HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 134-06TO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 7
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
& COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
JANUARY 30, 2006 CMR 134:06
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE -ADOPTION OF AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE AUTO DEALERSHIP (AD)
COMBINING DISTRICT TO ALLOW THE AD OVERLAY ZONE
IN THE LIMITED MANUFACTURING (LM) DISTRICTS
LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF HIGHWAY 101
AT THE SAN ANTONIO INTERCHANGE.
DISCUSSION
This item was continued from the December 12, 2005 City Council meeting. A copy of
CMR 425:05 prepared for that meeting is attached. At that meeting, the Council
requested additional information. The additional information is included with this memo.
The additional information is as follows:
Diagrams showing a one quarter mile radius around the two Highway 10t
interchanges with Embarcadero Road and San Antonio Road. Staff would note
that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommendation was for
the Auto Dealership overlay zone for the LM districts at Highway 101 and San
Antonio Road. The area at Embarcadero Road and Highway 101 was not included
in the PTC recommendation.
An aerial site plan of the MSC facility. This site is zoned Public Facilities (PF)
and is not part of the Council’s consideration for the Auto Dealership overlay
zone.
Baylands Master Plan. The attached Baylands Master Plan Amended Summary
Report is the record of City Council action on the Baylands Master Plan and EIR
in 1978, as updated in 1987. Staff would also clarify that the purpose of the draft
document distributed at the December 12 Council meeting, the Baylands Design
Guidelines, is to guide design of public and private projects in the Baylands for
compatibility with the Baylands and with the Baylands Master Plan.
CMR 134:06 1 of 2
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: CMR 425:05 with draft Ordinance and Attachments
Attachment B: Diagrams of one quarter mile radius for Highway 101 at Embarcadero
Road and San Antonio Avenue
Attachment C: Baylands Master Plan
COURTESY COPIES
Planning and Transportation Commission
Chamber of Commerce
Anderson Honda
Magnussens Toyota
Carlsen Audi
Peninsula Ford
Hengehold Motor
Stanford BMW/Jaguar/Porsche
Lamborghini Palo Alto
Park Avenue Motors
Smythe European
Showcase Luxury Cars
Carlsen Volvo
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
STEVE ~¢¢ISLIE
Director of Planning and Communitx Environment
AssiStant City Manager
2 of 2
ATTACHMENT A
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
16
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
& COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DECEMBER 12, 2005
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE -ADOPTION OF AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE AUTO DEALERSHIP (AD)
COMBINING DISTRICT TO ALLOW THE AD OVERLAY ZONE
IN THE LIMITED MANUFACTURING (LM) DISTRICTS
LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF HIGHWAY 101
AT THE SAN ANTONIO INTERCHANGE.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend that the City Council adopt an Ordinance (Attachment A) amending the
Auto Dealership (AD) Combining District to allow the AD overlay zone in the Limited
Manufacturing (LM) Districts located on the east and west sides of Highway 101 at the
San Antonio Interchange, and that the applications for Auto Dealership development in
these zones require a Conditional Use Permit (CLIP).
Staff also recommends that the Auto Dealership (AD) Combining District Ordinance
include the following additional language to address the use of auto display platforms
with specific site development applications:
"SECTION 3. Subparagraph (b) of Section 18.65.070 [Special
requirements] is hereby added to read as follows:
(5) Two automobile display pads shall be permitted for each
auto dealership site, and shall be subiect to Architectural Review Board approval.
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
STEVE ,MSLIE
Director of Planning and Communit, Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
E HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
16
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
& COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:
SUBJECT:
DECEMBER 12, 2005 CMR: 425:05
ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE -ADOPTION OF AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING THE AUTO DEALERSHIP (AD)
COMBINING DISTRICT TO ALLOW THE AD OVERLAY ZONE
IN THE LIMITED MANUFACTURING (LM) DISTRICTS
LOCATED ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF HIGHWAY 101
AT THE SAN ANTONIO INTERCHANGE.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend that the City
Council adopt an Ordinance (Attachment A) amending the Auto Dealership (AD)
Combining District to allow the AD overlay zone in the Limited Manufacturing (LM)
Districts located on the east and west sides of Highway 101 at the San Antonio
Interchange, and that the applications for Auto Dealership development in these zones
require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission also recommend that the Auto
Dealership (AD) Combining District not be permitted in the LM District located on the
east side of Highway 101 at the Embarcadero Road inteichange.
BACKGROUND
On July 11, 2005, the City Council initiated an amendment to Chapter t8.65 of Title 18
to provide for the auto dealership overlay zone (Combining District) in the LM
manufacturing districts that are located on the east and west sides of Highway 101 at both
the San Antonio and Embarcadero Road interchanges.
On October 26, 2005, the PTC had a public hearing to consider amendments to Chapter
18.65 for the AD overlay in the LM zones adjacent to Highway 101 (Attachment B, PTC
Staff Report). Notices to over 1,000 property owners were sent for this meeting.
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
Staff reviewed the City Council’s action to initiate the Auto Dealership Combing District
in the LM districts located adjacent to the Highway 101 Corridor and Embarcadero Road.
The Council action also revised some of the regulations for auto dealerships in these
areas. The regulations contained the following:
CMR: 425:05 1 of 4
That auto dealerships not be permitted on parcels in the LM zone that are directly
adjacent or directly opposite (across a street) from low density residential (R-I,
RE, R-2, RMD) nor a residential PC zoning district.
LM zoning district sites shall be subject to the following additional requirements:
1) Large deliveries to the dealership, including automobiles or parts shall be
delivered, loaded, and unloaded on-site. At no such time shall such deliveries
occupy street parking, nor block public or private residential streets; and 2)
Vehicle test-driving is prohibited on residential streets.
The PTC and City Council shall review the application of the overlay zone on
individua! sites.
This additional language was included in the Draft Ordinance (Attachment A) presented
to the PTC. Three members from the public spoke at the PTC meeting, mainly addressing
the concern for auto dealerships locating adjacent to residential neighborhoods. At the
PTC meeting, staff recommended additional language in Section 3(b) of the draft
ordinance that added environmental protection for new development in the LM zones
adjacent to the Baylands.
The PTC discussion was mainly focused on two issues about locating auto dealerships in
these LM zones. The first was the need to restrict auto dealerships from locating where
low density residential would be an adjacent use. The second was ensuring protection of
the Baylands when auto dealerships are proposed in the adjacent LM zones (Attachment
C, October 26 PTC minutes).
The PTC’s recommendation for the LM zones adjacent to Highway 101/San Antonio
interchange was as follows:
That all auto dealership uses in the LM zones require a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP). Furthermore, that the LM zones on the east side of
Highway 101 require an additional CUP finding addressing the LM zone’s
adjacency to the Baylands. The additional finding is as follows: "The
design of the proposed improvements and the operation of the proposed
use will not be detrimental to the ecological qualities of the Baylands
natural areas and will be aesthetically compatible with the character of the
Baylands as a regional recreation area and nature preserve."
For the LM district located on the west side of Highway 101/San Antonio
interchange, auto dealerships would require a CUP and only be allowed if
they are fronting the Bayshore Freeway and are not adjacent to the low
density residential areas and those parcels would be subject to any future
additional creek setback requirements.
However, staff determined that this limitation would result in only one
parcel in that subdistrict that could qualify for the AD overlay. Staff is not
recommending this limitation because it is too restrictive within a zoning
district. Therefore, the draft ordinance does contain the PTC
CMR: 425:05 2 of 4
recommendation and keeps the Council’s direction for AD limitations in
that zone.
The PTC did not recommend that the AD overlay zone be permitted in the LM zone that
is on the east side of Highway 101 at the Embarcadero interchange. The motion to
include this area as an AD overlay failed on a (2-3-2-0) vote. The major concern for not
including this area was that it represented a gateway to the Baylands and therefore should
not have more intensive commercial uses than what already exists. There are currently
two auto dealerships located in this area that zoned Planned Community (PC).
RESOURCE IMPACT
The most recent sales tax figures (Calendar year 2003) indicate that revenue from local
auto related uses contributed $2,108,201 annually to the City of Palo Alto. This
represents 12.2% of the total sales tax revenue. Auto dealers are located on
approximately 16 acres of land (excluding the former Stanford Nissan dealer located at
3001 E1 Camino Real and the Corporate Motors site). This generates approximately
$131,762 in average sales tax revenue per acre.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Recommendations of this staff report are consistent with the overall land use and
economic goals of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically Goal B-3 and B-5 that
pertain to business development. This report also implements the goals of the City’s
Enhancing the City’s Economic Base Action Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Review for adoption of the new Auto Dealership Chapter 18.65 is exempt
from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per section
15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no
possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Draft Ordinance
Attachment B: Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report, October 26, 2005
Attachment C: Minutes, Planning and Transportation Commission meeting, October 26,
2005
COURTESY COPIES
Planning and Transportation Commission
Chamber of Commerce
Anderson Honda
Magnussens Toyota
Carlsen Audi
Peninsula Ford
Hengehold Motor
Stanford BMW/Jaguar/Porsche
Lamborghini Palo Alto
CMR: 425:05 3 of 4
Park Avenue Motors
Smythe European
Showcase Luxury Cars
Carlsen Volvo
PREPARED BY:~.~;-~SA ~..~ .~-~ .....
