Laserfiche WebLink
calculations it should also be recognized that SVS employees spend a considerable amount of their <br /> day in the field, with the most intense activity periods occurring during off peak office hours before 9 <br /> a.m. and then again around 2:30 p.m. With regards to noise, he explained that the adjoining walls <br /> would be insulated to an SDC rating of 50. This would require that noise levels within the suite exceed <br /> 95 DBA, which would be essentially impossible, in order to exceed the 45 decibel noise standard. He <br /> quoted from the property's CC&Rs, which state that "any light industrial, office or warehousing use of <br /> the property subject to these restrictions will be permitted provided it is primarily performed or carried <br /> out within a building." He stated that the proposed site is an ideal location for several reasons — the <br /> primary comings and goings of the operations occur at the rear of the site and will not be visible to the <br /> appellant's clients, single-story flex space allows for easy soundproofing of adjacent walls and ADA <br /> compliant access, and the proximity to restaurants and businesses helps to familiarize and mainstream <br /> clients into everyday activities without heavy reliance upon vehicles. He said he spoke with a <br /> commercial realtor regarding the potential impact on property values and her observation was that the <br /> appellant would have to disclose this use when selling his property. However, if the disclosure is that <br /> the use is essentially unnoticeable then it will have no impact on sales price. Mr. MacDonald stated that <br /> the presence of disabled adults does not change the requested land use, which is more than <br /> compatible with an office use in terms of all exterior impacts. <br /> All members of the Council disclosed meeting with the applicant and/or their legal representation prior <br /> to tonight's hearing. <br /> Wayne Rudick asked the Council to consider the impact of the proposed project on his company, its <br /> employees and its clients. He acknowledged that SVS provides a much needed and valuable service <br /> and stressed that his objection relates only to site selection. He noted that SVS' 3 other local sites are <br /> located in heavier industrial complexes where noise is of little concern. He said that with an educational <br /> background in public health and safety management as well as 30 years professional experience with <br /> safety and risk management, he likely has more insight into some of the potential issues and exposures <br /> than the average business or property owner. He suggested that if staff felt that SVS' services were <br /> truly a benefit to the city then perhaps they should consider locating the training center on city property <br /> and adjacent to city offices. He detailed his concerns, beginning with safety and security, stating that <br /> SVS cannot guarantee its clients will not demonstrate aggressive behavior. He reported that his visit to <br /> the Hayward facility revealed that clients routinely leave the building without supervision and that this <br /> site's proximity to heavy traffic could present safety concerns for both clients and other tenants. He <br /> expressed concern that the noise attenuating insulation would not sufficiently mitigate noise, which <br /> would prove incredibly disruptive to the sensitive business that both he and his tenants conduct. <br /> Mr. Rudick discussed his parking concerns, noting that despite staffs parking analysis there have been <br /> ongoing issues when some of the currently unoccupied or under-occupied suites reach full occupancy. <br /> He noted that staffs own assessment is that SVS may take up to 25 parking spaces at any one time, <br /> which exceeds their allotment by the Planning Department based upon square footage. He expressed <br /> concern that SVS has secured a 10-year lease and has already indicated a desire to expand well <br /> beyond the currently allowed 30 clients per day. He said it is both his opinion and that of commercial <br /> real estate brokers that this type of tenant could negatively impact the sale of his portion of the subject <br /> site. He also noted that as part of the CUP approval the city has asked to be held harmless and asked <br /> that he be extended the same protections as a business and commercial condominium association <br /> owner. He reiterated that his objection relates only to the proposed location and thanked the Council for <br /> their time and consideration. <br /> Vice Mayor Brown asked Mr. Rudick if he would have purchased his unit if the proposed project were <br /> preexisting at the site. <br /> Mr. Rudick said "no," but added that he also would not have made the purchase if a children's daycare <br /> facility or some other similarly disruptive activity were operating there either. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 8 of 13 May 5,2015 <br />