Loading...
PC Min 01/13/1987PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF CAMPBELL, CALIFORNIA 7:30 PM MINUTES JANUARY 13, 1987 The Planning Commission of the City of Campbell convened this day in regular session at the regular meeting place, the Council Chambers of City Hall, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California. ROLL CALL Present Commissioners: Dickson, Olszewski, Christ, Perrine, Stanton, Kasolasf Planning Director A. A. Kee, Planner II Marty C. Woodworth, Engineering Manager Bill Helms, City Attorney Bill Seligmann, Recording Secretary Linda Dennis. Absent None. The meeting was called to order by Chairman Rasolas, who then turned the gavel over to the newly-elected Chairman - Commissioner Perrine. APPROVAL OF MINUTES M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of December 9, 1986 be approved as .submitted. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0). COMMUNICATIONS Planning Director Kee noted that communications received pertained to specific items on the agenda and would be discussed at that time. Commissioner Kasolas thanked Mr. and Mrs. Evans for video-taping a segment of this meeting, and noted that statements will be made at the next meeting regarding the past achievements and future goals of the Planning Commission. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS MM 86-29 Application of Mr.-Mack Kusumoto for Kusumoto, M. approval of a modification to sideyard setbacks to allow the construction of a second story addition to an existing single family residence located on property known as 1536 Keith Dr. in an R-1-6 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District. -2- Commissioner Christ reported that this application was before the Site and __ Architectural Review Committee this morning, at which time the concerns expressed in the Staff Report were reviewed with the applicant. The Committee is recommending a continuance with the applicant's concurrence. Planning Director Ree indicated that Staff is in agreement with this recommendation for continuance. M/S: Christ, Olszewski - That MM 86-29 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 10, 1987 in order that the applicant might address concerns expressed by Staff and the Site Committee: Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0). PIIBLIC HEARINGS S 86-23 Public hearing to consider the applica- Marahrens, H: tion of Mr. Henning Marahrens to allow the construction of a single family residence on property known as 1256 Audrey Ave. in an R-1-10 (Single Family Residential} Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this application was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The design is exceptional, and the Committee is recommending approval. Planning Director Ree noted that this item is before the Commission, in accord with Council policy, because it is in the San Tomas Area. Staff is also recommending approval. Commissioner Rasolas asked if this application were anywhere else in the City, other than the San Tomas Area, would it have to come before the Planning Commission] and, in having to be considered by the Commission, is the applicant placed under any additional burdens in the form of fees or length of time for application processes. Mr. Ree responded that the applicant is subject to the normal three week application process time, as well as the standard $500 fee for site approval applications. Commissioner Dickson asked if this procedure is required because the property is in the San Tomas Area, or because the property is zoned R-1-10. Mr. Ree noted that the San Tomas Area is the only area in the City where there are lot sizes in the R-1-10 category. There were specific concerns expressed in the San Tomas hearings relating to development in the area, and requests to notify residents in that area regarding development. -3- Chairman Perrine opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Kasolas, Dickson - That the public hearing on S 86-23 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0) M/S: Kasolas, Dickson - That the Planning Commission adopt findings, attached hereto, and approve S 86-23, subject to conditions as indicated in Staff Report dated January 13, 1987. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Olszewski, Christ, Dickson, Perrine NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None. Commissioner Kasolas stated, for the record, that proposals such as S 86-23 are very bold and certainly something the City wants to encourage, and should encourage -- not discourage by adding additional burdens. He continued that this application points out that the San Tomas Policy may have been appropriate at the time, but now it's time to do something to encourage development in the area. If this applicant had wanted to build his house anywhere else in this city, he would not have had to come before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Kasolas concluded that this procedure only hinders development of growth. S 86-22 Continued public hearing to consider the MM 86-26 application of Warren Jacobsen Jacobsen, W. Associates for a modification to an existing Use Permit (UP 81-11) and approval of plans to allow a two-story addition to an existing church (The Home Church) on property known as 1711 S. Winchester Blvd. