HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-10-04 City Council (8)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
:FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
9DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:OCTOBER 4, 1999 CMR: 373:99
SUBJECT:LAWRENCE’S TIRE SERVICE, 2011 EL CAMINO REAL:
ORDINANCE ALLOWING THE EXTENSION OF THE REQUIRED
TERMINATION DATE FOR THE NON-CONFORMING,
AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE USE, SPECIFICALLY TIRE SALES AND
INSTALLATION
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached Ordinance
(Attachment A) allowing the continued operation of the non-conforming, automotive service
use, presently doing business as Lawrence’s Tire Service, located at 2011 E1 Camino Real.
The Commission’s recommendation would allow the existing automotive service use,
specifically tire sales and installation, to continue operating for an additional ten years, until
April 26, 2009. Staff, however, recommends that the City Council adopt the attached
Ordinance as presently drafted, which would allow the existing automotive service use to
continue operating for an additional five years, until April 26, 2004.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As indicated in the attached staff report to the Planning Commission, dated September 8,
1999 (Attachment B), the application consists solely of an Ordinance to amend Section
18.94.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), allowing an extension to the required
termination date of the non-conforming use described above. No physical changes to the
site, existing structures, or any uses presently being performed on-site are proposed.
Since the action requested is an extension of a non-conforming use and is, therefore, not
conditional, the owners may sell the business or transfer its operation to another party within
the new amortization period. The Ordinance does not permit an expansion of the existing
automotive service use to include other more intensive activities, such as auto repair,
painting, or parts installation.
CMR:373:99 Page 1 of 2
PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The application was reviewed by the Planning Commission at its regular meeting on
September 8, 1999 (see Attachment B). The Commission believed that it was appropriate
to extend the amortization schedule to allow Lawrence’s Tire Service to continue its current
operation, but the Commission had considerable discussion regarding the proposed time
period of the extension. By a 6-1 vote, the Commission recommended that the amortization
schedule for Lawrence’s Tire Service should be extended for a period of 10 years, to April
26, 2009. The Commission recommended that the amortization period be increased beyond
staff’s recommendation based on the following considerations: 1) the owner’s verbal request
made at the Planning Commission meeting for a longer extension period (five years was
initially requested by the owner’s representative), 2) the desire to keep an independently
operated business at the site, and 3) to allow staff adequate time to address any potential land
use modifications affecting neighborhood use and services through the upcoming Zoning
Ordinance update.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Ordinance
Attachment B: Staff Report to Planning Commission
Attachment C: Planning Excerpt Commission Minutes, September 8, 1999 Meeting
Attachment D: Council Minutes, May 24, 1999 Meeting
Attachment E: Location Map
Prepared By:Luke Connolly, Senior Planner
Manager Review: Ray Hashimoto, Assistant Planning Official
Eric Riel, Jr., Chief Planning Official
G. EDWARD GAWF ’~
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Director of Planning and Community Environment
A1 Marks, Owner, Lawrence’s Tire Service
Carol Jansen, Jansen Consulting
CMR:373:99 Page 2 of 2
Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OFTHE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18.94.070 [NONCONFORMING USE -
REQUIRED TERMINATION]TO CHANGE THE REQUIRED
TERMINATION DATE FOR THE USE AT 2011 EL CAMINO
REAL
WHEREAS, the use at the Lawrence Tire Service site, 2011 E1
Camino Real, is a nonconforming use that was scheduled to terminate
on April 26, 1999, pursuant to the amortization schedule set forth
in section 18.94.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, A1 Marks, owner of the business located on the
subject property, has requested that the City allow extension of
the termination of the nonconforming use until April 26, 2004 and
the City Council, on October 4, 1999, passed a motion initiating
consideration of this request; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public
hearing held September 8, 1999, has recommended that section
18.94.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to allow such
uses to be extended until Apri! 26, 2004; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after due consideration of the
Commission’s recommendation, finds that the proposed amendment is
in the public interest, will promote the public health, safety and
welfare, and will not be detrimental to any other uses, for the
following reasons:
I. The amendment would not adversely impact the currently
adopted long-term plan for development of the property as set forth
in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, which designates the subject
property for Neighborhood Commercial purposes.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the original fifteen
year amortization period for this property was reasonable and
commensurate with the investment involved, and upon that basis
expressly reserves the right to review, modify, condition or repeal
this extension, with or without a finding of changed circumstances,
at any time following expiration of the original amortization
period. Under no circumstance shall this ordinance be construed as
creating a vested right for any nonconforming use to remain beyond
its original amortization period.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
ORDAIN as follows:
~ECTION I. Section 18.94.070 [Nonconforming Use - Required
Termination] of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
is hereby amended to read:
0090337
18.94.070 Nonconforming use - Required termination.
(a) In any district, a nonconforming, nonresidential use
occupying a site having facilities thereon valued at less than one
thousand dollars, shall be terminated within five years from the
effective date of this section, or within five years from the date
such use becomes nonconforming, whichever date is later, and within
such time the improvements shall either be removed, or converted or
modified to accommodate a conforming use.
(b) In any district, a nonconforming, nonresidential use of a
site not subject to subsection (a) of this section shall be
terminated in accord with the following provisions and schedules:
(I) When occupying or using facilities designed and built
for residential use, the nonconforming use shall be terminated
within ten years from July 20, 1978, or within ten years from the
date such use becomes nonconforming, whichever date is later, and
within such time the improvements shall either be removed, or
converted or modified to accommodate a conforming use.
(2) When occupying or using facilities designed or built
for nonresidential use, the nonconforming use shall be terminated,
and the facilities shall be converted or modified to accommodate a
conforming use, or shall be removed at or before the time limit
prescribed in subdivision (3) of this subsection; provided,
however, that no such termination, removal, or conversion shall be
required within fifteen years from July 30, 1978, or within fifteen
years from the date such use became nonconforming, whichever date
is later; provided, however, that uses which were made non-
conforming as a result of the 1974 Fire Zone 1 Study, by Ordinance
No. 2777, adopted March 25, 1974, shall terminate on November 23,
1990; and provided, further, that any use made nonconforming by
said Ordinance No. 2777, the primary purpose of which is to prepare
and deliver food to senior citizens, shut-ins and others with
limited mobility may remain and shall not be subject to termination
pursuant to this section. Such uses shall be permitted to remode!,
improve or replace site improvements in accordance with applicable
site development regulations, provided that any such remodeling,
improvement or replacement shall not result in any increased floor
area.
