Thank you Planning Commission for valuing community uses! Churches were always the center of a community and while it's uses have changed over time from religious to more secular, it's great to see FBC continuing to nurture community!

And so the anything-goes frenzy of tossing laws out the windows continues non-stop in Palo Alto. Even our neighborhood churches are now getting into it. Sounds like they'll be allowed to rent to anyone, including underparked tech startups.

So much for love thy neighbor as thyself. It's now screw thy neighbor and pocket the dough.

What this really says is that we need more community space in Palo Alto. Every time something like a bowling alley leaving or similar space closing, we lose an amenity. It doesn't matter whether it is something for recreation, something for culture, or something for families to hang out and have some fun, space in Palo Alto is diminishing all the time.

Every time we build more homes on what was a thriving space for recreation or for classes or for anything else, we are increasing the population without giving the increased population more space for leisuretime activities. We can't keep increasing Pack and Stack housing with the idea that people just need to sleep and work. We need to increase places where local people can live, can breathe, can congregate, can hang out, can spend the time that we all need which isn't working, eating or sleeping.

Whether it is churches taking up the slack doesn't matter. There is a need that has to be taken into account. It is about time that CC understood that living in Palo Alto means more than building homes and expecting those that live in them will walk to work and then spend the rest of the time hibernating in those tiny homes.

@resident.....

Agree that Palo alto needs more community space. Council Member Holman has opined about this for years especially the loss of things like bowling alley's, movie theaters, arts spaces etc...etc...

That doesn't mean that a bowling alley, for instance, should operate 7 days a week till 11pm with virtually no parking in a residential neighborhood???

Currently it is illegal to operate a commercial use in R-1 (and many other zones ) how about an 7-11 next door to you or another resident....would that be good too?

Anon, that is my point exactly. We are losing community space in places with the right type of zoning, in downtown, in business areas. So where can the community space be found. Instead of providing community space in places where there can be people congregating with ample parking until 11.00 pm or whenever, they are building homes or allowing office space for non-community service businesses. It is no wonder then that these community spaces are being forced into residential areas.

The point of my post is to show that we have a need for leisure activities. When the CC doesn't provide enough space then innovation occurs and places like churches who have some space take up the slack.

In an ideal world, there would be community centers with sufficient space to host and rent out space for leisure activities and businesses that provide recreational services.

We are quickly becoming a dormitory community as far as CC is concerned with emphasis on working, sleeping and eating, with the emphasis on walking and nothing else.

I think we are going to find more and more problems when we increase our population without providing enough community center space to allow for recreation and leisure. I expect to find more residential neighborhoods impacted with other churches jumping on the bandwagon and providing the space for these organizations that the City is not finding space for.

I am not disagreeing with you at all. I am just explaining why I think the problem exists and show that this problem will not go away as we build more and more stack and pack housing, cram more people into town and give them nothing to do.

OK...right on Resident!!!!

The City Attorney needs to get involved before this goes any further. The grandfathered parking exemption for the First Baptist Church does not apply for any new uses, according to the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The proposed CUP for non-church activities, which marks an intensification and change in use, clearly triggers a parking review under the law at today's standards, under which 8 on-site parking spots would not suffice.

The current "community centers" owned by the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Unified School District were all located on major streets and purpose-built for large crowds and extended use: Lucie Stern, Cubberly, Mitchell Park. Last year's "community center" designation for Greenmeadow made sense because it was also built specifically by the Eichler developer to be a gathering place with plenty of parking and setback from the neighbors. The First Baptist Church was not built to be anything other than a church, and the parking lot and current zoning reflect that. This decision by the Planning Commission is precedent-setting and is a parking disaster for the surrounding neighborhood.

This decision will be reviewed by the City Council at their May 14 meeting. Hopefully the City Attorney will provide better guidance about the legal barriers that are required to be considered by the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code before this kind of change in zoning.

Summa made inflammatory and divisive remarks but none of that is reported. She accused all members of PTC who supported the CUP as “dereliction of duty”.
Further, there is absolutely nothing unlawful about granting a church a CUP. It’s common practice among municipalities.

I thought the most important point of the night was the notion of reasonableness. What happens when neighbor’s are unreasonable? How can any person or institution satisfy an unreasonably dissatisfied neighbor.

This whole thing seems to be more about bullying by neighbors than about land use. I grew up going to church. We used to have all sorts of events there. Performances, book clubs (sponsored by local book stores), even youth group sleep overs. I’m sure the neighbors would be happier with quaint little park. It’s the same suggestion we’ve heard by Castilleja Neighbor’s: “this site is not appropriate for (fill in the blank private institution).” I think we need to push back against the wave of neighbors who have made it their mission to constrain these institutions until they no longer can serve and survive.

