Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-10-25 City Council Summary Minutes1 CITY COUhCII M1MUT€S Regular Mee ng Monday, ITEM Minutes of August 9, 1982 Minutes of August 16, 1982 Consent. Calendar Referral CITY Or PALO ALTO October 25, 1982 Item #1, Civic Center Structural. Repairs CIF ,82-27, Civic Center Space and Possible Leasing - Refer to Finance and Public Works Committee P AGE 2 5 8 9 2 5 8 9 2 5 8 9 2 5 8 9 2 5 8 9 Action 2 5 8 9 Item #2, Exterior Painting of the Municipal 2 5 8.9 Services Center Complex Item #3, Street Tree Trimming 2 5 9 0 Item #4, Front Easement Power Line Clearing 2 5 9 0 Item #5, Roadside Clearing 2 5 9 0 Item #6, Page Mill Road Repair 2 5 9 0 Item #7, Sewer Collection System - Infiltration/ 2 5 9 0 Inflow Study Item #8, Planning Commission Recommendation Re 2 5 9 0 Application of William A. Churchill for Site and Design Review for Property Located at 730 Los Trancos Road Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Item #9, Public Hearing: Manning Commission Recommendation re AppliCation of Kent Entigh for an Exception from Termination of Nonconforming Use at 3666 El Camino Real Item #10, Public Hearing: Planning Commission Recommendation re Appeal of Earnest E. Irvine re Property Located at 920.--950 Gui nda/737,,741 Addison Street Item #11, Long -Term Display for City Collections Item #12, Request Proposition 11 Item #13, Request Cl ari fioati on of Reapportionment Adjournment Councilmember Renzel., re 2 5 9 1 2 5 9 I. 2 5 9 9 2 6 1 4 2 6 1.'5 Councilnember Fazzino'_. re 2 6 1 5 Council's Position on Regular Meeting Monday, October 25, 1982 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Witherspoon Mayor Eyerly advised that the City's Disaster Preparedness Plan was not on the agenda. It was tentatively set for November 8, 1982. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS None MINUTES OF AUGUST 9 , 1982 Councilmember Renzel had the following correction: Page 2349, last paragraph, seventh line, the word "setting" should be -studying." MOTION: Counci 1 member Fazzino moved, seconded by Witherspoon, approval of the Minutes of August 9,. 1982, as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously. MINUTES OF AUGUST 16. 1982 MOTION: Councilmember Fazzino moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the Minutes of August 16, 1982 as submitted. MOTION PASSED unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded . by Levy, approval of the Consent Calendar. Referral ITEM #1, CIVIC CENTER STRUCTURAL REPAIRS CIP 82-27, CIVIC CENTER Action ITEM #2, EXTERIOR PAINTING THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES CENTER. Staff_ recommends as follows: 1. That the Mayor be authorized to execute a contract -with Goodsell and Vocke, Inc. in ,the =amount of $42,500; -and That. staff be authorized to execute change orders up t tie. required. 2 5 8 9 10/25/82 ITEM #3, STREET TREE TRIMMING (CMR:534:2) Staff recommends that the Mayor be authorized to , execute contracts with Lee's Tree Surgeon's, Inc. in the amount of $59,976, and Pied Piper Exterminators, Inc. in the amount of $59,964.97. 1 AWARD OF CONTRACTS Lee's Tree Surgeons, Inc. Pied Piper Exterminators, Inc. ITEM #4, FRONT EASEMENT POWER LINE CLEARING (CMR:535:2) Staff recommends that the Mayor be authorized to execute a contract with Pied Piper Exterminators, Inc. in the amount of $48,828 to trim street trees. AWARD OF CONTRACT Pied Piper Exterminators, Inc. ITEM #5, ROADSIDE CLEARING (CMR:536:2) Staff recommends that the Mayor be authorized to execute contracts with Rudolf Lanz in the amount of $24,500 and Lowery . & Little, Inc. in the amount of $6,198 to provide roadside clearing ser- vices. AWARD OF CONTRACTS Rudolf Lanz Lowery & Little, Inc. ITEM #6, PAGE MILL ROAD REPAIR (CMR:538:2) Staff recommends the following: 1. That the Mayor be authori zed to execute a contract wi th Spi rz Corporation in the amount of $35,460; and 2. That staff be authorized to execute change orders to the construction contract up to fifteen (15) percent or $5,319 of the construction contract amount. AWARD OF CONTRACT Spirz Corporation ITEM #7. SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEM - INFILTRATION/INFLOW STUDY (CMR:barz: _ ,... Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to execute a contract with CH2M Hill in an amount not to exceed $95,000 to conduct Phases I and II of the Sewer Collection System Infiltra- tion/Inflow Study. AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT SEWER STUDY - INFILTRATIOi4/ . INFLOW SEWER STUDY ' - MN Hill ITEM- #8, PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE APPLICATION, OF FUW Sift` ANU UtSIU�i iminTrimprinnTrnm tCAI tea A) /ID L s rRx �'0 'gc Q c Mw bb : t i It . is recommended that the Council approve the Planning Commission recommendation finding that the project will not have any signifi- cant environmental _ impacts, and approve the Site and Design appli- cation subject to the following conditions: 2 5 9 0 10/25/82. 1. Before a building permit is issued, an addendum to the sub- mitted Soils Report will be submitted to the Public Works Department subject to approval by the City Engineer. Thi s addendum will contain more site specific information regarding erosion control recommendations for site grading, site drai n - age and slope protection. Particular concerns are the drive- way slope and the retaining wall construction. A final drain- age plan shall also be required; 2. No grading shall occur during the rainy season (November' 1 through April 30) in order to protect _ the site from excessive soil erosion; 3. An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to issuance of a building permit; 4. Solar water heating shall be ins;a11 ed unless demonstrated to the Resource Conservation Department to not be cost effec- tive; 5. All graded slopes shall be reseeded with native grasses and plants; 6. The building shall meet all .requirements of the Uniform Fire Code for buildings in the hazardous fire area; 7. Electrical service shall be underground in accordance with Utility Department specifications; 8. City Arborist to review the landscape plan since some of the proposed trees were not indigenous to the site. MOTION PASSED unanimously. AGENDA CHANGES. AUDITIONS AND DELETIONS Councilrnember Fazzino added Item .#I3, re clarification Council's position on reapportionment. ITEM #9 PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE • Planning Commissioner Pat Cullen said the Planning Commission heard the request for an extension of ten years, over and above the eleven years remaining on the ,amortization period for the Kent Emigh .facility, three times. The latest hearing was the result of a court stipulation in which the Commission was requested to take economic information into consideration. The Planning Commission was not persuaded, on the basis of the facts presented, that the economic loss would justify an additional ten-year term. to the amortization period. No testimony was given on some of the economic data scheduled for presentation to the Commission. The testimony that was given did not persuade the Commission, and since the use and not the user. was . what determined the zoning on a piece of property, it was recommended that Council deny the exten- sion. Mayor Eyerty commented that when the Council considered the item in January, 1981, the vote was 5-1 not to extend the amortization. The Councilmembers in favor of not extending the amortization were Bechtel , Fletcher, Henderson, Witherspoon and Levy. hie voted in favor of the extension. Councilmembers Renzel , Fazzino and Brenner were absent. He clarified that the item was before the Council, in part, due to the Court's request., Mr. Emigh_ and his counsel could provide further information concerning the eco- nomics. The Council had a considerable amount of material whi c h was held over from, the previous discussions and he hoped the 2 5 9.1 10/25/82 material would not be duplicated orally. He would attempt to change the vote of those who voted against the item before, and to not agree with the Planning Commission. He asked how many changes in amortization periods had been granted by the Council. Zoning Administrator Robert Brown said that the City Council had reviewed 12 applications for exceptions, but only four were granted, Mayor Eyerly asked if the approved exceptions were granted on hardship cases. Mr. Brown said they were granted based on capatibility with the neighborhood. Co unc i l rneruber Fazzino said that a number of Planning Commissioners suggested as an alternative, the possibility of the applicant corning in for a Comprehensive Plan Use Re-evaluation a year or two from now. He asked about how interested the Commission was on that idea. Ms. Cullen said she thought Counci lmember Fazzino was referring to the review of the whole CN area on El Camino which was due in 1983. I f , at that time, it appeared not to be a workable zone, the Commission suggested that a Comprehensive Plan Land Use Change might be made at that time which would affect not only the subject use, but other uses which fell under the same amortization schedule. Counci l member Fazzino said he sensed from reading the minutes that it was not just raised as a point of fact, but was mentioned by some Commissioners as being a viable way for the applicant to go given the particular circumstances of the application. He asked if it was a statement of fact with respect to all uses in the area, rather than a specific proposal regarding the particular application. Ms. Cullen said yes. Councilmember Fletcher asked whether any of the four properties granted extensions based on capatibility with the surrounding neighborhood were automotive uses. Mr. Brown said one, Mizudo Transmission, was approved, but he recalled similar automobile services which were denied. Mayor Eyerly said the question was asked whether Mr. Emigh would have the opportunity to reapply in the event this application for an extension were denied. Then City Attorney, Roy Abrams, made it clear that there would not be a second opportunity to apply for reconsideration of the length of amortization. Assistant City Attorney Marlene., Prendergast said that was correct. The exception procedure applied only to those properties that were rezoned in 1978. Those properties were to be noticed within two years of their nonconforming status to apply for an exception, and there would not be a second chance. Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing open, -- Frank Lee Crist, Jr,, Attorney, 550 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, represented Mr. Ken Emigh. The matter was before the Council before, but they _ were back because it was felt that the criteria set forth in the ordinance, particularly with reference to his client's case, did not cover what the Court's wanted the City ,to look at, He felt that his client stood unique among the appli- cants who previously applied for an extension. Unlike most of the previous applicants, Mr.. Emigh was issued a building permit in 1972 for the construction of his new building. Mr. Emi gh' s life savings were put into the building, and the building essentially 2 5 9 2 10/25/82 had a 45 -year life. The building was single -purpose, and Mr. Emigh operated his business in that facility, which was a unique consideration that the Council should consider. Fifteen years was an insufficient time for Mr. Emigh to recapture the loss he would sustain on the si ngl e -purpose building. Testimony was presented by Mr. William V. Henderson regarding the extent of the loss, and staff consulted another appraiser who came in with an entirely different opinion. Assuming Mr. Crist's appraiser was correct, a building that was only six years old when downzoned, was built for automotive repair with high bay doors and high ceilings would take a considerable amount of money to renovate into a medical building as suggested by the Planning Commission. Mr. Northway was an architect by trade and the only Commissioner who voted in favor of Mr. Emigh. He was in the business of renovating and designing buildings, and testified that it would be a substantial economic loss because the lot was very small and not adaptable to the "professional use" without extensive renovations. Mr. Crist felt that another ten years was appropriate so .that his client could at least recoup his lifetime investment. He did not think that was too much to ask of the Council. He recognized the realities of the Council, but Council's too often forgot the individual devastation which occurred to people like Mr. Emigh. Mayor Eyerly said he recalled from the presentation in January, 1981, that Mr. Emigh wanted to sell his business, but that his hands were tied because of the length of life of the amortiza- tion. Mr. Grist said that was correct. Mr. Emigh was essentially plan- ning to sell his business because he felt he was getting to the age of retirement. The building and business could not be sold to an automoti ve user for such a short period of time. William V. Henderson, appraiser, 268 Castro Street, Mountain View, said Mr. Crist requested that he study the subject property over a year ago and the affect of the zoning change on the property. In his opinion, the property would be devalued, it was in an area for highly commercial --not neighborhood commercial --even though there was a big strip shown as CN on the map. If that area were policed, most of the businesses would not meet the intent of the ordinance --to service the immediate residential neighborhood and to be pedestrian oriented. There were 22 restaurants between Charleston Road and Page Mill, and it was not possible to have the number of restaurants, the motels, the automobile dealers and change the type of use by showing CN--neighborhood commercial. He did not know of. any highway thoroughfare properties in the State where that worked. In his opinion, neighborhood commercial was limited as to a number of uses over the former zoning of CS, and a change in the property limited the utility due to the ratio of building area to the property. Based upon the devaluation of the property, and the lend value, the architect on the Planning Commission, Mr. Northway, concurred that it was lesser valued. Mr. Northway also concurred with Mr. Henderson's costs for remodeling and conversion at a later date. He estimated a ground floor area of 3,489 square feet at $20 per square foot for conver- sion to a neighborhood retail or office type use for a total of $69,780. He estimated a reduction in the land vague of $ 10 per square foot, and an area of 11,433 square feet for a total of $114,330, for a total estimated reduction in value of $184,110. According to -the history of the property, the Depreciation ,Code and the IRS Guidelines for Depreciation, Revenue. Procedure Section 62-21, that type of building --prior to the change in the depreciation laws of 1981 --had a life of 45 years or- 2.2 percent depreciation per year. As cf 1978, the building was six years old, zed he estimated the improvements on the ground floor area to be $30 per square foot, 3,620 square feet for a total of $108,600. There was an apartment 'on the second floor .:for which he allowed 2 5 9 3 10/25/82 only $25 per square foot for another $14,725, and for the mezzanine he allowed $20 per square foot for 606 feet and a total of $12,120 for a total depreciated value of improvements as of 1978 of $135,445. Following the Revenue Code Guidelines for Depreciation, and assuming the 15 -year amortization period, at 2.2 percent per year, that would be 33 percent or $44,697, leaving a loss on the improvements alone of $90,748. He presented his figures to other people in real estate on buying and selling prop- erties, and on full disclosure that everyone was required to make, and without exception, there was concurrence that - there was a devaluation of the property. He also ran his figures by one of the top M.A.I. appraisers in the County who also concurred. No matter how he did it he came up with a substantial loss which did not include the normal profit that one received from inflation, nor anything for the loss of business which was zoned out with the use. The building was not completely zoned out, but rather greatly limited as to the utility. Mayor Eyerly asked Mr. Henderson for his title and place of busi- ness. Mr. Henderson said the company was W. V. Henderson Company, which was the successor in interest to the third oldest real estate firm in Santa Clara County. It was general real estate, buying and selling, developing, appraising, and consulting. Councilmember Levy asked about the value of the subject property. Mr. Henderson said that as of 1979, his opinion as to value was $370,000. Councilmember Levy asked about today's value. Mr. Henderson said he had not computed it, but it would be some- what higher. Councilmember Levy asked about the value of the land alone. Mr. Henderson said that in today's markets he would value the land alone at $25 per square foot; in 1978 it was $20 per square foot. Councilmember Levy clarified that the building by itself was worth $150,000. Mr. Henderson said he . calculated $135,445, Councilmember Levy clarified that the new zone would cut the land value in half. Mr. Henderson said that the $10 per square foot loss in 1978 would be $15 per square foot now for the neighborhood commercial. Councilmember Levy said he assumed the difference was the earning power of the land. Mr. Henderson said the difference went with: the use. If the uses were policed as to the intent of the ordinance, i.e., pedestrian oriented to service the immediate residential'` neighborhood, and if. any application were scrutinized to see , where the business was coining from, very few of the businesses along El Camino Real would be for and supported by the immediate residential neighborhood. Councilmember Levy asked for Mr. Henderson's opinion about the highest and best use of the CN zone. Mr. Henderson believed that the normal professional office use would-be ,the highest and best use. Medical and dental uses would be. impractical. Councilmember Levy asked what specific elements made the building single -purpose. Mr. Henderson said it was designed for automobile use --there were fairly high ceilings, high entrance, the parking in the back from Barron Avenue, and the access would not appeal to the normal retail type use. The building area made it limited for conversion to other uses. Councilmember Renzel asked how big the apartment was in the building. Mr. Henderson responded that it was 589 square feet. Councilmember Renzel said that the asking prices for studio condo- miniums were in the vicinity of $90,000 to $100,000. She clari- fied the value of the apartment as being $14,725, and since.. it was the only unit, she did not think it would require a subdivision to be sold as a separate unit. She asked staff to comment. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said the unit could not tia sold separately from the rest of the business without a condo- minium map. The apartment was unusual because it was attached to a commercial use, but in his opinion the capitalized rent would be much higher than the $14,000 value suggested. Councilmember Renzel asked if the residential unit could be sold as a condominium, with a proper subdivision dividing the . commer- cial from the residential. Mr. Freeland said it was theoretically possible. He thought it would be an unusual application and one that might raise policy issues when it went through. The value of the residential unit was a fair question, and one way to ascertain the answer would be to ask what the capitalized rent value would be. Mr. Henderson said that with the residential access , and the way it was , built into the building, he would be surprised if the City would approve the condominium concept. Councilmember Renzel clarified that under the Tax Code this type of building could be written off over 42 years, She asked if it was also eligible for the shorter, quick write-off. Mr. Henderson said not with the present owner. He understood last. year's .changed in the code --the 15 -year write -off --were to stimulate investments. It related to newly acquired property after the effective date of the change. Councilmember Renzel clarified that right now there was no provi- sion for an existing owner to do a quick write-off on commercial property. Mr. Henderson said that was his understanding, however, hewas not a CPA. Councilmember Renzel said that if Mr. Fmigh were to sell to a new owner, that new owner's price would include consideration for the ability to do a 15 -year write-off. Mr. Henderson said that was correct. Kent Emlgh, - 13220. Franklin Avenue, Mountain View, said the issue was serious in that he was a pioneer in his field; and started the business over 30 years ago, and chose to settle in the Palo Alto area. At that time he acquired a nice piece of land, and obtained a _ firm commitment from the City in order to build a special pur- pose bui iding for his business. He put the building together with 2 5 9 5 10/25/82 his life savings, and it was done exactly to the City's specifica- tions. He heard that something had to be done about El Camino, but all of the ugly buildings that were there prior to 1978 were still there. He thought there was something wrong that he had to keep going through the process, and it was sad that the Council had to keep listening to him, but it would be also be sad if the Councilmembers had their whole life's work and business destroyed by a dot on the map. That was not right. It was a serious dis- crimination problem. He asked how a City wac run by saying it was a new,. zone, and the City was not sure it would work. One person was being picked on --it was said that there were other cases, but he submitted that there was not a single other new City approved business building in Palo Alto, automotive wise or otherwise, that was being destroyed. In 1978 he received a permanent back injury, and his doctor suggested that he get out of the heavy workload and do something different. If he had to accelerate his retirement plans, that was the way it had to be. He never had any intention of selling the property or building, but if he had to, he intended to sel 1 it to someone who would carry on the same type of specialty work and he would have rental income. He found a buyer, and the City disallowed the sale of, the business. His entire income projection was destroyed by the City. Today the business was worth nothing, and he had to work every day, he could not hire anyone, and could not even lease the building until the whole mess was settled. He used the apartment in the building to store old parts, which was fine. The entire building was worked around his particular needs. He thought it was sad, and the financial reper- cussions of the spot zoning experiment were clearly outlined at the Planning Commission, but fo'r some reason staff did not listen well . That was unfair because . the fact that he was disallowed from selling his business, hi•s income projections were destroyed, as well as his retirement. he did not have the money to remodel the building; and even if the City financed a $2.00,000 remodelling cost, it would not correct the injustice of sincling out one per- son and