P-{afming Ma~a’~r ,.f
DEPARTMENT HEAD: ~" ~g,~ ~ "
ST~V~ EMsLi~
Director of Pla~ing and Community Enviro~ent
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:E~’HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR: 425:05 4 of 4
NOT YET APPROVED
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 18.65 (AUTO DEALER
COMBINING DISTRICT) OF TITLE 18 [ZONING]OF THE
PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE BY AMENDING CHAPTER
18.65.020 (APPLICABILITY OF REGULATIONS]AND
CHAPTER 18.65.070 [SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS]
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
fo!lows:
SECTION i. Findings and Declarations.
finds and declares as follows:
The City Council
(a) That in December 2000, the City Council approved a
work plan for the Zoning Ordinance Update involving the
preparation of a new Title 18 (Zoning Code) of the Palo Alto
Municipa! Code (PAMC), including the update of existing land use
chapters and processes as well as the preparation of chapters
for new and revised land uses;
(b) That on July 28, 2003, the City Council accepted a
report from the City’s Ad Hoc Committee on the City’s Economic
Base ("Ad-hoc Committee") whose purpose was two-fold: (i) to
assess and evaluate economic trends that affect Palo Alto’s
financial bottom line; and (2) to determine what actions can be
taken to retain businesses;
(c) That the City’s Ad-hoc Committee identified priority
goals that the City of Palo Alto should implement and an action
plan that accomplishes the following: (i) retain valued Palo
Alto businesses; (2) enhance the economic base by sharing
information with Boards and Commissions; (3) streamline
processes where appropriate that undercut vibrant economic
activity, retain sales dollars in the community; (4) identify
economic development "best practices" for implementation in Palo
Alto; and (5) retain auto dealers in Palo Alto.
SECTION 2. Section 18.65.020 (Applicability of Regula-
tions) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is
amended to read as follows:
The combining district may be combined with a service
commercial (CS) district, a general manufacturing (GM or GM(B))
district, or Limited Manufacturing (LM) zoning district parcels
051208 syn 0 t 20068
NOT YET APPROVED
within 1/4 mile of the intersection at San Antonio Road and
Bayshore Freeway (Highway i01), but not directly adjacent nor
directly opposite (across a street)from a low density
residential (R-I, RE, R-2, RMD) nor residential PC zoning
district in accord with Chapters 18.08 and 18.98. Where so
combined, the regulations established by this chapter shal!
apply in lieu of the comparable provisions established by the
service commercial district or community commercial district.
SECTION 3. Subparagraph (b) of Section 18.65.070
[Specia! requirements] is hereby added to read as follows:
(b) LM zoning district sites shall be subject to the
fol!owing additiona! requirements:
(I) Large deliveries to the dealership,
including automobiles or parts shall be delivered, loaded, and
unloaded on-site. At no such time shall such deliveries occupy
street parking, nor block public or private residential streets
in any way.
(2) Vehicle
residential streets.
test-driving is prohibited on
(3 All development in the areas east of the
Bayshore Freeway (Hwy. i01) is subject to the Site and Design
Review (D)provisions of Chapter 18.82 and shall include
performance criteria including, but not limited to lighting,
noise, and landscaping. All development is subject to the
policies and guidelines outlined in the Baylands Master Plan and
in the Site Assessment and Design Guidelines for Palo Alto
Baylands Nature Preserve. These policies and guidelines include,
but are not limited, to:
a. Maintenance and, where possible, restoration
of the environmental quality of the Baylands;
the area;
b o Use of materials and colors compatible with
c. Design to preserve the horizon line with low
and horizontal elements; and
d. Fencing and signage
preserve character of the Baylands.
compatible with the
051208 syn 0120068
NOT YET APPROVED
(4) Development in the two LM zones adjacent to
the intersection of San Antonio Road and the Bayshore Freeway
shall require a conditional use permit pursuant to Section
18.76.010 ("Conditional Use Permit").
a. For development in the LM zone adjacent to
San Antonio Road east of the Bayshore Freeway, a conditional use
permit for auto dealership may only be granted on a finding that
the design of the proposed improvements and the operation of the
proposed use will not be detrimental to the eco!ogical qualities
of the Baylands natural areas and wil! be aesthetically
compatible with the character of the Baylands as a regional
recreation area and nature preserve.
SECTION 4. The City Council finds that the changes
effected by this ordinance are exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per section 15061
of CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment.
SECTION5. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days
after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
City Clerk Mayor
051208 syn 0120068
NOT YET APPROVED
APPROVED AS TO FORM:APPROVED :
Sr. Deputy City Attorney City Manager
Director of Planning &
Community Environment
051208 syn 0120068
ATTACHMENT B
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:John Lusardi, Planning Manager DEPARTMENT: Planning
and Community Environment
DATE:October 26, 2005
SUBJECT:ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - AMENDMENTS TO THE AUTO
DEALERSHIP (AD) COMBINING DISTRICT TO ALLOW THE AD
OVERLAY ZONE IN THE LIMITED MAUFACTURING (LM)
DISTRICTS.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Cormnission recommend that the
City Council adopt an ordinance (Attachment A) amending Chapter 18.65 of Title 18
(Zoning Ordinance) for the purpose of allowing the auto dealership overlay’ zone (Combining
District) in the Limited Manufacturing Zoning (LM) districts as is currently provided in the
Service Commercial District (CS), General Manufacturing (GM) and General Manufacturing
Combining District (GM (B)) to allow for additional site and design standards for automobile
dealerships selling new, pre-owned and used automobiles.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission review and comment on
amending existing sign standards, Chapter 16.20 of the PAMC for auto dealerships.
BACKGROUND:
On July 11, 2005 the City Council initiated an amendment to Chapter 18.65 of Title 18 to
provide for the auto dealership overlay zone (Combining District) in the LM
manufacturing districts that are located on the east and west sides of Highway 101
(Council minutes, Attachment C). The City Council also reviewed staff recommendation
that amendments to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) be initiated that would
provide for minor modifications to the sign regulations and add a new provision that
City of Palo Alto Page
would allow for off site advertising for multiple auto dealerships. The City Council did
not take action on the signage recommendation. Two motions addressing off site signage,
one supporting staff recommendation and one denying staff recommendation, failed on 4
to 4 votes by the Council.
On August 8, 2005 the City Council voted to support a Colleagues Memo directing staff
to evaluate the feasibility of, and strategies for, relocating current City operations from
the Municipal Services Center (MSC) on East Bayshore Road in order to redevelop that
property as a site for automobile dealerships. The MSC site is zoned Public Facilities with
a D Combining District (PF(D)). The Staff has recently started to identify what areas and
issues needs to be addressed in this analysis.
Insofar as a primary goal of the City with the LM overlay zone is for auto dealerships to
locate along the Bayshore Corridor, staff is deferring the discussion of off site signage for
auto dealerships until after additional work has been completed to identify sites and
concepts for auto dealerships to locate along the 101 Freeway. If a successful program
can be implemented to achieve this, the location of off site signage may not be necessary.
Staff is recommending that the review of off site signage for multiple auto dealerships be
dropped from the P&TC discussion on October 26, 2005.
The addition of the LM zones for the auto dealership combing district was continued
from the P&TC meeting of September 14, 2005. Notices of the October 26 P&TC
meeting were sent to all property owners in the affected LM districts and property owners
within 600 feet of these zoning districts. When the new zoning ordinance becomes
effective at the end of November, the LM Districts will change to Research, Office and
Limited Manufacturing, ROLM and ROLM(E).
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES:
The City Council supported Staff’s recommendation to allow for the Auto Dealership
Combining District in the LM districts located adjacent to the Highway 101 Corridor and
Embarcadero Road. The Council action also added some revisions to the regulations for
auto dealerships in these areas. The revised regulations contain the following:
That auto dealerships not be permitted on parcels in the LM zone that are directly
adjacent or directly opposite (across a street) from low density residential (R-l,
RE, R-2, RMD) nor a residential PC zoning district.
LM zoning district sites shall be subject the following additional requirements: 1)
Large deliveries to the dealership, including automobiles or parts shall be
delivered, loaded, and unloaded on-site. At no such time shall such deliveries
occupy street parking, nor block public or private residential streets., and 2)
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Vehicle test driving is prohibited on residential streets.
The PTC and City Council shall review the application of the overlay zone on
individual sites.
Highway 101 Corridor Zoning and Land Use
When Council first approved the Auto Dealership Combining District, the intent was to
address existing auto dealership sites in the City and demonstrate the City’s commitment
to retaining these dealerships. Therefore the AD District was only al!owed in the CS and
GM districts where existing dealerships were located. Amendments to the auto
dealerships with PC zoning occurred at the same time.
