2003-0537 - Sunnyvale Community Christian Church [Applicant] Richard T. Peery [Owner] - Application for a Use Permit on a 2.37-acre site to allow a church use in an industrial zoning district. The property is located at 435 Indio Way in an M-S (Industrial & Service) Zoning District. (APN: 165-28-006) (Negative Declaration) CC

Christine Cannizzo, Project Planner, presented the staff report. She provided a brief summary of the proposed application highlighting the use, site layout, landscaping, sidewalk requirement, parking and circulation. Staff noted that there is potential risk with this use in an industrial area due to hazardous material exposure. In addition, there is a potential parking deficiency of 44 spaces should there be a change of tenants with different hours of operation and expansion of work hours and that increase in use could potentially increase the traffic volume. Staff suggested that mitigation of the potential parking problem is to obtain a parking agreement between the two tenants. She stated that Condition of Approval #10 was listed in error and should be deleted. Staff was unable to make the required Findings and recommended denial of the Use Permit.

Vice Chair Moylan asked for clarification of concerns when an industrial area ends up having constraints and restrictions due to uses other than industrial. Ms. Ryan responded that State regulation changes the reporting requirements but doesn't necessarily prevent the use of particular materials for use. There are other means to continue the use to meet State guidelines that may be an additional expense and the other associated cost increase such as insurance.

Vice Chair Moylan asked whether one of the Findings was that the application was not consistent with the General Plan. Staff said yes.

Further, Vice Chair Moylan asked how this application is different from a similar application that was previously approved by the Commission. Ms. Ryan responded that the circumstance is a bit different noting that the other site is 10 acre site and the amount of space to be occupied is about 13%. The application before the Commission is smaller site and the church is proposing to occupy 30%. The parking requirement is allotted for the entire site and there is no opportunity for any other use of the parking lot by other tenants. Further, she noted that the previous applicant came with a written agreement with the existing tenants, which is an option for the Commission to consider.

Chair Babcock noted that during her site visit, the parking lot seems to flow to the neighborhood and asked whether staff is aware of any shared parking agreement. Staff responded that there is no apparent parking agreement. She added the staff conducted a site visit on a Sunday during a peak time activity and there is no overflowing of parking as a result of the church use.

Chair Babcock asked staff if the applicant explored shared parking with the other tenants for Sunday use. Staff responded that she was not aware that the applicant did.

Stan Freitas, pastor/applicant, thanked the Planning Commission for their volunteer services to the City. He stated that the need for additional parking would not be an issue. Currently there are 100 members and they only use 50 spaces. He added that even if the parishioners doubles, the need for parking would not be an issue. He stated that the church's goal is to be a positive force in the community and the sale of their former building afforded development of below market rate housing. He added that the contract has a good neighbor clause and should there be any issue, the church will find another location. He believed that parking is sufficient. In addition felt that the church will stimulate the businesses and with the high vacancy rate of commercial buildings, the church would be a positive presence. He urged the Commission to approve the Use Permit because there is ample parking, the church is a positive force and will stimulate the businesses in the neighborhood.

Vice Chair Moylan asked Mr. Freitas whether he has obtained a written agreement between the owners and tenants. Mr. Freitas responded that he explored the possibility and achieved a verbal agreement.

Comm. Swegles asked Mr. Freitas whether his goal is to look for a new home when the three-year contract is up. Mr. Freitas responded that his goal is to build a healthy church and they are open for the opportunity to purchase their building.

Further, Comm. Swegles asked whether the agreement could be renewed. Mr. Freitas responded yes.

Comm. Swegles asked Mr. Freitas what activities are there during weekdays. Mr. Freitas responded that there are small ministries. Comm. Swegles suggested getting a written agreement.

Chair Babcock asked whether the church asked for a shared parking agreement with the neighboring property. Mr. Freitas responded no.

Donald Druyanoff, property owner, owned an industrial building across the street since 1991. He expressed his concerns about the future value of his building with the church going to be next door. He stated that the church could be a negative impact in an industrial neighborhood and the neighborhood should be kept as industrial use only. He commented on on-street parking. He commented that it would be difficult to rent a space with a church in the area. He stated that his company has flexible work schedule with no shifts, employees working on weekends and at nights to finish a job. He added that should he move his company, it would be difficult to rent his space competitively and potentially added cost to contain the hazardous material. He urged the Commission to keep the site for industrial use only.

