November 11, 2003

SUBJECT: 2003-0537 - Sunnyvale Community Christian Church [Appellant] Richard T. Peery [Owner]: Appeal of a decision by the Planning Commission approving a Use Permit for a 2.4-acre site located at 435 Indio Way in an M-S (Industrial & Service) Zoning District (APN:  165-28-006):

Motion                         Use Permit to allow a church use in an Industrial Zoning District.

REPORT IN BRIEF

03-387 MAP

PROJECT DATA TABLE 

Starred and shaded items represent deviations from Zoning Code.

ANALYSIS

Background

Previous Actions on the Site: There are no previous planning applications relevant to the project. 

Description of Proposed Project

The applicant is proposing to lease 9,660 square feet in an existing 31,240 square foot two-tenant industrial building to hold church services and the following associated uses: office operations, Sunday school, infant/toddler daycare, youth programs, musical rehearsals and teaching gatherings. 

The proposal includes approximately 3,550 square feet for the sanctuary with the remaining space dedicated to offices, classrooms and storage (see floor plan in Attachment 4).

Environmental Review

A Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act provisions and City Guidelines. An initial study has determined that the proposed project would not create any significant environmental impacts (see Attachment 3, Initial Study).

However, as part of the initial study it has been noted that the location of the proposed church is within 500 - 1000 ft. of a research and development facility that utilized hazardous materials in considerable quantities.  Several years ago a hazardous materials incident occurred at this facility which required evacuation of surrounding businesses.  Although a similar incident can occur again, existing codes governing such facilities minimize the likelihood of any effect on the proposed church. 

If the Use Permit for the church is approved in the proposed location, concerns regarding exposure to hazardous materials may limit the type of industrial uses that can be permitted in the vicinity in the future and the expansion of existing industrial uses in the area.

Comments on Appeal

There were two issues with the proposed project as presented to the Planning Commission on September 22, 2003.  The first issue dealt with available parking on the site.  The site would be deficient by 44 parking spaces if no restrictions were placed on the proposed use (see parking analysis in the Parking/Circulation section of this report).  The second issue dealt with the potential risk of allowing a church in an industrial zone in close proximity to existing manufacturing operations that use hazardous materials and the possible difficulties that new industrial businesses wishing to locate in the area could face if they use hazardous materials.

State regulations for locating manufacturing operations that use hazardous materials in close proximity (usually within 1000 ft.) to a school or daycare center require additional public noticing and additional risk management documentation.  These additional requirements could discourage expansion of existing businesses and location of new industrial businesses that use hazardous materials.  A business owner from a nearby industrial facility attended the Planning Commission Hearing to express concern about these additional requirements and the potential economic impact they might have on the area.  Specifically, he stated that he was concerned that the increased cost of doing business in the area would deter potential new businesses from locating there which could result in lower property values.

The Planning Commission weighed these concerns and restricted the maximum number of parishioners in the church at any given time to 150.  The intent of this restriction is to minimize the number of people who could potentially be exposed to hazardous materials while also ensuring sufficient parking for both uses on the project site. 

The project site has a total of 175 parking spaces.  If the required 44 parking spaces are allotted to the adjacent tenant, the restriction of 150 parishioners ensures that the remaining 131 parking spaces would be sufficient for the church.  Six of these spaces would be used by church employees, and 125 spaces would be used by parishioners.  As an added precaution to manage parking on the site, the Planning Commission also required that the applicant obtain a parking agreement from the property owner.   

The Planning Commission approved the Use Permit with modified conditions of approval with a vote of 7-0.  The applicant subsequently filed an appeal to revisit the modified condition that limits the maximum number of parishioners in the church at any given time to 150.  As part of the appeal, the applicant is proposing that this number be increased to 250 parishioners (see Attachment 6). 

The adjacent business/property owner indicated to staff he was contemplating an appeal of the Planning Commission action to approve the church.  Upon hearing that the applicant had appealed the decision, he indicated to staff he would not submit a second appeal, but would attend the City Council meeting to express his concerns.

The number 250 was derived from the parking ratio specified in SMC Section 19.46 for churches with fixed seating.  The parking ratio requires 1 parking space for every 3 fixed seats.  With 125 spaces available for parishioners, this would allow 375 fixed seats in the sanctuary (or 375 parishioners).  To guarantee sufficient parking, the applicant is proposing that the parking be increased to 1 parking space for every 2 fixed seats, which would allow 250 parishioners.  It is important to note that applicant is not proposing fixed seating in the sanctuary.   The proposed area of the sanctuary is 3,550 square feet.  When flexible seating is proposed, SMC Section 19.46 requires a parking ratio of 1 space for every 21 square feet of seating area.  This results in a parking requirement of 169 spaces as shown in the parking analysis in the Parking/Circulation section of this report. 

Although Staff had recommended denial of the Use Permit primarily due to insufficient parking, the applicant (appellant) has since submitted a draft parking agreement guaranteeing 44 parking spaces for the adjacent tenant (see Attachment 7).  Staff had also expressed some concern for a religious institution in this location.  The Planning Commission actions address staff’s concerns. Therefore, staff is recommending that the appeal be denied and that the decision of the Planning Commission approving the Use Permit with modified conditions be upheld.

Use Permit