destroying his entire livelihood. Mayor Eyerly clarified that at the time of the rezoning, Mr. Emigh had a buyer for the business only. Mr. Emigh said that was correct. the buyer was going to carry on the same specialized quality semi -classic sales service in the same specialized manner. Mayor Eyerly clarified that the consummation of the deal was pre- cluded by the change in zoning. Mr. Emigh said absolutely. No one would touch .the business now. Councilmember Menzel clarified that Mr. Emigh meant that the City. stopped by the sale because the ,rezoning made the sale not look economic to the potential buyer. Mr. Emigh said that was correct. The spot zoning experiment dis- allowed the sale Mayor Eyerly said he did not think there was any evidence which showed that the City had anything to do with pi ecl udi ng the sale other than the zoning recommendations. City Manager Bill Zaner also stated that no member of the staff interfered directly in the sale or resale of the property Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, represented Sam Sparck, Chairman of the Barron Park Association, who was unable to attend the meeting. He defended. the ,CN zone, the concept of amortization, and the change of land use along El Camino. He addressed the issue of economic 2 5 9 6 10/25/82 loss, and said the, assumption was that a CN zone was economically less valuable and less viable than a CS zone. When the CN zone was developed, the intentions were not to strictly serve the immediate neighborhood, but rather to lower the intensity of use along El Camino Real, to reduce the number of auto related uses, to favor businesses serving the nearby area (he clarified that that did not mean just the people living right behind El Camino), to oppose businesses which served regional or larger customers, to generally upgrade what was going on along El Camino, and to pro- vide better compatibility wi th the residential neighborhoods alongside and behind El Camino Real . ' The CN zone was the result of extensive and concerted efforts by the neighborhood associa- tions, Planning Commission and planning staff to develop a zone and design a zoning ordinance to meet those goals. The City Council, on a number of occasions, upheld those goals, and the means for achieving them. When the massage parlor ordinance was passed in 1976, El Camino Real was lined with massage parlors, adult theaters, and adult bookstores. All, biit one, of those institutions went out of business and that one would be leaving shortly. There was a table and chair store almost across the street from the subject property, an auto sound store directly across the street, a Japanese restaurant further down the street, a travel agency was located on an upper floor of one of the buildings near Matadero and El Camino, and there was a kitchen and bath store further south along El Camino. All of those busi- nesses were viable, and were the type of neighborhood commercial use that the people and Planning Commission had in mind. There were few vacancies along that neighborhood commercial zone. In fact, when one store --a golf and tennis shop went out of business recently --it was replaced almost immediately by a furniture store. The zone appeared to be working well particularly when .considering that there were more bankruptcies in 1982. than any year since 1933. The CN zone did not create a hardship per se. The argument that a 10 -year extension was necessary suggested that there was a viable use for the facility. Mr. Emigh was not asking for total rezoning or a change entirely --just an extension. He reminded the Council that there were no provisions for zoning an extension for an individual or even for an individual basis --it went with the land. If the Council did not allow the CN zone to function, they would be achieving a spot zoning at the location. Planning Commissioner Sutorius described the types and amounts of data that were required in order to justify an economic hardship in his mind, but that was not presented to the Planning Commission nor to the Council tonight. He felt Mr. Sutorius was inclined to be sympathetic to the extension if he could justify it. Other busi- nesses along El Camino Real were given amortization dates and in -most cases they were accepted without an appeal. Housing could be built in any of the zones, and housing property was worth in excess of $800,000 per acre based on actual sales in Palo Alto within the last six months. Councilmember Renzel said that at the time the CN zone was adopted for that stretch of land along El Camino and 'several other spots along El Camino, the El Camino frontage between Page Mill Road and the City limits at San Antonio had 44 percent vacant property with the CS. zone. At the same time that the CN zone was being con- sidered, there was an election °whereby Barron Park came into the City, and the entire Barron Park area was zoned R-1 .for purposes of the annexation. The City looked at ways to accommodate some of the existing uses, and be true to . the wishes of the voters of Barron Park. Barron Park voted to come into the City based en'the entire area _being reviewed as to zoning with the understanding that the prezoning would all be single family. As a means dealing with those various goals and existing realities, the.. Planning Commission and Council adopted a neighborhood commercial zone as well as residential and- service commercial zones along the 2 5 9 7 10/25/82 0 El Camino frontage in various places based upon existing uses. As pointed out, the CN zone was successful. Right across the street, a project was approved under the CN zone, there was a major mixed use residential and commercial project which was approved on El Camino Way and James Way under . the CN zone, a lot of new busi- nesses were attracted -to the area, and the residential properties developed along there. It was clear that the Planning Commission and Council made a good, decision by establishing the land uses, and everyone would have to agree that Cl ' ;'amino was improving. In this particular instance, the Council was supposed to primarily consider the financial aspects. In her opinion, the questions raised by Mr. Sutori us were not answered to her satisfaction. It was unrealistic to suggest that a 500 square foot apartment > was worth only $14,000. It could probably be put on the market for four or five times that amount and would be snapped up without any difficulty. Part of the logic of the neighborhood commercial zone was to recognize that El Camino carried 44,000 cars per day and that if the entire frontage were intensively developed, it would be a difficult traffic and business situation, which contributed to the previous lack of development. The neighborhoods absorbed a lot of the: parking, and in this particular instance, the property owner continued to park cars on the private sidewalk in front of the property, and that was the kind of thing which was objected to back when the zoning was established and the reason why the zoning should be maintained as it was now.. She did not think the prop- erty would be unduly burdened by the zoning. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to approve the Planning Commission recommendation to deny the request for an exception from the nonconforming use terwination:provisions of Chapter 18.94,070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and find that: 1. Continuation of the auto -related use at this site would impede one of the major proposals of the Comprehensive Plan, which is to change the function and appearance of sections of El Camino Real from auto -oriented service commercial uses to pedestrian -oriented neighborhood commercial uses; • 2. Continuation of this use at this site may impede development of the surrounding area with uses that are otherwise consis- tent with the Comprehensive Plan; 3. Automotive service uses pose a greater risk of upset to adjoining residential uses than do most retail service or office type uses because of their use and storage of flammable materials such as auto paint supplies; 4 , Potential for reuse of the property and the existing building for allowable uses in the neighborhood commercial zone is very good, including medical , professional and general business offices, extensive retail services, animal care and financial services; 5. The arguments made by the applicant regarding the impact of his particej l ar business operation on the neighborhood are based on the characteristics of the individual operator and.. not on the automotive service use. It is the ®se which would be granted an extension until the year 2003 under this appli- cation. The operator of the automotive service may change during this period with substantially greater potential impacts on the neighborhood resulting; 6. Financial information submitted by the applicant related only to unsubstantiated conclusions regarding the , depreciated value of the building and property. Evidence was ; not submitted by the applicant regarding; the amount of the owner's original investment, the actual ..value of the building or property, the amortization period for tax purposes, end the remaining useful life of the structure. 2 5 9 8: 10/25/82 Councilmember Renzel said the use was being amortized --not the structure or the land, and there were many other uses to which the structure and land could be put. The structure's age was irrele- vant because amortization did not require a structure to be taken down. She commented that people were sometimes confused and clarified that the amortization period was based on the type of structure, but had nothing to do with tearing the structure down. Councilmember Fletcher emphasized the fact that the zoning went with the land. The particular business was in the process of being sold, and any future owner had no commitment to the City to carry on the business in its present form. It could be changed into a much more intensive automotive use if the extension was granted, and could become one of the uses that was instrumental in the City's change in zoning to disallow automotive uses. There were unpleasant side effects from having intensive automotive uses so close to the surrounding residential area. Further, other automotive uses were denied extensions, and they also had good arguments to support their positions. She urged that her col- leagues deny the application. Mayor Eyerly did not support the motion. It was a new building which was built a few years before the zoning was changed. The operator of the business built the structure for the business, and the costs involved to modify the structure would be high. He did not think it was reasonable to be concerned about the intensifica- tion of the business if it were left with a greater amortization period because it was a small building and was designed for a par - ti cl ar type of business. He remembered that a number of people spoke on behalf of Mr. Emigh the first .time around, and not every- one in the area was against a further length of time on the amor- tization. Many people gave a good neighbor report, and the appearance of the building should be appreciated compared with some of the buildings that were there now. He felt that the situation must be based on a hardship case, and Mr. Emigh was honest by commenting that he did not want to continue in business in his physical condition. The amortization period seemed unrealistic after working to build up a business for a number of years, and being unable to continue because of a zoning change. He felt that any law enacted by a governing body must be reason- able, hardship cases needed to be addressed, and the Council must be reasonable in the adaptation of the zoning ordinance. He did not remember any of the denied applications being as extreme a hardship case as he viewed this one. The extensions granted were granted because of compatibility. for a law to be proper it must be reasonable, and in a case such as this, the amortization exten- sion should be granted. Councilmember Cobb said his . first exposure - to the item was as a Planning Commissioner. A CS zone existed right across the. street from the CM zone where quansut huts, and other: objectionable structures were permitted. , Her opined that the City's job-. was incomplete when the rezoning took place because an equity issue existed. He clarified: that some detrimental occurrences were allowed to remain on El Canino Real because they happened to be on the right side of the line, and other physically more attractive uses were removed because they were on the other side .of the line. That issue was important because lack of consistency was a problem. MOTION PASSED by i vote of 7-2, Eyerly and Faaziina voting 'no." 1Ti~ #10 . PUBLIC WEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE L. :LRV!Mt . .Kt an -1 L J AlE©= ,AU g7II -s-5o MEP Planning .