Notwithstanding the dates of termination of uses required
by this subsection (b) (2), the required termination dates of the
following uses shall be as hereinafter set forth:
(A)The nonconforming use(s) of the property at 440-460
Page Mill Road for nonprofit orthomolecular and
molecular medical research functions shall terminate
on or before July 20, 1998.
990901 la~ 0090337
(B)The nonconforming use of the property at 464 Colorado
Avenue for a dance studio and associated parking shall
t~rminate on or before July 20, 2003.
(c)The nonconforming use of the property at 440 Pepper
Street for an art studio specializing exclusivelyin
the medium of monotype printmaking and associated
instructional uses shall terminate on or-before July
20, 2003.
(D)The nonconforming use of the property at 4277 Miranda
for a gero-psychiatric skilled nursing facility shall
terminate on or before January 20, 1994.
(E)The nonconforming use(s) of the property at 3200 Park
Boulevard/340 Portage Avenue/ Olive Avenue for
commercial, warehouse, and storage uses shall
terminate on or before July 16, 2019. Continuance of
the nonconforming uses after July 16, 1999, shall be
subject to the following limitations: (i) retail uses
shall not exceed 60,000 square feet, and (2) truck.
deliveries and other noisy outdoor activities shall be
limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.
weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. weekends.
Nothing in this ordinance shall be construed to create
a vested right for the nonconforming uses to remain
after July 16, 1999. Without limitation with respect
to any other authority, the Architectural Review Board
shall be permitted to review, modify and approve the
treatment of the landscaping parking layout for the
Park Boulevard entrance with regard to truck access
issues.
(F)The nonconforming use of the property at 2011 E1
Camino Real for tire sales and installation shall
terminate on or before April 26, 2004.
Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, improve or replace
site improvements in accordance with applicable site development
regulations, provided that any such remodeling, improvement or
replacement shall not result in any increased floor area or
increase in intensity of the use, nor any loss of parking.
(3) The following schedule shall govern the period of time
for termination of nonconforming uses specified in subdivision (2)
of this subsection:
~;~0~0! lac 0090337
Type of Construction Defined by
Building Code
Age of Structure Computed
From Date of Construction
Type I - Totally noncombustible
Type II - Fire resistive
Type III- Noncombustible
exterior,~ combustible interior
Type IV - Heavy timber
Type II - Nonrated
Type V - Wood frame
35 years
35 years
30 years
30 years
25 years
20 years
(4) Nothing contained in this subsection shall extend or
otherwise modify any termination date provided by any previously
existing ordinance for any use which became nonconforming under
such ordinance prior to the effective date of this section. Such
termination dates for such previously existing nonconforming uses
are incorporated in this section and shall remain in effect.
(c) The director of planning and community environment shall
determine those properties the use of which were lawfully existing
uses permitted or conditionally permitted, in the districts in
which they were located immediately prior to July 20, 1978, and
which uses were rendered nonconforming by reason of the adoption of
this title on July 20, 1978, and those properties which, prior to
July 20, 1978, were located in an R-I district which was imposed by
reason of annexation of the property to the city without benefit of
prezoning, the uses of which were lawfully existing uses permitted
or conditionally permitted operating subject to a conditional use
permit prior to the date of annexation. Written notice of such
nonconformance shall be mailed to the owner of record of each such
property and to the occupant of the property. Within two years of
the date of mailing of such notice, any owner of such property,
lessee of such property with the written consent of owners, or
purchaser of such property when acting pursuant to a contract of
sale in writing duly executed and acknowledged by both the buyer
and the owner of record, may apply to have such property excepted
from the termination provisions of this section. Said application
may be made to the director of planning and community environment
in such form as may be prescribed by the director of planning and
community environment. Said application shall include, but not be
limited to, a statement of the location and size of the property,
the nature of its use on July 20, 1978, a statement of reasons
establishing that the use is compatible with and will not be
detrimental to the uses designated in the Comprehensive Plan for
the surrounding area and properties, a map of the subject property
indicating the location of all parcels of real property within a
distance of ~91.4 meters (three hundred feet) from the exterior
boundary of the subject property, a list as shown in the last
equalized assessment roll, of the name and address of the owner of
record of each such parcel, and such other information as may be
required by the director of planning and community environment.
990901 ~ 0090337
(I) Such application sha!l be accompanied by such fee as
is prescribed in the municipal fee schedule.
(2) Upon receipt of such application, the director of
planning and community environment shall so inform the chairperson
of the planning commission who shall set a date for a public
hearing on the application which shall be held within a reasonable
tLme from the date of filing of the application. Notice of the
~hearing shall be given in the same manner as provided in Chapter
18.90 for notice of hearing by the zoning administrator~
(3) Upon the date set for hearing, the planning commission
shall conduct a public hearing thereon, unless, for cause, the
commission shall on that date continue the matter. Upon conclusion
of the hearing, the commission shall determine whether the use of
the property on July 20, 1978, is compatible and not detrimental to
the land uses designated in the Comprehensive Plan for the
surrounding areas of properties. In the event the commission so
finds, it shall recommend to the city council that the use shall be
exempted from the termination provisions of this section. The
commission may recommend such conditions as it may find necessary
to insure compatibility including, but not limited to, required
improvement of or modifications to existing improvements on the
property, limitations on hours of operation, limitation on the
nature of operations, and a specified term of years for which the
exception shall be granted.
(4) Upon receipt of the recommendation of the planning
commission, the city council shall consider the application within
a reasonable time. The council may, at its option, conduct a public
hearing on the matter.
In the event the council finds the use of the subject
property to be compatible with and not detrimental to those land
uses designated ±n the Comprehensive Plan for the surrounding area
and properties, it shall, by motion, except said use from the
termination provisions of this section. In granting such exception,
the council may include such conditions as are deemed necessary to
insure such compatibility, including, but not limited to, the
conditions set out in subsection (c) (3) of this section.
(5) Any use which is excepted from the termination
provisions of this section, and which is changed pursuant to
Section 18.94.030 shall be subject to the termination provisions of
this section as though no exception had been granted.
