|
Trudi Ryan, Planning Officer, presented the staff report and stated that this item is not subject to the moratorium currently in place.
Councilmember Howe clarified with Planning Officer Ryan that a condition of approval would allow up to 40 adult individuals, but not more as the applicant had previously requested. Councilmember Howe informed his colleagues that one option would be to send this item back through the Planning Commission. He stated that with the benefit of further analysis, the Planning Commission may choose to rule differently based on the updated information.
Councilmember Moylan confirmed with staff that their recommendation to appeal the decision made by the Planning Commission was due to the new information as a result of the completion of the Study Issue.
Councilmember Moylan asked staff to clarify the number of attendees allowed and the number of parking spaces at the proposed location. He noted that the staff report stated 20 attendees and he understood staff to say the real number from the applicant was for approval of 40 students. Planning Officer Ryan stated that the original application indicated that the site would be occupied by up to 20 attendees/students and five administrative staff. She stated that at the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant requested to have an increase in the allowable number of students and clarification was given that 40 students would be the maximum amount allowable during the moratorium. Planning Officer Ryan indicated that one of the conditions of approval for this Use Permit affirms that the Use Permit is valid for a maximum of 20 students and five administrative staff. She stated that because of the way staff calculated parking, an additional seven students could be accommodated and not impact parking (based on the operating conditions identified by the applicant in their application). Planning Officer Ryan stated that this additional expansion would require changes to the mix of uses currently allocated for the site. She stated this could be considered through a Miscellaneous Plan Permit per Condition of Approval #1G, however there would not be any way to approve more than 40 students.
Councilmember Moylan stated that in the staff report (page 7) the chart identifies that the amount of designated parking spaces is seven, which is more than actually needed, and he asked staff to identify what the actual number of allowable applicants would be if the additional seven parking spaces were included. Planning Officer Ryan stated that the actual number of allowable applicants would be increased by seven as staff counted one student per parking space. Councilmember Moylan confirmed with staff that if the number of allowable students were increased above 27 (not including the five employee parking spaces), parking problems would arise unless use of the facility was staggered throughout the day.
Mayor Swegles asked Amy Chan, City Manager, and David Kahn, City Attorney, if they had an opinion about sending the item back to the Planning Commission.
City Attorney Kahn confirmed that remanding this item back to the Planning Commission for further review was an option available to Council after the Public Hearing.
City Manager Chan stated that before Council takes action or reconsideration on this item, it is her recommendation that Council should first consider the Study Issue scheduled to come back to Council on March 21, 2006.
Councilmember Spitaleri asked how much time would be involved if Council were to send this item back to the Planning Commission and then have it come back to Council for reconsideration. Planning Officer Ryan stated that this item would be treated as an appeal, which would require a 10-day notice without advertising in the newspaper required. She stated it could potentially go back to the Planning Commission at their next meeting in approximately three weeks, and then if Council wanted to hear the item again, it would add an additional two-weeks before it came back to Council.
City Manager Chan stated that the earliest Council could reconsider this issue would be April 11, 2006.
Mayor Swegles confirmed with City Manager Chan that if the Planning Commission were to overturn their decision and approve this item, it would be required to come back to Council because it is an appeal item.
Vice Mayor Lee asked staff why the findings from the Study Issue would affect this item since this application was identified not to be a part of the moratorium.
City Attorney Kahn stated that this type of assembly would be included within the Study Issue, because the study is looking at all types of assembly. He stated; however it would not be included in the moratorium. City Attorney Kahn reconfirmed that although the Study Issue is covering all types of assembly and the moratorium applies to all other types of places of assembly, this item would still be included in the Study Issue. Vice Mayor Lee confirmed with staff that even though the application was exempt specifically from being subject to the moratorium, it would still be considered a type of place of assembly; therefore, it would be included in the Study Issue.
Planning Officer Ryan further clarified that a Use Permit can be filed, reviewed, and advanced to a hearing as done with the Planning Commission. She stated that a study adds more information and in absence of a study, each issue is considered with available policies, but in this case no policy existed. She stated that the Study Issue will clarify the policy and may enhance the ability to make a confirmed decision on the application.
Mayor Swegles opened the Public Hearing at 7:50 p.m.
Donald Huffman spoke in favor of approving the permit and urged Council to approve the applicant KC Associates and the proposed American Chinese Evangelist Seminary.
Jack Yuan, representing the applicant, American Chinese Evangelist Seminary, gave a video presentation to Council on the following items:
- What is American Chinese Evangelist Seminary?