- Comm' ssi o.ner Patricia, Cullen • said the Commission originally_ wanted- to continue ,the:. item in order • to achieve a 2 5 9 9 10/25/82 compromise, but the appellant disagreed because he was not in favor of any compromise. The Commission considered the item as presented and felt that the parking lot in the R-1 area had too much of an impact on the immediate neighborhood as proposed, and that the benefits of the parking would soon diminish due to the rapid expansion of the Church of Scientology. Although alterna- tives were discussed, the appellant was unwilling to consider them. The Planning Commission did not consider the staff's recom- mendation before the Council.' Zoning Administrator Robert M. Brown said CMR:549:2 dealt with a few alternatives suggested by the Planning Commission one of which was the churches using Addison School parking during the evening hours. The response received today from the Palo Alto Unified School District stated that the concept was not worth pursuing due to the evening activities at the school site. Councilmember Cobb asked for an explanation between Alternatives A and B in the drawings presented in CMR:549:2. Mr. Brown said that difference was the location of landscaping. Alternative A had a five-foot landscape strip along the back of the church building to shield it from view. Further, there was a ten -foot landscaping buffer along the two property lines adjacent to the residences. Alternative B eliminated the five-foot landscape strip along the rear of the church property, and pro- vided a 16 foot landscape strip adjacent to the southwest, and between 12.5 feet and ten feet of landscaping along the residences to the north. Councilmember Cobb asked about the compromise to trim the parking back more, but which provided substantially improved protection from residents whose properties were above. He asked if that pos- sibility was explored as a reasonable compromised solution. Mr. Brown responded that the church indicated that they were trying to obtain as many parking spaces as possible to justify the expense of putting in the parking lot. He deferred to a church representative for the church's position on the bottom line number of spaces. Mayor Eyerly asked if a sound barrier type fence was considered. Mr. Brown said yes, but the church did not want to have to go to that expense. Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing open. Earnest Irvine, 758 Channing Avenue, applicant, corrected the statement that he objected to exploring other alternatives. He understood that he attended the Planning Commission hearing for the purpose of deciding whether there should be a parking Blot at that location. When it went to the vote, the - Commission began talking about alternatives. He understood that the motion was whether "there shall or shall not . be that parking lot at that place.' He commented that the decision for the parking lot was .a short-term advantage for many, but a permanent detriment to the six contiguous property owners. The City. Council would set a precedent if the parking lot were approved inside the R-1 zone. He and Mrs. Irvine had the 200 foot lot and hoped to build a small house to live in after retirement and rent out the rest to bring in some income. Mayor Eyerly said a use permit was recommended by the staff, and hie asked if that recommendation was appealed. Mr. Brown said yes. 2 6 0 0 10/25/82 Mayor Eyerly clarified that the Planning Commission recommended upholding the appeal, and staff recommended a use permit with cer- tain qualifications and restrictions. Mr.. Brown said yes. Ms. Cullen commented that staff's original recommendation to the Planning Commission was a different configuration from that being recommended to Council. Mr. Brown showed the site plan of the church's original submission which contained the same number of parking spaces, but had two access points --one from Addison and the other from Guinda--and both were one way driveways. Five feet of ._landscaping was along the north, and pockets about five feet in width were along the southwest. The staff's alternative proposal had one single drive- way on Addison between the two existing church. residences con- tained the same number of spaces, but had landscaping of 16 feet as opposed to the triangular pockets, between 12.5 to 10 feet as opposed to the five feet, and no access from Guinda. Mayor Eyerly clarified that the staff recommendation was for ingress and egress from Addison Avenue. Mr. Brown said that the initial decision by the Zoning Administrator basically approved the church's concept. The alter- natives were explored after the Planning Commission hearing. Mayor Eyerly said the staff's recommendation on the use permit was what the church asked for, with an ingress from Guinda and egress from Addison. Mr. Brown said yes. Vice Mayor Bechtel asked if lots 737 and 741 on Addison would be legal with a driveway and a parking lot using portions of the lot. Mr. Brown said they were legal R-1 lots. The property lines on the two parcels would not be altered, and the driveway and the parking on portions of those parcels would be handled through easements. Councilmember Levy asked to which parcel the parking lot would belong. Mr. Brown said the parking would be on all three parcels. Councilmember Klein understood that the proposal was that originally submit'eed by the church. Supporting the staff proposal would condition the original proposal submitted by the church. Mr. Brown said that was correct. He discussed staff's recommenda- tion with the church and they agreed to impleient the plan if approved. Mayor Eyerly said there was a cement driveway as part of 950 Guinda. He asked if anything in ` the zoning precluded the church, from parking on the cement driveway now. Mr. Brown said the Zoning Ordinance Parking Regulations required. that the area be asphalted, landscaped and striped. Mayor Eyerly clarified that nothing in th.e zoning ordinance pre- cluded it. Mr. Brown said that the 950 Guinda parcel was covered under the existing church use permit, and an ancilliary parking use on that parcel would be permitted by the church. Both Addi son properties 2 6 0 1 10/25/82 were zoned R-1 and were not covered under the existing church use permit. The use permit applied for would extend parking onto portions of those lots. Mayor Eyerly asked if anything in the R-1 Zoning ordinance precluded parking on an R-1 lot. Mr. Brown said they would become part of the church usage. Councilmember Renzel asked how deep the parcels were. Mr. Brown said 150 feet. Councilmember Renzel asked if the parcel lines for the single family lot could be redrawn to eliminate portions of those lots to merge them with the church. Mr. Brown said yes. Councilmember Renzel asked if all the parcels could be merged into one parcel short of a planned community zone. Mr. Brown said no, otherwise a nonconforming use would be created with multiple residences on a single side. Councilmember Renzel said that would not have any effect on having to take them down because they could be reconstructed as the zoning allowance allowed for nonconforming residential uses in other zones. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freel and said that if the parcel s were merged and there were two residences, one would be a non- conforming use and not subject to amortization; however, the City would probably object to such a merger because it did not like to create changes in parcels to render them nonconforming. Councilmember Renzel suggested that if the City were looking at the proposal as a parking plan for the church and utilized por- tions of those R-1 properties, i t . woul d make . sense to set the situation so they could not later be `.sold and create awkward situations. Mr. Freeland said he believed it would be unacceptable to have a parking lot without some form of easements to tie the use of the parking area and the.church together. He understood from the early discussions that such easements would be required to pre- clude the separate sale of the parcels. City Attorney Diane Lee said the property was in common ownership so easements could not be created in the traditional way. She suggested that dependent. upon Council's action, it would be appro- priate that a condition be inserted in any approval that the use permit shall be effective upon recordation of a declaration of easement establishing ingress, egress and parking rights over parcels at 737 and 741 Addison, which would eliminate the problem being discussed,_ Councilmember Renzel asked if in conjunction with this use permit, as was done with the Presbyterian Church, the Council could al so look at other factors such as hours of operation, and requiring the houses to be cleaned up. Mr. Freeland said that the Presbyterian Church voluntarily brought in the second use pewit application that opened up; those issues. Without the church voluntarily opening up matters other than those brought out, he did not believe the City had the direct ability to reach out to them, Ms.- Lee said she agreed. 