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that the Site and Architectural Review Committee is recommending a continuance of this item in that revised plans have not been received. Planning Director Ree stated that Staff is also recommending a continuance to February 10, 1987. A communication from Relly, Leal & Davilla relating to this item was received at the Planning Commission meeting, is attached hereto as part of the record, and will be included in the Staff Report for the next meeting. -4- Chairman Perrine opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. Mr. Walt Landers, owner of Lead Penny Air Brush, stated that the merchants in the Campbell Center have seen a growing activity with the church over the past few years which is already becoming restrictive on the rest of the businesses in center: Mr: Landers presented pictures of the parking lot taken on a Sunday, noting that none of the spaces were taken up with shoppers, but rather church goers who even park directly in front of businesses: Responding to questions from Commissioner Rasolas regarding the fleamarket held at the center, Mr: Landers indicated that the event is held one Saturday each month; and, proceeds from this event are earmarked for repaving and landscaping the parking area. M/S: Rasolas, Christ - That the public hearing on S 86-22 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 10, 1987: Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0). ZC 86-14 Continued public hearing to consider the K-Land Construction application of Mr. Ramil Navai, on behalf of R-Land Construction, Inc., for a zone change from R-M-S (Multiple Family Residential) to PD (Planned Development), and approval of a Planned Development Permit, plans, elevations, and development schedule to allow the construction of 6 townhomes on property known as 134 Shelley Ave. Commissioner Christ reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee: The Committee is recommending approval, with the minor redlining indicating the bomanite color as red. Planning Director Kee indicated that Staff is also recommending approval subject to conditions indicated in the Staff Report-. Chairman Perrine opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Olszewski, Christ - That the public hearing on ZC 86-14 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0} . M/S: Rasolas, Olszewski - That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for this project= and, that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council ` approve a zone change from R-M-S to PD; -5- and, that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution recommending that the City Council approve a Planned Development Permit for ZC 86-14, subject to conditions as indicated in the Staff Report dated January 13, 1987. Discussion on motion Commissioner Dickson stated that this application is going from R-M-S to PD; and, under the R-M-S it would require 18,000 sq.ft. for this development. This appears to be an undersized lot with maximum density, with no usable open space - thereby putting pressure on the City for additional parkland and neighborhood usage. Additionally, the design provides for a long, narrow driveway. Commissioner Dickson stated that he would be opposing the motion in that this is, in his opinion, an improper use of the PD District. Vote on motion AYES: Commissioners: Rasolas, Stanton, Olszewski, Christ, Perrine NOES: Commissionerss Dickson ABSENTS Commissionerss None. PD 86-02 Continued public hearing to consider the Anderson, R. application of Mr. Rurt Anderson for a Planned Development Permit and approval of plans, elevations and development schedule to allow the construction of a duplex on property known as 274 Everett Ave. in a PD (Planned Development/Medium Density Residential) Zoning District. Planning Director Kee reported that Staff is recommending a continuance to January 27, 1987, at the applicant's request. Brief discussion ensued regarding the length of time this application has been before the Commission= the extent of revisions to the plans being required] and, the suggested date for continuance. Mr. Ree noted that this would be the last continuance which Staff could support. Commissioner Stanton suggested that Staff apprise the applicant that this would be the last continuance which Staff could support. Chairman Perrine opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. -6- M/S: Christ, Olszewski - That the public hearing on PD 86-02 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of February 10, 1987] and, that the Staff communicate with the applicant as to his intentions; Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0); w UP 86-17 Public hearing to consider the Sando, M. application of Mr~; Michael Sando for a nse permit to allow the construction of a screen room addition to an existing apartment unit on property known as 2055 S; Winchester in a C-3-S (Central Business District) Zoning District. Planning Director Kee noted that Staff's recommendation is different from the recommendation indicated in the Staff Report. It is Staff's understanding that this is a valid application and the Commission could take action on it. The issue before the Commission is the expansion of a residential unit and provided parking. Staff would, at this time, recommend a continuance to the next meeting in order that Staff might present a more complete report. Commissioner Dickson noted that this request is to enlarge a non-conforming residential unit in a commercial district. He asked Staff to find out if there have been any complaints regarding a lack of parking in this area. Commissioner Rasolas thought that the parking on this lot was unimproved; and, he felt that there should be some consistency with the parking regulations throughout the community. Chairman Perrine opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item. M/S: Rasolas, Stanton - That the public hearing on IIP 87-17 be continued to the meeting of February 10, 1987. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0) . MISCELLANEOIIS MM 86-27 Application of Mr. Adron Fulk for Fulk, A. approval of a modification to approved building usage from manufacturing/ warehousing to automotive repair for a portion of an existing industrial ___ building located on property known as 1436 Whiteoaks Rd. in an M-1-S (Light. Industrial) Zoning District. -7- Commissioner Christ reported that this item was before the Site and Architectural Review Committee: Staff and the Committee had some difficulties because the plans did not adequately spell out what exists on the site, therfore making it difficult to calculate the parking - requirements: It was noted to the applicant that the approved parking for this building was based on a manufacturing ratio -- not auto-related uses. The Committee is recommending a continuance in order that the applicant can meet with his architect for clarification: Commissioner Kasolas complimented Staff on the clarity of its report, noting the complexities of this building's usages: M/Ss Kasolas, Christ - That MM 86-27 be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of January 27, 1987: Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0) MM 86-28 Application of Mr. Douglas Metz, on Metz, D. behalf of Campbell Foot Health Center, to permit the usage of 950 sq.ft. of area previously designated as general office for a medical office for two doctors in an existing office building located on property known as 2959 S. Winchester Blvd-. in a C-2-S (General Commercial) Zoning District. Commissioner Christ reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. There was considerable discussion regarding the actual requirements of the two doctors who will share this office, as well as discussion of the landlord's commitment to monitor the parking situation. The Committee added a condition requiring the property owner to provide an agreement to monitor the parking situation, and the property owner's representative, Mr: Steve Evarkiou, concurred with this condition; therefore, approval is recommended: Planning Director Ree stated that Staff would not be opposed to recommending approval for the change of usage, with the condition as indicated by the Site Committee; Mr. Ree noted that the proposed use appears to be deficient two parking spaces: Discussion ensued regarding the enforcibility of the proposed Condition #3 "The Planning Commission's approval of this use is not transferrable to another medical office use at this location." -8- M/S: Kasolas, Dickson - That the Planning Commission adopt the following finding: (1) The provided parking of 4:2 spaces is sufficient for the proposed use; and, that the. Planning Commission approve MM 86-28, subject to the following conditions: (1) Applicant to provide an agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney, that the maximum number of employees at this facility will be 2 (1 doctor and 1 employee); (2) Applicant to obtain all necessary building permits; (3) Property owner to provide an agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney, indicating a commitment to monitor the parking usage at this location and to allow the Planning Commission the ability to change the approved building usage, if the proposed medical office use causes a parking problem in the opinion of the Planning Director, and not transferring this approval to another medical office use at this location. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0) . ,~ Request (1) Request of Mr. Dean Westly to have _ Westly, D. the Planning Commission add "auto Topping, J. tinting and polishing" as an allowed use in the CM (Controlled Manufacturing) Zoning District; and, (2) The request of Mr. Jay Topping to have the Planning Commission add "auto painting" as an allowed use in the CM (Controlled Manufacturing) Zoning District. Planner II Woodworth reported that in the past, the City has not allowed auto-related type businesses in the CM Zoning District. However, Staff is of the opinion that certain types of auto-related businesses, such as the ones before the Commission this evening, may be compatible with the district: Consequently, Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission add the two uses to the CM District with the approval of a Use Permit. Commissioner Dickson noted that auto uses should be clean operations which benefitted both the community and people bringing business into the city. Commissioner Kasolas stated that he would assume inclusion of these uses in the CM District would not require the City to accept them= therefore, what is the cause and effect of allowing this. -9- Commissioner