(6) Any use excepted from the termination provisions of
this section shall be permitted to remode!, improve, or replace
site improvements on the same site, without the necessity to comply
with site development regulations, for continual use and occupancy
~by the same use; provided, that any such remodeling, improvement,
990901 Is: 0090337
or replacement shall not result in increased floor area, number of
dwelling units, height, length, or any other increase in the size
of the improvement.
(d) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, any
off-street parking lot which was lawfully existing and not subject
to any required termination provisions of any predecessor ordinance
on the effective date of this section, and which on that date was
~and continues to be used accessory to a lawful conforming permitted
use, shall be permitted to continue in existence and use for the
life of the principal use to which it is accessory, regardless of
whether said parking lot and principal use are located in the same
district.
SECTION 2. The Council finds that this project will have
no significant environmental effect.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective on the
commencement of the thirty-first day after the date of its
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
990901 1~ 0090337
Attachment B
PLANNING COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
Agenda Date:
To:
From:
September 8, 1999
Planning Commission
Luke Connolly, Senior Planner
Senior Planner
Department: Planning
Subject:2011 El Camino Real (Lawrence’s Tire Service): Proposal to extend the
termination date for the non-conforming, automotive service use, specifically
tire sales and installation, located at 2011 E1 Camino Real. The proposal will
allow the existing use to operate until April 26, 2004.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the
attached ordinance (see Attachment A) allowing the continued operation of the non-conforming,
automotive service use, known as Lawrence’s Tire Service, located at 2011 E1 Camino Real.
The ordinance allows the existing automotive service use (tire sales and installation only) to
continue operation until April 26, 2004.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The project consists solely of an amendment to Section 18.94.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code (PAMC) allowing a five-year extension of the termination date of the non-conforming use
described above. No physical changes to the site, existing structures, or any uses presently being
performed on-site are proposed as part of the project.
BACKGROUND:
On March 26, 1984, the City Council completed its actions on the California Avenue District
Study, which analyzed land uses in the California Avenue vicinity, west of Alma Street. These
actions included Comprehensive Plan and zoning amendments for sections of E1 Camino Real
that included the Lawrence’s Tire Service site. At that time, both the site’s Comprehensive Plan
and zoning designations were changed from "Service Commercial" to "Neighborhood
Commercial." Since automotive service uses are not permitted in the Neighborhood Commercial
(CN) Zoning District, the tire sales and installation operations performed at Lawrence’s Tire
Service became non-conforming under the site’s newly established CN zoning designation.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
The site’s CN zoning designation became effective on April 26, 1984. Based on th~ age of the
existing building (the 5,000 square-foot structure was built in 1930) and its type of construction
(non-combustible material), the non-conforming automotive service use was given a 15-year
amortization period to transition to a conforming use under the CN Zoning District regulations.
The amortization period expiredon April 26, 1999; the business, however, has continued
operating. The owners of Lawrence’s Tire Service held a community meeting on May 6, 1999 to
solicit input ~rom neighborhood residents regarding the continued operation of the business.
’According to meeting notes and correspondence submitted to the Planning Division, the
community expressed strong support to allow the continued operation of Lawrence’s Tire.
Service, noting that the independent business has been a "good neighbor" throughout its 23 years
of operation and that there is presently a dearth of comparable automobile service uses in the
area. On May 24, 1999, the City Council initiated the process to extend the amortization
s~hedule (see Attachment B) so that the automotive service use at the site could continue for an
additional five years, to April 26, 2004. The business owners anticipate that they will be retired
at that time and will no longer be operating Lawrence’s Tire Service. If, however, the attached
ordinance is adopted and the amortization schedule extended, the owners may sell the business or
transfer its operation to another party within the new amortization period and the existing tire
sales and installation uses will be allowed to continue under the new management. The
ordinance does not permit any expansion of the existing automotive service use to include other
more intensive activities, such as repair, painting, or parts installation.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The project site is designated "Neighborhood Commercial" on the City of Palo Alto’s
Comprehensive Plan Land Use & Circulation Map. This land use designation includes small-
scale shopping centers and clusters of street-front stores, such as the portion of E1 Camino Real
in which the subject property is located, that serve their immediate neighborhood. Even though
the existing automotive service use is not allowed under the provisions of the CN Zoning District
(see below), Lawrence’s Tire Service operation is consistent with several Comprehensive Plan
policies, specifically Policy B-4 and Policy B-7. Policies B-4 and B-7, respectively, encourage
the support of established businesses and the promotion of small, independent businesses within
the City.
ZONING ORDINANCE COMPLIANCE:
As previously noted, the Lawrence’s Tire Service site is located in the CN Zoning District. Auto
service uses, such as the tire sales and installation activities presently performed at the site, are
not allowed under this zoning designation. Therefore, in order for the business to maintain its
current operation, the PAMC must be amended allowing the non-conforming use to continue.
The attached ordinance will allow this to occur.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES:
There are two significant issues associated with this proposal:
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1.Whether the non-conforming, auto service use should be allowed to continue operation now
that its amortization schedule has expired?
2.If allowed to continue operating, what period of time is appropriate to extend the existing
use?
The general area of concern regarding non-conforming uses is whether they are adversely
affecting surrounding properties. In the case of Lawrence’s Tire Service, the business provides a
’needed service to area residents without creating any of the nuisance problems (i.e., noise, over-
flow parking, unscreened outdoor storage) typically associated with auto service uses.
Importantly, Lawrence’s only engages in tire sales and installation and does not perform more
intensive automobile service or repair functions. Also, as requested by Lawrence’s owners, the
non-conforming use will receive a five-year extension, relatively modest given that the business
has operated at this location since 1976 and was a similarly operated Firestone Tire shop for
approximately 20 years prior to that. Therefore, allowing a use that has existed on the site for
over 40 years to continue for an additional five years appears reasonable and should not cause
problems in the surrounding area.
TIMELINE:
Following review by the Planning Commission, the project is scheduled for heating by the City
Council on October 4, 1999. Council will consider staff and Commission recommendations at
that time and decide whether to adopt the subject ordinance extending the termination date of the
use at 2011 E1 Camino Real.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
per Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines in that no expansion of the existing use or facility is
proposed.
PUBLIC NOTICE:
Public notice of this project was provided by publication of the agenda in a local newspaper of
general circulation and by mailing hearing notices to property owners and occupants within 300
feet of the project site.