2 6 0 2 10/25/82 Ceuncilmember Renzel commented that the Council was considering a plan which had not been reviewed by the Planning Commission in a public hearing, and because the matter was before the Council on appeal, it appeared to be a different format in that it would normally be a Planning Commission recommendation. She asked if it was appropriate to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission with the new plan. Ms. Lee said that under the Code, as the final appellate body, barring any time constraints, it was the Council's decision, Mr. Freeland said the Municipal Code read that an appeal would. be considered in 30 days --not that the action would be completed in 30 days. Councilmernber Renzel said she lived in the neighborhood when the Mormon Church was there and was aware of the onstreet parking situation. At the time she felt that the Mormon Church was active and that offstreet parking might be a good idea. By the same token, she understood that the neighbors adjacent to the parking lot had legitimate concerns because in this case,,it was not the standard church who met on Sundays with a few board and committees meeting during the week. The church was very active with daily activites until 10:00 at night, which could be significant in terms of noise problems for the neighbors. She felt the new plan should go back to the Planning Commission for hearings from the neighborhood to address the problems raised by the Council. Mr. Irvine said maybe it should be discussed further.. Charles B. Carlston, 750 Channing Avenue, said that the back of his property formed part of the right si de fence of the subject property. The new members of the neighborhood had competing ten- sions between their interests and the interests of the old time neighbors. The current church use was different from the use of the three Christian churches on the block --Mormons, Adventists, and Fundamental Christian Church. The Christian churches had a group focus --congregational rooms, singing, socials and the members of the churches bringing various occupants to the meetings, but .they were one day. a week with occasional evenings and did not overly burden the neighborhood. The days were a burden, but the nights were not. The Church of Scientology did not have the group focus --theirs was individual counseling, more like a college. When cars brought their occupants, there were fewer of them, but it was all day every day and every night. The various proposals for parking included a parking lot whose primary use - would ' be in the evenings in an R-1 area which was bothersome to those who surrounded the area. The current use was no clear indication of what the future use wo'l d be, He toured the building and understood that they were in a gearing up rode, training counselors who were about ready for an influx of new clients to the college. Various rooms were being . renovated and the intensive marketing plans had not yet begun. When the gearing up process was completed, he expected considerable growth to the church, i n excess of what was read in the minutes.' The result for the neighborhood would be various cars that quickly filled what- ever parking space was allocated on the street. He saw the parking . lot as a temporary solution. There were substantial prop- erty rights at risk --the quiet enjoyment of the neighbors who had been there for a while would be seriously invaded by ;the noise at night, and the visibility of asphalt particularly from second story residences. An eight foot fence would not be of much hel p to the second story residences. The safety risks of having a night time parking use in R-1 zone were perplexing, to -,say nothing of the fact that the property value loss to the full time 'neigh- bors would be at least ten _percent in the estimate of the Palo Alto Board of. Realtors. Public benefit justified some inconven- ience to the citizens, and they were willing to absorb some incon- venience. Those who lived onChanning were already absorbing some inconvenience by having the No 85 bus pass in front of their houses daring the day and in the evening, with risks to their children and the noise during their sleep. They likewise felt that the occasional parking inconvenience for the three Christian churches was an appropriate burden, but as the competing tensions of the old time neighbors and the newcomers to the block tried to be resolved, the. Council should ask themselves whether to support the old time neighbors or the newcomers --the property tax payers or the nonproperty tax payers. He did not know why the County decided to give tax exempt status to the Scientalogists when the Internal Revenue Service had not. He felt it would be an undue burden on the old time neighbors who were paying their property taxes for the convenience of a few. Brett Graessle, 931 Guinda, said he had lived at his address since the Mormons occupied the present day Church of Scientology. When the Mormons were there, he used to play frisbee in the street with his friends. That was no longer possible because of the dense traffic and other cars coming out of the driveway. He felt a parking lot was needed. He hoped the Council would consider the neighbors' problems. Monica Graessle, 931 Guinda, said she was in England during the last meeting on September 29,, and was appalled to learn that the use permit for the construction of the parking lot at the Church of Scientology had been turned down. In January, 1981, and again in July, 1982, they collected 78 signatures on a petition from the neighbors and friends in support of the parking lot. She per- sonally gathered over half of the signatures and said the people were both enthusiastic and interested in having a parking lot con- structed so that the number of cars in the street would be reduced thus creating a safer living environment for everyone. She felt that the proposal for the parking lot with the wide landscaping and eight foot high fences was an excellent compromise because the affected property was 150 feet away and was already sheltered by a great many mature trees, grass and garages. She surveyed the pro- posed parking lot area and could barely see the plants in Mr. Irvine's windows. She hoped that the Council would consider the nei ghborhwad as a whole and grant the use permit in order for a safer environment to be created for everyone. Mrs. William Allen' 1011 Guinda, said that one of the main reasons for denying the Church of Scientology use permit to construct a parking lot behind the main building at the Planning Commission meeting of September 29, was the availability of three alternate sites for off-street parking. Two of the sites --Addison School and the parking lot at the funeral home --were ruled out. Now there was a possibility for parking at the medical /dental building lot which also appeared to be impractical. The owner of the medical/dental building at the corner of Middlefield was willing to consider proposals for church parking at a price for both leasing and insurance that the church consi dered too high. How- ever, it was important to remember that even if the church entered into some expensive agreement to use the space, it would probably be. paying for a facility that none would use. That parking lot was two blocks from the church entrance and was clearly beyond the area within which church members were now finding parking. No one would choose to park there when street parking w.as available near the church. Church members normally left individually --not in groups --late at night. Anyone contemplating a late night trek, possibly to an unlighted parking lot, would,, make the sensible choice of finding a place closer to the church and on the street. The medical parking lot was not a practical solution, and she favored Alternative 8. The parking lot proposed by the church would be considered by its members as a desirable location --it would be adjacent to the building and well lighted. Consequently, it would be a relatively safe place even at night. The lighting could be close to the group in order not to bother the neighbors. That was the only practical means of solving the parking problem of the surrounding streets. If the ;Council did not approve its construction', it gave its approval to street parking in the resi- dential area as the church's proper arking lot. 2-5 0 4 1.0/25/82 1 Hilda Miller,_ 1010 Guinda, moved into. her home 11 years ago with the hope that it would be her final move. She now . appeared to be living in the middle of a used car lot. It was true that a parking lot to accommodate 30 cars would not meet the number of cars that would ultimately be parked for that facility, '"but half a loaf was a lot of bread when one was starving," and it would be 30 cars that would not be on the street. She was concerned that it was unsafe for her to back out of her driveway. Her vision was obscured by vehicles of varyng sizes and -the Church of Scientology congregation seemed to own a lot of trucks and vans. Further, the cars were parked the day the street sweeper went by and the street was becoming dirty. The Church of Scientology assured her that every effort would be made not to park in those spaces on street cleaning days, but gradually the cars were back. She was also concerned that the focus of the organization seemed to be on growth. Her car was parked at the community center on Middlefield Road a couple of weeks ago, and when she returned, advertising literature from the Church of Scientology was on her car. She was concerned that a business sailing under false colors was causing such a problem and such dissension between neighbors. Margaret Ware, 1038 Guinda Street, was a retired senior citizen, who used to walk up Addison to get to downtown. Now, cars were parked the whole way up' Addison, and if she went down Channing, she had to walk in front of the church where people backed in and out, did not honk, or give signals, and sometimes she had to wave her cane in order for the patrons to stop and let her by. She urged the Council to approve the parking lot even if it had to be under the church. Chuck Miller, 1010 Guinda, was concerned about the cars ,parked in front of his house. He lived two doors down from the church of Scientology and saw cars parked the next morning when he left for work --a year ago there was a fire in the church which started on a burning mattress. It was a 15,000 square foot area with no parking except in front. The area was not safe, and something needed to be done. Approval of a parking lot was a good alterna- tive and would minimize the discomfort for all concerned. Austin Lemoine, 1020 Guinda, supported a parking lot at the loca- tion. He .agreed that the streets were being turned into parking lots to support the uncontrolled use of property in the middle of a residential area which was designated for "church purposes." All of the cars, and the attendant vehicular movement and noise, presented hazards and degraded the residential character of the neighborhood. He felt it was fair to say that the property values were not being enhanced by the streets being used for parking lots. A reasonable solution would be to get as many cars as possible. off the street. Many of the churches in Palo Al to pro- vided off-street parking --either as part of the church property itself or in the form of some nearby and very convenient parking area. His neighborhood, with its narrow streets and limited physical capacity, was burdened by three churches and because of its activities, had cars coming and going seven days a week. The proposal as originally proposed by the Church of Scientology, or in the form of the current alternative in Mr. Brown's staff report, offered a reasonable relief for the problem. Getting 33 cars off those streets would help a lot. The parking proposal included a provision for a substantial fence and landscape buffer to adjoining properties People on Channing and Addison were con- cerned about .the impact of having a parking lot located in the rear, and that :.from the second stories of their homes, an asphalt lot full of cars was aesthetically _ unappealing. The contents of that lot currently included a Chevrolet Corvair rusting away, 2 6 0 5 10/25/82 on a wooden platform a garage beyond redemption rotting away, a chicken coop presently uninhabited, piles of rotting lumber, old tires, old refrigerator, etc. strewn everywhere. A professionally designed and landscaped parking lot, particularly in the alterna- tives, would be preferable to the current situation. It was cl ear that a parking lot would be a benefit to the neighborhood, and it was difficult to imagine that anyone other than those properties at 750 Channing, 758 Channing, and 733 Addison would be impacted. The back of the residences at 750 and 758 Channing were about 125 feet from the fence line, and an eight foot fence with a ten foot wide landscaped buffer of fast growing trees and shrubs would con- stitute a reasonable sound and light buffer. The residence at 733 Addison already had substantial