REPORT TO THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
SUBJECT
Title
CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 25, 2019
Proposed Project:
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: to allow a childcare center providing preschool and after school care for 120 children within an existing 6,920 square foot building.
Location: 755 S. Bernardo Avenue (APN:198-16-006)
File #: 2019-7502
Zoning: C-2/PD
Applicant / Owner: JY International Education LLC (applicant)/ Atul S and Kusum A Sheth Trustee (owner)
Environmental Review: The Class 1, 3, and 32 Categorical Exemptions relieve this project from the requirements of CEQA.
Project Planner: Cindy Hom, 408-730-7411, chom@sunnyvale.ca.gov
Report
BACKGROUND
The item was continued from the September 25, 2019 Zoning Administrator hearing to allow additional time to review and respond to public comments received in opposition to the proposed childcare center. The original staff report with report attachments is provided in Attachment 1. This staff report provides a supplemental discussion on the issues that were raised by the public and updates the recommended findings and conditions of approval provided in Attachment 2 and 3.
DISCUSSION
There were several public comments received in opposition to the project and referenced the following issues:
1. Increased traffic, safety hazard with blind spots, and incorrect trip generation
Staff Response:
A Traffic Operation Analysis (TOA) was prepared, which found that the project would generate less than 100 peak hour trips and would not result in a negative impact. The analysis determined all the study intersections are expected to operate within acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) during AM and PM peak hours. The anticipated queues for through-movement traffic do not spill back to the upstream intersections. All left-turn pockets have sufficient capacity to store the anticipated queue during both peak hours. The project was also found to add less than one car to the queues for all study intersections.
Based on the existing road configuration and layout of project site, staff also finds that there are no known blind spots or traffic hazard with existing roadway facilities and site improvements. The implementation of the project will not create new traffic hazards or affect sight distance for on-coming traffic due to the following:
• Potential conflicts for on-coming traffic on Bernardo Avenue would be minimized because the project will eliminate vehicle access from the north driveway and restrict the south driveway to emergency vehicle access only on Bernardo Avenue frontage.
• Designated pick-up and drop-off parking spaces will be located on-site.
• Primary vehicle access will be limited to an existing two-way driveway located on Brookfield Road which is located approximately 100-feet from the Bernardo/Brookfield intersection.
• Adequate sight distance is provided because there are no structures or parking spaces that encroach into the driveway or corner vision triangles.
• The project will be required to provide public frontage improvements that will help enhance vehicle and pedestrian safety which includes modifying the corner radius at the Brookfield Avenue and S. Bernardo Avenue intersection and reducing the crosswalk crossing distance; removal and replacement of the curb ramps at the northwest and southwest corners of the Brookfield and Bernardo intersection to be compliant with current development standards; and a photometric analysis to determine adequate street lighting is being met.
2. Locating sensitive receptors to nearby PG&E power lines and near busy street
Staff Response:
There are no Federal standards limiting residential or occupational exposure to Electromagnetic Force (EMF) from power lines. Moreover, there are no Sunnyvale Municipal Code (SMC) regulations that require a setback and/or land use restriction from power line. In addition, the existing PG&E wireless clearance easement on the property will be maintained.
Staff also finds that the proposed use is appropriate for the site. Most activity will occur inside the building, with limited outdoor activity. The outdoor play area will be enclosed and secured by a 6-feet tall metal fence, set back between 5 feet to 10 feet from the back of sidewalk. The setback would be landscaped to provide additional buffer from the public right-of-way. Air quality impacts are not anticipated because abutting roads are not major thoroughfares or freeways.
The proposed child care use is compatible with the neighborhood, which contains a mix of residential and commercial uses. The child care use would be neighborhood serving and is consistent with General Plan policies that encourages these types of uses, and complies with the Guidelines for Commercial Child Care Centers.
3. Potential impacts to the shared parking with First Orthodox Presbyterian Church located at 1210 Brookfield.
The First Orthodox Presbyterian Church’s was built in the mid-1950s and expanded in 1963. City staff have not been able to locate a copy of the church’s use permit. The minutes from the March 25, 1963 Planning Commission meeting indicate that the church was required to provide proof that that the church has sufficient off-street parking to meet ordinance requirements. Staff has determined that the church would have needed 91 parking spaces at the time it was approved (the church has no parking on site). Letters submitted by the church in connection with its 1963 expansion indicated that parking for 150-200 cars was available in the Cherry Chase Shopping Center across the street, and that the shopping center would allow the church use the paved area “underneath the power line”. The owners of the Cherry Chase Center later sold off that parcel, which became the site of the commercial building at 755 S. Bernardo Ave. City staff have recently obtained a copy of the current parking license agreement between the church and the owners of 755 S. Bernardo which provides that the church can use the parking lot on Sundays only. The agreement is for a month-to-month term and does not specify the number of spaces available.
