is included in the staff report.
· Asked to bring back the discussion to the land use issue, the covenant.
· Said that this project was approved with the condition that the number of doctors be limited
to two.
· The Parking Ordinance requires the provision of six spaces for each doctor.
· Advised that one doctor has akeady admitted to not literally adhering to the number of
doctors right now.
· Said that the Zoning Code cannot be changed by modifying a covenant. Added that the
covenant is confusing and unenforceable.
· Stated that she is available for questions.
· Said that with the adoption of a Negative Declaration, required under CEQA, parking was
seen as an impact which was mitigated by limiting the number of doctors on the site.
Ms. Deborah Follmar, 15261 Sobey Road, Saratoga.
· Advised that while the Wong building was under
construction, she was in charge of
managing her own adjacent property.
Added that she had to chase construction workers building the Wong building off of her
property on a number of occasions during the construction phase and was rudely treated.
Said that posting signs on her property restricting parking did not solve the problem.
Said that it appears that Dr. Walker is a great physician with a great future but that he picked
the wrong building.
Dr. Rick Noodleman, 3803 S. Bascom Avenue, Campbell.
· Advised that he owns the building adjacent to the Wong building on the north side.
· Said that he welcomes Dr. Wong and Dr. Walker to the community and wishes them success.
· Stated that nine years ago, he and his partners built their building and added underground
parking, which was very expensive, to meet the parking needs for their practice.
· Expressed concern that, should the parking lot be full at the Wong building, the overflow will
end up in their parking lot. More parking is required.
Commissioner Keams asked Dr. Noodleman if he had any suggestions on how to procure more
parking.
Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2000 Page 10
Dr. Rick Noodleman replied that perhaps offsite parking with shuttle service. Added that he did
not know what was available.
Chairperson Gibbons asked if the adjacent properties are in compliance as far as parking
requirements are concerned.
Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, replied that she is not positive as no
research has been done recently but that no complaints have been made to the City.
Dr. Greg Loitz, 33 Palma, La Selva Beach.
· Advised that Dr. Walker has come to the community to provide a valuable service.
Walker purchased his practice.
· Stated that his role is to introduce Dr. Walker and back out of the practice.
· Stated that he has served on accreditation committees for two local centers.
Dr.
· Said that he is aware the Dr. Noodleman is affiliated with 35 anesthesiologists in his own
practice.
· Stated that he believes Dr. Walker will meet the covenant requirements.
Chairperson Gibbons closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Commissioner Lowe stated that he had expressed concern about the parking for this site at the
original hearing held to approve this building. He advised that he voted against the approval for
the building. Added that he will vote against any changes to the covenant language now.
Commissioner Hemandez asked the City Attorney for direction and whether the Commission
could modify this approval.
Mr. William Seligmann, City Attorney, advised that the Commission has the general authority to
modify its approvals.
Commissioner Hernandez said that the condition restricting the number of doctors for this
building has been imposed for a reason. While Dr. Walker's practice is not a high volume one,
the condition nms with the land not with Dr. Walker. The Commission must reconcile Dr.
Walker's unique practice with the potential future occupants of the site.
Chairperson Gibbons:
· Stated that she concurred.
· Added that the minutes of the original meeting are included in the packet.
Said that the zoning stipulated the amount of parking required and that a lengthy discussion
of parking concerns took place.
· Said that tonight's discussion is down to two issues. What is a doctor and the specifics of
this particular medical practice.
Planning Commission Minutes of June 13, 2000 Page 11
· Said that she had issues with two practicing physicians despite the covenant.
Commissioner Hernandez asked if Chairperson Gibbons had concerns about two doctors even if
for just one patient.
Chairperson Gibbons replied yes.
Commissioner Keams stated that she concurred with Chairperson Gibbons and Commissioner
Hernandez. Added that she didn't want to stand in the way of this doctor's practice but she is
straggling with the parking issue. This is a tough decision.
Commissioner Lindstrom:
Reminded that Dr. Wong's practice also has a hygienist in addition to Dr. Wong.
· Said that parking is an issue but if only once a month it may not be such a problem.
· Said that Dr. Walker has done a good job logging the parking habits of his visitors and that
no violations of parking have occurred to this point.
Chairperson Gibbons, looking at page 11 of Dr. Walker's log, stated that within a half hour
period there were five patients, the doctor and two staff members. This is just one example.
Commissioner Lindstrom suggested leaving the covenant the same.
Commissioner Lowe said that when the Commission originally considered this project there was
extensive discussion and "here we are back at the table again."
Commissioner Lindstrom said that the Commission would have to stay with two primary
doctors.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Lowe, seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom,
the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 3284 denying a request for
a Modification (PLN2000-66) to a previously-approved Site and
Architectural Approval (S 98-24) to alter a Condition of Approval, limiting
the number of doctors/dentists using the site to two, on property located at
14419 S. Bascom Avenue, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Hernandez, Gibbons, Kearns, Lindstrom, Lowe
NOES: None
ABSENT: Jones
ABSTAIN: Francois
Chairperson Gibbons advised that this decision is final unless appealed in writing to the City
Clerk within 10 days.
Commissioner Francois returned to the dais at following completion of Agenda Item No. 2.
Attachment #6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
June 13, 2000
PLN
2000-66
Francois, M.
Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Matt Francois, on behalf of Dr.
Dennis Wong, for approval of a Modification (PLN 2000-66) to a previously - .
approved Site and Architectural Approval (S 98-24) to alter Condition of
Approval No. 2 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3217, adopted on
January 26, 1999, which required the recordation of a covenant limiting the
number of doctors/dentists using the site to two, on property located at 14419 S.
Baseom Avenue in a PO (Professional Office) Zoning District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Deny, the requested modification to the previously adopted Condition No. 2 of project
approval granted under Planning Commission Resolution No. 3217.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A Negative Declaration was previously granted for this project.
DISCUSSION
Background: The Planning Commission at its meeting of January 26, 1999 approved a site and
architectural application allowing the construction of a new two-story office building on the
project site. Condition of Approval No. 2 limited the building use to a maximum of 2
doctors/dentists and the provision of 12 parking spaces for this building.
Applicant's request: The applicant has submitted a request that the Planning Commission
reconsider the wording of Condition No. 2. The applicant's letter requests that the wording of
Condition No. 2 be modified as follows:
Parking: Prior to building occupancy, applicant shall record a covenant, running with the
land, which shall restrict use of the building site to a maximum of 2 doctors/dentist. For
purposes of this condition, "use of the building site" means the full time occupancy by a
doctor or dentist who provides primary care to patients on a permanent basis (the "Primary
Physician"). For the purposes of determining whether a doctor or dentist is a Primary
Physician as setforth in this condition, none of the following shall constitute a "use of the
building site"(i) the temporary presence of a doctor or dentist who is necessary to assist the
Primary Physician in the treatment of the same patient, such as an assisting surgical
physician or anesthesiologist; (ii) a doctor or dentist who attends to patients, or substitutes
for the Primary Physician, when the Primary Physician is not present; or (iii) a doctor or
dentist who, in conjunction with the sale of a medical and/or dental practice for a temporary
period of time in providing transitional treatment to the same patients. The covenant may
indicate that this will not prevent the owner
Planning Commission Staff Report
PLN2000-66 -- 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
Page 2
from petitioning the City to change the terms of the covenant, should the City Parking
requirements change, the square footage of the building be reduced, or should other changes
occur which lessen the parking demand/requirement. The covenant may also provide that if
the property owner desires to use the building for non-medical office use in the future, it must
be demonstrated that the office use generates a parking demand(including employees and
customers) that does not exceed the 12 parking spaces provided. The justification must be
provided to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
Analysis: Condition No. 2 restricts the number of doctors/dentists that may operate from this
facility because the building provides only twelve parking spaces. Section 21.50.50 of the
Campbell Municipal Code provides the parking schedule for medical and dental clinics. This
section specifies that 6 spaces should be provided for each doctor. The application presented to
the Planning Commission previously indicated the intended use of this building as medical
building to accommodate two dentist/doctors.
The applicant is requesting that the Planning Commission find that a doctor/dentist who is
temporarily assisting other doctors not constitute the practice of more than one doctor.
Staff does not support this interpretation and is recommending denial of the requested
modification.
Staff review of Campbell's parking requirements for medical offices concludes that our standard
is similar to other jurisdiction. Changing the previous condition of the Planning Commission
would result in too few parking spaces and the anticipated parking demand for this facility.
The subject property was developed with a medical office building accommodating 4,930 square
feet of building area and limited to two doctors. Typically, a general office building use provides
a parking a ratio of one parking space for each 225 square feet of building area or in this situation
would be required to provide 21.9 parking spaces for this building. Consequently, this office
building would be significantly under parked with 12 parking spaces, if utilized as a general
office building.
Previous Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission, as reflected in the attached
minutes, discussed the sufficiency of on-site parking and was assured by the applicant Dr. Wong
that no more than two physicians would be present. The Commission's discussion included the
following:
· Sufficiency of on-site parking:
· Expressed concern regarding the adequacy of parking, but was assured by Dr. Wong that
no more than two physicians would be present;
· Considered concems of adjacent business/property owners regarding adequacy of
parking; and
· Imposed the condition of approval requiring a covenant assuring that the project meet
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
Planning Commission Staff Report
PLN2000-66 -- 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
Page 3
Attachments:
1. Letters requesting a modification to the wording of the previous condition of approval.
Dated- May 4, 2000
Dated-June 8, 2000
2. Recommended Findings for Denial
3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 3217.
4. Planning Commission Minutes of January 26,1999
5. Previous items of correspondence
January 5,1999 -Kenneth E. Follmar,D.D.S.
January 6,1999 - David R. Harris, M.D.,Inc.
January 5, 1999 - Richard Noodleman,M.D.,Inc.
6. Current Correspondence
June 6, 2000 - Jolie Houston, Esq.
May 1, 2000 - Deborah Follmar
May 8, 2000 - Richard Noodleman, M.D.,Inc.
7. Site plan
8. Location Map
Prepared by:
Approved by:
im J. Hm~yl ~ssoclate Planner
Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director
FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF FILE NO. PLN 2000-66
SITE ADDRESS: 14419 South Bascom Avenue
APPLICANT: Matt Francois, Esq.
P.C. MEETING: June 13,2000
Findings for Denial of request to Modify a previously approved Condition of Approval to allow
a medical office building on property located at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
The Planning Commission finds as follows with regard to File No. PLN 2000-66.
An initial study was prepared for this project which concludes there are no significant
environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration was previously granted for this project.
The proposed modification to the condition of approval would allow the presence and
practice of additional doctors/dentist in the building without providing additional parking.
o
The approved site plan provides 12 on-site parking spaces which is consistent with the
parking ratio and schedule provided for two doctors/dentist under the Parking Schedule
provided in the Campbell Municipal Code.
The proposed wording and possible occupancy fails to address the potential parking
demand associated with a medical practice where more that two doctors/dentists are
present.
5. The project will create a nuisance due to insufficient parking.
o
The project will have a detrimental affect on the adjacent property by the placement of a
parking burden on adjacent office uses.
Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds and concludes
that:
The proposed project will not aid in the enhancement and the harmonious development of
the immediate area. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the uses will be
detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of
persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use.
2. The proposed site layout does not provide parking at a ratio of 6 spaces per doctor/dentist.
A P R O F E $ $ ! O N A L C O R P O R a ~ I O N
CASSIDY
S H I N KO
DAWSON
June 12,2000
Honorable Elizabeth Gibbons, Chair,
and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Campbell
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Re:
14419 S. Bascom Avenue; Request for Interpretation or Modification to
Parking Condition of Approval (PLN 2000-66)
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We are writing on behalf of Dr. Dennis Wong and Ms. Dora Ng, the "Owners" of 14419
S. Bascom Avenue (the "Building"). As you are aware, we are seeking a modification to
Condition of Approval No. 2 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3217 adopted on January
26, 1999 which required the recording of a covenant restricting use of the Building site to a
maximum of 2 doctors/dentists (the "Condition"). We are writing to: (1) suggest a compromise
modification and (2) supplement our earlier correspondence to you dated June 8, 2000 in
response to the City's Staff Report on this matter dated June 9, 2000.
1. Compromise Modification
In direct response to Planning Staff's concerns with our earlier proposed modification,
we are revising our request to seek simply the following modification shown by italicized
underlining:
2. Parking. Prior to building occupancy, applicant shall record a
covenant, running with the land, which shall restrict use of the
building site to a maximum of 2 doctors/dentists. For purposes qf
this condition, "use of the building site" means the_full time
occupancy by a doctor or dentist who provides primal_ care to
patients on a permanent basis (the "Primary PhYsician "). For
purposes qf determining whether a doctor or dentist is a Primal_
PhYsician as set forth in this condition, the_following shall not
constitute a "use qf the building site ": the temporal_ presence qf a
doctor or dentist who is necessary to assist the Primal_ PhYsician
in the treatment qf the same patient, such as an assisting surgical
physician or anesthesiologist. The covenant may indicate that this
will not prevent the owner from petitioning the City to change the
20 CALIFORNIA ST. SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94 I I I TELEPHONE: 4 I .5 ) 7 8 8- ~. 0 4 0
FACSIMILE: 4 I 5 ) 7 8 8 20 3 9
Honorable Elizabeth Gibbons, Chair
and Members of the Planning Commission
June 13, 2000
Page 2
terms of the covenant, should the City parking requirements
change, the square footage of the building be reduced, or should
other changes occur which lessen the parking demand/requirement.