Thank you commissioners for getting this one right.

This is tragic for all R1 neighborhoods. A community center with 8 parking spaces? Come on! Don't force neighbors on N California to bear the burden for the City's lack of commitment to community services.

Your neighborhood could be next, if this is a new precedent.

What is this new spirit in Palo Alto that neighborhoods don't matter if people outside of the neighborhood have a choir or school loyalty (see Castilleja)? Sure, plenty of iSing people live in 94301 but not next to the church. It shows a lot of self-interest and very little empathy.

In the last few years, groups of neighbors have decided that they cannot handle a few extra cars or any noise. They spend their time fighting against local programs and schools. It is a sad use of time. There are so many things that need positive energy why not focus on that. It is sad to see what some Palo Altans have become.

If FirstvBaptist Church is willing to convert their property to an affordable senior center, lot's of PA residents will support it. It is not a good use of the site, now!

A CUP for a church (routine) is very different legally than a new CUP to allow a church to change uses and become a commercial landlord for non-related groups and private, for-profit medical practitioners (no precedent for this in the entire City of Palo Alto).

This particular CUP application would allow doctor's offices to continue to operate at the church. R-1 zoning does not allow medical services, and no other "community center" in the entire City of Palo Alto has doctor's offices onsite. This is precedent setting in multiple, dangerous ways.

A home is to be a peaceful place to be able to rest and relax. Can you imagine how these folks feel when all of this noise goes on? This has been going on for years. Not being able to hear your television, people waking you up with loud noise coming from the music playing, people talking very loudly on the street, all of these factors would drive me nuts. Try coming home from work and trying to park your car where you live and not being able to because your drive way is blocked by other cars dropping off children or going to an event or worst yet double parking and blocking the street. I am sure a lot more neighbors are thinking the exact same thing but have to speak up.

All Palo Alto homeowners should be concerned about the Transportation Commissions CUP decision. The hidden agenda of many of the Planning and Transportation Commission members is to do away with the R1 residential designation. They want multi family development allowed in our neighborhoods. Commissioner Alcheck is most aggressive proponent among the commissioners.

@ Reasonableness....your point is unreasonable. Why don't you reverse the question? How can a neighbor satisfy unreasonable demands by an institution? If you live anywhere near the church (I mean close to the church) or Castilleja, I'd be willing to bet you'd be singing a different tune.

This isn't about bullying. In fact, many residents think they are being bullied by Castlleja, so stop with the name calling already. It doesn't help your argument.

Most people living in these areas ARE reasonable people. Don't assume you know their thoughts.

[Post removed.]

@ Two Faced reporting...Summa's comments reflected sensibilty and a respect for laws on the books. You can't grant a permit if you are not in compliance with law, and the issuance of the permit does not comply. Her comments are inflammatory to you because you disagree with her opinion. Think about it.

Alcheck and Riggs need to do their homework with regard to existing law. This use permit does not comply and should have never been approved. Period. Put it to a vote and change the law if that's what you think should happen, but don't criticize her for making legal sense.

[Post removed.]

@ Reasonableness.... your argument is completely unreasonable. I too grew up going to a church and participated in several activities there. But the difference was and still is that we used to walk or ride our bikes. Also no activities were permitted after 7 P.M. as the institution was in a residential neighborhood. We were taught to always respect our neighbors. I think the whole point of serving your community is lost when you disturb the peace of very community you are in. Neighbors are asking to put the safety and welfare of not just the residents but also the children who bike to school everyday to be put above everything else before making the church a commercial establishment (under the guise of community center). Your point is not at all reasonable.

Michael Alcheck had a writeup/comment ready and did not participate in any form of questioning during the meeting yesterday. He simply sided with the church. He blasted everyone for making the church go through this. He said the congregation that he went to had all kinds of activities without revealing if the congregation that he was part of was in a densely populated residential neighborhood, or if they made loud noise till 11 P.M. in the night every night, or if his congregation was in a busy bike intersection/boulevard which a lot of kids used, or if there were parking issues, or how many parking spots his congregation had. He simply omitted all the important facts and just revealed that they had yoga classes and other classes in their congregation.

He did not address any issues like noise and safety of kids riding bikes. He talked about children crossing train tracks and said that is already a safety issue. At the railway crossings we have lights and a guard. At traffic crossings we have guards. How can this be equated with a car suddenly crossing a bike lane to do a drop off or pick up? This area is heavily trafficked by Jordan and Paly kids. Its common sense that if a car crosses a biker's path suddenly it could cause accidents. The car will be fine but the biker or bikers will definitely be hurt. One cannot blame the kids for not seeing the signs, how about we all take the responsibility for keeping the streets safe for kids of our community?

