01 - Laserfiche WebLink

the potential for liability is not necessarily related to the proposed use and would remain an issue regardless of the type of use at this site. The appellant has also expressed concern about the constrained parking supply at the site. To research the issue staff conducted two parking surveys, on a Tuesday and Wednesday, in February. The survey revealed fairly high vacancy rates ranging from 63% to 66%. Staff conducted a third survey following the recent occupation of another tenant space and found a vacancy rate of 55%. Staff also noted that the 28 spaces located at the rear portion of the parking lot which would serve as the training center's loading and parking was occupied by no more than 4 vehicles. These observations suggest an adequate capacity for existing and future tenants, including the applicant. The appellant also indicated that vehicles use the site's parking area as a cut through to avoid traffic signals at Johnson and Owens Drives. Regardless, staff does not believe that implementation of the proposed project would contribute to or exacerbate cut through traffic as there is no indication the project would result in a substantial increase in the number of vehicle trips moving around the site. With regards to noise impacts, Mr. Rudick expressed concern given that his and the subject suite share an interior wall. While staff notes that the proposed project locates the room with the potentially loudest activities in the interior of the suite, the applicant has also worked with a noise consultant to indentify noise attenuating insulation along the shared walls of both adjacent suites. This is reflected in Condition of Approval No. 7, which staff has since amended via memo to indicate that the sound attenuated walls would need to achieve a 45 decibel noise threshold in adjacent tenant spaces. The 45 decibel threshold is a very protective interior noise standard indentified in the General Plan and should ensure minimum disruption to adjacent tenants. Lastly, the appellant expressed concern that the project will have a negative effect on his business, his ability to insure or sell the property, or resale values. Staff feels it is not in a position to determine this but does believe that a substantial detrimental effect on these characteristics would be speculative. Mr. Weinstein stated that the conditions of approval before the Council are comprehensive and intended to address potential noise, traffic and parking issues, including those raised by the appellant. These include a standard condition which allows for pulling of the CUP back to the Community Development Department, referral of the application back to the Planning Commission or potential revocation of the CUP should issues arise. Staff has reviewed the conditions of approval recommended for other uses with the potential for similar impacts and did not identify any additional conditions beyond the amendment already noted. Staff also visited a similar SVS facility located in Newark, which further cemented the belief that the proposed project would be operated with minimal impact on adjacent tenants. Staff therefore recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Commission. Vice Mayor Brown asked if the Newark facility is adjacent to business offices. Mr. Weinstein said "no." The facility is located next to a swimming pool, with several offices located in the same building or across the alley. Vice Mayor Brown requested confirmation that a CUP is required because the applicant is seeking an exception to the uses allowed under the property's zoning. Mr. Weinstein clarified that it is not an exception. The proposed use is a conditionally permitted use, which means it has the potential for impacts that might require certain mitigation measures which can be addressed by conditions of approval. Vice Mayor Brown said she visited the facility earlier that day and met with the occupant of Suite 50. While he is only current occupant of what is a fairly large suite, she imagined that once he fills his suite the parking survey might yield a very different result. City Council Minutes Page 6 of 13 May 5,2015