There are several sites along the Highway 101 corridor, which could provide good
locations for auto dealerships (Attachment B). Many of them have frontage on Highway
101 or are close enough for excellent visibility. Access from the freeway is better for
some sites than others and some sites have large parcels or multiple parcels that could be
combined to accommodate full service dealerships. Some of these areas could also
support multiple dealerships.
The other advantage to these areas, in addition to having freeway visibility, is that they
are already zoned for industrial and oftSce use. The zoning on these sites is Limited
Manufacturing (LM). In a survey of the areas, many locations have industrial and office
buildings that are vacant or under leased. Most of the LM zones on the east side of
Highway 101 are not located near residential zones.
There are three areas along the Highway 101 corridor that have potential to accommodate
relocated or new auto dealerships:
Highway 10 I/Embarcadero Road. This area is predominantly zoned LM. There are
two auto dealerships in the area, both having PC zoning. There is some GM zoning in
the area, which allows the AD Combining District. The area has excellent freeway
visibility and access from the Embarcadero interchange. The area is removed from
residential areas; however, it is located within the Baylands Site & Design (D)
Combining District
Highway 101/EIwell Court and Corporation Way. This area is zoned LM with
industrial and office buildings. It has both excellent freeway visibility and access
from the San Antonio Avenue interchange. It is also separated from residential uses;
however, it also is located within the Baylands Site & Design (D) Combining District
Highway 101 West Bayshore Road. This area with LM zoning has excellent frontage
and visibility along Highway 101. However, many of the sites are adjacent or across
the street from residential uses. Another constraint to this area is direct access from
City of Palo Alto Page 3
the freeway from either Embarcadero or San Antonio interchanges. Many sites in this
LM district would not be suited for auto dealerships.
Both staff and auto dealerships have identified that these areas have location advantages
where the AD Combining District should be an allowed overlay zone in the LM District.
If allowed in the LM District, the approval of an auto dealership.overlay on a specific site
would still require Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and City
Council approval. However, should a site(s) and resources become available, then the
AD Combining District could be applied on an LM zoned site and move forward with
new development.
Chapter 16.20 Sign Ordinance
The existing sign ordinance has some regulations that could be amended to help address
the needs of auto dealerships for on-site advertising. Staff has included adding some
flexibility as to type of signage (manufacturer) without increasing the existing square
footage or height limitations on signs for PTC and Council consideration. In this process,
while recommendations may be directed toward auto dealerships, staff will also identify
how other commercial business may also be affected by the recommended changes. The
Sign Ordinance, Chapter 16.20, is not part of the Zoning Ordinance Update for Chapter
18 of the PAMC.
Examples of the areas within Chapter 16.20 that were being considered are specific
prohibited signs and freestanding signs. Although not considered major changes, these
provisions would specifically address auto dealerships’ need for advertising. Section
16.20.090 states that "no sign shall advertise or display the make, brand name or
manufacturers name of any product .... unless the same assists in and is done incidentally
to the naming of said business." This provision limits an auto dealership to have the
make of their automobile more prominent than the name of the dealership. Staff believes
that this code should be changed to allow dealerships to display their manufacture’s logo
without violation.
A second example is for freestanding signs. Section 16.20.120(a) states that
"Freestanding signs over five feet in height shall be permitted on nonresidential
properties in the GM zones and on E1 Camino Real in CN and CS zones and for service
stations, restaurants and shopping centers elsewhere." This would mean that auto
dealerships with freestanding signs would be permitted in GM zones and on E1 Camino
Real; however, they would not be allowed in other areas that currently provide for service
stations, restaurants and shopping centers or on LM sites with an overlay. Dealerships in
PC zones and on San Antonio Road are limited where other similar commercial uses are
not.
City of Palo Alfo Page 4
RESOURCE IMPACT
The most recent sales tax figures (Calendar year 2003) indicate that revenue from local
auto related uses contributed $2,108,201 annually to the City of Palo Alto. This
represents 12.2% of the total sales tax revenue. Auto dealers are located on
approximately 16 acres of land (excluding the former Stanford Nissan dealer located at
3001 E1 Camino Real and the Corporate Motors site). This generates approximately
$131,762 in average sales tax revenue per acre.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Recommendations of this staff report are consistent with the overall land use and
economic goals of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically Goal B-3 and B-5 that pertain
to business development. This report also implements the goals of the City’s Enhancing
the City’s Economic Base Action Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Review for adoption of the new Auto Dealership Chapter 18.65 are
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per
section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is
no possibility that the project would have a significant effect on the environment. The
application of the overlay zone and development of auto dealerships will be subject to
CEQA on a site specific basis.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Auto dealership Combining District in the LM Zone
B. Location Maps - Highway 101/LM Districts
C. July 11, 2005 City Council Minutes
D. Development and Sign Standards Comparison Tables. Chapter 18.65 of the Zoning
Ordinance
COURTESY COPIES:
Susan Arpan
Chamber of Commerce
Anderson Honda
Magnussens Toyota
Carlsen Audi
Peninsula Ford
Hengehold Motor
Stanford BMW/Jaguar/Porsche
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Lamborghini Palo Alto
Park Avenue Motors
Smythe European
Showcase Luxury Cars
Carlsen Volvo
Planning Manager Approval:
/_///’~ J~ohn L~usardi, Pla~mg Manager
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Legend
LM-5, LM-5(D), LMo5(D)(L)
F_-~i~.~LM, LM(L), LM(D)
LM(D)(3)
GM
GMB
School Sites
Par!~s and Preserves
Proposed Auto Dealership
Overlay
The City of
Palo Alto
Industrial Zones
LM for Auto Dealership
Oveday
Otd t4i4
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
Legend
All LM
/
,/ \,,/
./
The Cily of
Palo Alto
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
DRAFT EXCERPT
ATTACHMENT C
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
Wednesday, October 26, 2005
REGULAR MEETING at 7:00 PM
Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL: 7:05 pm
Commissioners:
Patrick Burt - Chair
Karen Holman - V-Chair
Lee I. Lippert-absent
Paula Sandas
Phyllis Cassel-absent
Daniel Garber
Annette Bialson
Staff:
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Donald Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney
Andy Coe, Interim Deputy Director
John Lusardi, Planning Manager
Clare Campbell, Associate Planner
Gayle Likens, Transportation Engineer
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary
A GENDIZED ITEMS:
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (7:00 - 7:30 PM)
1. 870 N. California Avenue
2. Zoning Ordinance Update
APPROVAL OFMINUTES: September 14 and 28, 2005
Chair Burt: Good evening. This is the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting for
Wednesday, October 26, 2005. Would the Secretary call the roll? Thank you. Does the City
Attorney have a statement he needed to make?
Mr. Don Larkin, Senior Deputy City Attorney: Yes, I just wanted to inform members of the
Commission and the public item number three, the Vesting Tentative Map of 1101 East Meadow
Drive and 1010 East Meadow Circle, due to conflicts there will not be a quorum tonight. Staffis
requesting that this be continued to the next meeting of November 9 and the action on the
continuance would be taken immediately after the special presentation that is the first item on the
agenda.
CiO, of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 1 of 121
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
DRAFT EXCERPT
Zonin~ Ordinance Update - Planning and Transportation Commission review" and
recommendation for an Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Chapter 18.65 of Title 18
(Zoning Ordinance) for the purpose of allowing the auto dealership overlay zone
(Combining District) in the Limited Manufacturing Zoning (LM) districts to provide auto
dealerships as a permitted use and to allow for additional site and design standards for
automobile dealerships selling new, pre-owned and used automobiles.
Mr. Lusardi: Thank you Mr. Chair and members of the Commission. On July 11 the City
Council initiated an amendment to the auto dealership zone, the AD Combining District, to allow
the AD zone be applied to Limited Manufacturing District, LM Zones, along the Bayshore
corridor. This item was continued from the September 14 Planning Commission meeting.
Notices to over 1,000 property owners were sent out for this meeting. Staff has received two
inquiries on this item and no written comments were submitted.
The item is Staff’s recommendation that the overlay zone be applied to the LM Zoning Districts
along Highway 101. It is important to point out that no sites will have the overlay zone applied
as a direct result of this action. All applications of the overlay zone to a specific site will require
Planning Commission recommendation and City Council approval. That review process would
be able to address the appropriateness of the AD Zone on a site including such areas as
adjacency to Baylands, relationship to residential development, and traffic impacts. The Council
has also included specific development restrictions where an AD Zone is located next to
residential uses.
Staff has submitted to the Commission tonight for your consideration additional development
standards for the districts on the east side of Highway 101. Sites on the east side of Bayshore
Freeway would be subject to Site and Design process, which is Planning Commission, ARB and
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 57 of]2]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
City Council review. This is to address the design review in relationship to the Baylands
environment and the Baylands Master Plan Design Guidelines. This is currently required in the
code and by the zoning on those areas. Staff has added this additional clarifying language in the
AD chapter for this review. Staff is recommending that the Commission recommend that the
City Council approve the amendment to Chapter 18.65 with revised standards presented tonight.
Also the Staff Report addressed Council direction regarding the MSC site. That is not part of the
Commission’s action tonight. The MSC site is zoned PF, Public Facilities, and Staff just started
the analysis on this site for the future of an auto dealership use there. The Commission will
review the Staff analysis when it is completed.