Also he mentioned coming to site at least 10 times. 10 times when? In the last few months? When iSinger's are dropped off and picked up? When? Yes, I agree the noise level and the traffic issues have been contained due to the iSing director taking some actions, new mozart school moving out, all sorts of late folk music tenants asked to stop coming etc. There is thankfully no activity that generates noise after 8 P.M. , so thats a blessing. The traffic issues hasn't stopped completely, people still occasionally make u turns in the middle of California avenue to drop off kids, but definitely it happens less often now. Has he seen this place in its full glory with all sorts of violations in the last 2 years? No. He hasn't been here to witness the loud rock music or the folk dancing at 10 P.M. disturbing all the neighbors. He hasn't seen kids on bicycles get into near accidents. He has permitted these activities again by allowing the church to remain open until 11 P.M. (on weekends) and 10 P.M.(weekdays). He has also increased the number of people who can be at the church at any time to 120 from 50. So he has given permission for more traffic. Everyone is not going to be iSing. Each tenant is going to be different. Also we have never seen a law enforcement officer come and issue tickets to these violators. Mr. Alcheck hasn't lived here. Just visiting 10 times does not do it. He does not get the gravity of the situation. Period.

BTW, he has also allowed the use of amplifiers as part of this. Are we in a residential zone or shoreline park?

Also he voted in 2017 that new mozart school violated the zoning code, while in this CUP he permitted zoning code violation by allowing doctor's offices and other institutions like new mozart to be tenants. Clearly something is wrong in this picture.
Web Link

If people living in that area would GO BACK TO CHURCH, there would not be a reason to be fussing about parking as they would all walk to church like they did in the '50's.....and supporting the church with brotherhood, smiles and good will...

Thank you Planning Commission. Churches rent to Non Profits I believe and We need local meeting places.Most of the churches in PA have been in our neighborhoods as the neighborhoods grew.

A neighbor PA resident

Actually, every community center in Palo Alto and almost every church in Palo Alto and across the country already hosts psychotherapy services in the form of Alcoholics Anonymous and similar programs. Cubberly Community Center already hosts medical services in the form of the cardiac rehabilitation program, Heart Fit for Life. Several neighbors expressed a strong preference for individual services over group services because of the lower noise and traffic.

If they want to act as a commercial enterprise and rent to those who pay for the space, then their status as a church comes under question and they can therefore lose their ability to operate as a tax exempt entity.

This has happened in San Francisco when a few of the churches started hosting car washes every weekend. This also happened when they started appearing on parking apps for people searching for parking. They were challenged by area car wash operators and by parking lot owners. The churches stopped these activities because they are illegal.

The tax law for the State of California is not black and white, but it is black and white enough to end any type of commercial activity by threatening to pull tax-exempt status of any church activity that competes with office space or other type of spaces on a more than "one off" event. You get taxed, or you stop doing it. That means, you pay real estate taxes and you pay income taxes. Until you want to lose your tax exempt status, stop doing what you are doing and abide by state tax law.

@jonnyss : "Actually, every community center in Palo Alto and almost every church in Palo Alto and across the country already hosts psychotherapy services in the form of Alcoholics Anonymous and similar programs".

Alcoholics Anonymous is NOT a for-profit psychotherapy service or necessarily run by licensed medical professionals. Anyone can walk in and receive their service free of charge! The licensed psychotherapists who have offices at the church charge for their services and are not open to the public unless you make an appointment and pay a going rate for therapy (usually $150 + an hour).

Let's not confuse a community center (for-profit), Doctors/Therapists offices (for profit) with a church who has a tax-exempt status. As far as I know, very few of the groups who rent space at the church are non-profit organizations. They all charge $$ for their services unlike the church bake-off or pancake breakfast of years ago which just asked for a donation!

There's always a chance CC will ignore the PTC recommendation. Just last Monday our CC dismissed the majority opinion of the PTC and instead adopted an affordable housing ordinance that reflected the recommendation of just 3 of the 7 PTC commissioners. In fact, the Mayor allowed Monk to speak in favor of the minority (Monk/Alcheck/Riggs)opinion.

Perhaps Ms. Summa should go to CC when this issue is on the agenda and ask for the same courtesy. After all, the precedent has been set.

A community center should be restricted to uses that reflect available parking, which in this case is 8 parking spots. Events for 120 people are not suitable for such a spot. Gamble Garden Center limits its events to 75 people, because that is what their parking supports (far more than 8).

I think the original proposal limiting events to 50 people is very generous and I hope that is what the city council supports.