- What American Chinese Evangelist Seminary is Not
- Survey of the Neighborhood
- Planning staff’s Most Recent Findings
- Planning Staff’s Recommendation
- Additional Positive Factors for Environment
- Additional Positive Factors for the City
- Conclusion
Councilmember Howe asked Mr. Yuan if he understood Council’s earlier discussion about the possibility of sending the item back to the Planning Commission and having Council reconsider it at a later date. Mr. Yuan stated he did understand the option Council was discussing, but stated there is urgency on his part as his members do not have a location to assemble. Councilmember Howe confirmed with Mr. Yuan that he saw the potential one-month delay as a substantial hardship to his organization.
Councilmember Howe asked the applicant to define an adult in relationship to the program. Mr. Yuan stated that it would be someone 20 years of age and older.
Councilmember Moylan asked Mr.Yuan about the close proximity of an adult business to this site and asked why he felt that the close proximity of such a business would be acceptable as a compatible business.
Mr. Yuan stated he believed they can co-exist and that in any city there is mixed-use (with many different types of businesses existing as neighbors) and also stated that he felt the adult business was quite some distance from the proposed site.
Vice Mayor Lee asked Mr. Yuan if he had talked with the neighbors of the proposed site and Mr. Yuan stated he had not.
John Wu, spoke in favor of approving the permit and urged Council to approve the applicant, KC Associates and the proposed American Chinese Evangelist Seminary. Mr. Wu stated the courses offered by this organization will improve his life.
Faiwa Francis Ip, Enoch L. Wong, and Grace Hui spoke in favor of approving the permit.
Yvonne Chan spoke in favor of approving the permit and stated a need for a graduate school for the religious needs of this ethnic group.
Yi-Hen Wei spoke in favor of approving the permit and stated that they could give a discount to families which would encourage carpooling.
Bill Risk spoke in favor of approving the permit. He stated that it is difficult for new, small, non-profit or educational organizations to find locations, and it would be a benefit to such organizations if a city would allow space formerly used for industrial operations, to be occupied by these organizations. Mr. Risk asked Council to consider the benefit that American Chinese Evangelist Seminary could bring to the City.
Councilmember Moylan stated that the real issue is where this seminary should locate, not if it should exist, and asked Mr. Risk if this is the right location for the seminary due to the close proximity to an adult business. Mr. Risk stated that when first starting out, new centers are put in a position to take what they can get. He stated that a question to ask is what the alternative for these types of organizations would be as far as locations.
Alex Hui stated that he felt the close proximity to an adult business was a good thing as he feels they could help the patrons in many ways. Mr. Hui spoke in favor of the location for American Chinese Evangelist Seminary and its benefit to the community.
Corinna Kong presented a letter from the Executive Director of Christian Crisis Healing Ministries that spoke in favor of the proposed American Chinese Evangelist Seminary.
Thomas Wang thanked the Council for their kindness to the seminary. He stated the location was a good strategic place for this seminary and it would provide a service to the surrounding cities.
Sharon Chan, a neighbor business owner located across from the proposed seminary location, spoke in favor of the proposed American Chinese Evangelist Seminary.
Lawrence Chan, President of the Seminary, spoke in favor of the proposed American Chinese Evangelist Seminary.
Emmanuel Hung, spoke in favor of the proposed American Chinese Evangelist Seminary and asked that Council not send the appeal back to the Planning Commission.
Ken Peterson, Sam Ting, James Matthews, and Masie Chan spoke in favor of the proposed American Chinese Evangelist Seminary.
Kevin Chiang thanked the City of Sunnyvale Planning staff for their due diligence and the work they put into the staff report. Mr. Chang spoke in favor of the staff recommendation to approve (with attached conditions) the proposed American Chinese Evangelist Seminary.
Harriet Rowe spoke against the location of the proposed American Chinese Evangelist Seminary.
Jack Yuan, representing the applicant, gave closing comments in favor of the proposed site and urged Council to make a decision without further delay.
Councilmember Chu asked Mr. Yuan to clarify the amount of allowable students that are being requested in the appeal. Mr. Yuan stated they originally applied for 50 students/employees because that is what the owner of the facility allocated to this organization. He stated that they will comply with whatever number the City states as a condition of approval, and that he understood the amount to be between 25 and 32, and indicated 32 would be preferable.
Councilmember Chu asked Mr. Yuan when their classes are held and Mr. Yuan stated they are held in the evening and every Saturday. Councilmember Chu asked Mr. Yuan about the other uses for the property during the evening and Mr. Yuan stated the other offices are closed and the parking lot is empty.