The covenant may also provide that if the property owner desires
to use the building for non-medical office use in the future, it must
be demonstrated that the office use generates a parking demand
(including employees and customers) that does not exceed the 12
parking spaces provided. The justification must be provided to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
In addition, the Owners agree to accept a condition of approval requiring them to maintain
parking logs, readily available for inspection by City staff, in order to document that their
patients are indeed parking in the Building's parking area. The proposed modification would
provide for Dr. Walker's reasonable use of the Building, while not exceeding his allocated six
parking spaces pursuant to the Parking Schedule set forth in Campbell Municipal Code
§ 21.50.050, and would thus be in full compliance with the policy underlying the Parking
Schedule which is to "assure that adequate off-street parking and loading spaces are provided
for each particular type of land use." Campbell Municipal Code § 21.50.050, emphasis added.
2. Response to Staff Report
The Staff Report recommends denial of our application for a modification to this
Condition since "[c]hanging the previous condition of the Planning Commission would result in
too few parking spaces and the anticipated parking demand for this facility." The Staff Report
also purports to make the following findings: 1) "[t]he proposed modification to the condition of
approval would allow the presence and practice of additional doctors/dentist in the building
without providing additional parking," (2) "[t]he proposed wording and possible occupancy fails
to address the potential parking demand associated with a medical practice where more than two
doctors/dentists are present," (3) "[t]he project will create a nuisance due to insufficient parking,"
and (4) "[t]he project will have a detrimental affect on the adjacent property by the placement of
a parking burden on adjacent office uses." There is no substantial evidence in the record to
support any of these findings. Also, the Staff Report asserts: "The applicant is requesting that
the Planning Commission find that a doctor/dentist who is temporarily assisting other doctors
does not constitute the practice of more than one doctor." As shown above, this comment has
been adequately addressed by removal of the referenced language from the compromise
modification.
Further, as illustrated by our June 8, 2000 correspondence, there will not be an increased
parking demand due to Dr. Walker's use of the Building. Thus, the number of parking spaces
adequately accommodates the parking demand associated with the Building and will not result in
a negative impact on the parking of adjacent properties. This is amply illustrated by the parking
logs maintained by both Drs. Walker and Wong since the Building opened for business on
Honorable Elizabeth Gibbons, Chair
and Members of the Planning Commission
June 13, 2000
Page 3
May 1, 2000. It is significant to note that during that period of time, there has not been a single
reported incident of either one of Dr. Wong or Dr. Walker's patients failing to park in the
Building's designated parking area. Further, there will not be an increased parking demand due
to Dr. Walker's occasional performance of oral surgeries on site, since as the Staff Report
accurately notes, the presence of the other doctors is temporary and due to the fact that these
others doctors will only be present to assist the primary physician, Dr. Walker, in performing
operations on Dr. Walker's patients. These doctors will not be seeing their own separate
patients which would have an impact on parking demand. Further, the parking demand would be
lessened on the days Dr. Walker performs surgeries since he would see, at maximum, two
patients the entire day.
The project opponent, a neighboring, competing oral surgeon, Dr. Kenneth Follmar II,
asserts in correspondence submitted by Jolie Houston, dated June 6, 2000, "[t]he proposed
change to the covenant will allow more doctors to use the building than what was originally
approved and exacerbate the parking problems that already exist in this area." As shown above,
that is not the case. Further, the parking logs directly and expressly contradict the opponent's
view that "parking is not adequate now and has gotten worse since the building was occupied."
Dr. Follmar also levels three broad based and unsubstantiated allegations against the proposed
modification: (1) the applicants do not have standing to petition to change the condition, (2) the
proposed modification would violate the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"),
Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., and (3) the proposed modification would violate the
City's Zoning Code. None of these arguments have merit and the Planning Commission should
disregard them in their entirety.~
First, standing is a legal doctrine that requires a person have a sufficient personal or
property interest at stake in order to initiate a lawsuit over a particular matter. It is well settled
that formal litigation procedures and rules of evidence do not apply at the administrative land use
level. E.W.A.P., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, 56 Cal. App.4th 310 (1997). Further, the language
of the condition itself (not to mention its permissive nature) is not an exclusive nor exhaustive
list of situations upon which the Owner can submit a petition to change the Condition. For
example, the Condition states, in relevant part, "[t]he covenant may indicate that this will not
prevent the owner from petitioning the City to change the terms of the covenant, should the City
parking requirements change, the square footage of the building be reduced, or should other
changes occur which lessen the parking demand/requirement." (emphasis added) The City
~ The Opponents also refer to Owners seeking a modification only one month after filing
the condition. As illustrated by our June 8, 2000 correspondence, the Owners submitted the
condition tracking the literal language of the Condition in order not to delay the opening of the
Building for business, as previously advertised, and expressly reserved the right to seek a
clarification regarding the proposed use and the Condition at the Planning Commission's next
available hearing date.
Honorable Elizabeth Gibbons, Chair
and Members of the Planning Commission
June 13, 2000
Page 4
here, reviewed and processed the Owners' application for a modification, in addition to setting it
for a noticed public hearing. Thus, the Opponents argument that Owners do not have standing to
seek a modification to the Condition completely misses the mark.
Second, the proposed modification has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the adequacy
of the previous mitigated negative declaration prepared for the project. As modified, the Owners
would still be in full compliance with the mitigation measures (limiting use of the Building to 12
parking spaces) imposed on the project. Opponents have produced no evidence whatsoever, nor
could they, that the trigger for subsequent environmental review under CEQA has been activated
by this minor change to the Building's conditions of approval. See, e.g., Public Resources Code
§ 21166; CEQA Guidelines § 15162 (requiring subsequent environmental review when
"substantial changes" are proposed in a project or occur with respect to the circumstances under
which a project will be undertaken which will require "major revisions" to a previous
environmental document due to "new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase
in the severity of previously identified significant effects," emphasis added.)
Third, as shown above, due to the conformity between the Owners' use of the Building
and the Parking Schedule set forth in the Zoning Ordinance, a variance is not required nor
appropriate. The Owners have been and will continue to be in full compliance with the original
approval granted for the project based on 12 parking spaces for 2 full-time dentists/doctors
pursuant to Campbell Municipal Code § 21.50.050.
3. Conclusion
In closing, we reiterate that we feel our request for a modification to the condition of
approval is appropriate given the conformity between Dr. Walker's use of the Building and the
Parking Schedule established by the Campbell Municipal Code. We ask the Planning
Commission to support our request for a reasonable modification to the Condition.
Thank you for your consideration of these supplemental matters.
Respectfully Submitted,
CASSIDY, SHIMKO & DAWSON,
Matthew D. FranCois
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
CASSlDY
S H I M KO
DAWSON
June 8, 2000
Honorable Elizabeth Gibbons, Chair,
and Members of the Planning Commission
City of Campbell
70 N. First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Re:
14419 S. Bascom Avenue; Request for Interpretation or Modification to
Parking Condition of Approval (PLN 2000-66)
Ladies and Gentlemen:
We are writing on behalf of Dr. Dennis Wong and Ms. Dora Ng, the "Owners" of 14419
S. Bascom Avenue (the "Building"), to explain the reasons for requesting an interpretation or
modification to Condition of Approval No. 2 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 3217
adopted on January 26, 1999. This matter arose because of a complaint lodged by Dr. Ken
Follmar II, a competitor to Dr. Lee Walker, one of the occupants of the Building. The Condition
required the recording of a covenant restricting use of the Building site to a maximum of 2
doctors/dentists. As explained below, the realities of the practice of medicine and dentistry in
this day and age requires the occasional presence of physicians or dentists to assist the full-time
primary physician or dentist in performing procedures on a patient. A formulaic interpretation of
the Condition would prohibit this practice because more than 2 doctors would be in the Building
at any one time. The Owners believe that such an interpretation is not required by the Condition,
or consistent with the spirit and intent of the Zoning Ordinance provisions on which it is based,
or consistent with City practices for other buildings in this area, or demonstrably required based
on actual usage tracked to date.~
1. The Existing Condition and Proposed Interpretation/Modification
a. The Condition
The existing Condition reads as follows:
I The Owners encourage the Planning Commissioners and Planning staff to visit the
offices at the Building prior to the heating on June 13, 2000, so that they can more clearly
understand the layout and use of the Building. A site visit can be arranged by calling Dr. Walker
at (408) 377-0101.
20 CALIFORNIA ST. SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94 I I I TELEPHONE: ( 4 I 5 ) 7 8 8 - 2 0 4 0
FACSIMILE: (4 I 5) 788 2039
Honorable Elizabeth Gibbons, Chair,
and Members of the Planning Commission
June 8, 2000
Page 2
2. Parking. Prior to building occupancy, applicant shall record a
covenant, running with the land, which shall restrict use of the
building site to a maximum of 2 doctors/dentists. The covenant
may indicate that this will not prevent the owner from petitioning
the City to change the terms of the covenant, should the City
parking requirements change, the square footage of the building be
reduced, or should other changes occur which lessen the parking
demand/requirement.2 The covenant may also provide that if the
property owner desires to use the building for non-medical office
use in the future, it must be demonstrated that the office use
generates a parking demand (including employees and customers)
that does not exceed the 12 parking spaces provided. The
justification must be provided to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director. (emphasis added)
b. Proposed Interpretation/Modification
The clear intent and purpose of the Condition is to ensure that the use of the Building
does not generate a parking demand exceeding the Building's 12 parking spaces in accordance
with the Parking Schedule established for the Building by Campbell Municipal Code ("CMC")
§ 21.50.050 (requiring "6 [parking] spaces/doctor."). The Owners seek a simple modification to
make clear this intent and purpose of the Condition. The proposed text is shown by italicized
underlining:
2. Parking. Prior to building occupancy, applicant shall record a
covenant, framing with the land, which shall restrict use of the
building site to a maximum of 2 doctors/dentists. For purposes qf
this condition, "use qf the building site" means the full time
occupancy b_¥ a doctor or dentist who provides primal_ care to
patients on a permanent basis (the "Primary PhYsician "). For
purposes qf determining whether a doctor or dentist is a Primal_
Phvsician as set forth in this condition, none qf the following shall
constitute a "use qf the building site ": (i) the temporal_presence
qf a doctor or dentist who is necessary to assist the Primal_
PhYsician in the treatment qf the same patient, such as an assisting
surgical physician or anesthesiologist or (ii) a doctor or dentist
who attends to patients, or substitutes for the Primary PhYsician,
when the Primary Physician is not present. The covenant may
2 It is significant to note that the Condition, by its express terms, recognizes Owners'
right to seek an amendment to the Condition's terms due to changed circumstances.
Honorable Elizabeth Gibbons, Chair,
and Members of the Planning Commission
June 8, 2000
Page 3
indicate that this will not prevent the owner from petitioning the
City to change the terms of the covenant, should the City parking
requirements change, the square footage of the building be
reduced, or should other changes occur which lessen the parking
demand/requirement. The covenant may also provide that if the
property owner desires to use the building for non-medical office
use in the future, it must be demonstrated that the office use
generates a parking demand (including employees and customers)
that does not exceed the 12 parking spaces provided. The
justification must be provided to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director.
2. Reasons for Requesting Interpretation/Modification
The Building is occupied by two full-time dentist/physicians, Dr. Dennis Wong on the
second floor and Dr. Lee Walker on the first floor. Dr. Walker is both a dentist and physician
who, in addition to a routine non high-volume dentistry practice, also performs oral surgeries on
site. In accordance with customary requirements for such surgeries, he needs the occasional
assistance of an anesthesiologist and sometimes an assisting physician in order competently and
professionally to perform the surgeries. All of these doctors operate on the same patient, and do
not act independently or work on separate patients. Due to the complexity of the surgeries, the
patient being operated upon will be, at most, one of two patients Dr. Walker sees that day due to
the fact that the surgeries last anywhere from a half day (e.g., 4 hours) to a full day (e.g., 8
hours). Unlike a "normal" multi-patient, high volume medical or dental practice, the surgeries
necessitating one or at most two assisting physicians are neither high-volume nor high-turnover
events and, as demonstrated below by actual experience, do not increase parking demand. In
fact, parking demand will actually be reduced on surgery days since Dr. Walker will see at most
2 patients the entire day. Dr. Greg Loitz, a renown local surgeon, will assist Dr. Walker on a
short term basis to facilitate the transfer of practices from Dr. Loitz to Dr. Walker. Dr. Follmar
lodged a complaint with the Planning Department alleging that Dr. Walker's proposed use of the
Building would violate the Condition. Dr. Follmar runs a practice competing with Dr. Walker
and filed the complaint when he received Dr. Walker's announcement of his new practice at the
Building.
For these reasons, and to ensure the viable use of the Building in the future for its
intended purpose as a medical office building in light of current medical practices, the Owners
submitted an application for a modification to the Condition based on a directive from planning
staff. The Owners felt that a clarification of the existing terms of the Condition was more
appropriate, given the conformity between the proposed use and the parking schedule set forth by
the Condition. However, in order not to delay the opening of the Building for business, which
Honorable Elizabeth Gibbons, Chair,
and Members of the Planning Commission
June 8, 2000
Page 4
had already been advertised, the Owners submitted an application for modification on May 4,
2000 as requested?
3. The Building's Land Use and Parking Requirements
The Building is planned and zoned PO ("Professional Office"). Parking for properties
zoned "Professional Office," is governed by Chapter 21.50, "Parking and Loading" of the
Campbell Municipal Code. CMC § 21.20.090. The Parking Schedule set forth in CMC
§ 21.50.050 requires "6 [parking] spaces/doctor" for "Medical, Dental Clinics." The Parking
Schedule is intended to "assure that adequate off-street parking and loading spaces are provided
for each particular type of land use. Off-street parking and loading areas are to be laid out in a
manner which will ensure their usefulness, protect the public safety, and where appropriate,
insulate surrounding land uses from their impact." CMC § 21.50.010 (emphasis added). As
required by § 21.50.050, the Building's Parking Area and requisite 12 spaces meet and/or exceed
all of the various on-and-off street parking standards set forth in CMC § 21.50.030, including
those regarding minimum parking space dimensions; width of driveways; access to street,
driveway, and parking spaces; location; landscaping; grading; lighting; specifications regarding
curb cuts and traffic markings; and handicapped access.