foliage in the backyard, and the proposed fence and ten foot landscaped buffer would go along with a mitigating impact. The residential neighborhood had its streets used for a parking lot, and it appeared to the residents that the church responsible for the problem had no control of the problem. The issue was critically important to the residents, and he urged that the City Council approve some form of off-street parking, and Alternative A was reasonable. He urged the Counci linembers to visit the site to ascertain the problem. Christopher Payne, 1023 Guinda Street, said that if there was not a significant problem, so many people would not have attended the Council meeting on a rainy evening. He submitted a letter, which is on file in the City Clerk's Office, from Peg Stephen, 927 Guinda Street, who was unable to attend the meeting, but who also protested the decision of the Zoning Administrator and Planning Commission to overturn the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Dolores Ramsey, 733 Addison, said she thought the question was a lot like the question of industrial waste ---"everyone knows we have to get rid of it, but where do we put it." The people on Guinda had a problem with cars parked in front of their houses, and the exact problem existed on Channing and Addison. The question was whether the residents would like to have the parking problem sud- denly solved by having the parking lot put in their backyards. The whole idea of church was the concept of a theological institu- tion which implied families and Sunday meetings. She understood that the "franchise was purchased," which meant big business to her. The growth factor was big business even though the business was for counseling and behavior modification which did not imply a church. If the use permit was granted for church use, and it was in fact big business, an R-1 residential neighborhood was being asked to assimilate the big business. The problem might be solved by reviewing the use permit. She understood that the previous decision was whether to have a parking lot, and that appeared to be being pushed through by alternative plans rather than a "yes" or "no." She hoped that any alternatives would receive input from those most directly involved. She suggested that the church use at 920 Guinda be moved to the rear of the lot which would put an_ attractive house at the back of the lot, and which would preclude impacting 76.4, 758, 741, 737. and 733 Addison., She resided at 733 Addison and further objected to the parking lot because Addison was the street used by all the school children , and a driveway coming out would be dangerous. _ Moving the residence to the back of the lot would put a parking lot between two church residences and some of the back of the Seventh . Day Adventist Church could also be utilized by that plan, Kim Ramsey, 437 Forest Street, said that before any solution was chosen, the City Council should address - the greater problem of the church itself. He grew up in the neighborhood, and the church createda wedge in the neighborhood. If the church ..achieved its growth .patterns, the neighborhood would be back to the same: prob- lem in a matter of months . Mayor Eyerly declared the public hearing c Mayor Eyerly asked about the contents of the current use permit which was assumed by the Church of Scientology from the Mormon Church. Mr. Brown responded that the use permit under which the Church of Scientology operated authorized use of the property at 950 Guinda for church usage. The permit did not specify the types of uses allowed or any restrictions on hours of operation. Mayor Eyerly clarified that under the law the use permit could continue forever unless a change was. requested. Mr. Brown said that was correct --the use permit ran with the land. Mayor Eyerly asked about the qualifications for a "church use." Mr. Brown said that among other criteria, the City's zoning ordi- nance defined a "church" as an institution having_ a tax . exempt status, and the section of the State of California Constitution was cited therein. He spoke with the County Assessor's Office who advised that an exception from taxes was granted for the Church of Scientology parcel at 950 Guinda. Councilmember Levy asked if there was a definition for "church usage." If the institution using the site was a church, was any- thing done by them constituted a church usage. City Attorney Diane Lee said that the courts in California, par- ticularly those who addressed the issue recently, had gotten away from the concept of religious institution in the traditional sense. She paraphrased from the case of Young Life Campaign vs. Director of Em ioyment Develo ment De artment that ",:.the -court conc u e a ecause o e Yrs amen777t, the conventional understanding of what constitutes a church must not be permitted to reward conventional .churches and exclude unorthodox ones... Discussing the unorthodox and nondenominational format of sharing religious faith and certain types of needs and having religious discussion, providing an atmosphere to promote religious experi- ence which an organization seeks is not inconsistent wi th church status." She commented that the courts were liberal in deciding what was or was not a church. Councilmember Levy asked if the City was allowed to circumscribe the use or location of churches with regard to R -1 uses. Ms. Lee said that was dealt with by conditional use permits in R-1 districts. Councilmember Levy said that since a use permit was granted to one entity which called itself a church, that permit continued to ,,al 1 entities which called themsevles a church even though that church practice had a completely different effect on the neighborhood. Ms. Lee said that was true because the permits were issued in the 1930's, and no one conceived what the evolution of religious activity would be. Those uses s would be looked at carefully now because the City conceived of how intense some of them could be. Councilmember Levy asked if it was true that the Church of Scientology only had tax exemption status from .:the State govern- ment. If so, could the Council take that into consideration when discussing church usage. Mr. Brown said he was unaware of the Church of Scientology's status with the Internal Revenue Service. The City's ordinance referred to the State of _California Constitution and whether they were tax exempt with the State. 2 6 0 r_ 10/25/82 Ms. Lee clarified that the City's provisions reeli red the prima facia evidence, which meant insufficient evidence on its face, of the usage of the revenue and tax provision in the State constitu- tion with respect to church. That presented a rebuttal presump- tion which required that other evidence be presented that was not so. She urged the Council to tread carefully on t e First Amendment grounds. Mr. Carlston cited the case as Foundi n Church of Sci entol o vs . the United States of America, -4'1.. . n page an was a Court or craims 196Y ruithg. The Supreme Court denied certiorari in 1970 at 397 U.S. 1009 upholding the Circuit Court's ruling. Councilmember Renzel said without regard to any particular church occupant, a use permit ran with the land and, therefore, the Mor eons could turn it over to Scientology, who could turn it over to Christian Science, and the City would not be plugged into that process in any way. Many of the use permits were granted a long time ago when there was more public transportation, churches were more parish oriented, and there was much less automobile traffic generally. It was now known that churches needed parking, and she asked if the Ci ty could revise its R-1 zoning district requiring parking for a conditional use for a church, thereby making any future church uses and existing church uses lawfully noncon- forming. Ms. Lee asked for the the opportunity to look into that question rather than providing an answer off the top of her head. Councilmember Renzel asked that the question be reviewed because she felt it was germane to the problem the Council was dealing with tonight. RECESS FROM 9 1 g.m. TO 10:21.2:2.1 Councilmember 'Witherspoon asked how many trees had to be removed to create the parking lot. Mr. Brown said there about three large trees, a large hedge, and a few assorted smaller trees near the backs of the existing resi- dences. Councilmember Witherspoon asked which alternative favored the parking strip along behind the church to save at least the hedge if not the trees. Mr. Brown responded that both alternatives would remove that land- scaping. Councilmember Wi therspoon said a live oak would mitigate the view of a parking lot from the second story windows of the residences. Mr. Brown pointed out that the Council could require that it be maintained. Councilmember Witherspoon understood that the appeal was before the Council, and if the. -appeal was not granted, she asked where the Council would he parliamentary -wise. Mayor Eyerly said he understood that the Council :could uphold the appeal and accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to disallow the application for a parking lot. If it was decided to reverse' the decision of the planning Commission and ,allow , the appeal, the Council could uphold -'the original decision of the Director of Planni_ng. Councilmember Witherspoon asked if the original, decision could be dified. 2 6 0 8 10/25/82 Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said the conditions of the use permit could be changed by the Council. When the use permit was granted, it was tied to a specific plan for the development of the parking. Mayor Eyerly clarified that the Council could approve the use per- mi t and attached the conditions it deemed appropriate. Councilmember Witherspoon clarified that if the conditions were changed, it could be returned to the Planning Commission for com- ments. Ms. Lee said that was correct. Councilmember Cobb said he was struck by the fact that no repre- sentative of the church spoke. He drove by the site tonight --it was in full swing --and there were no parking spaces to be found anyplace on Gui nda or the adjacent streets. Something had to be done because the situation was unacceptable. He observed from the minutes that Mr. Green, speaking for the church, indicated that some 60 pus cars were envisioned. If the lot were constructed, the problem would return if the anticipated growth took place; and if the lot were not constructed, twice as many cars would have to be in the.. street. It was beyond acceptability to try and put twice as many cars on the street as there were now. He was intrigued about what would be done about the future spillover to the street when it happened, and thoughts of the Grecian Spa flashed through his mind. A solution was needed that involved some kind of parking lot, and he thought Alternative B was better than the original solution. MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by Fazzino, to return the detailed consideration of Alternate B and the condi- tions attached thereto in CMR:549:2, to the Planning Commi ssi cn and/or any other appropriate compromise solution that involved a parking lot that could be agreed to by all parties. Councilmember Cobb commented that implicit in the motion was the fact that some sort of parking lot was; necessary. In regard to Condition 2 on page 5 of CMR:549:2, mature shrubbery should be looked into to achieve some immediate benefits to the neighbors whose properties abutted the proposed lot. It was senseless for Condition 7 to say that the church shall attempt to provide off - site, off-street parking. Some teeth were needed if that was to be a condition. City Manager