COURTESY COPIES:
Al Marks, Owner, Lawrence’s Tire Service, 2011 E1 Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Carol Jansen, Jansen Consulting, 575 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Ordinance
Attachment B: Council Minutes, May 24, 1999 Meeting
Attachment C: Location Map
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Prepared By:Luke Connolly, Senior Planner
Reviewed By:
’Approved By:
Ray Hashimoto, Assistant Planning Official
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Eric Riel, Jr., Chief Planning Official
Cir. ofPalo Alto Page 4
2
IMEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 161
Attachment C
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
September 8, 1999
REGULAR MEETING - 7." O0 PM
City Council Chambers Room
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL:
Meeting called to order at 7:05 P.M.
Commissioners:
Kathy Schmidt, Chairman
Annette Bialson, Vice-Chair
Bern Beecham
Owen Byrd
Phyllis Cassel
Jon Schink
Patrick Burt
Staff."
Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official
Wynne Furth, Senior Asst. City Attorney
Luke Connolly, Senior Planner
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary
2011 El Camino Real (Lawrence’s Tire Service): Proposal to extend the termination
date for the non-conforming, automotive service use, specifically tire sales and installation,
located at 2011 E1 Camino Real. The proposal will allow the existing use to operate until
April 26, 2004. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act. This item has been tentatively scheduled for a public hearing with the City
Council on Monday, October 4, 1999.
Chairman Schmidt: We have a public hearing for 2011 E1 Camino Real and that’s a
request to extend the required termination date for the non-conforming automotive service
use, Lawrence’s Tire Service, located at 2011 E1 Camino Real. Termination date will be
extended for a period of 5 years to April 26, 2004. Environmental Assessment is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act. This item is tentatively scheduled for a
public hearing with the City Council on Monday, October 4.
Would staff like to say something on this?
Cir." of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Mr. Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official: Yes, I would like to introduc~ Luke Connolly,
senior planner in the Development Review section. He will be making the presentation.
Mr. Luke Connolly, Senior Planner: Thank:,_y_ou. Just wanted to give you a brief staff
report summarizing what the project is and we will have a visual aid in a second which is
the only one we have tonight showing the project location and the zoning designation of
the site and surrounding uses. The project itself is an ordinance that will amend Section
18.94.070 of the Municipal Code and that will extend the termination date of the
automotive service use specifically to tire installation and sales of 2011 E1 Camino Real
which is doing business as Lawrence’s Tire Service. This use has been there since 1976
and in April of 1984 the land use designations of the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning
Ordinance changed on this site from service commercial to neighborhood commercial and
it was at that time that this site became non-conforming in use. A 15-year amortization
period which is typical of the city’s amortization period was established at that time so the
termination date for the use was of April of this year. This site has remained in operation
since that time however.
The issue that is before you is pretty much two things. You have got a non-confirming use
and you will be looking at whether its compatible with its surroundings and also if you
decide to extend the use you are looking at what period of time would be appropriate for
doing that. The Lawrence Tires have been in business since 1976. There are very few
comparable uses in that area that do tire sales and installations in this area and based on
feedback from the public, we’ve had both written responses and a community meeting was
held in May. The business was generally considered to be a very good neighbor and has
had no nuisance effects in its operation period and also there has been no code complaints
on this use. Importantly, as an automotive service use, Lawrence Tire just does tire sales
and installations. They don’t do any more intensive type of body work on cars or dealing
with other parts so its probably what’s behind its good operation and the fact that it hasn’t
been a nuisance in the past. Based on this, staff is recommending that the Commission
recommends to Council to extend or adopt the ordinance that would extend the use to
April 26, 2004. As noted, this Council hearing date has been tentatively scheduled for
October 4. This concludes staff’s report.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Are there any questions for staff at this time? Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Who asked for the five-year period? I see that the owner, A1
Marks, indicated he would be retired probably before that period of time. Was there any
suggestion that there would be a longer period of time?
Mr. Connolly: I am not aware of that. I believe it was privy on his request, thinking that
¯ that would be about the time frame that he would retire and ! believe the owner is here
tonight so probably he would be speaking to that point.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
"7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Chairman Schmidt:
Commissioner Byrd:
request?
Okay, Owen.
Procedurally, why did this have to be initiated by a Council
Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Generally, its the kind of amendment to the
Zoning Code that requires an initiation either by the Council or the Planning Commission
and is customary in the City for the City Council to do that. Its not a change in the land
use designation from one zone to the other. That’s the kind of land use designation that a
property owner initiates. Its instead a change in the text of the code chapter.
Chairman Schmidt: Anymore questions at this time? Okay, let’s here from the applicant.
I don’t believe I have a card from the applicant but the applicant or the representative from
the applicant has up to 15 minutes to make a presentation or brief discussion.
Mr. A1 Marks, Owner, Lawrence Tires, Palo Alto: Members of the Planning Commission,
my name is A1 Marks, I am the owner of Lawrence Tire Service. We’ve been there for 23
years and I support the staff’s request to extend the amortization period of the business for
additional five years and that was five years was kind of put to us by the Council so that is
why we used that figure. We’ve been based in Palo Alto all these years. We have many
clients, within the community and nearby cities, like Menlo Park, Los Altos, and Mountain
View, including a lot of the local residents in the neighborhood. We also do work for
Stanford University, Hewlett Packard, Stanford European Park Avenue Motors. So we’ve
been giving plenty of service work and service for the community and we’ve been family-
owner all these 23 years and we do provide good service for the neighborhood~ Thank
you.
Chairman Schmidt: I think I have questions here. Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Where are your nearest competitors of tire service centers that are
predominantly performing that function?
Mr. Marks: The nearest tire would be San Antonio Road.
Commissioner Burr: And to the north?
Mr. Marks: Would be Redwood City.
Commissioner Burt: You indicated that the five year period was suggested to you by
Council? What would be your preference if you were to make a request and what would
be the reason why that would be preferable to you?
Mr. Marks: I would ask for 2 years because I would be, between 5-10 years, I would
expect to retire in that time.
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Commissioner Burt: If you were retiring, are you presuming a change in. use of
th3e business, if you were not active?
Mr. Marks: If I was not active in it, I would keep it the same.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Chairman Schmidt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I didn’t quite catch that last part. If you were not active in it, you
would not ....
Mr. Marks: I mean, the business would stay the same if I was not, you know, I think he
meant that ifI was to get out of the business, is that what he meant?