4. Chronology of Events
On January 26, 1999, the Planning Commission voted to grant site and architectural
approval to the Building (Resolution No. 3217)4 with the above referenced Condition. As
correctly noted in the minutes of that meeting by Commissioner Gibbons, one of the Owners, Dr.
Wong, will occupy the Building and thus he has a lot at stake and it is in his best interest to
ensure that adequate parking is provided pursuant to the Condition. Resolution 3217 took effect
on February 5, 1999.
3 The Owners applied for a modification without waiving any rights with respect to the
application for a modification.
4 The Resolution was adopted based on the following findings, among others, that the
proposed Building was: consistent with the General Plan designation and the PO zoning;
integrated with surrounding uses; "well sited and designed to be compatible with the surrounding
building and uses;" and in conformance with the required development standards for the PO
Zone, including setbacks, height limitations and parking requirements. Further, City found that
"adequate circulation has been provided on site, and the site is so located on a public street to
accommodate the estimated traffic associated with the project," and that the project would not
create a nuisance due to traffic, noise or various other factors. Resolution No. 3217, Findings ~s
2-7.
Honorable Elizabeth Gibbons, Chair,
and Members of the Planning Commission
June 8, 2000
Page 5
On September 15, 1999, Dr. Walker executed a ten year Lease with Owners for a
"Medical-Dental Office" on the first floor of the Building. Several provisions of the Lease
require Dr. Walker, as Lessee, to ensure that his patients and employees comply with all
applicable parking rules, regulations, laws and agreements, which, of course, includes the
Condition. The Lease is subject to termination and Dr. Walker could be evicted for failing to
abide by these terms and conditions.
Subsequent to execution of the Lease, Dr. Walker retained an architect to design a state-
of-the art facility for his medical/dental practice. The facility is specifically designed to allow
Dr. Walker to perform oral surgeries in accordance with his certification by the prestigious Joint
Commission Ambulatory Care Accreditation Service (JCAHO), which signifies that his office
meets the highest standards in quality patient care. Dr. Walker's office will be the only such
JCAHO accredited office in the South Bay. The City approved these plans on October 7, 1999
(Exhibit A). Dr. Walker spent approximately $250,000 for the costs of the plans and
construction of the facility. The plans are specifically designed to allow Dr. Walker to perform
oral surgeries. The plans show the following: (1) an exam consultation room where Dr. Walker
informs and discusses the surgery with the patient, (2) an operating room where Dr. Walker
performs surgery, (3) a second procedure room where Dr. Walker performs less complex work
(e.g., routine teeth extraction), (4) a recovery room, and (5) Dr. Walker's private office. The
office is designed to accommodate and only has room for one full-time physician.
On February 9, 2000, Dr. Walker was issued a business licence by the City for operation
of Los Gatos Oral & Facial Surgery. The approved application expressly refers to the "type of
business" as "oral and maxillofacial surge[ry]." Exhibit B. On the application, City Planner
Darcy Smith handwrote: "Note: covenant restricts use of building to a maximum of 2 full-time
doctors/dentists.''5 (emphasis added) Subsequent to obtaining the business license, Dr. Loitz and
Dr. Walker mailed a joint flyer to the medical community, including neighboring doctors and
dentists, announcing the opening of the new surgery practice. Exhibit C.
On March 23, 2000, Dr. Wong met with a neighboring dentist, Dr. Follmar, who runs a
competing oral and maxillofacial surgery clinic next door to the Building at 14511
S. Bascom Avenue to discuss his plans for opening the Building for business. During that
conversation, Dr. Wong assured Dr. Follmar that parking would not be a problem since he would
install signs and a parking log to ensure that both his and Dr. Walker's patients parked only in
the Building's parking area. Dr. Wong also discussed the parking issue with Drs. Harris and
Noodleman of"Defying Dermatology" at 3803 S. Bascom Avenue, who previously expressed
concerns regarding the same issue. In correspondence dated March 30, 2000, to Dr. Wong, Drs.
Harris and Noodleman wrote they were satisfied so long as patients from Dr. Wong's Building
5 We concur with Ms. Smith that a reasonable interpretation of the Condition limits use
of the Building to two full-time doctors/dentists.
Honorable Elizabeth Gibbons, Chair,
and Members of the Planning Commission
June 8, 2000
Page 6
did not park in their lot, they felt they could work cooperatively with Dr. Wong if an issue were
to arise in the future. Exhibit D.
On April 13, 2000, Owners submitted a covenant to the City Attorney, in conformance
with the Condition, which in substance matched the language for the proposed modification seen
above. This action was based on the Owners' firm belief that due to the conformity between Dr.
Walker's use of the Building and the purpose and intent of the express terms of the Condition,
any further discretionary action by the Planning Commission would be unnecessary. The City
Attorney informed Owners that any such "modification" to the Condition would need to be
brought back before the Planning Commission, for its approval. In order not to delay the
opening of the Building for business, as previously advertised, the Owners submitted a covenant
on April 20, 2000, tracking the literal language of the Condition. Owners expressly reserved the
tight to seek clarification from the Planning Commission regarding the conformity between Dr.
Walker's use and the Condition at the next available heating date. The City accepted the
covenant, which was duly recorded by Owners, and issued the Certificate of Occupancy for the
Building on April 28, 2000. The matter was scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission
on May 23, 2000. Due to a conflict with Dr. Loitz's schedule making him unavailable to be
present at the hearing, Owners requested a continuance to the next available hearing date, e.g.,
June 13, 2000.
We are informed that the City has previously found uses similar to Dr. Walker's,
consistent with the 6 parking spaces/doctor requirement of the Parking Schedule. For example,
the neighboring building at 3803 S. Bascom Avenue, owned and operated by Drs. Harris and
Noodleman, has 23 doctors offices as well as a surgery center with a staff of 30 anesthesiologists
in residence, but only has 113 parking spaces, i.e., they do not maintain the required 6 parking
spaces pursuant to the Parking Schedule for each "doctor."
5. Four-Step Parking Program
In response to the neighbor's concerns about parking, Drs. Walker and Wong voluntarily
agreed to implement the following four-step program, providing reasonable assurance to the City
that there will not be a parking problem:
Four Step Program
Step 1:
Maintain a parking log at his front desk on a daily basis showing where
each patient and guest parks.
Step 2:
Allow the City free access to the parking log, so that the can verify at any
time that Dr. Walker is abiding by the City's parking rules.
Honorable Elizabeth Gibbons, Chair,
and Members of the Planning Commission
June 8, 2000
Page 7
Step 3:
Display a parking notice at the reception desk, reminding patient and
guests to park only in his parking lot and to sign the parking log.
Step 4:
Display exterior parking signs.
The above mentioned parking logs have been maintained at the front desk of both offices
since the Building opened for business, tracking where patients, staff and other visitors park on a
daily basis. It is significant to note that since the Building opened for business on May 1, 2000,
there has not been a single reported incident of either one of Dr. Walker or Dr. Wong's patients
failing to park in the Building's parking area. We have enclosed a copy of Dr. Walker's parking
log (Exhibit E) and Dr. Wong's parking log (Exhibit F) for your review. A parking notice at the
reception desk also politely reminds patients and guest to sign the parking log and park only in
the Building's lot. Exterior parking signs have been specially ordered and will also be displayed.
Finally, the City is free to inspect the parking log, to verify that the Owners and Dr. Walker are
complying with the City's parking regulations at all times.
In summary, the Four-Step Program not only illustrates the sincerity ofDrs. Wong and
Walker's attempt to be good neighbors but also provides the City with reasonable and adequate
assurances that there will never be a parking problem, due to their use of the Building.
6. Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the Owners respectfully request that the Planning Commission
adopt the proposed modification set forth herein. The Owners and Dr. Walker will be in
attendance at your June 13th hearing to answer any further questions you may have regarding this
request. Please feel free to contact Drs. Wong or Walker, or the undersigned prior to the hearing
if you have any other questions or concerns.
Honorable Elizabeth Gibbons, Chair,
and Members of the Planning Commission
June 8, 2000
Page 8
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Respectfully Submitted,
CASSIDY, SHIMKO & DAWSON,
CC~
Stephen K. Cassidy
Sharon Fierro
Tim J. Haley
William Seligmann
Dr. Lee R. Walker
Dr. Dennis K. Wong
June 9, 2000
Re: MEDICAL ARTS BUILDING @ 3803 S. BASCOM AVE., CAMPBELL, CA.
To Whom it May Concern:
The current statistics regarding occupancy and parking include:
· Dr. Harris (ambulatory practice)
· Dr. Noodleman (ambulatory practice)
· Drs. Ward, Monahan and Narian (ambulatory practice with only one physician
present at any one time
· Dr. Hopkins (anesthesiologist doing pain management in this building and
anesthesia in this building and outside hospitals). Dr. Chu (allergist) shares
his office part-time but they are not there simultaneously.
· Drs. Kim, Lepore and Hoffman (plastic surgeons. Office closed completely on
Wednesday and only one doctor present on the other days)
· Dr Regina Rosenthal (plastic surgeon)
· Dr Laurence Berkowitz (plastic surgeon)
· Dr. Patrick Bitter, Jr. (ambulatory practice)
· Dr. Ron Gemberling (plastic surgeon present Tuesday- Friday)
· West Valley Surgery Center (averages 5 surgical cases/day performed by 1-2
doctors each including anesthesiologists. Patients are dropped off and picked
up.)
· Drs. Schwartz, Silva and Morales (cardiac surgeons seeing patients in the
office only 2 days/week and only one doctor present at a time)
This averages out to a "worst case" load of 10 doctors at any one time exclusive
of the surgery center. Since the surgery center has 3 procedure rooms there
would be a maximum of 6 doctors(surgeon + anesthesiologist) working there at
any one time.
There are 113 parking spaces dedicated to this building
SANFORD A. BERLINER*
ANDREW L FABER
WILLIAM J. GOINES*
ROBERT W. HUMPHREYS
RALPH J. SWANSON
PEGGY L SPRINGGAY
JOSEPH E. DWORAK
SAMUEL L FARB
ALAN J, PINNER
*A Professional Corporation
RETIRED
SAMUEL J. COHEN
FRANK R. UBHAUS
LINDA A. CALLON
ROBERTA S. HAYASHI
JAMES P. CASHMAN
STEVEN J. CASAD
NANCY J, JOHNSON
JEROLD A. REITON
ROBERT L. CHORTEK
JONATHAN D. WOLF
BERLINER COHEN
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
TEN ALMADEN BOULEVARD
ELEVENTH FLOOR
SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113-2233
TELEPHONE: (408) 286-5800
FACSIMILE: (408) 998-5388
www.berliner.com
KATHLEEN K. SIPLE
SHARON KIRSCH
THOMAS P. MURPHY
THOMAS M. GROSS
NADIA V. HOLOBER
WILLIAM E. ADAMS
MARK V. ISOLA
BRIAN L. SHETLER
JOLIE HOUSTON
JAMIE L.B. BRAGA
EILEEN P. KENNEDY
JASON A. SILLS
HARRY A. LOPEZ
JOHN F. DOMINGUE
PATRICK LIN
ANDREW J. GLENDON
KRISTIN GENC
OF COUNSEL
HUGH L. ISOLA*
KEVIN F. KELLEY
STEVEN L. HALLGRIMSON
ERIC WONG
NANCY L. BRANDT
MARK MAKIEWICZ
June 6, 2000
City of Campbell Planning Commissioners
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
RECEtYED
- ? 2000
CITY OF CAMPBELL
pLaNNING DEPT,
Re.'
Property located at 14419 South Bascom Avenue
Hearing Date: June 13, 2000
Dear Planning Commissioners:
We represent Dr. and Mrs. Follmar who are the owners of the property located at 14455
South Bascom Avenue that is adjacent to the property located at 14419 South Bascom Avenue
(the "Property"). This letter is in response to the letter dated May 4, 2000, submitted on behalf
of the owners ("Applicant") and their application for a change to the condition of approval
regarding the required parking for the Property.
The Follmars are opposed to the Applicant's proposed change to the covenant. The
proposed change to the covenant will allow more doctors to use the building than what was
originally approved and exacerbate the parking problems that already exist in this area. The
parking is not adequate now and has gotten worse since the building was occupied. Furthermore,
the proposed change to the covenant will violate the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") and the City of Campbell's ("City") Zoning Code.
On January 26, 1999, the City Planning Commission approved Site and Architectural
Review Permit (S 98-24) to allow the demolition of a single family structure and construction of
a two-story medical office building with 12 parking spaces. That approval was granted subject
to the condition that the Applicant record a covenant, running with the land, which would restrict
the use of the medical building to a maximum of two medical doctors or dentists. The
Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions was entered into and recorded on April
~JHV~80712.1
01~51510055002
City of Campbell Planning commissioners
June 6, 2000
20, 2000. Now, onlY, one month later, the Applicant seeks to "modify" the previously approved
Site and Architectural approval.
Site and Architectural Review Permit (S 98-24) adopted by Resolution 3217, Condition
No. 2, reads as follows:
2. Parking. Prior to building occupancy, applicant shall record a
covenant, running with the land, which shall restrict use of the
building site to a maximum of 2 doctors/dentists. The covenant
may indicate that this will not prevent the owner from petitioning
the City to change the terms of the covenant, should the parking
requirements change, the square footage of the building be
reduced, or should other changes occur which lessen the parking
demand/requirement. The covenant may also provide that if the
property owner desires to use the building for non-medical office
use in the future, it must be demonstrated that the office use
generates parking demand (including employees and customers)
that does not exceed the 12 parking spaces provided. The
justification must be provided to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director. [Emphasis added.]