The second item on the agenda is a discussion of the existing sign ordinance as it relates to auto
dealership use in commercial zones. Staff is proposing to clarify some language in the ordinance
such as areas as provisions for pole signs and advertising using the auto manufacturers logo as
signage. This item is not a recommendation to the sign ordinance at this time. Staff is looking
for comments from the Commission to prepare revisions for the Commission’s review and the
Council’s review in the future. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Does the Commission have any questions of Staff before hearing from
what have are three cards from the public so far. Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: It would seem that signage is something that we could do more
immediately and also perhaps have a shorter Palo Alto process with regard to review. It would
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 58 of l21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
t4
15
16
17
18
19
20
2!
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
be an immediate benefit to the dealers we now have who many not be able to relocate.
something we could do besides deferring this whole discussion?
Is there
Mr. Lusardi: Certainly the Commission can express your support for the changes that we have
discussed in the Staff Report. We think those are fairly moderate changes, clarifications and
actually recognizing what is happening with respect to the auto dealerships. We can move those
changes along. What we were referring to is the sign ordinance is a separate chapter of the
Municipal Code it is not in the Zoning Ordinance. So we would have to amend it in that chapter.
To take up a comprehensive review of the entire sign ordinance would be a lot of work and we
would do that after the Zoning Ordinance Update but these moderate changes if the Commission
is in support and Council is in support we can make these changes much quicker, yes.
Commissioner Bialson: Thank you.
Chair Burr: Paula.
Commissioner Sandas: What we are talking about tonight is the overlay on the three particular
areas as outlined on the map. We are not talking about the MSC as you said. I am just saying
that for clarity, right?
Mr. Lusardi: That is correct.
Chair Burt: Karen.
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 59 of ]2l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
!0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Vice-Chair Holman: A clarification. I went back again and read the City Council minutes and
the motion. The motion that was passed said limit sites adjacent to state highways. That isn’t
part of the language in here. The language in the ordinance that is proposed is for parcels within
a quarter of a mile of Highway 10t. That seems inconsistent conceivably with the Council
approved motion. So could Staff clarify that, please?
Mr. Lusardi: Well, we didn’t interpret the Council’s motion as an immediate adjacency to just a
highway, freeway or right-of-way. What we interpreted that to be was the zoning districts, the
LM zoning districts that were immediately adjacent to the freeway encompassing all of the
parcels within those zoning districts.
Vice-Chair Holman: Okay.
Mr. Lusardi: I’m sorry, when we presented it to the Council that is how we presented. It would
be all three of those LM districts along Highway 101 would be included as part of the AD
overlays.
Chair Burt: Paula.
Commissioner Sandas: One more clarifying question. What is before us tonight is to approve
the AD overlay on those three LM sites but just because we approve that overlay doesn’t
necessarily mean that all three of those sites would necessarily be used for auto dealerships. We,
Ci.tv of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 60 of ]2l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
DRAFT EXCERPT
the people of Palo Alto, would still have the opportunity to say yea or nay to specific sites for
auto dealerships within those three.
Mr. Lusardi: That is correct. What is in front of you this evening is simply allowing the LM
zoning district along the Highway 101 corridor to receive the AD overlay. The actual
application on a specific site would still require Planning Commission and Council review.
Counci! was very explicit about that requirement as well.
Chair Burt: Karen.
Vice-Chair Holman: I had one more clarifying question. Page 5 of the Staff Report says that
this is exempt from CEQA. When we reviewed the auto dealership overlays for the other zones
we talked about lighting would be reviewed by the ARB. Lighting has been identified as a
potentially significant impact so I am questioning the categorical exemption from CEQA.
Mr. Lusardi: The reference to the categorical exemption for this action is simply adding the AD
overlay to the LM zone. Every specific site application whether it is an application of the
overlay itself on a site or whether it is the Site and Design for the site or whether it is the
architectural review for that site would be subject to CEQA on a site specific basis. So that site-
specific CEQA review" would be looking at the lighting as well as traffic as well as noise and all
the environmental impacts associated with a specific site or development.
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 61 of l2l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Vice-Chair Holman: To go further than that we don’t know exactly what or I don’t think we
have talked about the specific lighting requests or recommendations from the dealerships. So are
we setting up an inherent conflict here in terms of their wants/needs and the environment?
Mr. Lusardi: I don’t believe so. We have been talking with Advance Planning Staff especially
with respect to the districts that are on the east side of 101 and they are currently engaging an
urban design consultant to look at design standards for the Baylands, for the Master Plan,
specifically for commercial development. In talking with Virginia those performance standards
or design guidelines would be addressing lighting as well as noise for development in those areas
as well. So we anticipate having more specific guidelines in place in the guidelines before an
auto dealership application comes.
Vice-Chair Holman: That is all helpful, thank you.
Chair Burt: Dan.
Commissioner Garber: My question is really to you and the signs. Were you imagining that
there would be a motion eventually that addresses first the overlay and then a separate discussion
around the signage?
Commissioner Bialson: I was hoping that we could somehow encourage some changes in
signage to give immediate relief to dealers. Yes, I would like to have that accomplished but I see
that our City Attorney is motioning.
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 62 of ]21
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Mr. Larkin: That can’t happen tonight because it wasn’t agendized that way. In addition,
depending on what the Commission would like us to consider that will impact how- and
ordinance would be drafted because you can’t pass an ordinance that is specific to auto dealers.
So whatever changes we make are going to be changes that are across the board to our sign
ordinance. As noted in the Staff Report we would need to go back and look at the impacts and
make sure we craft an ordinance accordingly.
Chair Burt: So tonight given the way this is agendized are we permitted to provide Staff initial
feedback and input on both the sign aspects as well as the MSC?
Mr. Larkin: Yes, general feedback but we couldn’t pass an ordinance tonight.
Chair Burt: Very good. So then I think we can go to the members of the public. We have ttv-ee
speaker cards. Each speaker is allowed up to five minutes but not obliged to use all of the five
minutes. The first speaker is Earl Caustin to be followed by Annette Glenckopfto be followed
by Edith Poole.
Mr. Earl Caustin. Palo Alto: I would just like to urge the Commission to take note of the
comments about the LM zone that is west of Bayshore. While this all can be reviewed at a later
date you have before you a generic request to approve all LM zones for automobile dealership. I
would just call your attention to the map and the location of the LM zone west of Bayshore and
its proximity to residential area as compared to the other LM zones. I don’t believe that it is
Ci.ty of Pa!o Alto October 26, 2005 Page 63 of ]2]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
absolutely necessary for you to blanket approve all LM zones.
a possible modification to the ordinance proposed.
I would just like to suggest to you
If you look at section two it says the combining districts may be combined with service,
commercial, general manufacturing, GM zone and LM zoning district parcels within a quarter-
mile of Highway 101. I would just like to suggest that you make a recommendation to Council
that that read LM zoning district parcels east of Bayshore Freeway within a quarter of a mile of
Highway 101. If you look at the proposed zones the LM zones that are west of Bayshore or the
ones that are in proximity of residential areas, if you make this recommendation to Council you
wilt avoid the unnecessary issues later on coming up in terms of the conflict with residential
areas. Those issues would be associated with lighting, with traffic and with noise, all of the
issues that you are well aware of. That would be my recommendation that you make that
recommendation to City Council.
Chair Burt: Thank you. Annette Glenckopf to be followed by Edith Poole.
Ms. Annette Glenckopf, Palo Alto: Good evening and welcome Andy Coe. Tonight I support
keeping auto dealerships in Palo Alto but also I support reaching out to attract new ones. During
this discussion of auto dealerships much has been said about how people will buy cars in the
future and the increasing role of the Internet. So to add to this rich discussion I would like to
draw your attention to the October 24, 2005 of U.S. News & World Report on A Wise Way to
Get Wheels and recommend you read the article on the changing buyer attitudes. I would like to
read a quick set of extracts. 1. The bad old days of spending most of the car buying process at a
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 64 of ]2]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
DRAFT EXCERPT
dealership under the watchful eye of a hoard of pushing salesmen are now over. Instead
consumers are spending their time online. 2. Savvy customers now use a simpler method to buy
cars going to the dealer for only two reasons, one to take a test drive and two to seal the deal.
There are plenty of avenues into car buying. Brokers and buyers agents will shepherd customers
through the process for a couple of hundred dollars and even AAA is getting into the business of
helping people buy cars.
Now I know- that we all know that the American public does have a distaste for buying cars but
this magazine does state in the long run analysts aren’t sure that auto dealers will be willing or
able to change how they do business but we have had a lot of talk about do we really need very
large properties for auto dealerships. So I think this is sort of fascinating. We did need to work
on retaining our current auto dealers but also think about the future and how we can attract
additional dollars from auto sales. We need to attract the high-end dealers, more high-end
dealers such as Maserati and I think we have a Lamborghini in Palo Alto. Those are the only
two high-end dealers I could even think of I am sure there are more. We could also work with
AAA to take advantage of maybe getting a AAA office and getting the buying discount here or
even more dealers such as hammerauto.com. So that is just my opening comments.