Commissioner Burt: I was meaning if you were to sell the site or the business, would it be
your presumption that it would continue as a tire service center or would it revert to
something else?
Mr. Marks: Oh yes, I would assume that it would stay as a tire business.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Chairman Schmidt: Are there any other questions for the applicant? Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: If you sold the business as a tire service center, wouldn’t a buyer
who’s looking at it then look at the term that this ordinance would not apply so that a
longer term would get you a better price and yet someone else in there who might want to
continue in the tire business. Have you considered this?
Mr. Marks: Well, it would as I would think, if not, ifI was to retire earlier, yes, because
of the longer period.
Commissioner Bialson: I guess part of what I am asking is that if you had your druthers,
what would you ask for, 10 years or 15 years or more?
Mr. Marks: IfI had a choice, I’d ask for 20 years.
Commissioner Bialson: So you would be asking for as much as you can get?
Mr. Marks: Yes, as much as allowable.
Commissioner Bialson: Thank you.
Cir., of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
.4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Chairman Schmidt: Okay, I see no other questions for the applicant. I have two cards
from members of the public who would like to speak. The first is C. Rodd Silk.
Mr. Rodd Silk, 451 Stanford Avenue, Palo Alto: Thank you. My name is Rodd Silk and I
live at 451 Stanford Avenue, which is adjacent to the tire service and I have been there 14
years. I am going to make it brief. They have been a very good neighbor and they are a
small business and I think in many ways, we are losing small businesses right and left and
to give you a little anecdote, I ran over some stuff in San Francisco, and they actually
towed me, because my towing was only 6 miles. They came up and towed me from San
Francisco to here and that was pretty nice. I’ve known them to do things like that within
the neighborhood. You have a Starbucks right across the street and they don’t have any
problems at all so I guess I would like to appeal to the heart of you people to keep small
businesses here from disappearing. They do not cause any problems, there’s no noise, they
do a good job and they are fairly priced and I don’t know of anybody that has since
complained. So you have a number of people that we know and I’m waving the flag, I
think small businesses have been the backbone of the country and they are disappearing
right and left. I mean, we know the people, they are very friendly in the neighborhood,
they keep a very clean place, there’s no noise, and it would be better than a Burger King
here or something like that. So I just have nothing but good things to say, and they ar3e
very nice, very good and once in a while a great help. They help a lot of people in the
neighborhood. They are not an eyesore, they do their business and I think with the number
of business around that area, I think they are a kind of a nice thing to have around for
awhile and that is all I have to say, to the jury. Thank you very much.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. The next speaker is Helen Kim and that is the last card
that I have.
Ms. Helen Kim, 453 Stanford Avenue, Palo Alto: Hi, my name is Helen Kim and I live
at 453 Stanford Avenue. I’ve been at that residence for almost 2-1/2 years and I work just
down at Sun Microsystems, I am an HR professional there. I was asked to speak today and
I actually willingly and very wholeheartedly would like to support A1 Marks and the whole
staff at Lawrence Tire Company. I’ve been not only a customer but I live probably the
closest you possibly could being literally right next door to the business and when I
moved, I had my reservations, thinking I don’t really want to live, I mean, next to these
businesses. I had some concern over the safety factor and actually to my pleasant surprise
it had been probably the safest place, not only to park my car in the business parking lot
that they’ve so generously allowed but also just in general the business, I’d like to state, is
open Monday to Friday, and they are open, I believe to the public from the hours of 8 to
5:30 and it really doesn’t impact me, I am usually gone around the time they open and by
the time I return, like I said there’s no clutter, there’s no folks hanging around. They have
actually, from what I understand, they’ve limited the start time of the equipment that they
use to change the tires, so actually the residents, what was deemed a reasonable hour, so
it’s really not been a nuisance. On weekends, they are closed, so I think its really been a
Cir. of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
great benefit to the community. As Mr. Silk had mentioned, they’ve done many personal
favors to long-time customers and have referred me to other independent places within
Palo Alto that do specialized service work for example, European BMW. So that’s been
honest, they are very honest and ethical. I being a relatively generation X younger
individual, I am very appreciative of small business and not living around the comer from
Big O tires or from a Wheelworks. I very much value and trust owners like A1 and so I
think that’s really important.
The other thing that I would really to mention is if we were to put another business in that
spot, my concern would be El Camino Real seems to be getting gobbled up by fast food
restaurants and chains, many of which encourage young, whether they are Palo Alto high
school students or students or folks from elsewhere, to come out and loiter and as a
resident and someone who is very concerned with safety I want to ensure that I’m in a
residence and around neighboring businesses that provide a safe environment and not one
that encourage folks to hang out and increase in crime or graffiti or anything of that sort.
So for that reason, its been the perfect business to have around the comer literally. Like I
said, I think it’s the nature, deeming Palo Alto is more of a quaint town. I think that slowly
we’re getting overtaken by the larger chains but for the most part, folks know them. We
have created a relationship, I know all the folks on Stanford Avenue, and surrounding
neighborhoods and one of the meetings I attended at Lawrence Tire Company a few
months back, there were other folks from Shell and Chevron and they had actually said
that they had referred a lot of business both ways. So it is a reciprocal relationship and I
think its one that brings good economic value to the economy of Palo Alto. So that is what
I’d like to say in favor and I wholeheartedly would like to support the extension. Thank
you.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Helen, we have a couple of questions for you. Phyllis.
Ms. Kim: Sure.
Commissioner Cassel: Yes, I know this business is only open Monday through Friday and
most businesses like this might be open on Saturday. Would that bother you if it was open
on Saturday. There is nothing in there on restrictions that would keep them from opening
on Saturdays.
Ms. Kim: No, not at all and maybe part of it is that I am very active and I am in and out
quite a bit and usually working round the clock, but no, I really sense that they’ve been
very tolerant of holding back their start time till when its deemed a reasonable hour and I
would much rather have a business that is a service oriented business, and not a, I am
opposed to a retailer fast food chains coming in, but one that really encourages pretty much
a standard service that we all need.
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. I will close the public hearing since I do not see any other
members of the public who would like to speak on this subject and bringit back to the
Commission. Are there any further questions for staff or... Jon.
Commissioner Schink: I just have a quick question for staff. In the staffreport, you state
that the ordinance does not permit any expansion of the existing automotive service.