The Applicant alleges that this modification is merely an amendment in the nature of a
clarification of the existing terms of the condition. However, the Applicant does not have
standing to petition the City to change the covenant. The express terms of the covenant states
that the owner may only petition the City to change the terms of the covenant under three limited
circumstances: (1) should the parking requirements change; (2) the square footage of the
building be reduced; (3) or, should other changes occur which lessen the parking
demand/requirement. The applicant cannot meet any of these circumstances.
The original approval for Site and Architectural Review Permit (S 98-24) was based on a
negative declaration that is only valid if the mitigation for the parking impacts contained in the
condition of approval is complied with. The initial environmental assessment for this project
documented that parking was a significant impact unless mitigated. The City recognized the
parking impacts and prepared a negative declaration that required a condition of approval to be a
restrictive covenant limiting the use of the building to mitigate the parking impacts and also to
met the City's Professional Office Zone. The Applicant cannot attempt to change the use of the
property by the proposed modification to Condition No. 2 without further review of the parking
impacts because the approval of the proposed condition must still be in compliance with the
City's findings and the environmental analysis made for the project as adopted by Resolution
3217.
Furthermore, the proposed change to the covenant will violate the City's Zoning Code
because it will allow more than two doctors/dentists in the office space without complying with
the required parking. The City required Condition No. 2 in order for the use of the building to
comply with the City's Zoning Code Section 21.50.050 that establishes a parking schedule for
medical and dental clinics and sets a minimum requirement of six spaces per doctor. Essentially,
~1H\480712.1 -2-
01-051510055002
City of Campbell Planning ~.ommissioners
June 6, 2000
what the Applicant is proposing is an amendment to the City's Zoning Code for his particular
site, without the required findings, or without a variance. The proposed change to the covenant
will not comply with the findings of fact that are necessary to approve the project. Finding No. 1
states, "The proposed project will aid in the enhancement and the harmonious development of
the immediate area. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the uses will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of the project." Finding No. 2 states, "The proposed
site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed uses and building." The City
will not be able to make these findings to support the project subject to the proposed covenant.
Because the Applicant does not have standing to petition the City to change the covenant
and the proposed change will violate CEQA and the City's Zoning Code, we respectfully request
that the Applicant's proposed change to the covenant be denied.
Sincerely,
BERLINER COHEN
E-Mail: jh~berliner.com
JH:cem
cc: Dr. and Mrs. Follmar
Sharon Fierro, Campbell Planning Dept.
William Seligman, Campbell City Attorney
UH\480712.1 -3-
01-051510055002
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Community Development Department · Current Planning
June 2,2000
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell has set the time of
7:30 p.m., or shortly thereafter, on Tuesday, June 13, 2000, in the City Hall Council Chambers,
70 North First Street, Campbell, California, for a Public Hearing to consider the application of
Mr. Matt Francois, on behalf of Dr. Dennis Wong, for approval of a Modification (PLN2000-66)
to a previously-approved Site and Architectural Approval (S 98-24) to alter a Condition of
Approval limiting the number of doctors/dentists using the site to two, on property located at
14419 S. Bascom Avenue in a PO (Professional Office) Zoning District. A Negative
Declaration was previously approved for this project.
Interested persons may appear and be heard at this hearing. Please be advised that if you
challenge the nature of the above project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues
you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this Notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of Campbell Planning Commission at, or prior to, the
Public Hearing. Questions may be addressed to the Community Development Department at
(408) 866-2140.
Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. Appeals must be
submitted to the City Clerk in writing within 10 calendar days of an action by the Commission.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, listening assistive devices are available
for all meetings held in the Council Chambers. If you require accommodation, please contact the
Community Development Department at (408) 866-2140, at least one week in advance of the
meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CAMPBELL
SHARON FIERRO
SECRETARY
PLEASE NOTE:
When calling about this Notice,
please refer to File No. PLN2000-66
Address: 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95OO8.1423 . TEL 408.866.2140 ' F^X 408.866.8381 · TDD 408.866.2790
Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2000
Page 9
Site and Architectural Approval (PLN2000-61) to allow a residential addition
to an existing single family home in the San Tomas Neighborhood with a
Floor Area Ratio of 0.47 on property located at 1147 Fawn Drive, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Francois, Hernandez, Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lindstrom,
Lowe
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairperson Gibbons advised that this approval is final unless appealed in writing to the City
Clerk within 10 days.
Chairperson Gibbons read Agenda Item No. 6 into the record.
o
PLN2000-66
Francois, M.
Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr. Matt Francois, on
behalf of Dr. Dennis Wong, for approval of a Modification
(PLN2000-66) to a previously-approved Site and Architectural
Approval (S 98-24) to alter a Condition of Approval limiting the
number of doctors/dentists using the site to two, on property located
at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue in a PO (Professional Office) Zoning
District. A Negative Declaration was previously approved for this
project. Planning Commission decision final in 10 days, unless
appealed in writing to the City Clerk.
Chairperson Gibbons opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 6.
Commissioner Francois advised that he would have to recuse himself, as a family member is a
party to this application.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Kearns, seconded by Commissioner Lowe, the
Planning Commission continued Agenda Item No. 6 seeking a Modification
to a previously-approved Conditional Use Permit (S 98-24) to alter a
Condition of Approval limiting the number of doctors/dentists using the site
to two, on property located at 3245 S. Winchester Boulevard, to the next
Planning Commission meeting on June 13, 2000. (6-0-0-1; Commissioner
Francois abstained.)
REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
The written report of Ms. Sharon Fierro, Community Development Director, was accepted as
presented, with the added comments:
· Advised that the Council approved the conceptual design for the Heritage Theater.
ITEM NO. 6
STAFF REPORT - PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF
May 23, 2000
PLN
2000-66
Francois, M.
Public Heating to consider the application of Mr. Matt Francois, on
behalf of Dr. Dennis Wong, for approval of a Modification (PLN 2000-
66) to a previously - approved Site and Architectural Approval (S 98-24)
to alter Condition of Approval No. 2 of Planning Commission Resolution
No. 3217, adopted on January 26, 1999, which required the recordation
of a covenant limiting the number of doctors/dentists using the site to
two, on property located at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue in a PO
(Professional Office) Zoning District.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission take the following action:
1. Continue the consideration of this request to its meeting of June 13, 2000
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
A Negative Declaration was previously granted for this project.
DISCUSSION
Background: The Planning Commission at its meeting of January 26, 1999 approved a site and
architectural application allowing the construction of a new two story office building on the
project site. Condition of approval No. 2 of that approval related to the building's occupancy
with 2 doctors/dentists and the provision of 12 parking spaces for this building.
Applicant's request: The applicant has submitted a request that the Planning Commission
reconsider the wording of Condition No. 2. In that one of the doctors involved in the request will
not be in the area on May 23, 2000, the applicant has requested that this matter be continued to
the Planning Commission meeting of June 13, 2000.
Attachments:
1. Letter requesting a continuance to the June 13, 2000
2. Location
Prepared by: (
Tim J. H~y, A~ssociate Plam'~r
Approved by:
Shar/onFierro, Community Development Director
05/17/00 10:38 FAX 415 788 2039 C$&D ~002/002
~A$S~ DY
SHIMKO
DAWSON
May l7,2000
MAIL__
Ms. Sharon Fierro
Community Development Department
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Dear Ms. Ficrro:
We are writing on behalf of Dr. Dennis Wong and Ms. Dora Ng, the ownm-s of property,
at 14419 South Bascom Avenue (the "Property"), to confirm a continuance of the May 23, 2000,
Planning Commission hearing on the application for modification to Condition of Approval
No. 2 imposed by the City's Planning Commission as part of Resolutiou No. 3217. Dr. Wong
and Ms. Ng ask that you continue this matter to your next meeting of June 13, 2000. As you
requested, we also confirm that, to our knowledge, Dr. Wong is in full compliance with the
covenant regarding parking which he recorded and filed with your office in conjunction with
obtaining his certificate of occupancy for the Property.
Thank you for your con$iderahon of this matter. Please feel free to contact me if you
have any questions regarding this correspondence.
Very truly yours,~,
Matthew D. Francois
Dr. Dennis K. Wong
Dr. Lee R. Walker
~0 CALIFORNIA ST SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO. CA cJ4 I I I TELEPHONE:
PAC.~ tM, ILE:
05/15/00 13:28 ~' ~001/002
Date:
BERLINER COHEN
ATTORNEYS AT LAw
INCLUDING [~ROFE$$10NAL CORPORATIONS
~ ALM~EN BOUL~
ELE~N~ FLOR
~OSE, CALIFO~ 95 ~ l 3.223 ~
~LEPHO~: (4~) 286-5800
FACSIM~E: (~8) 99~388
Eacsimile Cover She_eX
CONHDENT'IALITY NOTE:
legally tmvOcL'ed ~d eonfidea~lal infOttm6oa in,reded o~ty for th~ u~: ut'
T~c m[ormauon contained in this f~si~le (fax)mess~;ii~ is not ~ in~d~ ~, ~u ~ h~ ~'~ ~Y
· ~. ~ ~ fi~ na~ below. If ~ ~ of ~ ..... ~- ~ .~- t~ in ~ ~1~ ~d~ly no~ ~e
" .... '"-~' -' ;' . . t .~. ~. i' s~dv ~bt~. tlyO~ ~IY~ ~mv~ ..a ~ , ~
d~n~. di~n ur ~ a ........ ~ ,-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ via ~c umteo
p~ ~ce. ~k you.
Sender: IOLIE HOUSTON
Pages: 7/ (Including Cover Sheet)
File #:
Hard Copy Sent Via U.S. Mai: xes _
Secret~, C~ol Millwo~ at Ext. 2~23.
05/15/00 13:28
~I~0H :' Dr*. K.~. Follmar*
F~04 NO. ;
~002/002
This is ~e profile of wi~t ~n Oral Surgeon docs and what his pinking n~ds are tha! you
r~lUCSted,
Whcll an Oral S~rgcon s~hges a patient he noeds at 1~ t~ ~si~, one to hotd ~e hind ~11
~ ~h~e ~ ~ ~ ~ io ~d ~m ~ ~~. ~e ~e ~ ~ in s~
~ ~t ~y ~ ~ x~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ p~ ~ hi~.
~s~ ~y ~ ~ ~ w~ ~ prior ~ ~ ,n~cr ~ ~u~ ~ c~i~ ~
a~ st~ii~ im~ ~ ~ alsys ~ ~ ~~ two ~ ~k ~r5 ~d on~ or
~o ~c gir~ While ~ ~is is go~ on wc s~h~ulo ~ ~ny ~ f~r ~ra~vc
~oi~m~ ~ ~.
-'-- .... ~-;; ,Tues--: W~'~mrd.~'musd~ Fri~V ',
[j~____.._J._~ist.ant IA~_..sls.L/~t IOlf _ .:_Ap.~sta~ !_A~$istant I
We also hire · col~ or hi~ sc. hoot studmt to stm~lizc iustmments durius thc summer and
scJmol holidays, which are our busiest limes of the year.
Thc ~ ~ Ou~ pa~cnl~ ~'~ sc~ for and )o~gth ~ ~ ~ ~ ~o110~:
P~ ~o 15 mi~t~
~~ d~ ~ w~ ~ ~ t5 ~ ~ 2 h~
It's not unusual to bare 5 or 6 patients in different rooms at one time.
I asked a general dentist in oor complex (who has far less square footage then Dr. Wong) on an
avm'a~ how many' people a~ in his office at once. He said, 1 Dootor, I ~ont desk person, t
inSuraaoe person, 2 ~, 1 or 2 dealal i~'gienists 2 to4 l~ients or $'11 parking spa~.
As you can tell from thc numbers ~e uno Oral Surgcon needs atmut 14 parking spaccs (ma
tmsy day and a ~ene~al dentist needs $ ~o 11. That's as mu~h as 25 parkin~ spaces for an office
that only h~s I2 ,and they want to add more do,tots.
Th~ building we ow~m~x~ to Dr. Wong's building itu 5 dour/sis snd 36 parking Sl~ges. There
arc times whon all the parldag spm~t arc lull, end thet's just over7 spac~ l:m' ~
We l~tve 6,212 sq. ~L of offlc¢ space and ~6 lntking N~o~. Dr. Wong's building bas 4,930 sq, fi.
of otti~ space and 12 parltin$ spou, If Dr. W'ong want~ more do~tors ia hi~ building he should
have to de~eue tim size ofhL~ building and p~ ia more parking of his own.
05/15/00 15:06 ~' ~ 001/002
Date:
BERLINER COHEN
Facsimile Cover She
Sender: JOLIE HOUSTON
H~d Copy Sent Via U.S. Mail: Y~s _ No ~
or if co ies ~ iHe~ble, c ,
w ~n na~ ~e not receive~P ...... ~-~- ~- if bray, contact S~d~ s
Secret~, C~ol Millwood, at ~t. 2423.
05/15/00 15:07 ~ ~002/002
SURGEON ___------
-~ Front Desk ~
Insur c
~ Patients
TOTAL:
11-14 par 'rig spaces requir~
1-2 Hygienists,
1 Front D~k ~ .
'-~-~ul-~ce _
2~ patien~
TOTAL:
"~lT-paddng spaces r~u~re~
_per Doctor ~ p__er Doctor
An oral surgeon needs assistants to aid in his/her practice by helping hinghcr with patients
before, during and after surgery. An average doctor to as~stant ratio is I to 2 and may even be 1
to 3. An oral surgeon also has front office help that may be up to 3 persons. Additionally,
because of thc time revolved with the patients and the natur~ of thc office visit, an oral ~urgeon
may have up to 5 or 6 patients in Ms/her office at various stages ofthdr dental procedures.