Comm. Swegles asked the speaker for his type of business. Mr. Druyanoff responded that his business is air conditioning supplier and he has multiple locations and has hazardous material on site.

Comm. Swegles asked the speaker how many employees are there at one time. Mr. Druyanoff responded that his company has flexible schedule and it would be difficult to determine how many employees are in the building at one time.

Comm. Swegles further asked how many parking spaces are available. The speaker responded about 125 spaces in a fenced parking lot. He stated that he prefers to have fewer people for safety reasons. He noted that there has been vandalism and theft in the past.

Stan Freitas, applicant, commented that there are other non-industrial uses in the area and the church would not be the only non-industrial use.

Vice Chair Moylan asked staff to elaborate on the hazardous material spill as noted on Page 5 of the staff report. Staff responded that there was a chemical spill by a solar company that required evacuation.

Chair Babcock asked staff whether uses other than congregational gatherings have been addressed in the report. Ms. Ryan responded the hours noted in the condition reflects what the intended uses and are based on the information the applicant provided.

Comm. Chu asked staff what was the rationale for the 500 maximum parishioners allowable as noted in Condition of Approval #7. Staff responded that it is based on the building code maximum allowed occupancy.

Comm. Chu asked how was the parking spaces calculated if the church is at its maximum capacity. Staff responded that parking requirement is less than the total supply. The parking was evaluated at 3,550 square feet using a ratio 1/21 per open siting area plus space for employees resulting in a required parking of 169 spaces.

Vice Chair Moylan asked Comm. Chu to reinstate his motion.

Comm. Chu expressed his concerns because of the limited parking available at the site, there would not be enough space for the other tenants. He added that he has concerns about having religious institutions in an industrial area. Since he has not heard of many concerns it could probably be addressed in a study issue.

Comm. Swegles asked Comm. Chu whether the applicant can return to the Planning Commission when a written agreement is obtained to change the Condition of Approval to increase the number of allowable parishioners more than 150 based on the church's growth rate. Comm. Chu responded that the applicant could always come back to the Commission when a written agreement is obtained. Comm. Swegles commented that he hopes that the applicant returns to the Commission to request for an increase for allowable parishioners. He thanked the applicant for staying in Sunnyvale and for being a positive member of the community.

Vice Chair Moylan expressed his concerns with parking and hazardous material. He stated that the motion is restrictive and reminded that Commission that the motion requires obtaining a written agreement that is specific to mitigate the parking issue. He would only support the motion with a condition to obtain a written agreement.

Comm. Chu stated that he omitted the requirement to obtain a written agreement in the motion because the motion would restrict up to 125 during the week to ensure that both tenants could operate at the same time unless the church activity changes from the allowable level.

Comm. Simons did not support the motion as stated. He preferred to have the written agreement with property owners and other uses on site to be able to maximize the use of the site.

Comm. Hungerford suggested addressing the hazardous material concerns to modify Condition of Approval #4 for parishioners who may be sensitive to hazardous material. Comm. Chu responded that it is already addressed in the motion.

Comm. Swegles clarified whether the motion allows the applicant to return to the Commission should the applicant obtain a written agreement and the church parishioners grow. Comm. Chu responded that it was omitted in the motion as he felt that it is not necessary. Comm. Swegles asked that the written agreement be included in the motion.

Ms. Ryan reminded the Commission that removal of Condition of Approval #10 should be included in the motion. Comm. Chu and Comm. Swegles agreed.

Vice Chair Moylan was pleased that the requirement for the agreement as originally stated has been modified and the clarification of the reduction of 500 parishioners to 150. He supported the restated motion clarifying the written parking agreement requirement.

Comm. Simons commented that the parking ratio appears to be extremely conservative and was uncomfortable about limiting the number to 150. He agreed that 500 is a little bit on a high side.

Chair Babcock commented that the report shows a chart that there are 175 space available. Comm. Chu responded that the church currently uses only 50 spaces. He added that in the next three years, it could change and the applicant could come back to increase the allowable number.