Where’s the language in the ordinance that would say that.
Mr......Connolly: The language on the ordinance is found on Page 3 of the ordinance, under
Section F. Its one sentence that spells out which uses that would be allowed and those are
specifically described as tire sales and installations so it doesn’t take in the whole spectrum
of automotive service uses that would be allowed.
Commissioner Schink: Good, thank you.
Chairman Schmidt: Any other questions. Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I noticed that the ordinance says that, the last whereas in the
ordinance and that allows the City to revoke this extension at its discretion. Is that correct?
Ms. Furth: That’s correct. That’s the language from the previous ordinances. The point
of the language I believe is to make it clear that the City is not saying that it failed to grant
adequate amortization time earlier. Its saying that this is an additional request based on its
understanding of what’s suitable for the neighborhood, not because the property owner had
a right to an extended use at the time of the property.
Commissioner Bialson: So if we granted a 10 year or 15 year extension or whatever the
applicant is probably going to ask for, and assuming the applicant can ask for more than 5
years although that’s what was in the papers before us. The City Council could not revoke
the extension. Is that correct?
Ms. Furth: If this business, for example, changed hands which could happen, because this
is an extension which runs with the land and the new operators were not as
accommodating to the neighborhood and the neighbors asked that the matter could be
revoked. It would be a zone change, it could come back to the Council and they could
consider doing that.
Commissioner Bialson: so the City continues to have some power even if we do grant an
extension to look at the operation of the premises twelve years down the road.
Ms. Furth: It does. This is an unusual situation here where we have specific automatic
amortization periods in this area and the Council has made a number of exceptions for
particular reasons in particular purposes. These aren’t conditional use permits so they are
not subject to those ratification standards so the City would not be without remedies but its
CiW. of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
doubtless would create opposition from the property owner but no, the City would not be
totally without recourse. :
Chairman Schmidt: Do you have a question also, Pat? Okay Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Under the background section of the staff report, there was a
reference to the California Avenue district study. That wasn’t part of our packet. Can you
give us any additional information on that study that has bearing on this use and perhaps
Eric can also give us some indication on whether neighborhood commercial business
functions, what are allowable businesses I should say, under neighborhood commercial,
whether that is going to be int4ended to be revisited under the zoning ordinance update to
implement the current Comp. Plan. This study was conducted under the prior Comp. Plan.
Mr. Connolly: I have been with the City for about 5 months so I’ll try and take a stab at
what went on in 1984. I did not really copy the California Avenue district stuffy. I don’t
know if we have a ful! copy of that, I had read a summary. I believe the intent was to get
more neighborhood serving uses and not things that are pulling in people, like services
such as this, that are maybe not regional but certainly more widespread in who they attract.
So in a sense you have a property that is being down zoned there’s not a total difference
between service commercial and neighborhood commercial but you get uses like this
which specifically are not allowed so I would only assume that the intent was to just attract
those more neighborhood use, retail ty. pe uses. As to the second part of that with the
zoning update...
Mr. Riel: As a part of the zoning update we will of course look at each zoning district and
neighborhood commercial is one of those that we will look at. As we’ve looked at, as a
part of the SOFA coordinated area plan, I would expect that we would look at specifically
the uses as defined as neighborhood serving.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay Bern.
Commissioner Beecham: I would like to respond to Pat’s question. I think that part of the.
reason for the amortization in going to the neighborhood commercial, is there was a
number of establishments, primarily automotive in type, that were causing problems for
the neighborhoods, principally because of noise and traffic in and out and cars being
parked along the streets. So one of the key reasons for doing that was to get rid of those
uses, whether they are directly adjoining neighborhoods.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay. ! believe I see no more questions. I’m sorry, Annette does
have a question.
Commissioner Bialson: What specifically would we have to do to approve an extension
beyond 5 years cause it seems from the staff report that what’s been refquest3ed and the
proposed ordinance has also read that way by me.
Cir.’ of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Mr. Riel: You could recommend 10 years or 15 or whatever you feel is appropriate in
terms of the time flame. Staff came up with five years which was based on what we think
is a reasonable time given the fact that it was extended 15 years.
Commissioner Cassel: Let me ask a follow-up question to that, that is, in five years they
can come back for another amortization if they wish.
Mr. Riel: Yes, that is correct.
Chairman Schmidt: Let me ask a question. On the other properties that are list4ed that
have been given additional time beyond their amortization, have any second amortizations
been granted as five years. Has 5 years been a typical time other than we know that the
F13,’s Electronics item number E was given more years.
Mr. Connolly: Yes, five has been a typical time frame. As you know Fry’s was I think a
20-year extension which was not a typical. Five generally seems appropriate. Of course,
you have a similar auto use at this site for at least 40 years and the fact that nobody
apparently has any problem with this and it has been a good operation, maybe a reason to
extend it beyond the typically five or just know that they could come back in another five
with another extension request.
Chairman Schmidt: I was just thinking that perhaps the dance studio and the art studio
might have been given more than 5 years since they are both in 2003 and I don’t think we
saw them in 1998.
Mr. Connolly: As you’ve pointed out, there may be others but I know that five has
happened in the past. It might also be the type of uses those are since they are not related
to automotive service maybe the further extension was considered more appropriate.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you. Okay, any more questions. Then who would like to start
the discussion? Owen.
Commissioner Byrd: Well, this sounds like a fine business that is a good neighbor and the
sort of thing that we should encourage in Palo Alto and for that reason, I want to support
the staff recommendation but I want to give a slightly different rationale, to support the
five-year term of the extension. I think that zoning should be decided based on use, not on
business and not on personality. As fine a business as this is or when the owner expect to
retire, really shouldn’t factor into our decision. What should matter is whether or not the
use fits in the spot and I think 5 years gives us a chance to take on rewriting the zoning
code and with any luck would be completed on that pass within 5 years and what we may
find, as Eric touched on, that we may come to discover that it makes sense to allow a use
like this in neighborhood commercial through a conditional use permit. This seems to me
it appears to fall somewhere in the grey zone between dire3ctly neighborhood serving and
Cir., of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
truly regional serving and that’s the sort of policy question that I hope we take up when we
rewrite the zoning code. So I think, 5 years make sense to give us a chance to address it
through that policy mechanism because, this is a kind of convoluted process, and I hate for
them to come back and ask for another 5 year amortization. It seems to me the way to do
this, if we are going to have uses like this because they make sense, is through a CUP. So
for that reason, and not because of this particular business, or this particular individual, I
think we should go for five years.