Therefore, the average parking requirements for an oral surgeon would be 11-14 spaces per
doctor.
A general dentist's requirements arc lowe~ b~ause th~ s~ fewer patients at any one fine. A
gen~,.ral dentist requires 8-11 parking spaces per doctor.
The ratio of 6 parking spaces to one doctor is the minimum required by the City's Zoning Code.
To change the City's parking ratio would require a zoning code amol~dment, or a variance. The
Applicant, by suggesting ' modifications to the restrictive cov~mnt, is essentially granting
himself/herself a vaxiance without the necessary findings.
-1-
// GE
I }EFYING
AMm'C~CEr'rr~aay 8, 2000
Sharon Fierro
Planning Commission, City of Campbell
70 North First St.
Campbell, Ca 95008-1423
u ZOO0
Re: File # PLN2000-66
14419 S. Bascom Ave.
Dear Ms. Fierro,
I am writing to express our opinion regarding possible change in zoning for
parking in relation to the number of doctors/professionals working at this
professional building. I am the managing partner and one of the owners for the
adjacent professional building, 3803 S. Bascom Ave. I may be unable to attend
the 5-23-00 public hearing scheduled to consider this matter, but wish to go on
record with our concerns.
Our understanding is that this building at 14419 S. Bascom Ave. is approved for
2 doctors working at any one point in time. There are 12 parking spots for these
doctors, patients and staff.
This seems like very limited dedicated parking even for 2 doctors given that
there may be dental hygenists working as providers even though they are not
considered doctors. Very limited street parking is available. Our building parking
is quite saturated, and we cannot absorb any overflow vehicles from adjacent
buildings.
We oppose any change in zoning which would increase the number of
professional providers working in the 14419 S. Bascom building. If additional
dedicated parking supporting the building is obtained, We would consider
dropping our objections.
If additional information is required, please contact me at 408-369-4203.
Sincerely,
F. Richard Noodleman, MD
DAVID R. HARRIS, M.D., Isc.
E RICHARD NOODLEMAN, M.D., Isc.
Diplomates American Board of Dermatology
3803 S. Baseom Avenue, Suite ~00 * Canq)bell, California 95008 * 408-559-0988 * F~Lx 408-369-4~63
c~
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Community Development Department - Current Planning
May 5, 2000
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the Planning Commission of the City of Campbell has set the
time of 7:30 p.m., or shortly thereafter, on Tuesday, May 23, 2000, in the City Hall
Council Chambers, 70 North First Street, Campbell, California, for a Public Hearing to
consider the application of Mr. Matt Francois, on behalf of Dr. Dennis Wong, for
approval of a Modification (PLN2000-66) to a previously-approved Site and
Architectural Approval (S 98-24) to alter Condition of Approval No. 2 of Planning
Commission Resolution No. 3217, adopted on January 26, 1999, which required the
recordation of a covenant limiting the number of doctors/dentists using the site to two, on
property located at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue in a PO (Professional Office) Zoning
District. A Negative Declaration was previously approved for this project.
Interested persons may appear and be heard at this hearing. Please be advised that if you
challenge the nature of the above project in court, you may be limited to raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in this Notice, or
in written correspondence delivered to the City of Campbell Planning Commission at, or
prior to, the Public Hearing. Questions may be addressed to the Community
Development Department at (408) 866-2140.
Decisions of the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council. Appeals
must be submitted to the City Clerk in writing within 10 calendar days of an action by the
Commission.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, listening assistive devices are
available for all meetings held in the Council Chambers. If you require accommodation,
please contact the Community Development Department at (408) 866-2140, at least one
week in advance of the meeting.
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF CAMPBELL
SHARON FIERRO
SECRETARY
PLEASE NOTE:
When calling about this Notice,
please refer to File No. PLN2000-66
Address: 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
70 North First Street · Campbell, California 95008. 1423 · TEL 408.866.2140 . FaX 408.866.8381 · TDD 408.866.2790
A PROFESSIONAL C O r P o r At I O N
CASS I DY
S H I M KO
DAWSON
RECEiVeD
Ms. Sharon Fierro
Community Development Department
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
May 4,2000
HAY 0 5 2000
CiTY OF CAMPBELL
PLANNING DEPT./
Dear Ms. Fierro:
We are enclosing, on behalf of Dr. Dennis Wong and Ms. Dora Ng, the owners of
property at 14419 South Bascom Avenue (the "Property") an application for modification to
condition of approval number 2 regarding parking imposed by the City's Planning Commission
in conjunction with adoption of Resolution No. 3217. This requested modification is
supplemented by the attached Development Application and filing fee and incorporates by
reference the materials previously submitted by Dr. Wong with respect to his application for
amendment to the general plan designation and zoning of the Property (adopted by Ordinance
No. 1975) and his application for site & architectural review (adopted by Resolution No. 3217).
As you are aware, we are of the opinion that Dr. Wong's intended use of the Property is
in full compliance with both the letter and spirit of the existing condition of approval as adopted
by the Planning Commission and that a modification (and submittal of the requisite filing fee) is
unnecessary and unfounded. We feel that if any action is appropriate at this point by the
Planning Commission, it is merely in the nature of a clarification of the existing terms of the
condition.
Subject to the above, and as directed by staff, we seek the following modification to the
condition of approval, with the modified text shown by italicized underlining:
2. Parking. Prior to building occupancy, applicant shall record a
covenant, running with the land, which shall restrict use of the
building site to a maximum of 2 doctors/dentists. For purposes of
this condition, "use of the building site" means the full time
occupanc_v by a doctor or dentist who provides primary care to
patients on a permanent basis (the "Primary Physician 'i). For
purposes of determining whether a doctor or dentist is a Primary
PhYsician as set_forth in this condition, none o_f the following shall
constitute a "use of the building site": (i) the temporal_presence
of a doctor or dentist who is necessa~_ to assist the Primal_
Phvsician in the treatment of the same patient, such as an assisting
2~0 CALIFORNIA ST. SUITE 500 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94 I I I TELEPHONE: ( 4 I 5 ) 7 8 8 - :~ 0 4 0
FACSIMILE: (4 I 5) 788-2039
surgical physician or anesthesiologist; (ii) a doctor or dentist who
attends to patients, or substitutes_for the Primal_ Physician, when
the Prima~ PhYsician is not present; or (iii) a doctor or dentist
who, in conjunction with the sale of a medical and/or dental
practice, assists another doctor or dentist buying such practice_for
a temporal_period o_ftime in providing transitional treatment to
the same patients. The covenant may indicate that this will not
prevent the owner from petitioning the City to change the terms of
the covenant, should the City parking requirements change, the
square footage of the building be reduced, or should other changes
occur which lessen the parking demand/requirement. The
covenant may also provide that if the property owner desires to use
the building for non-medical office use in the future, it must be
demonstrated that the office use generates a parking demand
(including employees and customers) that does not exceed the 12
parking spaces provided. The justification must be provided to the
satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
Dr. Wong and other interested parties intend to submit separate correspondence with
evidence and other relevant materials to the Planning Commission in support of this modification
prior to the Planning Commission's hearing on this matter on May 23rd. In the interim, please
feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding the materials submitted in this
application.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Very truly yours,
CASSIDY, SHIMKO & DAWSON
Matthew D. Francois
5-134-200 1 : 19PM FROM CITY. OF. CAMPBELL 4088668381 P. 2
Development
Application
File No.
Planning Department 70 North First Street, Campbell, California 95008 (408) 866-2140
APN(S): 414-44-005 DATEFILED: May 4, 2000
ZONING: Professional Office GENERAL PLAN: Professional Office
PROPERTY ADDRESS: 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
TYPE OF APPLICATION(S):
APPLICANT: Matthew Il.
Modification to Condition of Approval number 2 imposed by
Resolution No. 3217
Francois, Cassidy, Shimko & Dawson
ADDRESS: 20 California Street, Suite 500 TELEPHONE: (4151 788-2040
CITY/STATE: San Francisco, CA ZI?: 94111
PROPERTY OWNER: Dennis Wong and Dora Ng
ADDRESS: 14419 S. Bascom Avenue~ Suite 200 TELEPHONE: q108 ~.559-8188
CITY/STATE: Los Gatos, CA ZIP: 95032
Attach a separate sheet listing the names and addresses of others you wish to receive copies of staff,reports and
agendas.
AFFIDAVIT/SIGNATURE(S):
The undersigned person(s), having an interest in the above-described property, hereby make this
application in accordance with the provisions of the Campbell Municipal Code; and, hereby certify
that the information given herein is tree and correct to the best of my/our knowledge and belief.
Date P~ Owner ~gnature Date
NOTE: Staff is required by State Law to notify applicants of the completeness of their applications within 30 days.
Only those applications which are found complete will be placed on the Planning Commission Agenda.
OFFICE USE ONLY
PC Meeting:
PC Action:
CC Meeting:
CC Action:
Fee Paid:
Receipt No:
':;!Completeness' Letter Sent:
!~SSNttiCe PubIished:
Rvsd. 03/30/98
5-(Dzl.-280 ~ = 25P1',i FROH
Attachment D
Contribution Disclosure Form
CITY. OF. CAMPBELL ~08866838]
P. 10
Page 2
TO BE FILLED OUT BY APPLICANT
I. [ X ] IF CONTRIBUTIONS.TOTALING $250 HAVE NOT BEEN MADE, CHECK HERE, AND SIGN
BELOW IN SECTION III.
II. TO BE .COMPLETED ONLY IF CONTRIBUTIONS TOTALING $250 OR MORE HAVE BEEN MADE.
NAME:
ADDRESS:
ZIP:
TELEPHONE NO:
LIST COMMISSION MEMBEK(S) TO WHOM YOU AND/OK YOUR AGENT MADE CAMPAIGN
CONTKIBUTIONS TOTALING $250 OK MORE, AND THE DATES OF THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS.
NAME:
CONTRIBL~OR:
(ff other than yourself)
DATE (S):
AMOUNT (S):
NAME:
CONTRIBUTOR:
DATE (S):
AMOUNT (S):
(ff other than yourself)
NAME:
CONTRIBUTOR:
DATE (S):
AMOUNT (S):
(ff other than yourself)
III. SIGNATUKE
'~ture offS' ~gcnt
DATE:
Rvsd. 03/30/98
To:
ITEM
City Clerk
Please col md receipt
for the follo,~mg monies.
AMOUNT
Major:
A. 1+ acres - General Plan Amendtnent
Zone Change
Planned Development Permit
EIR Review
$4,650.00
4,650.00
4,650.00
4,650.00
0-1 acre General Plan Amendment (552.4660)
Zone Change
Planned Development Permit
EIR Review
3,375.00
~,375.00
3,375.00
3,375.00
Minor:
A. Subdivision Map (5+ Lots)
Site and Architectural 10+ K S.F.
Tentative Parcel Map (4<Lots)
Site and Architectural 0-10 K. S.F.
Variance (Non-residential)
Text Amendments
Use Permit
3,375.00
2,257 30
2,257.50
1,627.50
1,627.50
1,627.50
1,627.50
III. Miscellaneous
A. Variance (Residential)
Modifications of Approval
Modification PD Permit
Reinstatements
Revised Development Schedule
Extensions of Time
1,010.00
1,010.00
1,010.00
1,010.00
1,010.00
1,010.00
Site and Architectural(Res/EachHouse)
Signs(Each Sign)
Fence Exception
Promotional Events
126.00
126.00
126.00
126.00
Appeals
Downtown Development Permit
Historic Preservation Zone, Use Permit, HP Permit
IV. Other
Maps
General Plan Text
Zoning Ordinance
Copies (per page)
Refundable Deposit -- Account 2203
Fire Department Review -- Account 01.303.3322
Architectural Approval
Project Plan Review
Subdivision
Park Impact Fee - Account 295.535.4920
Tree Replacement In-Lieu Fees - Account 101.701.4971
6.50
19.00
23.00
1.00 (1" page, .10 ea add'l)
52.50
157.50
100+lOperloffunit
For City Clerk Only
Receipt No:
Amount paid:
Received by: D~'
Date: ~
HAY 0 5 2000
CITY. CLERK'S. OEFICF-J
Exception for Major Projects: It is anticipated that the application processing costs of selected major
projects will significantly exceed the above fees. In these eases, the Community Development Director may
collect a deposit and charge actual time spent to process the application based upon current hourly rates.
Note: Adopted by Resolution No. 9539 by City Council, City of Campbell, 06/01/99.
Sharon Fierro
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
P ECE' ¥ D
1 7 ?.000
CiTY OF CAMPBELL
PLANNING DEPT.
May 1, 2000
Dear Sharon,
This is the profile of what an Oral Surgeon does and what his parking needs are that you
requested.
When an Oral Surgeon sedates a patiem he needs at least two assistants, one to hold the
head still and watch the monitors and the other to hand him the instrumems. While the
doctor is in surgery another assistant may be taking x-rays and going over the next
patients medical history. Another assistant may be in recovery with the prior patiem and
another assistant would be cleaning rooms and sterilizing instmmems. There is always
one, and sometimes two front desk girls and one or two insurance girls. While all this is
going on we schedule as many as four post-operative appointments an hour.
This is a weekly schedule of our employe_es:
Oral Surgeon
Debbie
Heidi
Sue
Angie
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesda
Dr
Front Desk
Front Desk
Assistant
~ssistant
Ha~en {Off
leslie ~ce
~te {Assistant
# of employeesI 7
Front Desk
Front Desk
Off
Assistant
Assistant
nsurance
Dr
nsurance
Front Desk
Insurance
Assistant
Off
Nurse
Assistant Assistant
6 6
Thusday [Friday
Dr
Insurance
Front Desk
Insurance
Assistant
sistant
Dr
Off
Front Desk
Assistant
Assistant
Assistant
Insurance
Nurse
Assistant
6 8
We also hire a college or high school studem to sterilize instrumems during the summer
and school holidays, which are our busiest times of the year.