A couple of other quick hits. I support the Council direction that auto dealerships not be
permitted on these LM sites adjacent to or opposite residential zones, or I would like to add, next
to Greer Park.
CiO, of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 65 of l2I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Of the three options presented in your packet I prefer the second option, which is east of 101 at
San Antonio. For future discussions on signage my comments are in the letter I turned in and I
think some of my feelings have been addressed by the amendment that was proposed tonight.
Thank you.
Chair Burr: Annette, did you have a particular route in mind for test-driving the Maseratis?
Ms. Glenckopf: I am open to all options.
Commissioner Garber: Annette, I have another question for you. I am just curious in your
emphasis on trying to move sales from physical to virtual if you have given any thought to how
Palo Alto might control point of sale relative to the Internet.
Ms. Glenckopf: I don’t have an answer for that but what I am suggesting that we have a strong
focus that is in the CMR to retain our current dealers. We also need to have a strong focus and
effort to do the other which is to attract new dealers. By attract new dealers I also mean attract
or take advantage of the online sales, build more sales offices that people can maybe look at cars
and actually pick up the car at that point of sale where we would get the actua! dollar. I don’t
have any more exhaustive comments but I look to Staff and the auto dealerships maybe to pull a
little task force together to see how could get more of this. I was particularly interested in the
fact that AAA is getting into the business and we do have a AAA office in Palo Alto. Perhaps
we might be able to partner with them.
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 66 of ]21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Garber:Thanks.
DRAFT EXCERPT
Chair Burr: Our final speaker is Edith Poole.
Ms. Edith Poole. Palo Alto: I would like to echo what this gentleman said earlier regarding
making and amendment to which parcels you are including. I would like to echo his suggestion
that you remove the LM district that is west of Bayshore, which you can see abuts Maddox
Drive, Kenneth Drive and Louis Road. As he indicated it will save a lot of aggravation later on
down the road. It will be met with opposition from the residents in this area. I know that one of
the proposals the City Council made was that test-driving be prohibited on city streets.
Realistically I don’t see how you are going to enforce that if you actually allow an auto
dealership to occupy this space. They will do test-driving on city streets. There are children in
this neighborhood. I think one of my neighbors did a count and there are upwards of 40 to 45
children in this neighborhood let alone an elementary school nearby. It only takes one accident
and one child being hurt by test-driving - it is just not worth it. Let alone the impact that it
would have on the home values in this area and the noise level, etc. So I would like to echo what
he said and just remove that parcel from your consideration. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Thank you. So Commissioners, do you have follow up questions for Staff before
proceeding into our discussion? Annette. "
Commissioner Bialson: I would like to have it confirmed that if we do agree to the overlay zone
as recommended by Staff an?, particular site would have to be reviewed and approved by the City
CiO, of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 67 of J2]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
t4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
and whatever conditions we wanted placed on that automobile dealership that wishes to use that
site could be imposed by us. Is that correct?
Mr. Lusardi: That is correct. The application of the overlay on a specific site is a Planning
Commission and Council review. In that context you could be looking at and would be looking
at compatibility issues, land use compatibility issues and other environmental issues such as
lighting and traffic. Also any development will require an architectural review on the west side
and on the east side it will require Site and Design review, which also includes Planning
Commission review.
Chair Burt: Dan.
Commissioner Garber: You have been working with a number of the different dealerships, as I
understand. Is there an average acreage that they are looking to occupy?
Mr. Lusardi: A dealer will tell you that their optimum for a full service dealership is three to five
acres. That allows them to put their showroom, their auto storage, their fleet storage, their
service and some accessory uses such as car rental services and those things. Generally three to
five acres is what we are hearing. Now, dealers are recognizing the fact that given land values in
Palo Alto if they really want to locate on an optimum site especially with visibility they are
considering splitting some of those services as long as for instance the fleet storage is within a
good proximity of the dealership so they can access for customers and such. A full service
dealership is three to five ~acres generally.
City of Yalo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 68 of ]21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Commissioner Garber: So for example how many acres is the LM(D) district that is over by San
Antonio and Bayshore, approximately?
Mr. Lusardi: I knew you were going to ask me that and I don’t have a specific number. I can tell
you that the minimum parcel size for an LM district is one acre.
Commissioner Garber: Okay, thank you.
Chair Burt: Pauta.
Commissioner Sandas: Thanks. We have outlined three areas along Highway 101 corridor and
the third area is the one that some people have been speaking about tonight. In looking at the
map I see that much of that third area is adjacent to residentia! neighborhoods. It says on page 2
that the LM zoning district sites shall be subject to the following additional requirements. No,
the first thing, the auto dealerships not be permitted on parcels in the LM zone that are directly
adjacent or directly opposite from low-density residential nor residential PC zoning district. So
why are we proposing to do the auto dealership overlay on that stretch at all?
Mr. Lusardi: When Staff made the initial proposal to City Council to initiate this it didn’t have
those limitations or prohibitions in it. We were looking at all three districts and quite honestly
we were relying upon the application of the overlay on a specific site to address any adjacency
issues plus any ARB. You are correct, when the Council added those conditions they basically
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 69 of 12I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
prohibited or eliminated all but maybe a half a dozen parcels on the west side in that LM district
from actually being applicants for auto dealerships. Some of those parcels are even in the East
Meadow Circle, which is transitioning into multi-family. The third part of that equation is when
we have talked to auto dealerships and gone out there the route for a customer to get to that area
is very difficult to find. So they have not been very crazy about having or trying to do something
on that side. Now you go to the east side of 101 and you have the D overlay. So you have an
environmentally sensitive area. So you have challenges on both sides of the freeway for this
type of development. So what we were trying to do knowing that we have an extensive review
process to apply this we were just trying to keep options open.
Commissioner Sandas: Can I ask another question? So is it within our purview, I guess Don this
question is for you, is it within our purview this evening to say that we would maybe perhaps
recommend the first two options and not the third? Or by the same token if we were to
recommend all three we would know that the third option is really not viable so kind of what is
the point?
Mr. Larkin: To both of those questions the answer is yes. You can limit it and you can also
recommend it knowing.
Mr. Emslie: Maybe to say the amendment suggested by one of the speakers you could
incorporate. That is one of your options.
Chair Butt: Karen.
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 70 of ]2l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Vice-Chair Holman: To follow up on something that there has been a fair amount of discussion
about for awhile and now that it is in U.S. News & World Report I guess it is real. Has Staffhad
discussion with the dealerships about locating on smaller parcels given the Internet? Auto
dealership I believe are one of the uses that does benefit greatly by being clustered.
Mr. Emslie: Yes, those discussions are ongoing and they are primarily focused on the recent
assignment that Staff got from Council about looking at the MSC. So we are doing some actual
site planning and facility needs planning in conjunction with the auto dealers and reducing the
amount of acreage that they would need.
Vice-Chair Holman: I guess a second question is, I don’t want to put you on the spot and
actually I forewarned about this but, I remember in some previous discussions that we had about
auto dealerships and the Embarcadero Road locations of dealerships that if my memory serves at
all that there were comments from Staff saying that if we were going to start from scratch would
we put auto dealerships there and the response was no. Am I remembering that correctly and
how does Staff feel about actually locating dealerships on Embarcadero Road given its !ocation
and proximity to the Baylands?
Mr. Lusardi: I think we are looking at it from the perspective that there is an industrial and
commercial development and use out there already and the visibility and the opportunity for an
auto dealership to be successful in that area given the environmental constraints and the
environmental sensitivity is very high and that is what we hear from dealerships. In reference to
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 71 off21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
!8
19
2O
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
if we started from scratch would we allow auto dealerships there if I recall that my reference was
if it was undeveloped land would we building industrial and commercial in that area and the
likelihood would probably be not. But since it already exists out there the redevelopment would
have to be done with more sensitivity than probably some of the development that is out there
right now. So I think yes we would look for the opportunity for auto dealerships out there
knowing that we have an environmentally sensitive area that we have to address.
Vice-Chair Holman: One last little question regarding signage. There is a proposed change to
the signage rule. I was out looking around today and there are some dealerships that have
already implemented this change. They kind of obviously haven’t gone through Site and Design
Review or ARB review. So I guess you are aware that there are some kind of glaring signs.
Mr. Lusardi: That is correct. When we go forward with these signage changes one of the things
we told the dealers is we need to sit down with them individua!ly and inventory their sites and
what signage is out there and know what the existing conditions are and so what changes might
effect their dealerships as well. I think really what we are saying here is we are recognizing the
reality is is for instance with manufacturer’s logo that that is so important to a dealer, more
important than the name of the dealership on the building or visibility. We are just trying to
recognize reality and fix the code so reality can be lega! and can happen.
Vice-Chair Holman: I guess part of my question was though the signs that exist that people have
put into place though that are not compatible and such, you are aware of that?