Commissioner Beecham: Well, I believe I’ll interpret that as a motion and in that case I
am happy to support it and I do want to reemphasize one of Owen’s points which is that
zoning goes with the land and in spite of everybody liking A1 Marks, we’ve got to say
rezoning a use and A1 may go away tomorrow and we still got that use zoned in. So I
think that’s exactly the right approach to take in this case.
Chairman Schmidt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I won’t be able to support the motion because I feel that the 5
years is too short. I remind you all of the timeframe that we were given for tackling the
various jobs that we were going to be coming before the Planning Commission and the
Planning Department and how we fought to have a certain of those jobs brought forward in
a time frame of two years, four years, five years. Given the amount of work that seems to
come up to answer specific issues, tackling zoning ordinances in a way that addresses each
area, is something that I am afraid may keep slipping because there is no person who’s
going to be pushing that point to the forefront of our agendas. If something should happen
to Mr. Marks, and he wants to sell this business to someone else who would hopefully
allow it to continue operating.the way it has, he’s not going to be able to sell it with a 5-
year period. It will revert to whatever the underlying zoning, and do we have a franchise
operation or some other less desirable use come in, I can’t predict, but I would say more
probable than not, is we are not going to have someone who’s thinking of keeping open a
tire store come in here and ask for the 5-year period to be lengthened. So, because we
don’t have peripheral vision right now, because time periods tend to slip on what we think
is going to be require by way of time for us to address zoning and other jobs that have and
will come up before us, I would go for a ten-year period. If we don’t have it handled and
tackled within 10 years, than shame on us.
Chairman Schmidt: Jon.
Commissioner Schink: I would agree with Annette and I think as I look back and realize
that I was involved with City Government in 1984 when we talked about some of these
original amortization schedules, we advised it seems like an etemity, there would be all
sorts of wonderful prosperity along E1 Camino and different types of businesses would
flourish and we’d see things that would work wonderfully with the neighborhoods and I
think I am consistently startled to think that E1 Camino has hardly changed for the better in
many areas. In that amount of time, sure we’ve gotten some improvements, but never the
Cir. of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
same kind of neighborhood serving improvements that we expect way back when. Ten
years will be here before we know it so I think I just as soon not have to see this applicant
again in five years to look at all of this and hopefully we’ll do some of the things we need
to do in the next five years, but let’s give them 10 years and that will give us enough time
to do our job. So I encourage Annette to make a substitute motion changing five to ten.
Chairman Schmidt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: Haven’t even thought of this when we came in, except I thought of
it in a different sense and that is in my neighborhood we’ve had three businesses come in
that was originally zoned out for PC zone and were granted them because the neighbors
wanted them. A gas station, a veterinary clinic and a liquor store. Well, its more than a
liquor store, its Andre Swaneey’s perfect comer, and they will last much longer than 10
years because they’re in PC zones. You are right, I think 10 years upgrading that would
be appropriate as a use rather than based on the owner. That particular use is one we all
need in town, its just that its not available on Saturday.
Chairman Schmidt: Pat would you like to make any comments? Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I was just going to ask wheth3er Owen wants to amend his own
motion to change to a 10-year period. If not, I will put in a substitute motion which is
identical to his except for the 5-year in which I would like to extend that to 10 years.
Chairman Schmidt: I would like to ask for some council, when we have a motion on the
floor that has been made and seconded, what is the appropriate procedure, do we need to
vote on that motion or...
Ms. Furth: (inaudible) ... the term to 10 years and you see how the amendment does and
after you see how the amendment does, you vote on the main motion or you can request
the permission of the maker and if he consents than he can amend his own motion and if
the seconder agrees, the original motion is amended.
Chairman Schmidt: Thank you.
commissioner Byrd: I would just be curious to finish first the comments here to get a
sense of the Commission before amending the motion though I am not rigidly opposed to
amending it.
Chairman Schmidt: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: To satisfy your curiosity Owen, I would support Annette’s
amendment and while I find it good reasoning we ar3e going to be reviewing the zoning in
five years, I think that its important that a small business owner have more than 5 year look
at their futur3e and as Annette had said, it would be virtually impossible for him to be able
Cir. of Palo Alto Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
44
to pass along this business to a similar owner without some greater amortization period. In
addition, while we are not looking at individuals when we look at zoning, the Comp. Plan
does guide us to look at uses and as well as whether business are small locally owned.
Staff had noted policy B-4 which is nurturing and supporting established businesses.
Policy B-7 is to encourage and support the operation of small independent businesses and
as a number of Commissioners have stat4ed that and as well as members of the public had
stated, we have far too few small independently owned businesses. When we had, I think,
Jim Burton speak at a recent seminar on walkable communities, a very interesting statistic
was cited approximating the amount of income that stays in the community from small
independent businesses versus small chain businesses versus mega stores and that was a
difference between I believe something like 70 percent on small independent businesses,
down to 20 percent on large chain stores and the small chains were somewhere in between.
So there, we’ve heard from the community about how businesses like this have a
commitment to the community and serve the community in ways that are different from a
same size business that might be owned and operated outside the community and that is
why that policy actually made it into the Comp. Plan because it is a deliberate effort that
we’re to make to sustain and actively support these kinds of businesses.
The other policy that we may want to look at is L-28 which is referring to the California
Avenue multi-neighborhood center and California Avenue is designated in the new
Comprehensive Plan as a multi-neighborhood center and so it serves by implication a bit
broader base than the purely neighborhood centers and so this kind of function in the City
is probably more appropriate for that region than elsewhere. I also believe that E1 Camino
is continuing to be businesses that serves a broader geographic area than California
Avenue does and I think by natur3e ofth4e design of that shopping area that will continue
to be the case, that the economic realities will tend to support businesses like this over
purely neighborhood serving centers and that California Avenue is the place that we would
concentrate our efforts on neighborhood serving. L-28 says maintain the existing scale,
character and function of th4e California Avenue business dist4rict, well this would be
maintaining the status quo on that regard and so I think for a third reason that it is
consistent with the Comp. Plan and for those reasons I think we can see beyond the five-
year period and justify an extension of 10 years. Hopefully the rezoning will give us a
longer term vision on that.
