2003-0457 - Ron Richardson [Applicant] California Water Services [Owner] - Application for a Use Permit on a 33,000 square foot site to allow an emergency sotrage yard at an existing tank/well site. The property is located at 623 W. Fremont Avenue in an R-1 (Low-Density Residential) Zoning District. (APN: 202-06-001 (Negative Declaration) (Continued from July 28, 2003)

Gerri Caruso, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. She provided a summary of the proposed project highlighting the use, site layout, architecture, landscaping, parking and circulation. She stated that the applicant conducted an outreach meeting with the neighborhood and staff received one comment and no opposition to the proposed project. Staff was able to make the required Findings and recommended approval of the Use Permit subject to Conditions of Approval.

Comm. Simons asked staff to clarify if Condition of Approval #5 is necessary. Staff responded that because the nature of the business, keeping the ground wet, it is necessary to maintain mosquito abatement program at all times.

Comm. Simons further asked staff whether the applicant is requesting an unlimited use of the facility for emergency repair. Staff said yes.

Vice Chair Moylan commented that the noise ordinance prevents the applicant from operating and asked whether it is within the Planning Commission purview to allow this use as requested. Ms. Ryan responded that the applicant has provided an argument that the use and emergency services exempt them and would be up the Planning Commission to determine if that is the case.

Comm. Swegles asked staff how many emergencies occur during the year. Staff responded that from historical data, it is approximately 25-50 times a year.

Comm. Hungerford asked clarification of staff about Condition of Approval #4 as to what criteria would be used to replace the trees. Staff responded that the trees that would be removed are street trees and the City Arborist has certain replacement criteria and that the applicant will be providing a landscaping plan.

Ron Richardson, applicant, stated that California Water Services provide services to the cities of Los Altos, Mountain View and Cupertino. He stated that he is excited about the possibility of making improvements to better serve the citizens of Sunnyvale and make it work effectively for the city. He stated that he hopes to operate such a facility 24 hours a day to provide effective services. He noted that he worked with staff extensively. He urged the Commission to approve the Use Permit.

Comm. Swegles asked Mr. Richardson of the 25-50 emergencies, how many are between the hours of 10pm to 7am. Mr. Richardson responded between 10% and 20%.

Comm. Swegles further asked Mr. Richardson about existing standing water and whether the area is used for percolation or whether it is extra water on the ground. Mr. Richardson responded that there is no standing water that he is aware of, however, there is an area to be saturated for packing and flow while the booster runs.

Comm. Simons asked Mr. Richardson what is the noise producing equipment that is going to be used. Mr. Richardson responded that noise would be generated by the bobcat that will be used to load into a truck and the other source is from operating the lift of the vacuum truck to de-water from the leak. The bobcat would run approximately 2-5 minutes and the vacuum truck would be for a period of 1 minute per visit.

Comm. Simons further asked the applicant whether these machines are already owned or would have to be purchased. Mr. Richardson responded that the vacuum truck and a bobcat are currently owned, and commented that in the future, one bobcat could be purchased that is efficient in noise and performance.

Comm. Simons further asked the life cycle of the vacuum truck. Mr. Richardson responded that the replacement would be around 8-12 years.

Comm. Moylan presented a scenario that the emergencies between 10pm to 7am would be approximately one day a month. Mr. Richardson responded that the percentage does not correlate with the scenario presented as supported by historical data.

Comm. Chu asked Mr. Richardson where is the next closest facility. Mr. Richardson responded that there are two different facilities located in Los Altos - Foothill Expressway and Homestead Road.

Comm. Chu further asked the applicant how much time savings there would be having the additional site in Sunnyvale versus using the sites in Los Altos. Mr. Richardson responded approximately half hour to one hour and if using the third site located on Foothill and Miramonte, additional time would be needed. He added that the two sites are to support the vacuum truck and to load and unload the lead truck.

Furthermore, Comm. Chu asked the applicant whether the noise occurs at two separate times during emergencies, leaving the site and then dumping the truck. Mr. Richardson responded in most instances the noise will happen at two separate times, about 5-15 minutes duration. Comm. Chu asked which is noisier, beginning or the end. Mr. Richardson responded that it would be at the middle of the emergency. He explained how the noise occurs, such as collection and dumping of water. Comm. Chu explained the reason for his question is to identify how to limit the use of the site emergency services. Mr. Richardson responded that mitigating the use of the site has been discussed with staff.

Vice Chair Moylan asked Mr. Richardson where would the emergency service take place and in what area in Sunnyvale and also whether the services would only be limited to Sunnyvale residents. Mr. Richardson responded that the service will take place within the right-of-ways in Sunnyvale and added that there would be an advantage to utilize the facility if there is an emergency in Cupertino.

Further, Vice Chair Moylan asked the applicant whether the emergency services would be noticeable to the neighbors to cause concerns. Mr. Richardson responded that it depends on the severity. He added that on average, the neighbors would certainly know that they are making a repair.

Comm. Swegles asked Mr. Richardson which equipment is noisier. Mr. Richardson responded that the study reveals the vacuum truck to be noisier with 74 dba and the existing bobcat is about 60-65 dba.

Comm. Swegles asked the applicant if they make an assessment whether the service could be delayed until the next day especially if the emergency occurs in the middle of the night. Mr. Richardson responded that they conduct service assessments and identify potential future damage to the property and the materials of the pipe and determines whether the service could be delayed.

Chair Babcock asked Mr. Richardson what is the time average for this type of emergency service at the project site. Mr. Richardson responded an average of 5-10 minutes with one truck.

Comm. Swegles asked staff if there was any consideration about using different sites for dumping and vacuuming. Staff responded no.

Comm. Simons commented that there could be potential ways to mitigate the noise using vehicles that are less noisy.

Comm. Swegles concurred with Comm. Simons. He was pleased that the applicant conducted a meeting with the neighbors. He was also pleased that the applicant evaluated the situation where allowable dumping at a later time and that it is a workable solution.

Vice Chair Moylan offered a friendly amendment to Condition of Approval #3, allowing the use 24 hours a day, seven days a week keeping the noise within zoning levels. This amendment would allow the use of the site, while limiting the noise. Comm. Simons asked staff for comments. Staff responded that the proposed amendment has been discussed with the applicant and that the service would be precluded at night.

Chair Babcock supported the motion. She commented that if there is an emergency, it needs to be served immediately if at all possible.

Vice Chair Moylan did not support the motion. He stated that he stands in support of the noise ordinance. Therefore, he cannot support the use.

Comm. Chu supported the motion. He stated that the service areas present emergencies that need to be served.

Comm. Hungerford did not support the motion and concurred with Vice Chair Moylan that the code simply states disallowing the use permit. He felt constrained but cannot accept the argument.