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 72 of 121
DRAFT EXCERPT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Mr. Lusardi: I don’t know how the review was done for a particular sign and how the judgment
was made. I can tell you that that section of the code in the sign ordinance if fairly buried in the
sign ordinance. It is not an easy one to find but it is one that we see as could be applied not just
to dealerships but another commercial use. So this is not just something that would be for
dealerships. So I think what we are trying to do is modernize the code and recognize what is
happening and what is needed for commercial development. I can’t speak to an individual sign
application.
Chair Burt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I have two questions. First of all, do factories such as General Motors
and Saab and other places recommend a certain size to their dealers as to what they are looking
for? We said that the dealers that we have feel that three to five acres is what is necessary, do the
factories make recommendations?
Mr. Emslie: That is an interesting point. The factories do make a number of them they are not
even recommendations they are stipulations of continuation of the franchise. Obviously they
take into account individual circumstances and particular areas and difficulties in sighting.
Many, many, many requirements of the requirements dealers must deal with are imposed by their
respective factory.
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 73 of l2l
l
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Commissioner Bialson: That is what I thought was the case, thank you. My second question is
do we have figures for what portion of the sales tax revenue that are generated by dealers come
not just from the sale of automobiles but also their service departments?
Mr. Lusardi: I don’t have those figures with me and I don’t know that they are broken down to
that level for Pa!o Alto. We can certainly check with Susan Arpan and see if we have those
kinds of numbers but I don’t have them.
Commissioner Bialson: I think as the world of dealerships and purchasing cars changes one of
the changes I have also noticed and which has been mentioned in various magazine articles is
that people are now taking their cars to dealers more than they used to to get service. If one
looks at what the cost of service is the amount of sales tax that is generated is quite substantial
from service invoicing. So I think that would be helpful to have.
Mr. Lusardi: That is a good point because even buyers who buy cars on the Internet still have to
get their automobile serviced and they generally take them to the closest dealership. Those parts
that they buy to have installed in their car generate sales tax.
Chair Burt: That last clarification that you made, is it not correct that it is only the parts that are
subject to sales tax not the labor? Dan and then Paula.
Commissioner Garber: Two questions. You had mentioned that the Staff is just beginning to
look at what the design standards might be for auto dealerships in these areas and recognizing
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 74 of l2]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
that on the east side of 101 we are dealing with some environmentally sensitive areas. What are
some of the thoughts that Staff has relative to what those sensitivities should be that would be
brought to bear?
Mr. Lusardi: What I referenced was that what Staff is looking at is new design guidelines for
commercial development not specific to auto dealerships. So commercial development that is in
the D overlay on the east side of 101, so it wouldn’t just be auto dealerships exclusively. The
language that you have that, the proposed language, is basically all that is in the guidelines now
with respect to that kind of development that happens. It is pretty minimal. In talking with the
Senior Planner in Advance Planning I think what they want to do is develop more performance
criteria for issues like lighting and noise that occurs. But it is for all commercial development in
that area not just auto dealerships.
Commissioner Garber: One more? Relative to the signage topic if there is a sign that has a
combined use by several dealerships how is ownership defined of the sign itself?.
Mr. Lusardi: It is currently in the sign ordinance in the City of Palo Alto it is illegal to have an
offsite advertising sign. So all you can do is advertise your business on your premises. So if you
had a multiple dealership sign I don’t think you could execute that because at some point one of
those dealerships isn’t going to be on that premises. So you can’t even do it under the current
ordinance.
Chair Burt: Paula.
CiO, of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 75 of 12]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Commissioner Sandas: I am not sure who this should be directed to but it relates to buying a car
over the lnternet. They don’t just magically appear when you buy it virtually. They ask for your
zip code when you are online. So the Internet wants to direct you to the dealer that is closest to
your house. So I guess my question is would it be necessarily so that a dealership could be on
fewer acres if they still have to have cars to sell whether they are sold on the spot or online?
Mr. Emslie: That is true but basically what happens when you go to the internet and you look at
the car it is basically a lead that is sent to the local dealer and then they follow up with a phone
call and you come in and you do the paperwork and so forth. It is not a way of avoiding paying
sales tax, which for a car could be substantial. So every sale is still booked at a site that at a
dealership. So I think that does raise a good point in terms of the amount of land that is
necessary because really the Internet is supporting a conventional approach. It just allows
shopping and comparison easier from your home rather than having to go to the different sites.
In terms of the overall size there are just a lot of factors. One of the competing factors is the
increased demand on service as mentioned earlier by Commissioner Bialson. That is one area
that is getting bigger is that they want more facilities, more lifts, more customer friendly areas,
more amenities that are going to attract the customers to their service department. It does depend
on the individual factory. Each factory has different kinds of space needs. The larger lines and
more popular lines like Honda and Toyota have larger space needs because they have more
requirements for inventory on hand. Some of the smaller car lines, more focused don’t require as
big a space. So there are a lot of factors that go into determining the size.
CiO, of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 76 of ]21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Chair Burt: I have a question. The conditions that we are looking at imposing how would they
differ in approach from a conditional use permit? What sort of considerations have been made
on whether that is an alternative way to address the issues?
Mr. Lusardi: Well a conditional use permit would be on top of the application of the overlay. So
I am not sure that you would need a conditional use permit if to apply the overlay you are
already going through Planning Commission and City Council where you would be looking at a
lot of the same issues land use, compatibility issues and those kinds of things that a conditional
use permit would apply. I think the only way of having a conditional use permit is if the use is
already a permitted use and you wanted an added level of review then you add a conditional use
permit. But to have the application of the overlay which is essentially a rezoning process and
then a conditional use permit process I think that is kind of a redundant review by the Planning
Commission and the City Council.
Chair Burt: So I just want to make sure, you are saying that in reality there would be no
additional requirements or controls that a conditional use permit would provide that the overlay
zone would not?
Mr. Emslie: The one thing that a use permit would do and there may be other that Don might
want to weigh in on is that as mentioned earlier it gives the continuing review of the permit. So
the rezoning would set the conditions established by the rezoning and then that would be an
entitlement and that would stay with the land. A use permit gives you the ability to have review
and evaluate changed conditions.
Cio’ of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 77 all21
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2t
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Chair Burt: So given auto dealerships and the changes that might occur is there a value in your
mind to that continuing review if in essence either approach would have the same initial
requirements on approval then the only difference is an ongoing review? Is there any particular
value that would go with the ongoing review?
Mr. Emslie: As John had mentioned earlier, it may be a bit of belt and suspenders, but I don’t
think there would be any harm in having a use permit. It could certainly be processed
concurrently with the rezoning and shouldn’t add any additional time.
Chair Burt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: As a follow on to that would the conditional use permit and the
continuing review perhaps make a dealership decide that they would rather go to a community
that didn’t impose that upon them as a condition and would rather have some entitlements that a
zoning designation would give them? In other words, would it make us less attractive to a
dealership if we had that requirement?
Mr. Emslie: I would probably think that it would not factor into their decision significantly. I
think that the demographics of the community, their location to the freeway, visibility, and
access are probably much, much stronger than that.
Chair Burt: Karen and then Dan.
CiO, of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 78 of 121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Vice-Chair Hotman: A follow on to that too. In looking at the conditional use permit is there
any efficiency to having the conditional use permit with the findings that would be consistent
with the Baylands Master Plan for instance rather than having the AD overlay and the
conditional use permit in conjunction with that? Trying to keep it simpler but also having a little
more control and having an efficient process as well.
Mr. Emslie: I think that certainly would be compatible. I think that is what the Staff is
suggesting here and you could make that an overt recommendation in your recommendation to
the Council that you make reference to specific findings. I think it helps add some clarity to the
process in terms of expectations and evaluating future proposals.
Vice-Chair Holman: I am sorry, are you saying in absence of the AD overlay or in conjunction
with the AD overlay?
Mr. Emslie: In conjunction. You would need to have the AD overlay in order to provide the
umbrella land use to have the use permit. So you need to have the AD overlay to be the enabling
part of the legislation and then within that you would have the quasi-judicial aspect of the use
permit. Part of that could be incorporated at the same time and concurrent with that. So you
would need both.
Chair Burt: Dan.
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 79 of l2I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Commissioner Garber: The LM sites that are adjacent to the Baylands despite their current
zoning there will probably be those in the community that will think that the use of a car
dealership there is in conflict with that general area. How would you address that potential
perception?
Mr. Emslie: The perception of the areas on the west side of 101 ?
Commissioner Garber: Right. I have scenic beauty and then I have car lots.
Mr. Emslie: The adjacency to the residential and so forth.
Commissioner Garber:
Baylands.
Actually I am not thinking of residential. I am thinking of the east side
Mr. Emslie: East side. That is what we are suggesting is that each side is going to have to
undergo a specific review of the particular location with the profile of the building, any new
blockage would be evaluated and we would make specific recommendations on the
appropriateness of that location in relation to the findings that we would have to make in terms
of our Baylands Master Plan and the Comprehensive Plan.
Commissioner Garber: But you wouldn’t see any inherent potential conflict of the use of that
property by a car dealership?
Cir. of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 80 of]2]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Mr. Emslie: No. Again a lot depends on the execution of that and there have been great
improvements in how the quality of construction of car dealers in the last 10 or 15 years. I don’t
know if we could have said that a decade ago.