Chairman Schmidt: I guess I will say a few words too. I am certainly happy to extend the
use of this property to a well-operated small business that is popular with the neighborhood
for at least the five years. I agree with Owen’s original statement regarding we will be
looking at the zoning in that area and may be able to accommodate that in the future. I
also agree with Annette’s stat4ements that we may not be able to do it in five years even
though we have said that we would like to. So, I think ! too would lean toward the 10-year
time frame.
Commissioner Byrd: Well, we have violent agreement that A1 Marks is a fine guy and
that this is a good business and we want it to stay and the question is, how do we achieve
Cir. of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
that. I notice in the Implementation section of the Comp Plan that the actual timing
proposed in Ken Schr3eiber’s chart for updating the zoning ordinance, is.actually a
window of three to seven years. So perhaps a 7-year amortization period would have a
policy basis because its tied back to the Comp. Plan. My fear with 10 years is that it just
speaks to the wrong issue. I don’t think the issue is wh3ether or not he would be able to
sell his business because that is looking at the business, I think we should be looking at the
use and if we can’t write zoning in seven years, shame on us. So how about I substitute a
motion for 7 years?
Commissioner Beecham: I want to stick with 5. I can see where the group is fairly going
here so I’d expect someone Will either take you up on that or move it to 10. The reason
why I want to stick at 5, as was mentioned this is not dependant upon the owner, Pat was
talking about how the Comp. Plan talks about supporting locally owned business and so
on. There’s nothing in this ordinance that says this shall be continued to be run by small
locally owned business. As Helen Kim talked, she started by saying that when she moved
in she was worried about living next to a tire place and she was pleasantly surprised that it
was so nice. That A1, his hours are short, he doesn’t start his equipment until after the
neighbors wake up, Helen says it would not be the same if it were Big O or Wheelworks or
something like that so this is entirely dependant upon how its run by the manager, either A1
or somebody else there. Given that severe limitation, I think 5 years is appropriate. I think
A1 knows that as we struggle up here to see how long to extend them, that if he keeps on
working like this, in five years there’ll be another push through except that we won’t know
how long to extend it again. So I don’t think there is a lot of uncertainty for the business if
he continues to keep his rapport among the neighbors. Because this is zoning is always
goes with the land, not with the business, not with the owner, I am not willing to go
beyond 5 years, and I hope with AI, ifhe’s here in 5 more years he wants to continue
working, come back. So anyway, I am going to stay at 5.
Ms. Furth: So at this point, procedurally, you don’t have the consent of the seconder,
somebody can move an amendment to the main motion.
Commissioner Bialson: I would move an amendment to the main motion to 10 years and I
would look for a second to that.
Chairman Schmidt: Is there a second for 10 years?
Commissioner Burt: So moved.
Chairman Schmidt: Okay, now we have a motion to amend the main motion by changing
the term of extension to 5 years to 10 years. It was moved by Annette and seconded by
Pat. Does anyone wish to speak to that amendment? Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I would like to point out that we do have in the ordinance
language which would allow neighbors to come in and ask for the term of 10 years to be
Ct~. of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
.4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
shortened if there is some change in the method of operation which is why I asked about
that, some string that we hold on the ordinance. I also would point out that the re3alities of
business are that if something should happen to Mr. Marks, or he decides to move to
another community, is hit by a bus or whatever, we are not going to have the advantage of
having someone come before us asking us for an extension. That land would revert to
some other use because no one is going to come in and invest in that business with only a
five-year term on it so I think 10 years is appropriate. Furthermore, the site is a small one,
I visited it, I don’t think Big O or any of the larger chains would be interested in that
location so again I would like to ask the Commission to support my motion for a 10-year
term.
Chairman Schmidt: Jon.
Commissioner Schink: Well, I would add that Owen makes a compelling argument that 7
years make a lot of sense because that’s what our schedule is but I think that when you
?onsider that schedule and then apply reality to that schedule and consider the way our
legislative record has always gone, that seven years might.be an argument for 14 years. So
I think that Annette is coming in at the right place at 10 and I think it would be very nice if
we got the zoning ordinance solved, rewrite done in 10 years.
Chairman Schmidt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I’ll support it for the basic reasons that it’s a basic service to the
community, that we have gas stations in other areas because it’s a basic service to the
community and it is not a detrimental use to the community. For that reason, I think that
10 years is appropriate.
Chairman Schmidt: I would say, I like Owen’s compelling argument of 7 years. I think
that 7 would be a good number but I think we might be kind of doing a little bit too much
fine-tuning here. I would, if there were a motion for seven I would vote for that but we
may not get to one of those so okay we have an amendment to the motion to change the
term from 5 years to 10 years and I don’t think anyone else would want to speak to that.
We will take a vote on that on the motion made by Annette and seconded by Pat. All those
in favor please say aye (ayes) all those opposed say no (no) and that passes 6 to 1 with
Commissioner Beecham being the one saying no. So now we have amended the main
motion and now its staff recommendations with the term being 10 years instead of 5 years.
Are there any other comments or discussions. Let’s take a vote on that, all those in favor
say aye (ayes), all those opposed say no (no) and that passes the same vote, 6 to 1,
Commissioner Beecham being the one opposed. That passes and goes on to Council on
Monday, October 4, 1999. Thank you very much.
City of Palo Alto Page 14
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 15
i0. Vice Mayor Lanie Wheeler, Mayor Gary Fazzino, and Council
Member Sandy Eakins re Amortization Extension at 2011 E1
Camino Real
Vice Mayor Wheeler said the Colleagues Memo gave some background on
the property and issue. She reiterated that Council action did not
imply support or approval of the extension. Rather, it was the
mechanism by which the Council directed staff to do the necessary
research, prepare necessary documentation, and set the issue for
public hearing, and the Council’s subsequent consideration of
,whether or not to grant the amortization request.~
MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Eakins, to direct
staff to evaluate the request for an extension of the amortization
and to set a public hearing for Counci! consideration of the
extension.
MOTION PASSED 7-0, Fazzino, Schneider absent.
ADJQURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 10:20 p.m.
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with
Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City
Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for
the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the
meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are
recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are
available for members of the public to listen to during regular
office hours.
Attachment D
City Council Minutes
May 24, 1999
Attachment E