Dickson indicated that adding this use as allowable in this district would .mean that these uses discussed this evening would have to come back through the Commission with a Use Permit application. Mr. Kee noted that to approve a Use Permit, there must be a finding that the use is compatible on a particular piece of property: The decision still rests with the Planning Commission: Commissioner Olszewski asked if the Commission needed to make findings that the use is not compatible: City Attorney Seligmann stated that it is the burden of the applicant to prove compatibility: Commissioner Kasolas asked the City Attorney if the City could be found arbitrary and capricious if this use was allowed through a Use Permit provision, and you find consistently that you never would allow one, would you then be forced to issue Use Permits? Commissioner Kasolas felt that the real issue here is do you, or do you not, want to have additional areas for auto-related uses= and he concluded that, in his opinion, we have a sufficient amount of areas for auto-related uses: Mr. Seligmann responded that this could be correct depending on the factual scenario of each case. Essentially, if there were good factual grounds for denial under the ordinance, then there would not be a problem with being arbitrary and capricious. On the other hand, if it was simply denied on the basis that you can't conceive of any grounds in a controlled manufacturing zone that would allow for this kind of use, then certainly, it would be arbitrary and capricious, and you shouldn't approve the possibility of granting a Use Permit under those conditions. M/S: Dickson, Christ - AYES: Commissioners: NOES: Commissioners: ABSENT: Commissioners: That the Planning Commission add auto tinting & polishing and auto painting as uses allowed in the CM (Controlled Manufacturing) Zoning District, subject to approval of a Use Permit-. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: Olszewski, Christ, Kasolas, Stanton None. Dickson, Perrine Request Request of Mr. Joe Testa for approval of Testa, J, a two foot lattice extension to an existing six foot fence on property known as 830 Virginia Ct: in an R-1 (Single Family Residential) Zoning District: -10- Commissioner Christ reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee: The Committee felt that there was justification from both property owners, and that it might be best at this point to see if the applicant and his neighbor could get together to come up with a solution: Therefore, a continuance is being recommended, with the applicant's concurrence: Planning Director Ree stated that Staff is in agreement with the recommendation for a continuance: Commissioner Christ continued that Mr: Testa indicated at the Site Committee meeting that he was willing to meet with Mr: Munniks to try to resolve the issue to their mutual satisfaction: Mr~: Testa also noted that he would be agreeable to replacing the lattice in the subject area with landscaping, if Mr: Munniks found that more acceptable: Commissioner Christ asked Mr. Munniks if he would be willing to meet with Mr: Testa to work out a compromise: Mr. Karl Munniks, 820 Virginia Ct~:, stated that he really objects to the fence extension. Mr: Munniks continued that the letters from the rear property owners should be disqualified in that they are 15-20 feet from the fence, and he is 5 feet from the fence: His real objection is to the lattice extension, in that he felt it was like bars. Mr. Munniks noted that he would prefer greenery, and that he would be willing to work with Mr. Testa] however, previous attempts to resolve issues have resulted in police action. M/S: Kasolas, Christ - That this request for a fence extension be continued to the Planning Commission _ meeting of February 10, 1987 in order that the applicant may try to resolve the matter with his neighbor. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0)•: SA 86-69 Sign request - Griffon Computers, Inc. - Griffon Computers 412 E: Campbell Ave. - Interim (Planned DeveloFxnent) Zoning District: Commissioner Christ 'reported that this item was considered by the Site and Architectural Review Committee. The issue is a modification to an existing non-conforming sign: The applicant indicated that he was unaware of what would be allowable in his circumstances] therefore, the Committee is recommending a continuance in order that the applicant can meet with Staff to determine what is allowable on the site. Planning Director Kee stated that Staff is in concurrence with the recommendation for continuance. M/S: Kasolas, Christ - That SA 86-69 be continued to the _ Planning Commission meeting of February ~, 24, 1987. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0) . -11- The Commission recessed at 9:00 p:m.j the meeting reconvened at 9:17 p.m. ZC 86-13 Public hearing to consider City- City-initiated initiated zone changes as follows (1) C-3-S (Central Business District Commercial) to C-2-S (General ~ ~~ Commercial) for odd numbered properties 2015 to 2175 S. Winchester Blvd-.i 2140 & 2160 S. Winchester Blvd•:= and 33 & 38 W: Rincon Ave-, (2) C-3-S/Interim (Central Business District Commercial/Interim Zone) to C-2-S/Interim (General Commercial/Interim Zone) for even numbered properties 2006 to 2120 S-. Winchester Blvd: (3) M-2-S (Heavy Industrial) to M-1-S (Light Industrial) for even numbered properties 720 to 750 Camden Ave•:, 500 to 550 Railway Ave:, and 175 Curtner Ave. Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report, and noted a communication from Matteoni, Saxe & Nanda (attached hereto) regarding 720 & 738 Camden Ave (Economy Lumber). Commissioner Rasolas stated that he would assume the letter from Matteoni, Saxe & Nanda represented only one property, and not determined a condition on a proposal. Chairman Perrine asked what businesses could not do under the new zoning. Mr. Woodworth indicated that businesses affected by this change could continue as they are now, but cannot expand without city approval. Chairman Perrine opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item: M/S: Dickson, Christ - That the public hearing on ZC 86-13 be closed. Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0) . M/S: Dickson, Christ - 1. That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council ac~cep~, the Negative Declaration whic~wh~8~b~een prepared for this projectjtana~' "j~ - tt f •• ~'e 2-. That the Planning Commission. adopt a ~, Resolution with the attached findings and recommend that the City Council approve the following zone changes: -12- a. C-3-S (Central Business District Commercial) to C-2-S (General Commercial) for those properties indicated in Exhibit A; b. C-3-S/Interim (Central Business District Commercial/Interim Zone) to C-2-S (General Commercial/Interim Zone) for those properties indicated in Exhibit A~. c. M-2-S (Heavy Industrial) to M-1-S (Light Industrial) for those properties indicated in Exhibit B. Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Olszewski, Christ, Dickson, Perrine NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None: TA 86-06 Continued public hearing to consider a City-initiated City-initiated text amendment to rescind Chapter 21.26 (Central Business District Commercial) and Chapter 21-. 34 (Heavy Industrial) of the Campbell Municipal Code; Planner II Woodworth reviewed the Staff Report. Chairman Perrine opened the public hearing and invited anyone in the audience to speak for or against this item: M/S: Christ, Dickson - That the public hearing on TA 86-06 be closed: Motion carried unanimously (6-0-0). M/S: Olszewski, Christ - 1: That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council accept the Negative Declaration which has been prepared for this project] and 2. If the Commission recommends the zone changes under ZC 86-13 (previous item), that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council rescind Chapter 21:26 (Central Business District Commercial) and Chapter 21.34 (Heavy Industrial District), -13- Motion carried with the following roll call vote: AYESs Commissioners: Kasolas, Stanton, Olszewski, Christ, Dickson, Perrine NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: None. OTHER ITEMS BROIIGHT UP BY COMMISSION City Attorney Seligmann reported that under the newest changes to the Brown Act the Planning Commission is not allowed to discuss items that are not previously agendized 72 hours in advance. Additionally, the agenda must contain a space whereby anyone can address the Commission on items that might be important to them: Mr: Seligmann indicated that his office will be preparing guidelines to deal with these changes. Commissioner Dickson asked for a policy on "other" items at the end of the agenda. Commissioner Olszewski asked if it would be necessary to receive agenda packets earlier so that the clerk can be informed of any new items. Chairman Perrine indicated he would like to initiate a series of mini-study-sessions at the end of each meeting: Chairman Perrine stated he would like the following items agendized for the Planning Commission meeting of January 27, 1987: (1) Traffic report pertaining to existing improvements and future improvements in the Cityj (2) Appointment to Planning Commission Sub-Committees-: Commissioner Olszewski asked about the status of the report on the Site and Architectural Review Committee: Mr. Ree indicated this item would be scheduled for the meeting of January 27, 1987-: n n.Tnrmu-K~Nm There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p:m: APPROVED: Jay Perrine Chairman ATTEST: Arthur A. Kee Secretary RECORDED: Linda A. Dennis Recording Secretary STANLEY F. LEAL JAMES T. KELLY, JR. RAYMOND J. DAVILLA, JR. LYNN M. RENNERT LAWRENCE M. KELLY JOHN E. SEARS January 13, 1987 '//~y~"~LAW OFFICES OF ) /, ~{/~y~ C-~~!~' A PROFE5~0~ RA~/~iG~2~1!~ivw 697 EAST REMINGTON DRIVE P. O. BOX 3403 SUNNYVALE, CALIFORNIA 94088-3403 (408) 735-8530 Planning Commision City of Campbell 70 North First Street Campbell, CA 95008 Re: OBJECTION OF MR. AND MRS. LABRADOR TO APPLICATION OF WARREN JACOBSEN ASSOCIATES FOR A MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING USE PERMIT AND APPROVAL OF PLANS TO ALLOW A TWO-STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING CHURCH (THE -HOME CHURCH) ON PROPERTY KNOWN AS 1711 SOUTH WINCHESTER BOULEVARD (S 86-22/MM 86-26) Dear Chairman Perrine and Members of the Planning Commission: ~3 ~ ~~ ~~ Mr. Philip and Anne Labrador, who are the owners of approxi- mately 1.888 acres of land located within the Campbell Shopping Center do hereby object to the above referenced application on the basis and .for the reasons hereinafter specified. 