The main procedures our patients are seen for and length of time are as follows:
General Anesthetic
Local
Post operative
Emergency
Consultation
1 hour 15 minutes
45 minutes
15 minutes
depends on what it is 15 minutes to 2 hours
45 minutes
It's not unusual to have 5 or 6 patiems in differem rooms at one time.
I asked a general dentist in our complex (who has far less square footage then Dr. Wong)
on an average how many people are in his office at once. He said, 1 Doctor, 1 front desk
person, 1 insurance person, 2 assistants, 1 or 2 dental hygienists 2 to 4 patients or 8-11
parking spaces.
As you can tell from the numbers above one Oral Surgeon needs about 14 parking spaces
on a busy day and a general dentist needs 8 to 11. That's as much as 25 parking spaces
for an office that only has 12 ,and they want to add more doctors.
The building we own next to Dr. Wong's building has 5 dentists and 36 parking spaces.
There are times when all the parking spaces are full, and that's just over 7 spaces per
demist.
We have 6,212 sq. fi. of office space and 36 parking spots. Dr. Wong's building has
4,930 sq. fi. of office space and 12 parking spots. If Dr. Wong wants more doctors in his
building he should have to decrease the size of his building and put in more parking of
his own~
Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Deborah Follmar
70 N. First Street, Campbell CA 95008 FAX (408)866-8381
To: Dennis Wong From: Darcy Smith
Fax: (650) 967-6882 Pages: 1
Phone: Date: April 26, 2000
Re: Landscaping Issues
In regards to our discussion this morning, it appears that the mare issue that needs to be resolved (in addition to
putting the fountain in and getting it to work) is the screening of the PG&E Utility Cabinet. Your condition of
approval #3 requires the "landscaping to provide screening of any above ground utility and services
accouterments, including, but not limited to trash enclosures, meters, transformers, and anti-siphon devices."
In order to satisfy this condition, it is reconmiended that you:
Install a green cover on the backflow preventer in the fi:ont landscaping area; and
Install additional (34) shrubs around the PG&E Utility Cabinet (to the southeast, as close as you can get
to the cabinet while still maintaining the 8' door opening clearance). These shrubs should be a minimum
5 gallon, and appropriate species include Xylosma congesmm (Shiny Xylosma) or Viburnum Tinus
'Spring Bouquet' (Laurustinus). These species are already included in the landscaping area around the
cabinet, and will grow to a suitable size to provide adequate screening of the cabinet.
It does not appear that the Interim Community Development Director will recommend granting of a temporary
certificate of occupancy. I will not be able to issue a planning final approval until all of the issues discussed above
are finished.
04/14/00 10:11 FAX 415 788 2039 C$&D ~001/004
A pROFESSIONAL CoRPORATiON
CA$SIDY
SHIMKO
DAWSON
A'I'rORNEYS AT LAW
20 CALIFORNIA STREE'r, SU~I'E 500
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94111
TELEPHONE 415/788-2040
FACSIMILE 415/788-2039
FACSIMILE COVER SHEET
DATE: April 14, 2000
FROM: Matthew O. Francois
TO: Bill Seligmann
CC: Sharon Fierro
Fax No.:(408) 356-8051
Fax No.: (408) 866-8381
CLIENT NO: 0720.001
NO. OF PAGES (including cover): 4
If you do not receive all of the pages or if you have any questions, please call the
receptionist at 415/788-2040.
THE INFi~RMA TION CONTAINED IN THIS FAC,~/MILE ME$~AGE I*.,e CONFIDENTIAL AND MA Y BE PRIVILEGED, AND IS INTENDED OhlL Y FOR THE
RECIPIENT(S) NAMED ABOVE. ANY DI$$EMINATION OR DISTRIBUTION OF IF. IS COMMUNICA 'IION TO ~ PERSON OTHER THaN AN INTENDED
RECIPIENT l$ STRICTLY PROHIBITED. IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEA~.E IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY US 6Y
TELEPHONE AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL ME.~SAGE TO US A 1' THE ABOVE ADDRESS VIA UNITED STATES MAIL. I'H. aNK YOU.
COMMENTS:
Bill
Attached is a draft of the covenant we have prepared on behalf of Drs. Wong and
Walker with regard to 14419 S. Bascom Avenue. Please give me a call with your
questions and comments regarding the same.
04/14/00 10:11 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~002/004
DECLAR/kTION OF COVENANTS, CONDITIONS, AND RESTRICTIONS
THIS DECLARATION is executed and delivered as of thc day of April 2000, by Dr.
Dennis K. Wong and Dora S. N§, having a business address at 14~19 S. Bascom Avenue, Los
G-atos, CA 95032 ("Owner"), in favor of and for the benefit of Thc City of Campbell, having a
business address at 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008 ("City").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Owner is the sole owner in fee of certain real property, commonly known as
14419 S. Bascom Avenue, Los G-atos, California (Parcel No. 414-14-005), and more particularly
described in ]~xhibit A attached hereto (the '~Building Site");
HEREAS, City approved Ordinance No. 1975 on November 17, 1998, rezoning the
Building Site from Residential to Professional Office use in conjunction with Owner's proposal
to construct a two-story medical office building on the Building Site (the "Project");
WHEKEAS, Section 21.50.050 of City's Municipal Code establishes a parking schedule
for "medical, dental clinics"of 6 spaces/doctor;
WHEREAS, City approved Resolution No. 3217 on January 26, 1999, granting Site &
Architectural Approval for the Project subject to the following Condition of Approval:
2. Parking. Prior to building occupancy, applicant shall record a
covenant, ~mning with the land, which shall restrict use of the
building site to a maximum of 2 doctors/dentists. The covenant
may indicate that this will not prevent the owner from petitioning
thc City to change thc terms of thc covenant, should thc City
parking requirements change, thc square footage of thc building be
reduced, or should other changes occur which lcsscn thc parking
demand/requirement. Thc covenant may also provide that if the
property owner desires to use the building for non-medical office
use in the future, it must be demonstrated that the office use
generates a parldng demand (including employees and customers)
that does not exceed the 12 parking spaces provided. The
justification must be provided to the satisfaction of the Commtmity
Development Director;,
WHEREAS, the Project as built includes the 12 off-street parking spaces required by
such Condition of Approval,
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of thc foregoing Recitals, Owner hereby declares,
covenants, and agrees as follows:
04/14/00 10:11 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~003/004
1. Covenant. For the term of this Declaration, usc of the Building Site shall be
restricted to a maximum of 2 doctors/dentists at any one time, except that (i) noit~in§ in this
Declaration prevents thc Owner from. petitioning City to change the tcrms of the covenants
contained in this Declaration, should City parking requirements change, thc square footage of the
Project be r~lucod, or should other chan$~s occur which lessen thc parking demands or
requirements of thc Project and (ii) if the Owner desires to use the Building Site for a non-
medical office use in the future, Owner shall demonstrate, to thc satisfaction of City's
Community Development Director, that thc office use generates a parking demand (including
employees and customers) that do~s not exceed thc 12 parking spaces provided for the Project.
2. Use of the Building Site. For purposes of'S~ction-1, "usc of thc Building Site"
means thc full time occupancy by a doctor or dentist who provides primary care to patients on a
permanent basis (the "Primary Physician"). For purposes of determining whether a doctor or
dentist is a Primary Physician as set forth in this section, none ofthe following shall constitute a
"uso of thc Building Site": (i) the trrcs~ace of a doctor or dentist who assists the Primary
Physician, on a t,mporary basis, in the treatment of the same patient, such as an assisting surgical
physician or anesthesiologist; (ii) a doctor or dentist who attends to patients, or substitutes for the
Primary Physician, when the Primary Physician is not present;, or (iii) a doctor or dentist who, in
conjunction with the sale of a medical and/or dental practice (the "Selling Physician"), assists
another doctor or dentist buying such practice (the "Buying Physician") for a t~nporary period of
time, not to exceed six (6) months, where substantially all services rondo'red by the Selling
Physician ~ in furtheranc~ of assisting the Buying Physician in the transition et'providing
treatment to the same patients and clientele o£the Selling Physician.
3. SucCessors & Assiens. Thc covenants contained in this Declaration shall bc
binding upon Owner and inure to the benefit of City, and their resp~tive successors and assigns.
4. l~nnning With thc Land, Remedy. The covenants granted, reserved or oth~swise
set forth herein shall 1~ appurtenant to and run with thc land, and shall in all respects constitute
covenants lmnning with the land pursuant to applicable California law, enforceable by City at law
and in equity-
5. Enforcement. Thc covenants made by Owner in this Declaration arc for the
,xpress loc~efit only of City and its successors and assigns, and no other p~rson or entity, nor the
public in general, shall have any fight to enforce any of the covenants contained herein.
6. Gov~a_e~ill$~. This Declaration shall be conslxued and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
7. Modifications. This Declaration may not be amended, modified, altered or
changed, as provided lYor by S~tion 1, unless in a writing, in recordable form, approved by City.
8. Recordatil~ll. This Declaration shall be recorded by Owner in the Santa Clara
County Office of the Recorder in conjunction with the City's issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy for thc Project.
04/14/00 10:12 FAX 415 788 2039 CS&D ~004/004
9. Termi_____nation_. This Declaration shall remain in full forcc and effect until such
time as the BUiJdin§ Site ceases to be subject to the Condition of Approval set out in thc Recitals
above.
IN WITNESS WHERI~OF, Owner has executed this Declaration as of the date first set
forth above.
APPROVED AS TO FORM: OWNER:
William R. Seligmann
City Attorney
CITY OF CAMPBELL
Dennis K. Wong
Dora S. Ng
Sharon Fierro
Acting Director,
Community Development Depa~talent
SUSAN J. PURCELL, D.D.S.
FAMILY DENTISTRY
14485 SOUTH BASCOM, SUITE M
LOS GATOS, CA 95032
March 30, 2000
Dennis Wong, DDS
14525 S. Bascom Ave.
Los Gatos, Ca. 95032
Dear Dr Wong,
I am writing to summarize our recent phone conversations regarding your new
professional building under construction just south of our building at 3803 S
Bascom Ave in Campbell.
My partner, David Harris, and I do not object to your occupancy or completion of
the project. Our only concerns have been and continue to be that you adhere to
the originat Campbell City Planning Commission approval to limit practice to only
2 professionals at a time at the site. This concern is rooted solely in our
knowledge that your new facility will only have 12 parking spaces. Our edjacent
medical building ha-~ v,erv t~ht oarking, and we are concerned about people from
your new building spilling into our lot and saturating the available street parking.
Having more than 2 providers/doctors/dentists working at a time would likely
exceed your parking capacity.
You have assured me that you are sensitive to our concerns and will closely
monitor, patients and staff to assure that they are not parking in our lot.
We look forward to you as a new neighbor and will work cooperatively with you if
issues arise.
Sincerely,
F. Richard Noodleman, MD
DavID R. ltAams, M.D., Inc.
E RICHARD NOOOLEMAN. M.D., Inc.
Diplomate~ American Board of Dermatology
:[~}}J ~ ['Jil~('~llll A%'l'llll(', ,%llile 200 · ('anqfiwll, (alilornht 9'3008 · 408-3:'3.0-(/!~ * Fax 4(lS-;~i.q ~li3
I-W/'b.kGl'.'- DEI;'Y ·
KENNETH E FOLLMAR D.D S, m SD
KENNETH E FOLLMAR,~ II. D DS., INC
ORAL & M A X I L L O f A C I A L SURGERY
14511 SOUTH BASCOM AVENUE
LOS GATES CAlifORNIA 95032
{4081 356'3146
March 22, 2000
Planning Commission
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
Dear Commissioners,
RECEIVED
CITY OF CAMPBELl..
PLANNING DEPT.,
I own the dental complex at 14455 South Bascom Avenue, Campbell. It is
south of and adjacent to new construction located at 14419 South Bascom Avenue,
Campbell, for which a conditioned building permit was issued to Dr. D. Wong.
.Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Campbell City Council stipulated
special conditions to be met for approval of the construction of this new
dental/medical building. Included in these requirements is the condition that "Prior to
Occupancy, applicant shall record a covenant, running with the land, which shall
restrict use of the building site to a maximum of 2 doctors/dentists" Apparently Dr.
Wong does not understand this mandate
Contrary to building permit specifications, in addition to Dr. Wong, two more
doctors are scheduled to practice full time in that same building .A part time fourth
doctor is also a realistic expectation because the ground floor office is designed as
an ambulatory care facility, so a part time anesthesiologist, will be required.
My dental complex is occupied by five busy dentists. My concern, and that of
my tenants, is that over-occupancy at the new building will result in inadequate
parking. My property provides only enough parking space to accommodate the patient
load generated by my tenants.
The plot plan for the new building calls for a total of twelve parking spaces.
There is no room for more. This is grossly insufficient parking for more than two
doctors, their staff and patients. If more than two doctors were to use the new building,
vehicles would spill over into the nearest available parking facility, namely, into the
parking lot provided for my tenants. The parking crunch would be uncontrollable.
.It is respectfully requested that the Campbell City Planning Commission and
CampbeJI,City Council require strict adherence to all conditions stipulated for approval
of construction of the dental/medical building at 14419 South Bascom Avenue. That
action will eliminate burdensome significant future neighborhood parking
congestion.
Thank you for your consideration.
Re, spectfully,/
Kenneth E. Follmar II, DDS.