Bill Liner encouraged that the item not be referred to the Planning Commission. The matter was widely discussed already, and as was pointed out, not everyone would be satisfied by a solution. Staff recommended that Council attempt to deal with the issue. The alternatives were good, the public was in favor, and he did not think a better solution would be found. Councilmember Fletcher said staff commented in the Planning Commission Minutes that they would' look into the question of parking on the day the street sweeper went by to see if something could be done. She asked about the outcome. Mr. Brown said he discussed the problem with Director of Transportation Ted Noguchi who indicated that the City did not dictate hours of street sweeping. He pointed out that the ban on overnight parking was intended to allow street sweeping in the early morning hours. Councilmember Fletcher commented that the overnight parking ban only applied to trucks and, recreational vehicles. She suggested that the Council sometime look into having similar regulations -- there were other cities which banned parking during the hours that the street sweeper went by. She opposed the motion, and did not think the problem would be alleviated by a 30 -space parking lot. 2 6 0 9 10/25/82 She said the cars would still park in front of the homes --the problem was the intensity of use at the site. If the lot was not allowed, the church might look for other quarters sooner as they received complaints from their patrons that they had to walk too far to reach the buildings. She was concerned that even though 741 and 737 Addison were under the same ownership at this time, they were separate, lots and could produce family housing in the future. Turning part of those lots into a parking lot would detract fr.om the future uses "of those two residences. Further, the unsightliness of the pr, ent lot could be easily remedied by the future or present ownership. Once it was a parking lot, it would always be a parking lot, Mature trees and shrubbery would be destroyed if the parking lot were built, and especially since it would not solve the problem, she would oppose the motion. Councilmember Klein felt that the motion would constitute a misuse of people power --the public and Council had invested nearly two hours of time on the issue and sending it back to the Planning Commission would provide a repeat, plus another one, when it returned. Mr. Zaner was correct that there was no perfect solu- tion, and he did not see where sending it back to the Planning Commission would improve the alternatives. The precise design of a parking lot would still have to go through the Architectural Review Board. The issue was fully aired at the Commission, and the proposed plan before the Council was an improvement and mod- ification of the parking lot design. The Council needed to decide whether a parking lot was needed. He walked the neighborhood, and the parking was out of hand, but the City's control over church activities was limited. He added that that issue concerned him and it was hard for people to grasp that the definition of "church" under the State Constitution was very flexible. Regard- less of the fact that most people grew up with certain ideas in mind of what constituted a church, the constitution made it clear that freedom of religion existed in this Country which meant that churches could be widely diverse. The fact that the Church of Scientology was different from traditional churches did not detract from the fact that they were as much a church. The only way to get away from that would be practices which did not conform at all to anyone's idea of what religion` could possibly be. He did not think the Council would get far by saying that it did not appear to be much like a church. The neighborhaod was overloaded, and it was unfortunate that the Council was dealing with a use permit that did not anticipate that fact. Adding the parking lot would improve things, and the design would minimize the impact on the Channing Street property to where it was livable and accept- able. He would not support the motion, and urged that a motion be passed with the conditions similar to those outlir:ed in CMR:549:2 in order to go ahead with the parking lot. Vice Mayor Bechtel felt that the motion would be a waste of the staff's, Planning Commission's, and Council's time. She under- stood from the Planning Commission Minutes that the matter would still go to the ARB so .that final design and landscaping issues could be resolved by them. No matter if the Church of Scientology or another church eventually had the lease, parking on the loca- tion was needed. Buffering could provide adequate protection of the three surrounding parcels most affected by the parking. It was true that 33 parking spaces would not totally solve the prob- lem, but it would help. Councilmember Fazzino said that for the most part he agreed with Councilmember Cobb's comments. Earlier Councils sat there 20 to 25 .years ago looking at the situation with respect to the Presbyterian Church and, the European . Health Spar anti agreed that those uses were wonderful and parking for those uses should'. occur --to . bring about the parking and neighborhood problems of today in those areas. He was concerned that despite the fact that Alternative B was a clear choice in terms of the alternative parking proposals which had been brought before the Council, and was comfortable with i t since " it protected the neighbors, the 2 6 1 0 10/25/82 parking problem on the streets would continue if Alternative B was not implemented, He supported sending the item back to the Planning Commission because another more serious discussion was needed regarding the consequences involved with any improvement on that property, and the eventual problems it would cause in the neighborhood. There would be more pressure to add church activi- ties, and he felt the church was being given the green light to move ahead and expand activities if the Council moved ahead with- out any further discussion of Alternative. B. A lot of information was presented to the. Council tonight, aed a lot of material and good ideas were developed after the Planning Commission hearing, and he thought it was worth another look. He suggested that the Commission evaluate ways to monitor and limit the intensity of the use on the property. Although he had problems with the Church of Scientology being viewed in the same theological light as former occupants of the site, the Council would be better served to con- sider the limitation of the use on the property along the lines of intensity alone. The Council had, a productive discussion on the Presbyterian Church's situation a year or two ago, and it was important to go back and evaluate that discussion to ascertain if any of those principles could be applied to the existing situa- tion. At that time, the issue was not one of invading the privi- leged church right's of the institution, but rather what consti- tuted a church use. Careful eval uation of some of the day-to-day uses in the area might uncover some distinctions. He supported the motion even though he concurred with his colleagues that Alternative B was the better way to go. If the motion failed, he woul d support the Al ternative B parking lot approach, but woul d want to move ahead and get a report from the City Attorney or Mr. Grown on alternatives for the City with regard to the limitation and monitoring of intensity of use on that site. Councilmember Fenzel would support the motion despite staff's urging not to. She said it was important to send the issue back because it appeared from the minutes that the Planning Commission was willing to look at alternatives, but the applicant was not willing to continue the matter. She thought there were important planning considerations about the site which would be helpful to the Planning Commission in more general planning considerations as well . She recogni zed that some redundancy in hearings might occur, but agreed with Councilmember Fazzino that there were some peripheral matters relating to hours and growth plans that might be germane to what happened with the parking lot. She lived in the neighborhood for seven .yeers and was aware of the on -street parking problems. She agreed that it made sense to do something about the parking, yet felt that procedurally it was important for the Planning Commission to review the matter and to review the more general planning matters related to that kind of use permit. Condition No. 2 spoke of including fast growing trees, and since the landscaping would all be on the perimeter of the site and at least one perimeter was toe southern boundary of the properties facing Channing, she questioned whether it was necessary to put something like Monterey Pines, Redwoods or Oaks .on a southern boundary of the property:: She thought tall- shrubs were adequate, and would not cause, a requirement of the City to take sunlight from adjacent neighbors' properties. The ground water-- was only 20 feet deep in the area, and when trees hit it, they went crazy. She was concerned that a condition of fast growing trees not be. imposed when they were on the :perimeter of the sight. Councilmember Levy believed that there should be a parking lot. The neighbors were rightfully concerned about the traffic prob- lems, and a facility of that nature should have a parking lot. He approved the parking lot and agreed with staff that the Council was indulging an overkill . to again send the matter back to the Planning .Commi ssio'n There was no question that Alternative 8 was the proper one, : and he urged the preservation of the live Oak tree, even though it meant a couple less parking spaces. He 2 6.1 1 10/25/82 i 1 suggested that the center row of parking be turned around so that the headlights of the cars faced the church rather than the adjoining properties. He was concerned for the three or four neighbors who would be impacted by a parking lot, and thought their concerns were rf;al. There was more noise to a parking lot and there would he lights in the evening, but given the trade- offs, the Council was in an uncomfortable position and the parking lot trade-off was better than the alternative of a tremendous amount of parking and crowding throughout the neighborhood streets. He strongly supported the First Amendment, but not any kl t1d of usage could be allowed in an R-1 zone simply because an entity qualified as a church. Even churches needed to respect the requirements of an R-1 neighborhood. He believed that the City, within its police powers, and without circumscribing churches, could still limit churches in certain ways that were appropriate for the neighborhood. The unfortunate historical situation was that instead of delineating what consti tuted appropriate uses for a church in an R-1 area, , the City said that any church . usage was alright. He could not believe that any church use was alright. For example, if a church felt that the very late evening was more appropriate for its practices than the day time and engaged in its efforts between 10:00 p.m. and 2:00 a.m., which churches have been known to do from time to time, it was simply inappropriate in an R -I neighborhood. He believed it was within the City's rights to limit that use in that particular neighborhood. That question was separate, but he suggested that it be investigated. He would not support the motion and vote to approve a parking lot along the lines of Alternative B. Councilmember Witherspoon felt that a parking lot must be con- structed and there was not a lot of space available as to where to put the bushes or which