[Edit: My earlier, unpublished posts will have to wait a bit.]

Something interesting happened last night.  The Great Exchange Covenant Church applied for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the establishment of a church in a Light Industrial zone (4600 Patrick Henry Drive).  They want to convert the building they are using for clerical activities into their permanent church site.  Staff recommendation was to deny the use permit.

The kick is in the reasons they used to deny.  I took lots of notes, because there was a lot being said.  Here is the one-minute public input I gave last night:

It is interesting to note the change in [Planning] Staff’s position, attitude, and direction when we are not approving high-density housing that give Mr. Riley credit for 10%, or more, BMR [Below Market-Rate — low income] units.

The concerns, in Staff’s own words: [the structure is not parallel because I am quoting]

  • “Parking does not meet the standard.”
  • Complaints of neighbors (exactly six?) and traffic issues
  • “Adverse effect on industrial zoning rights”
  • “Adverse effect on industrial property values”
  • “Reduces attractiveness of the area for new industrial users”

I hope Staff shows similar concern when we discuss the 900 Kiely Project later this year, the Draft EIR of which was just released. [The 900 Kiely Project is Fairfield Residential’s proposal to put over 800 high-density apartments and town houses at the old Kaiser hospital site.]

You [the Planning Commission] already have conditions for approval — 37 of them, listed in the docket package.  The difference between this project and the other projects we have seen is that I believe that this is a developer that will work with the existing industrial owners and the City.

We are losing more tax base by converting industrial to high-density housing, and more services by converting our institutional developments — also to high density.  It will be interesting to note what Sobrato proposes on their site in a few years when their tenants’ leases are up, especially given how Sunnyvale is converting industrial buildings to high-density residential just southwest of the site.

Actually, that’s what I wrote, what I wanted to say.  Public input was limited to just one-minute (one-minute!), so I had to end rather quickly.  For clarification, the Sobrato Organization owns the property immediately south of the proposed church property and had a representative speak out against the proposed church use.  This is the same development group that has put up higher-density apartments all over the Bay Area, most recently, and closely, with Domicilio on El Camino Real near the university.  It’s just funny to hear developers complain about a church bringing in problems, bringing their property values down.

The people representing the church didn’t necessarily help their cause as well as they could have, but they were honest and tried what they thought was best.  There were many holes in the debates that followed public input, but there were many good points as well.

The Planning Commission should never have allowed themselves to use the “3 or 4 people per car” number that the church spokesman used, admitting to pulling that statistic out of thin air.  Those numbers weren’t part of any study, were qualified as being guesses at the time they entered the public hearing, and shouldn’t have been used as part of the discussion.  Tony Marine questioned the parking, and rightly so, especially since the numbers he heard were almost half of what the city studies showed, but kept going back to the guesses brought up by the applicant again and again.  Keith Stattenfield intelligently suggested that over time the actual numbers would average out to the numbers in the study — that’s what averages mean, and that’s how averages come to be in the first place.  Commissioner Marine then did the next best thing he could do: he asked for a continuance so that the Planning Staff could work with the applicant, perform more studies, and come back with more information on both the traffic concerns and mitigation of sensitive receptors.  I hope that 90-day continuance is used well, by both sides.

It was funny to see Planning Staff so concerned with the potential effects of the industrial neighbors on the applicants.  The City Planner stated that an earlier “1,000 foot radius of effect” was just an arbitrary number (much like “3 to 4 people per car”, I would guess) and that toxic “plumes can go up to two miles.”  Dave Parker, who knows a thing or two about hazardous materials, clarified item 25 on the Recommended Conditions For Approval list:

Hazardous Occupancies:

25. Group H Occupancies may not be allowed within 1,000 feet of Group A, E, I, and/or R Occupancies without certain requirements/obligations implemented through project approval.

Mr. Parker clarified that Group H Occupancy meant that the property has “hazardous materials above a certain level” and that the church use would be Group A Occupancy, or “Assembly”. When asked if there were any Group H Occupancies that would prevent the church from moving in, nobody knew.  It was pointed out, and rightfully so, that this item wasn’t necessarily about what was there currently, but what could potentially be allowed in Light Industrial zones.  The talk then moved on to safety measures that would have to be implemented: shelters, electric/mechanical shut-off systems, and alarms.  To keep the church safe.

Has anyone bothered to give this lecture to the City of Sunnyvale? They have single-family residences less than 300 feet away from the same industrial buildings city staff and Mr. Parker are so concerned about.  Do they have a safety plan?  Shelters?  Alarms?  What about the other churches in the area, also less than 1,000 feet (or two miles, depending on which guess you decide to cling to) away?  Or office buildings?  Or colleges?  It was quite amusing to hear their concern.  Think of the children.  It sounds like the Light Industrial buildings near the site will have problems becoming Group H Occupancies regardless of whether or not the church is allowed.

The other funny thing is that the church is already using the building they want to purchase. If these are real issues, what happened to disclosure when they initiated their lease?

So: Double Standard?  Does the city go out of its way to protect industry from its citizenry — or, as they would state, vice versa — yet ignore the same exact complaints residents would have with high-density development in areas that have no transit, poor access, single-lane roads in either direction, and increasing crime? Is parking such a big issue for companies, yet not an issue for the residences that house the people working at those same companies?