When the City approves a use permit subject to an offsite parking agreement, it is the permittee’s responsibility to ensure that parking remains available or to make other arrangements. This would not be a legal basis to deny the current application from the owners of 755 S. Bernardo. The church’s arrangement with 755 S. Bernardo does not entitle the church to parking in perpetuity or restrict the ability of the owners of 755 S. Bernardo to redevelop their property. Should lack of parking become a code enforcement issue, the church would need to secure adequate parking on another neighboring property.
4. The project is not eligible for a categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) due to change in use and associate impacts related to traffic and noise.
Staff has determined that this project qualifies for three CEQA exemptions: Class 1, Existing Facilities (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15301), Class 3, New Construction and Conversion of Small Structures (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15303), and Class 32, Infill Development (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15332). Under CEQA, multiple exemptions can be combined to exempt a project, and each exemption is not required to cover the whole project, so long as the whole project is covered by the combined exemptions.
The Class 1 Categorical Exemption covers projects that involve “the operation … permitting … or minor alteration of existing … private structures … involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use”. Based on staff’s analysis, the use of the building as a child care center is a negligible expansion of the former office use because there is no evidence that the child care center will have any significant environmental effects. The Traffic Operations Analysis used a vacant site as the baseline (i.e., without giving credit for the former use) but still does not find that the project will have any significant traffic or parking impacts. Likewise, the noise analysis finds that noise will be within acceptable thresholds and thus the noise (including noise of children playing) is not a significant impact under CEQA.
The Class 3 Categorical Exemption covers “… the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure.” Under subsection (c), the Class 3 exemption specifically applies to conversion of the use of four office or commercial buildings “not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area on sites zoned for such use if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive.” This project would convert an existing 6,920 square foot office/commercial building for use as a child care center, which is permitted use by the applicable zoning. The project would involve minor exterior and site modifications. The site is located in an urban area that is not environmentally sensitive, is adequately served by public services and facilities, and would not involve use of hazardous substances.
The project falls squarely within the rationale of Waters v. City of Redondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809, where the court held that the Class 3 CEQA exemption applied to construction of a car wash and coffee shop in a commercial zone that abutted residential uses, because the building site was adequate to accommodate the proposed use; the proposed use had adequate street access and would not have a significant impact on traffic; the noise that will be generated by the car wash blowers and vacuum drops did not exceed the permitted interior and exterior limits; and there was nothing unusual about a car wash and coffee shop compared to other allowed commercial uses.
Finally, the project meets all the requirements of the Class 32 Categorical Exemption, which covers projects that are (a) consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations, (b) within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses, (c) the site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species, (d) approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.
Finally, the use of the categorical exemptions is not negated by Section 15300.2(c) (the “unusual circumstances” exception to the exemptions). The mere fact that a project could potentially have an environmental effect is not sufficient to create “unusual circumstances” (Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086). There is no evidence that 755 S. Bernardo has any unusual features compared to other commercial sites, or that the configuration of Bernardo Ave. (including the “curve” in the roadway) or existing traffic volumes on Bernardo Ave. are unusual compared to other arterial streets in Sunnyvale. The mere fact that a project is located on heavily traveled streets or intersections is not an “unusual circumstance” where the project conforms to zoning requirements and the surrounding traffic volumes are commonplace for the urban area (Telegraph Hill v. City and County of San Francisco (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 261).
The commenter’s additional arguments based on “health and safety problems” with the proposed child care center do not raise CEQA issues
PUBLIC CONTACT
270 notices were sent to surrounding property owners and residents adjacent to the subject site in addition to standard noticing practices, including advertisement in the Sunnyvale Sun Newspaper and on-site posting. Copies of the public comments received to date are provided in Attachment 4.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the Special Development Permit with recommended Conditions in Attachment 3.
2. Approve the Special Development Permit with modifications.
3. Deny the Special Development Permit.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Alternative 1. Approve the Special Development Permit with recommended Conditions in Attachment 2.
Staff
Prepared by: Cindy Hom, Associate Planner
Approved by: Noren Caliva-Lepe, Principal Planner
ATTACHMENTS
1. September 25, 2019 Zoning Administrator Staff Report and Attachments
2. Recommended Findings
3. Standard Requirements and Recommended Conditions of Approval
4. Public Comment Letters