Campbell, CA 95008 ~'~
o
To Whom It May Concern, Pl~4I~t~"~O~II4P~I
I am writing in reference to the new construction at 14419 S. Bascom Ave., more
specifically how the owner has decided not to follow the requirements set forth by the
Planning Commission in regards to the number of doctors/dentists working in the
building. The Planning Commission states only two doctors/dentists can work there and
Dr. Wong plans on having three. Since Dr. Walker and Loitzs' office has Joint
Commission of Hospital Accreditation there will probably be an anesthesiologist in the
building at times, which would make 4 doctors.
I would have addressed this problem earlier but Dr. Wong informed me only Dr. Walker
would be sharing the building with him. I did not know there would be a third doctor
until I received an announcement of their move in the mail.
I own the building to the south of the new construction at 14455 South Bascom Ave. and
Dr. Wongs construction crew used our parking lot so much that I finally put up a tow
away sign, and they still parked in our lot. I called the towing service to remove the
trucks only to find out if the owner sees the tow track before the vehicle is hooked up
they can simply move their vehicle with no penalty. They look directly down on our
parking lot, so they can see when a tow truck comes and move their vehicle. I also
learned through this unpleasant experience that the vehicle has to be parked at our lot for
1 hour before the towing company can do anything. Many doctor and dental
appointments are less than 1 hour.
The construction crew did a fair amount of damage to our landscaping, because when
they parked in our lot they took a shortcut through the bushes. They also let'r garbage and
construction material in our lot. I certainly don't want this to go on forever and I know it
will if they don't have enough parking.
Parking is tight in this area, and any new construction should be required to provide
ample designated parking space for their own needs. I realize you have attempted to do
this during the planning stage but Dr. Wong clearly does not take you seriously.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Deborah A. Follmar
Greg A. Loitz~ MD, DDS
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon
Lee R. Walker~ MD, DDS
Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeon
Los G^-tos
ORAL ~ FACIAL SurGery
March 20, 2000
Sharon Fierro
Senior Planner
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008-1423
Oral Surgery
Orthognathic Surgery
TMJ Surgery
Oral and Facial lmFlantology
Facial Reconstructive Surgery
Laser Surgery
RE: 14419 South Bascom Ave Suite 100
Per our conversation this morning, I am writing to clarify my office use at 14419 South Bascom Ave, Suite 100 in
the city of Campbell. My partner, Greg Loitz, and I intend to practice at this office; however, our schedules do
not overlap. On occasion, we may be treating the same patient; although, we will not both be treating or
examining different patients at the same time. Both Dr. Loitz and myself hold a general anesthesia permit and
practice under our dental and medical licenses issued by the state of California.
Should you require additional information, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Lee R. Walker, MD DDS
Page 1 of I
14419 South Bascom Ave Suite 100 Los Gatos, CA 95032
Telephone: 408-366-1171 Fax: 408-366-1174
www.lgofs.com
March 20, 2000
Planning Commission
City of Campbell
70 North First St.
Campbell, Ca. 95008
To Whom it May Concern:
I am writing to express my concerns about deviation from the parking and doctor
restrictions for the Professional building under construction at 14419 S. Bascom
Ave
The commission approved this building and its parking for 2 doctors. I have been
informed that them am plans for 3 doctors (Drs. Wong, Loitz and Walker)
occupying the building. The parking at our building at 3803 S. Bascom
immediately adjacent to this new construction is very tight. We cannot permit
overflow use of our parking space by this new facility.
Please address this issue immediately and let me know what is being done.
Sincerely,
D~d R. H'"~rris, MD
DAVID R. HARRIS, M.D., lsc.
E RICHARD NOODLEMAN, M.D., INC.
Diplomates American Board of Dermatology
( (
;~03 ,% I~ascom Avenu(,, ,%uite :.)(H) · ('amlfl)ell, ('alil'ornia 93008 · 408-35.)-098~S ·
I-~7~-A(~I';-I)EI:'Y * wxvw. agedel'y, com
Fax 408-
AGE
I iEFYING
}EKMATOLOGY
,\Mil)lt. '\1 ~. IN[Ii?.
Mamh 20, 2000
Planning Commission
City of Campbell
70 North First St.
Campbell, Ca. 95008
To Whom it May Concern:
I am writing to express my concerns about deviation from the parking and doctor
restrictions for the Professional building under construction at 14419 S. Bascom
Ave
The commission approved this building and its parking for 2 doctors. I have been
informed that there are plans for 3 doctors (Drs. Wong, Loitz and Walker)
occupying the building. The parking at our building at 3803 S. Bascom
immediately adjacent to this new construction is very tight. We cannot permit
overflow use of our parking space by this new facility.
Please address this issue immediately and let me know what is being done.
Sinc~rely,q
F. Richard Noodleman, MD
DAVID R. HARRIS, M.D., INC.
F. RICHARD NOODLEMAN, M.D., INC.
Diplomates American Board of Dermatology
;~()3 S. lktst'om Avenue, Suite :~)()0 * ('aml)h('ll, ('alifornia 9500~ * 408-559-098~ * Fax 408-;~(i!)-4¢~)(;3
I-~;;-AfW;-I)EI*'Y * wxvw.;~g(,(M'y.('om
Planning Commission Minutes of January 26, 1999 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Jones read Agenda Item No. 1 into the record.
S 98-24
Benton, G.
Continued Public Hearing to consider the application of Mr.
Greg Benton, on behalf of Dennis and Dora Wong, for a Site
and Architectural Approval (S 98-24) to allow the construction
of a new professional office building on property located at
14419 S. Bascorn Avenue in a PO (Professional Office) Zoning
District. A Negative Declaration is proposed for this project.
Planning Commission decision final unless appealed in writing
to the City Clerk within 10 days.
Ms. Sharon Fierro, Senior Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
· Advised that the applicant is seeking a Site and Architectural Approval to allow the
construction of a two-story medical building on property located at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
which is located at the southern portion of the City of Campbell.
· On November 7, 1998, Council approved an amendment to the General Plan and Zoning
designations for this property from multi-family residential to professional office uses.
· The project site is 11,000 square feet. The proposed building is 4,930 square feet, the first
floor includes 2,190 square feet and the second includes 2,740 square feet.
· The lot coverage is 30 percent, the Floor Area Ratio is .45 and the landscaping will cover 31
percent.
· A single-family residence currently on the site will be demolished.
· The new owners will occupy the second floor for their dentistry practice and rent out the first
floor.
· The project meets all development standards. There is a 48 foot rear yard setback. There are
six spaces per dentist as required under the Parking Ordinance.
· SARC reviewed this project at two meetings, December 22, 1998, and January 12, 1999.
· Minor modifications to Conditions of Approval g9 (Building Division) and #18 (Public
Works) have been distributed in memo format. The applicant is aware of these proposed
changes.
Commissioner Lowe questioned about the exterior stairs.
Ms. Sharon Fierro replied that the issue is one of safety. The applicant will work with the
Building Division to meet Uniform Building Code requirements.
Commissioner Lowe asked why the need for a streetlight had not been made by Public Works.
Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that when preparing Conditions of Approval for this project, the
Public Works Department had determined that the streetlight was necessary. The applicant asked
Planning Commission Minutes of January 26, 1999
Page 3
Public Works to reconsider this requirement. This Condition will allow the City Engineer to
reconsider without delaying the approval.
Commissioner Gibbons presented the Site and Architectural Review Committee report as
follows:
· SARC reviewed this project on December 22, 1998, and January 12, 1999 and was
supportive. SARC appreciated the applicant's cooperation.
Chairman Jones opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Mr. Greg Benton, Project Architect:
· Stated that this project is the result of hard work on everyone's behalf.
· Hoped that the Commission would find it acceptable and a nice addition to the City.
· Advised that he is available for any questions about the project.
Commissioner Lowe asked if they had looked at any other potential uses for this property.
Mr. Greg Benton advised that the new owner is a dentist who plans to move his practice to this
new building out of rented space he currently has on Bascom Avenue.
Commissioner Francois expressed concern about the parking provided. Asked Mr. Benton if he
felt there would be any problem with the amount of parking planned for the site.
Mr. Greg Benton replied that he did not believe parking would be a problem.
Commissioner Gibbons advised that parking was discussed in depth at SARC and that six spaces
per dentist is the requirement under the Parking Ordinance. She added that health requirements
in today's dental practice calls for more office space per dentist as the turnaround time in
cleaning between patients takes more time. Therefore lots of patient treatment rooms are
required.
Ms. Sharon Fierro advised that she had surveyed other cities to determine standards for
medical/dental uses and learned that Campbell's standard is similar or more stringent than other
cities' standards.
Chairman Jones asked what options the Commission has in evaluating the parking for this
project.
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the Commission must rely on the Ordinance when evaluating the
parking requirements. Added that it is in the owner's interest to control the parking on his site.
Said that the owner is required to record a Covenant which will limit the number of dentists on
the site to two.
Commissioner Lowe asked why a two-story structure was necessary.
Planning Commission Minutes of January 26, 1999
Page 4
Mr. Steve Piasecki advised that the owner wants more space. A one-story building would also
be dwarfed by the large massive structure which is adjacent. This is a very good plan which has
been well thought out and the use should be good.
Commissioner Francois stated that parking is his only concern about this project but said that the
turnover of patients does not seem to be of concern to staff when evaluating the use and parking
for the site.
Commissioner Kearns said that she is supportive of the project and finds the proposed building to
be a handsome one.
Chairman Jones asked if the potential uses for the site are limited to dental.
Mr. Steve Piascki advised that any office use that can conform with the required parking ratios
could occupy this building.
Ms. Sharon Fierro reminded that due to the changes in medical procedures some treatment rooms
must be left vacant for 20 minutes while it is sanitized. This accounts for this dentist's square
footage needs.
Commissioner Gibbons reminded that the owner himself will occupy this building and he is
willing to accept the restrictive requirement of the Covenant. It is in his interest to provide
adequate parking. He has a lot at stake.
Chairman Jones closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Motion:
Upon motion of Commissioner Kearns, seconded by Commissioner
Lindstrom, the Planning Commission approved a Negative Declaration and
adopted Resolution No. 3217 granting a Site and Architectural Approval (S
98-24) to allow the construction of a new two-story office building on
property located at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Francois, Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lindstrom
NOES: Lowe
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
Chairman Jones advised that this approval is final in 10 days unless appealed in writing to the
City Clerk.
RESOLUTION NO. 3217
BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CAMPBELL GRANTING A SITE AND ARCHITECTURAL
APPROVAL TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO-STORY
OFFICE BUILDING ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 14419 S. BASCOM
AVENUE IN A PO (PROFESSIONAL OFFICE) ZONING DISTRICT.
APPLICATION OF MR. GREG BENTON, ON BEHALF OF DENNIS AND
DORA WONG. FILE NO. S 98-24.
After notification and public hearing, as specified by law, and after presentation by the Community
Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.
After due consideration of all evidence presented, the Planning Commission did find as follows with
respect to application S 98-24:
1. An Initial Study was prepared for this project which concludes there are no significant
environmental impacts and a Negative Declaration has thus been prepared.
2. The medical office proposal is consistent with the office General Plan designation and the P-O
(Professional Office) Zoning for the site.
3. The proposed building and parking facilities, subject to the recommended conditions of
approval, will result in a project which integrates the project with the surrounding uses.
4. Adequate circulation has been provided on site, and the site is so located on a public street to
accommodate the estimated traffic associated with the project.
5. The proposed project is well sited and designed to be compatible with the surrounding buildings
and uses.
The proposed project, subject to the recommended conditions of approval, meets the required
development standards for the Professional Office Zone, including setbacks, height limitations,
and parking requirements.
7. The project will not create a nuisance due to noise, litter, vandalism, traffic or other factors.
Based upon the forgoing findings of fact, the Planning Commission further finds that:
The proposed project will aid in the enhancement and the harmonious development of the
immediate area. The establishment, maintenance, or operation of the uses will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons
residing or working in the neighborhood of the project.
2. The proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed uses and building.
3. The proposed project is adequately served by streets of sufficient capacity to carry the kind and
quantity of traffic such use would generate.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3217
S 98-24 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
Page 2
The applicant is hereby notified, as part of this application, that he/she is required to meet the
following conditions in accordance with the ordinance of the City of Campbell and the State of
California. Additionally, the applicant is hereby notified that he/she is required to comply with all
applicable Codes or Ordinances of the City of Campbell and the State of California that pertain to
this development and are not herein specified:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1. Project Approval. Approval is granted for a Site and Architectural Review Permit (S 98-24)
allowing redevelopment on property located at 14419 S. Bascom Avenue consisting of the
following:
A. Removal of the existing house and parking area.
B. Construction of a two-story office building with ground floor of 2,190 gross square feet, plus
a 12 vehicle parking lot, and a second floor of 2,740 square feet. Project approval shall
substantially comply with project plans prepared by Greg W. Benton, Architect, dated 1-18-
99, except as modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein.
Parking. Prior to building occupancy, applicant shall record a covenant, running with the land,
which shall restrict use of the building site to a maximum of 2 doctors/dentists. The covenant
may indicate that this will not prevent the owner from petitioning the City to change the terms of
the covenant, should the City parking requirements change, the square footage of the building be
reduced, or should other changes occur which lessen the parking demand/requirement. The
covenant may also provide that if the property owner desires to use the building for non-medical
office use in the future, it must be demonstrated that the office use generates a parking demand
(including employees and customers) that does not exceed the 12 parking spaces provided. The
justification must be provided to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director.
Landscaping and Sidewalks. Prior to submittal of plans for building permits, the applicant shall
provide planting, hardscape and irrigation plans prepared by a Landscape Architect for City
review and approval, which include, but are not limited to the following:
A. Screening of any above ground utility and services accouterments, including, but not limited
to trash enclosures, meters, transformers, and anti-siphon devices.