1. HISTORY: Exhibit "1", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, depicts the Campbell Shopping Center which is located on the northwest corner of Winchester Boulevard and West Latimer Avenue. The Applicant's property is shown on said Exhibit 1 as Parcel No. 7. The property of Mr. and Mrs. Labrador is shown as Parcel No. 12. Historically, the Campbell Shopping Center was developed by a limited partnership known as "CAMPBELL PROPERTIES CO." By Deed dated June 21, 1955 Campbell Properties Co. conveyed Parcel No. 7 (the land now owned by Applicant) to ROMANI BROS., a co-partnership, for the construction of a grocery store thereon. /-J3-~'7 ~C . //~")LAW OFFICES OF `'r~/'~~~~~!`~ A PROF[S~O~ RAT~i~I~I~ January 13, 1987 Page Two Said Deed specifically reserved to the Grantor (Campbell Properties Co., who then owned. the balance of the Campbell Shopping Center) certain easements for ingress and egress and parking rights. These easements are specifically set forth in said Deed which is attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and incor- porated herein by reference. The easements may be summarized as follows: A. A twenty foot (20') wide easement on the northerly edge of Parcel No. 7 (Applicant's property) for ingress and egress for the benefit of all property owners in the Campbell Shopping Center; B. A forty foot (40') wide easement on the westerly line of the Campbell Shopping Center for ingress and egress for all of the property owners of the Campbell Shopping Center; and C. An easement for parking in that portion of the Campbell Shopping Center that is presently used, by .all of the owners and tenants, for parking purposes. Said easements were specifically created for the successors in ~- interest of the respective parties. Legally, such easements "run with the land." In other words, these easements, once created, remain on the property even though new owners may be involved. 2. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT OF APPLICANT WOULD CONSTITUTE A PERMANENT TRESPASS: The "Site Plan" df the proposed addition for the Home Church dated November 13, 1986 that was filed by Applicant in connec- tion with this matter would constitute a permanent trespass upon the easement rights of my clients, Mr. and Mrs. Labrador, for the following reasons: A. Applicant proposes to place fourteen (14) standard parking places and several trees in the twenty foot (20') right. of way presently located on the northerly boundary of Applicant's property. He also proposes to remove the existing driveway approach from South. Winchester Boulevard. LAW OFFICES OF ~~ea~ gG ~,art~u~ A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION January 13, 1987 Page Three B. Applicant proposes to extend its existing building by approximately sixty feet (60'). Said addition will encroach the present parking easements of my clients. If any construction is commenced by Applicant in such a manner as to violate my clients' easements for ingress and egress and/or parking, we shall immediately file an appropriate lawsuit with the Superior Court to seek damages against the Home Church as well as a permanent injunction. 3. TAXING OF RECIPROCAL EASEMENTS: By Agreement dated June 12, 1958, a copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit 3 and incorporated herein by reference, all of the "then owners" of the Campbell Shopping Center set forth their. agreement pertaining to the non-exclusive ease- ments for ingress and egress and parking. Basically, this agreement reaffirms the twenty foot (20') and forty foot (40') ingress and egress easements referred to above, and also reaffirms the parking easement. The easements created are "reciprocal" in nature in the sense that they not only benefit each parcel of land, but also burden it with the three easements involved. Thus, the Home Church as a successor in interest of Romani Bros. must sustain the burden of the easements on its property but will also. benefit by the parking and ingress and egress easements on the other owners' properties. However, if the Home Church is allowed to construct an addition to its building, and also diminish the parking .that is presently on its parcel (i.e., No. 7 on Exhibit 1), then it would create an additional burden on all of the remaining parcels in the Campbell Shopping Center. This additional burden was not contemplated by the original owners that established the reciprocal easements. Consequently, my clients, as owners of Parcel No. 12, would also be entitled to apply to the Court for damages and a permanent injunction which would enjoin the-Home Church from creating this further burden (i.e., taxing of the easement) on my clients' property. LAW~OFFI~C~E/S~ OF ~~ A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION January 13, 1987 Page Four For the foregoing reasons, Mr. and Mrs. Labrador respectfully request that the application of the Home Church .referred to above be denied. KELLY, LEAL & DAVILLA A Professional Corporation By S T. KELLY, JR torneys•for Phil an nne Labrador ~~~~t~ ~~~~ J PFD LIP LABRADOR, individually and as Trustee of the "PHILIP & ANNE LABRADOR, 1975 TRUST", dated August 14, 1975 ~ /. ~, L `. i~ ANNE LABRADOR, spouse of PHILIP LABRADOR JT:K:mmf cc: Pastor Wayne Jones Mark Bach Douglas Hsu