wa,y to point the cars. She shared the concerns of Councilmembers Renzel and Fazzino, but the difference was that the Council had no handle to lay on the Church of Scientology as was the case with the Presbyterian Church. The Council could decide what it thought was appropriate, but had no way of getting them to agree. The motion on the floor was not; the way to approach the concerns which were raised. Mayor Eyerly encouraged the Council to defeat the motion. MOTION FAILED by a vote of 3-6 vote, Cobb, Wenzel, Fazzino voting "aye." MOTION: Council ember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Klein, approval of the alternate parking lot configuration along the lines of Alternative B of th the following findings: For the UsesPerait 1. .The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detri- mental or injurious to property and improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience in that provision of between ten ; [.10) and sixteen (16) feet of landscape buffer, restricted lighting, avid ' an eight (8) foot:. high , fence will mitigate impacts of noise, glare and visibility of the lot from adjacent residences; - 2) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a wanner in accordance with ` the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the pur- poses of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal. Code in that the proposal- responds to Transportation Policy 1O which states` reduce eopl ilea or commuter parking in residential neighbor- hoods." : As conditioned, the parking lot will not have a detrimental impact on adjacent properties For the Variance 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condi- tions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that no off- street parking is currently provided for church use; 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preserva- tion and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnec- essary hardship in that inclusion of all required perimeter parking lot landscaping and no more than 25 percent compact parking spaces would so reduce the number of parking spaces able to be developed, that the construction would not be feasible; 3.. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that the impacts of noise, glare, and safety will be mitigated by conditionsof the permits. Further, the Council imposes the following conditions: 1. Approval of this use permit is subject to approval of the parking lot design and landscaping by the Architectural Review Board; 2. Landscaping shall be designed to include tall shrub species to provide a substantial landscape screen along property lines common with adjacent residences; 3. Parking lot lighting shall be limited to fixtures with a maxi- mum height of four feet. Light shall be directed towards the parking lot and shall not spill onto adjacent properties; 4. A speed bump shall be constructed across the driveway onto Addison Avenue to reduce vehicular speed before reaching the pedestrian sidewalk; 5. The church shall, to the best of its ability, discourage con- gregation of parishioners in the parking lot after 10:00 p.m.; 6. The existing fence separating the proposed parking lot and adjacent nonchurch owned residences shall be replaced with. fencing eight feet in height' 7. the church shall provide off -site, off-street parking for staff members; 8.. Wherever possible, existing trees on the site shall be saved; and 9. The use permit _ shall be effective upon the recordation of a declaration of easement establishing ingress, egress and parking rights over . parcels at 137-741 Addison Street. Mr. Brown said it was not certain that the church would be able to secure parking at the medical /dental building at Addison and Channing. He directed the church to work with the owner of that property, but whether an agreement' could be worked_; oUt was still in the air. Counci imember Fletcher asked what would happen, if Off-street, off -site parking could not -be secured by 'the church. She, would not support the motion. AMENDMENT: Mayor Eyerly moved, seconded by Renzel, that the ARB consider with the neighborhood and Church of Scientology whether condition No. 6 should be an eight foot sound wall or an eight foot fence. 1 1 1 1 1 1 Councilmember Renzel asked if it was possible to suggest an eight foot sound wall if requested by the adjoining neighbor. Mr. Freeland responded that :the parking structure was being pur- sued by the Church of Scientology in response to neighborhood pressures as opposed to something they felt was needed for their own programs. Staff was reluctant to push the Church too far with the value of. the improvements for fear that they would back away from the entire proposal. Councilmember Renzel , said she was concerned that there would be no reason to require an eight foot fence if the neighbor did not want one. Mr. Freeland suggested that it be recommended to the ARB that they pursue the concept of a sound wall and attempt to reach concur- rence from the Church of'Scientology. Councilmember Witherspoon felt the amendment was pushing the mat- ter. She did not think a sound wall would be that much help because it was a small area and the sounds would be people talking and laughing in the parking lot as they left classes at 10:00 p.m. Mayor Eyerly pointed out that the amendment was at the discretion of the ARB and might be worked out with all parties. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Fazzino, Bechtel, Witherspoon, Klein voting "no." MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by .a vote of 8-1, Fletcher voting 'no." MOTION: CouncilmeW er Renzel moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that the City Attorney be requested to report on possible ways to deal with the transfer of Conditional Use Permits in R-1 zones, particularly with respect to insufficient parking problems or intensification of use with subsequent referral to the Planning;. Commission and the Council. Councilmember Levy asked if the motion was being limited to just uses that involved parking. Councilmember Renzel responded that the motion was intended to include any conditional use in an R-1 zone and how it was transferred from one use to the next, and whether the City could improve the site development situation in the course of those transfers. Councilmember Levy was concerned about the appropriateness, of those uses in an R-1 environment. He would support the motion. Councilmember Klein asked if the mt tion was with regard to use permits that were transferred. Counci lme er Renzel ,said she intended. that' it be with regard to the transfer:of use permits and whether .the City could get into., .the : process when:' there were problems associated with r:.that trans.- fer, ' It appeared that at -the point vf transfer, the problems being dealt with: were: with the,, potential future -user. That was --when the. City sho id- get- into the pr.pcess. Further, -; the City should have 'some abi l ityt to deal. With the intensification of use 1NOTION. PASSED FOR CITY COLLECTIONS (CMR:530:2) Mayor Eyerly reminded the. Council about the request -for considera- tion of permanent displays in a staff report of June 3, 1982. Councilmember Levy said he would like consideration given to per- manent exhibit space in, the Council Chambers in conjunction with the Civic Center design review process. He suggested that some type of permanent and safe exhibit space be developed in order to enclose exhibits, from time to time as appropriate in order to enhance the Council Chambers, as. well as have the opportunity to display_ exhibits that reflect not only the art in the Palo Alto, but the character of life as well. NOTION: CouncilmeMb er Levy moved, seconded by Witherspoon, that staff be urged to consider permanent exhibit spaces in the Council Chambers area in conjunction with the proposed Civic Center design report. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #12, REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER RENZEL RE PROPOSITION 11 ' CMR :''54: 2 } Councilmember Renzel said that Jane Goldstein provided the City with a lot of information on various organizations in support of Proposition 11. She pointed out that Palo Alto's did not appear under the list of recycling centers, and it was important for the City to make it clear that its recycling operation supported Proposition 11. A phone campaign currently existed in Palo Alto urging people to vote "No" on Proposition 11 because of the effect on recycling centers. It was important for the City of Palo Alto to reiterate its support from its recycling center. MOTION: Council.eMber Renzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, that the Mayor be directed to write and communicate by phone to Californians for Recycling and Litter Clean Up expressing the sup- port of the Council and Palo Alto Recycling Operation for Proposi- tion 11. NOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #13, REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER FAllINO RE CLARIFICATION OF Councilmember Fazzino said that approximately one year ago, the Council approved an item regarding reapportionment. The motion was made by Councilmember Fazzino and seconded by former Mayor Alan Henderson, that the Mayor be authorized to write a letter indicating the City's support of a nonpartisan commission. The question arose whether support of a nonpartisan commission could be interpreted as support for Proposition 14. In theory, there was definite support for a Proposition 14 although at the time it was approved, no such proposition existed. Further, he thought it might be inappropriate_ to take any action beyond clarification given the lack of notification, and deferred to the City Attorney for response. City Attorney Diane Lee said she would let the Council judge whether the matter was urgent given the pending election and the fact that the matter might be misconstrued, and the Council's posi- tion might be admi ntstered one way or the other. She suggested that the: Counci lmembers say that given .the imminence of the elec- tion, the Council should take up the matter. Councilmember Renzel was concerned about the Council's taking action on an unagendized matter. She supported the initiative; but felt it was a bad precedent to _ interpret and use a past Council's action, which occurred before a proposition was on the. ballot as later; support, for that proposition. In this case, it might be true_' that all of the Councilmen ers' supported the initia- tive, but to: have it appear as an unagendized item for interpreta- tion on something that was done over a ye'tr ago, Was a dangerous precedent ' for the Council, and she would net wish to see it happen. Any action taken by the Council should be on an agendized basis according to the CityCharter. 2 6"1 ra 10/25/82 As -Corrected 1/10/83 Vice Mayor Bechtel agreed with Councilmember Renzel . The Council should not take action when the matter was not on the agenda and properly. noticed. Councilmember Fletcher said the Council did not have the Proposi- tion before it, 1 Councilmember Klein agreed with his colleagues. Councilmember Fazzino said the record should stand that the Council went on record a year ago in support of a nonpartisan commission. He clarified that he had no intention of going beyond the rules and regulations of the Council, but merely wanted to bring the matter up as an information item. He was also concerned about taking action tonight, given the lack of public notifica- tion. ADJOURNMENT OWNOWININIMMOMMelarow Council adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ATTEST: Ci APPROVE : - ,/ (i 414Y-6*. 2 6 1 6 10/25/82