B. The landscaping of all areas indicated on the approved site plans, to include street trees.
C. Details of the design of the property line wall.
Signage. No signage is approved as part of the development application approved herein. The
applicant shall submit a master sign plan for the development. No sign shall be installed until
such application is approved and a permit issued by the Community Development Director as
specified in Chapter 21.53. of the Zoning Ordinance, and consistent with the standards for
signing in the P-O Zoning District.
5. Construction Measures for Compatibility. The applicant shall implement the following
measures to ensure that construction practices do not disturb surrounding streets and uses:
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3217
S 98-24 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
Page 3
o
The applicant shall submit a construction management plan to the City for review and approval.
Such plan shall address the provision of adequate access to the surrounding parcels and for the
public on the adjacent streets and sidewalks.
A. Construction activities will be limited to daytime hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. weekdays
and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Saturdays. Construction is prohibited on Sundays and Holidays.
Any exception to these times shall require an exception by the City Building Official.
B. No pile driving is allowed for construction of the project.
C. All internal combustion engines for construction shall be properly muffled and maintained.
D. All stationary noise generating construction equipment, such as air compressors and portable
power generators, will be located as far as practical from the existing residences located to
the northeast, and the existing businesses and County Library.
E. Soil management: All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily. All
trucks hauling soil and other small materials shall be covered. All sidewalks, parking areas,
driveways, adjacent streets and sidewalks shall be swept daily, as directed by the City
Engineer. Any stockpiles of materials shall be treated so as to prevent their being blown,
dragged, or otherwise carried off site. Erosion control measures shall be undertaken as
directed by the City Engineer.
Garbage Collection: The plans submitted for building permits shall include a masonry trash
enclosure, finished and detailed to either match the building texture and colors, or match the
masonry wall. If made of the wall material, the landscape plan shall include vines to be trained
to cover the exterior of the enclosure. The enclosure shall included heavy gauge steel doors and
heavy duty hinges, painted to match the building. The location, specifications and design for the
enclosure shall be submitted for design review and approval by the Community Development
Department (Planning Division, Building Division), the Fire District, and the City's scavenger
company. The design shall meet requirements for the disposal of medical wastes.
Appearance of Utilities: The developer shall be responsible to ensure that all utilities and utility
boxes, pipes, meters, etc. shall be underground. Any portion of any utility system which cannot
be placed underground shall be included on the site plan submitted for the building permit, with
details indicating how they are to be screened from public view. A letter shall be submitted to
the Community Development Director for approval containing detailed information regarding
the reason why the particular unit cannot be accommodated underground. Said utilities shall
include, but not be limited to backflow prevention devices, air conditioning equipment, gas
meters, cable boxes, transformers, controllers and the like.
Mechanical Equipment: No roof-mounted equipment is approved, except as submitted to and
approved by the Community Development Director. Any such equipment must be shown to be
screened from view in a manner which complements the building architecture. Any ground-
mounted equipment visible to the public shall be screened with building materials similar to the
building, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. All roof vents shall
be painted to match the roof.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3217
S 98-24 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
Page 4
UBC, Building Permit: Building construction plans and permits shall be obtained, in
compliance with the Uniform Building Code. The proposed use most closely resembles an office
('B') and a parking (S3") occupancy, Type VN construction.
A. SH3 i.) Provide a one (1) hour separation between the occupancies. UBC T 3-B.
ii) Type VN, B occupancies require protected openings within ten (10) feet of the
property line. Provide ~A hour fire protection for openings on the north side of the
building. UBC T 5-A.
iii) The landing at the bottom of the northwest side stairway shall conform to UBC
1006.3 exc 2 for rise and run.
iv) The intermediate step between landings in the south stairway for conformity. UBC
1006.7
v) All treads to be slip-resistant and striped. CAC D-7.2.
B. SH 7 The skylights conform to UBC 2603.7.1 for maximum area, minimum separation and
distance from property lines.
C. SH 8,9 The elevations do not depict the northwest stairway. UBC 106.3.3.
10. Disability Access: The building shall be designed to provide access to disabled persons in
accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC), the Uniform Federal Accessibility
Standards (UFSA) and the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Include a dedicated
walkway from the disabled parking lot space to an elevator or route to the exterior of the
building without traveling behind parked vehicles or within vehicle paths of travel.
11. Fireflow: A minimum fireflow of 1,750 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch
residual pressure is required. The required fireflow is available from area water mains. It is
noted, however, that the existing available fire hydrants are not spaced adequately to deliver the
required fire flow.
12. Public Fire Hydrant Required Provide public fire hydrant at location to be determined jointly by
the Fire department and the San Jose Water Company. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 250
feet, with a minimum single hydrant flow of 1500 GPM at 20 psi, residual. If area fire hydrants
exist, reflect their locations on the civil drawings included with the building permit submittal.
Required fees to be paid ASAP to prevent engineering delays.
13. Fire Apparatus (Engine) Access Roads Required. Provide access roadways with a paved all
weather surface and a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6
inches, minimum turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of
15%. Installations shall conform with Fire department Standard Details and Specifications A-1.
14. Fire Lane Markings: Provide marking for all roadways within the project. Markings shall be per
Fire department specifications. Installations shall also conform to Local Government Standard
Details and Specifications A-6.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3217
S 98-24 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
Page 5
15. Parking Along Roadways: The required width of fire access roadways shall not be obstructed in
any manner. Parking will not be allowed along roadways (driveways) which are less than 28
feet in width. Roadway width shall be measured face of curb to face of curb.
16. Fire Department Key Box: Provide an approved Fire Department key box and appropriate
building keys. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Detail and
Specification K- 1.
17. Preliminary Title Report: Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the site, the
applicant shall provide a current Preliminary Title Report.
18. Street Improvements: Prior to issuance of any grading, drainage or building permits for the
site, the applicant shall execute a street improvement agreement and shall cause plans for
public street improvements to be prepared by a registered civil engineer, pay fees, post
security and provide insurance necessary to obtain an encroachment permit for construction
of the improvements, as required by the City Engineer. The plans shall include the
following:
a. Removal and disposal of existing concrete depressed curb and one existing substandard
street light.
b. Installation of curb and gutter, 10 foot commercial sidewalk, commercial driveway
approach, and one street light. Installation of the street light may be deleted as
determined by the City Engineer.
c. Installation of tree wells, irrigation system, and street trees at 40 foot on center.
d. Protection and/or replacement of all existing underground utilities, including signal
interconnect conduits, street lighting conduits, and PG&E, PacBell, and TCI facilities.
e. Construction of all conforms necessary to join existing improvements.
f. Installation of traffic control signs and markings, as determined by the City Engineer.
g. Installation of all existing and new water meters and sewer cleanouts on private
property behind the public right-of-way line.
h. Installation of 2 inch asphalt overlay from lip of gutter to street centerline along entire
Bascom Avenue footage following utility cuts and installation.
19.
Utilities: All new on-site utilities shall be installed underground per Section 20.36.150 of the
Campbell Municipal Code for any new or remodeled buildings or additions. Applicant shall
comply with all plan submittals, permitting, and fee requirements of the serving utility
company.
20. Utility Installation Plan: Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall submit a
Utility Installation Plan and Schedule for approval by the City Engineer for installation of all
utilities. Streets which have been resurfaced within the previous 5 years will require boring
and jacking for all new utility installations and will also require a pavement restoration plan
for approval by the City Engineer prior to any utility installation.
Planning Commission Resolution No. 3217
S 98-24 - 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
Page 6
21. Maintenance Security: Prior to issuance of occupancy approval for the site, all public street
improvements required by the street improvement agreement and the encroachment permit
must be completed and accepted by the City and the applicant must provide a one-year
Maintenance Security in an amount of 25% of the Faithful Performance Bond.
22.
Grading and Drainage Plan: Prior to issuance of any grading, drainage or building permits for
the site, the applicant shall conduct hydrology studies based on a 10 year storm frequency,
prepare an engineered Grading and Drainage Plan, and pay fees required to obtain necessary
grading permits. The plans shall comply with the 1994 edition of the UBC including
Chapters 18, 33, and Appendix Chapter 33.
23.
Storm Drain Area Fee: Prior to issuance of any grading, drainage, or building permits for the
site, the applicant shall pay the required Storm Drain Area fee. The current fee is $ 2,500.00
per acre.
24.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System: Prior to issuance of any grading, drainage,
or building permits, the applicant shall comply with the NPDES and Title 14 of the
Municipal Code concerning storm water pollution control.
25.
Site Plan: Prior to processing the formal application, the developer must submit a complete
Site Plan, including the information listed on Attachment A of the Site and Architectural
Review application and other appropriate information required by the City Engineer.
26. City of San Jose Permit: Any construction within the San Jose city limits will require a permit
from that City.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of January, 1999, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners:
NOES: Commissioners: Lowe
ABSENT: Commissioners: None
ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None
Francois, Gibbons, Jones, Kearns, Lindstrom
APPROVED:
Brad Jones,~ir
January 6, 1999
Steven Piasecki
Planning Commission
City of Campbell
70 North First Street
Campbell, CA 95008
RE: File Number S98-24
Address: 14419 S. Bascom Avenue
Dear Mr. Piasecki:
CITY OF CAMPBELL
I am a tenant at 3803 S. Bascom Avenue, the medical building
adjacent to the proposed new medical building Project Number S98-24
at 14419 S. Bascom.
My concerns with the proposed new building are
parking spaces for both facilities. It is quite that of adequate
proposed new building does not provide sufficient clear that if the
its own needs, the clientele will find parking spaces in our lot
next door. parking space for
We have only enough spaces for
physicians in our building Anth°se Patients who are seeing
facility adjacent to ours will add inadequately designed parking
parking in our area. chaos to the problem of a.de~ate
I understand that this project is up for review and that there will
be a public hearing in close proximity to your receiving this
letter. I would be pleased to discuss any issues concerning this
matter with you personally. My personal phone number is 369-4204.
Thank you for your thoughtful consideration in this matter.
Sincere~ yours
David R. Harris, M.D. .
vb
DAVID R. HARRIS, M.D., Isc.
E RICHARD NOODLEMAN, M.D., INC.
Diplomates American Board of Dermatology
3803 S. Bascom Avenue, Suite 200 * Campbell, California 95008 * 408-_559-0988
KENNETH
KENNETH
E. FOLLMAR, D.D.S.. M.S.D
E. FOLLMAR. II. D.D.S.. Inc.
k~ A X ~ I L O F A C I A L S U R G E ;~ ¥
14511SOUTH BA$COM AVENUE
LOS GATOS. CALIFORNIA 95032
356-3146
January 5, 1999
City of Campbell
Community Development Dept.
Current Planning
70 North First Street
Campbell Ca 95008
Re: File No. S 98-24
14419 S Bascom Ave.
Campbell, Ca 95008
Att: Steve Piasecki
CITY OF CAaP~ELL
P~NNiNG DEPT.
Dear Mr. Piasecki:
I would like to question the parking situation regarding the new professional
office building being considered for the property located at 14419 S.
Bascom Ave., Campbell, Ca. 95008. There is insufficient parking lot
availability and also insufficient street parking for the existing professional
offices. I feel the traffic and parking problem would be exacerbated by the
building of a new professional office building. .
I urge that this be reviewed in light of the parking situation.
Sincerely,
Kenneth E. Follmar II, D.D.S.
KEF/pv
DE ,.TOLOG¥
A ME~DIC'~.. CENTE~
January 5, 1999
Steve Piasecki
Planning Commission, City of Campbell
70 North First St
Campbell, Ca 95008
Re: File No. S 98-24
Address: 14419 S. Bascom Ave
Dear Mr. Piasecki:
I am writing in response to your notice of a public hearing about
this project on January 12, 1999. I will be unable to attend but
will share my thoughts in written form.
I am one of the physician owners/tenants in the medical building
at 3803 S Bascom Ave which is adjacent to the S 98-24 project
on the north side.
My concerns involve parking for this proposed new building.
There are times when our parking lot is full, not only with our
patients and staff, but also with cars from other nearby
buildings. Parking in this area is tight, and any new projects
should be required to provide ample designated parking space for
their own needs.
Please keep' me updated as review of this project progresses. I
received notice of the public hearing indirectly and would
appreciate being added to your mailing list. I would be happy to
discuss my concerns if you wish to call me at 369-4203. Thank
you for your attention to this matter.
DAVID R. HARRIS, M.D., INc..
E Pac~.tAaD NOODLEMAN, M.D., INc.
Dilalomares American Board of Dermatology
3803 S. B;kscom Avenue, Suite 200 · Campbell, California 95008 · 408-559-0986 · Fax 408-369-426:5
Sincerely,
F. Richard Noodleman, MD
PARKING SURVEY OF NEIGHBORING CITIES
CITY UNI-STALL STALL SIZE
GEN. OFFICE
PARKING
RATIO
MED. OFFICE
PARKING
RATIO
Los Gatos Yes
Santa Clara No
Morgan Hill No
Gilroy No
Los Altos No
Sunnyvale No
Mflpitas No
Palo Alto Yes
8.5 x 18 w/o/o
8.5 x 16 w/o
8.5x17.5
1:235
1:300
1:300
1:300
1:200
1:225
1:200 1st floor
1:400 2ad or
more stories
1:250
1:250
1:300
1:200 or 5
spaces per
doctor
1:150 or 6 per
doctor-which
ever is less
1:250
1:200
1:225
1:250
Mountain No
View
Cupertino
Campbell
Yes
Exception
Only
8.5 x 20 w/o/o
1:300
1:285
1:225
1:150
1:175
6 spaces per
doctor
I
--AOV~OOIJ
Z
I
4/'A7
5/A7
II
I
I