Chair Burt: Karen.
Vice-Chair Holman: I have one more question. It would actually be helpful if this map could be
put up on the screen and Staff could point out the properties where housing has been already
reviewed and where current proposals are. That would be really helpful.
Chair Burt: Or if I might even frame that differently, on the West Bayshore properties which are
the sites that are actual prospects? Most of them have been ruled out. Can we narrow it down to
what we are talking about here as potential or what is left?
Mr. Lusardi: Essentially all the properties that you see along this kind of purple buffer is all
adjacent to residential development and under the proposed restrictions dealerships could not go
there, couldn’t even make an application for an overlay there. The only parcels that are really
open to potential development are parcels right along this area and two of those are Trumark
developments that are already being developed. The other ones as we said we are looking at
those as transitional areas for multi-family. So I don’t think that there is going to be a great deal
of pressure for auto dealerships to go in there as welt. As I said, the other thing is this is a tough
area to get to or for a customer to find. You can see it from the freeway but to get there is tough.
City ofPalo A#o October 26, 2005 Page 81 of 121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
2~
DRAFT EXCERPT
Chair Burt: So I think we all recognize that there are either few or none that are prospects.
we are trying to find out are there specific parcels here that are still in play?
What
Mr. Lusardi: The only parcel that is in play would be this parcel right along here conceivably
and as pointed out this parcel way up here because it is not technically adjacent to residential but
I don’t think you would get support for an overlay there either. So you really only have maybe
one that I can see on this map that would be in play in that respect.
Chair Burt: Given that that parcel would abut future Trumark was the restriction ....?
Mr. Lusardi: Low density residential.
Chair Burt: Low density residential, okay.
West Bayshore.
So conceivably we are talking about one parcel on
Mr. Lusardi: Essentially.
Chair Burt: Karen.
Vice-Chair Holman: Before you leave there John, because the AD overlay also allows auto
storage, right? Vehicle storage. I am not sure if that was in the forefront of the Council’s mind
when they looked at this. Maybe yes maybe no, I think they were looking at the dealership itself.
So the long parcel along Bayshore Road that you identified and then the one right in front of that
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 82 of l2l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
if you are coming towards Louis Road that one is a project. Are any of those if you are going
towards East Meadow Drive, so if you are coming toward the right, are there any of those three
parcels that are not identified already as someone is proposing housing there?
Mr. Lusardi: Again, the only parcel that I am aware of that is not proposed or anticipated for
housing development is that long parcel right a!ong there. That is the only parcel that I am aware
of that is not proposed. There is a development proposal up along here that is currently in
process.
Vice-Chair Holman: I am trying to separate anticipated for versus something in play.
Mr. Lusardi: I guess ! would say that all of the parcels in East Meadow are in play essentially
for multi-family development although there are not applications on all of them.
Mr. Emslie: The only active applications are the ones that the ARB has approved and the
Trumark. There are no other applications received but there are definite indications that there
could be others in the future that could become residential in that area. There are none for auto
dealers. There has been no discussion on the east side of the freeway. There had been some
prior discussions on the east side but none currently active.
Chair Burt: From a practical standpoint are we conceiving that any auto dealer is going to want
to locate on East Meadow Circle not having access to West Bayshore and be surrounded by
medium density residential?
Ci.ty of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 83 of ]21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
DRAFT EXCERPT
Mr. Emslie: They don’t like the sites for that reason and for the accessibility problems of getting
there. They do not like the Charleston-Fabian Way from the south and they definitely do not like
the Embarcadero-Oregon Expressway circuitous route to get to West Bayshore.
Chair Burt:
considered.
Okay, so it sounds to me like everything on East Meadow is not even being
Okay. So we basically have one parcel there.
I have one other question. The Ming’s site. That is a PC and I know that there has been
discussion about potential turnover in that site. It is under power lines but it is not t~chnically in
the LM zone. It is also adjacent to other dealerships and it does not directly abut the Baylands.
So what would need to occur for that site to be included within this auto overlay? Is there a
mechanism to do so?
Mr. Emslie: Yes. What they would do is if they were an auto dealer and we have directed
owners of that site to contact and they have done so so we know that the dealers have taken a
look at that site as a potential either expansion or new location, what they would do is basically
apply to have the auto overlay put on as an overlay to the existing PC. In fact we have done that
for several of the other sites that are also PC in your previous action. So there would be a
mechanism of basically rezoning that and any reuse would have to be rezoned anyway because
this PC is very specific to the restaurant and what it al!ows.
CiO, of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 84 of ]2]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Chair Burt: In order to have that overlay does that have to come at the initiative of the property
owner or can we allow that as part of what we are doing here or at a subsequent meeting?
Mr. Lusardi: You can initiate the overlay or the rezoning.
Chair Burt: Okay.
Mr. Emslie: Just so you ~know, the dealers have looked at that and the problem with it is that it is
not visible enough.
Mr. Larkin:
it tonight.
To answer the more specific question though is you could do it but you couldn’t do
Chair Burt: When you say dealers have looked at it and it is not visible enough you are talking
about new dealers as opposed to expansion by existing dealers?
Mr. Emslie: The primary interest has been from expansion because this is adjacent to one of the
dealers and they declined.
Chair Burt: Okay. I have an obligation. It is almost ten o’clock, we are not talking about
entering a new item so I guess tectmically I don’t have to bring it up but it is late. So let’s talk
about how we can move toward closure on at least the most important issue before us tonight.
We may or may not have ample time to provide our additional input on signage and the MSC,
Cio, of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 85 of ]2l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
which are areas we would be allowed to comment on. Judging from our upcoming agendas we
may be able to fold that into our next meeting or so if we cannot get to it tonight. So I would like
to encourage Commissioners to focus first on the specific items before us. Since we have had
quite a bit of questions and discussion do we have any attempt by a Commissioner to make a
motion on the subject? Karen.
MOTION
Vice-Chair Holman: I am going to exclude signage given the previous comments by the Chair
so that we can have a separate discussion about that. Regarding the AD overlay I would move
the Staff recommendation limited as follows - that it apply with a conditional use permit to the
east side of Bayshore and San Antonio and exclude the three parcels that abut the Baylands. I
am looking for a second.
Paula wants me to repeat the motion ifI could. So excluding signage, accept the Staff’s
recommendation limited to the following and that is the area east of Bayshore and at San
Antonio Road, excluding the three parcels that abut the Baylands and with the addition of a
conditional use permit.
Commissioner Garber: I am sorry, which are the parcels that abut the Baylands? Don’t they all?
Vice-Chair Holman: No.
CiO, of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 86 of 12]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Chair Burt: Can you see the lines within that zone? They are parcel breakdowns.
three that actually.
So there are
Commissioner Garber: Got it.
Vice-Chair Holman: Correct, and if I can get a second I will explain what my reasoning is.
SECOND
Chair Burt: I will second the motion although I reserve the right to attempt to amend it.
Vice-Chair Hotman: But of course. The reason that I am making that motion is because I think
every place else that the LM zone exists there are so many inherent conflicts that we are just
setting up a contentious situation in the community and very, very difficult time consuming
re~)iew processes. Even in these locations that I have identified I don’t think it is possible given
the constraints put on us by the Council, and I am not saying I disagree with those, car carriers
aren’t going to be able to get into those courts, Corporation Way and Elwell I believe is the name
of the other one. So I think we are actually fairly limited to where we can do this and not just
create a very contentious situation and also try to address needs of auto dealerships. I also note
that in reading the Council minutes that it was not an overwhelming support for going forward
with this. I also just noticed that I want to make sure that included in the motion is the Staff
clarifications that they provided us tonight. I want to make sure that was included in the motion.
CiO, of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 87 of ]2]
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
!8
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
1 Chair Burt: I will reserve comments. The one thing that I want to get a sense of the Commission
2 on is this one parcel on West Bayshore that was identified as the only one that we are saying is in
3 play as a prospective auto dealership site. The reason I am willing to consider it is that it does
4 have a prime visibility, it is on West Bayshore, it has a buffer from even the medium density
residential and it seems that it is isolated quite a bit from the neighborhoods and would have the
least possible impact on them with test driving and whatnot. I am not wedded to the concept I
just want to get a sense of the Commission. Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I will respond to your inquiry with regard to that one parcel. It is based
on personal experience. The dealership that I was forced to use in Santa Clara because there was
no dealer in Palo Alto and was also directed there by the Internet has a system of separating its
service and its sales. They are two totally different locations and buildings. Their service center
is located offa street that has some visibility but is hard as heck to get to off 101. That parcel
that you were talking about, again just from my experience and I think it may be applicable. It
may be a great site for a service center. It would be a location that from the Bayshore would say
Lexus Service or whatever you want there and so I think we should leave open the possibility of
having that be a dealership site to be used by the dealers for what they think is appropriate. I
think it is important to keep Planning Department’s options open to keeping dealers and all their
uses within the City. I do think that the sales tax generated by service departments is only going
to grow. So I have other comments to make with regard to the motion but that just responds to
yours.
Chair Burt: Karen wanted to explain why she did not include it.