Councilmember Howe asked staff if Council were to approve a certain number of attendees at this location, what the process would entail in order to increase that number of attendees in the future. Planning Officer Ryan stated that the amount of attendees and parking spaces could be recalculated based on different hours of operation at the site (which would need the owner and association’s approval). She stated that staff could then look at increasing parking per the parking code; or it could entail a new Use Permit application before an administrative hearing; or the request could be returned to the Planning Commission for review depending on the number of students proposed.
Councilmember Howe asked if there were an increase in the number of students/employees, would there be a Public Hearing of some kind or would it be approved at the City staff level. Planning Officer Ryan stated there would be a Public Hearing if the applicant wished to increase the number of students that were in attendance at any one time, but not if they wished to increase the amount of space they are using.
Councilmember Hamilton asked how they would reconcile the situation where the landlord offered the applicant more parking spaces than the zoning code would allow. Planning Officer Ryan stated, regardless of what the landlord offered, staff must look at the entire parking needs of all uses on the site and be sure that they are adequately provided sufficient parking. She stated that the landlord is offering something inconsistent with the zoning code and that staff is not able to honor that because it could render the other uses on the site as non-conforming. Councilmember Hamilton confirmed with Planning Officer Ryan that one way to allow more parking spaces would be to place time restrictions for different uses. Planning Officer Ryan confirmed that the current Use Permit does not have any restrictions on their parking hours even though the applicant has indicated that the use would occur in the evenings and on weekends.
Vice Mayor Lee asked staff to clarify the number of parking spaces available. Planning Officer Ryan stated there are 32 parking spaces. She stated that the original application was for 20 attendees plus five employee parking spaces for a total of 25, but if Council wished to increase the number of spaces, staff indicated that they are able to increase to a combination of 27 students and 5 employee spaces.
Vice Mayor Lee asked Mr. Yuan to identify the neighboring businesses within the block surrounding his business and any impact he felt they may have on the seminary.
Mr. Yuan stated there are office spaces surrounding the site with a fitness center and restaurant across the street. He stated that they would only be occupying a small portion of the building, which is 49,000 square feet, and the impact to the surrounding environment would be minimal.
No one else wished to speak and Mayor Swegles closed the Public Hearing at
9:10 p.m.
Councilmember Moylan asked if the upcoming Study Issue addresses the issue of compatibility with adult businesses. Planning Officer Ryan stated that it did not and since it is an independent issue, it is up to the applicant to make the determination if the adult business is compatible with their business. She stated that if a Councilmember or Planning Commissioner felt the compatibility were an issue, they would need to consider that with each independent application for a Use Permit.
Councilmember Moylan confirmed with staff that the adult business located near the proposed seminary is the only one currently existing in an industrial zone and that adult businesses are only permitted in industrial zones.
Councilmember Moylan asked City Attorney Kahn if the City could be sued by the existing adult business should the Council approve a place of worship near their location. City Attorney Kahn stated that it would not create exposure to a lawsuit by the adult business as long as they are allowed to continue operations.
Planning Officer Ryan stated that this Use Permit is not for a place of worship in the sense that all members of the community are invited to use or participate in the classes. She stated that when the City regulates adult entertainment, there is a distance requirement for churches, but staff sees this use as an educational use for adults and does not distinguish it from any other type of adult education.
Councilmember Moylan asked if the inclusion of a prayer room required an organization to be considered a place of worship and Planning Officer Ryan stated that it did not since many private businesses offer similar types of rooms within their organizations. She stated that if the prayer room were open to the public for use, then staff would be concerned.
Vice Mayor Lee asked staff about the surrounding businesses and Planning Officer Ryan stated there was a broad mix of non-industrial uses in the area. She stated that whether or not Council feels the area is saturated with non-industrial uses may be a factor in approving Use Permits within the area.
Vice Mayor Lee asked Planning Officer Ryan if she still supports the recommendation of approving the Use Permit. Planning Officer Ryan stated that there was not any new information presented during the meeting that would modify the staff recommendation.
Councilmember Spitaleri moved and Vice Mayor Lee seconded to support Alternative No. 1: Adopt the Negative Declaration and overturn the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the Use Permit with conditions and to allow an increase to 32 parking spaces, which includes employee parking.
Councilmember Moylan stated that he feels this item should go back to the Planning Commission since there is new information that was not available to the Planning Commission at the time of their decision. He stated he had not heard any persuasive reason why the applicant could not wait until this item is sent back to the Planning Commission for their review.
Councilmember Howe made a friendly amendment that if the use intensifies over 32 people or has a detrimental effect on the 32 parking spaces, the Use Permit shall come back in some form of a Public Hearing (with the Planning Commission or City Council).
Councilmember Spitaleri and Vice Mayor Lee accepted the friendly amendment.
Motion carried 6-1 (Councilmember Moylan dissented)
|