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 88 of ]2l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Vice-Chair Holman: I could perhaps be convinced. The reasons I didn’t include it are it does
have good freeway visibility and I am aware, I did a pretty thorough run through this area today.
The reasons I didn’t although I might be a little more amenable if it was just service or storage or
something of that nature are two. One is the creek runs right there and we talk about how when
we have opportunity to lessen impacts at creeks we ought to do that. We haven’t gone through
the Zoning Ordinance Update yet and applied different zonings to any parcels other than this
auto dealership overlay. So that was a sensitivity that I had although I do appreciate very much
it has very good freeway visibility. The other is while the Council motion did state not near
single family residential people are people and I am sensitive to that. I don’t know why we
should treat people who live in townhouses or condos any differently than people who live in
single-family homes. It is kind of an elitist sort of approach and I am not really in favor or that.
So I appreciate the comments and the considerations but that is why I did not include it in the
motion.
Chair Burt: Dan, are you ready? Annette did actually have her hand up so if you want more
time go ahead.
Commissioner Garber: Go ahead Annette I will come to it.
Commissioner Bialson: Okay. I appreciate the explanation. I think that we do have some
separation from the residential eyen multi-residential with respect to the creek there. It was not
an elitist comment or a prospective by Council it was a recognition that the expectations are
City of Pa]o Alto October 26, 2005 Page 89 of l2]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
different by people who live in single family or low density residential as to the noise and other
environmental considerations. I think given the factthat we can impose conditions, which is one
of the things you are talking about, the more options we leave open the better.
Chair Burt: I might just like to add that I think that ifwe were to consider that site we may want
to include language that would make it contingent or subject to any future additional creek side
setback impositions just to have the unambiguous because we may have additional setbacks in
the future. I would want to make sure that that wasn’t grandfathered. Steve, did you want to say
something?
Mr. Emslie: I did. You had expressed an interest in questioning Staff about what sites were in
play and I feel that I need to tell you that the sites that are affected by the motion one of which
may be in play and I want to point that out if I can have the map back up.
Chair Burt: We are saying in play as prospective dealership sites?
Mr. Emslie: One site in particular, here, this site you may be familiar with it is owned jointly by
the City of Palo Alto and Los Altos. It is the site of their former sewer treatment plant. There
are jurisdictional wetlands that are clearly defined by the Army Corps of Engineers. About half
of the site is designated wetlands and the other half of the site is uplands, that is not under
wetland restrictions and that is largely area adjacent to this site. Those two sites have been
discussed for either an offsite service area because it doesn’t have the visibility or storage
purposes. I just wanted to mention that that has been a discussion.
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 90 of 121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
i6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Chair Burt: Dan.
Commissioner Garber: Some comments regarding the site first on the west side, the thin site
adjacent to the creek. Adobe Creek, right? From a dealer’s point of view this is a low value site
for all the reasons that have been iterated thus far. However, recognizing that it is in the City’s
best interest to be able to provide a palate of different priced sites there may be dealers that may
want to utilize it for service or some lower value use. I guess the question I have for Staff here is
that if that is the only site within that LM district it becomes sort of an anomaly rather than
applying it across the entire district and allowing as we have recognized essentially the other
sites become mute for any number of reasons, to have that just floating within that site is sort of
spot zoning by default. Does that make any sense? That is the question to you.
Mr. Lusardi: Well, I don’t know if the attorney wants to weigh in on that. In StafPs mind it
would be very difficult to write within a sub-district one parcel that could be subject to the
application of the overlay. That would be difficult. You could still put the overlay on that entire
area knowing that none of the parcels next to the residential are going to qualify for the overlay.
Commissioner Garber: In terms of drawing zoning you are cast as broad a net as you can. The
reality is that these sites just really aren’t very useful for that use. I think the marketplace for the
site is going to determine what is there and what isn’t there. Having the restrictions relative to
residential is useful and I think if nothing else excludes most of that site.
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 91 of ]21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Chair Burr: Can I wade in on that one? One of the reasons that I had presumed that it was a
prospective site is because it is unusual in that it has so much freeway frontage for its acreage.
The other thing is that I was wondering whether if we did choose to include it would it be
allowable and simple to write the overlay requirements that the auto dealership overlay on the
west side have frontage on the freeway and not abut single family or low density residential and
low and behold we have one parcel that covers that. Is that permissible?
So if we chose to do it, and frankly those are reasons why it is still being considered I think by us
is that it has those characteristics. Dan? Annette.
Commissioner Bialson:
that? Okay.
Well, I was going to go on to a discussion of the motion. Can we do
With regard to the exclusion of those lots that are adjacent to parkland I will not be able to
support the motion. While in general when you think of lots adjacent to parkland they would be
appealing to me in terms of trying to maintain them to their hopefully pristine state but knowing
what is there now and being reinforced by fact that the sites are actually being talked about and
considered by dealerships right now I find it very difficult to support the motion in so far as those
sites are being mentioned.
Chair Burt: Can I bring up perhaps an alternative way to address the concern? I guess we have
two problems one is seeing the Baylands from elsewhere and the other is seeing car dealerships
from the Baylands. In this case we don’t see the Baylands through this LM district so that isn’t
Cio, of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 92 of ]21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
so much the issue. So then the issue I believe is how do we make it so that when we are
enjoying the Baylands out there we are not staring at car dealerships? Would it be possible to
impose some pretty severe natural screening requirements on the buffer zone, the outer perimeter
of any of these parcels so that it would in effect prevent the visibility of auto dealerships from the
Baylands? Does Staff have any thoughts on the feasibility of doing that?
Mr. Lusardi: Again, the development of these sites would also require Site and Design Review,
which would be Planning Commission, ARB and Council. So you could add language to the
Staff’s revisions here that say with significant screening adjacent to the Baylands and knowing
that it is subject to a Site and Design Review. We can add stronger language than just significant
screening but screening for the purposes of reducing or eliminating visual impacts from the
Baylands. So we could add some language like that in the Staff revisions.
Chair Burt: Karen.
Vice-Chair Holman: Two things. One is I just want to clarify earlier my comment about elitist.
I wasn’t trying to say that the Council had been elitist I think they were responding, knowing that
they weren’t complete with this that they were just responding to people who had spoken. So I
wanted to make it clear that I wasn’t presuming that upon them. The same reason that I think the
application ought to be limited and why, open to discussion here certainly, but the reason for
eliminating three parcels is because again I think it sets and expectation that they are going to be
okay for these uses when there are going to be lighting concerns, signage concern, screening
concerns from the Baylands. I think that the imposition of requirements is going to be so great
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 93 of ]21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
DRAFT EXCERPT
that it is going to be sort of a carrot that is dangled that we really can’t fulfill. So that is my
concern. I don’t want to send an applicant through a process that they are not going to be able to
fulfill.
Mr. Lusardi: I think there is some probability and some truth in that if they were developed as
individual parcels but if they were combined with other parcels that were moving forward
towards 101 then you would have with adjacent other parcels combined the ability to add more
screening or more buffering. So an individual parcel you probably would be severely limiting
the ability to develop them as auto dealerships but combined with other parcels you could have
the buffering that you need or the landscape setback that you need.
Vice-Chair Holman: Just a quick follow up to that. You said that there had been discussion
about that particular parcel but it does not have freeway frontage so I am kind of surprised that it
has been in discussion.
Mr. Emslie: The possibility of having separate facilities in front of the house, in back of the
house, these sites have been identified for back of the house items such as service.
Vice-Chair Holman: Thank you for the clarification.
Chair Burt: Dan.
CiO, of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 94 of ]2]
DRAFT EXCERPT
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1 Commissioner Garber: Karen, my thoughts relative to those three properties come back to the
2 use of the whole area in trying to apply the same criteria for the entire zone. What I would look
3 to do with those areas, which are abounding the park, is for the design criteria that are being
4 developed for the commercial zones to address those specific to properties, which are adjacent to
5 the Baylands and to reinforce those boundary conditions. I am not sure I would say necessarily
6 that they have to be screened but they have to sensitively address the adjacency. There may be
build solutions, which are perfectly acceptable, which don’t have screening. I don’t know what
the solutions are.
Vice-Chair Holman: So is that a friendly amendment?
Commissioner Garber: Sure. What a good idea.
Vice-Chair Holman: I will accept that.
Chair Burt: Okay, it sounds like we have progress on that aspect. The seconder accepts it as
well. We really haven’t arrived at a consensus on what we want to do on that one parcel in play
on the west side. Any thoughts? Dan.
Commissioner Garber: I guess I would find your suggested language acceptable to me. It is fine
with me.
23 Vice-Chair Holman: Which language?
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 .Page 95 of J2]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Commissioner Garber: The overlay would apply to any lot that is adjacent to 101 on the west
side but not adjacent to residential sites.
Chair Burt: Not adjacent to low density residential. So that would be a friendly amendment.
Vice-Chair Holman: You also mentioned increased setback for the creek.
Chair Burt: Yes, that any parcels that are subject to this overlay would in the future be subject to
any changed requirements on creek side setbacks.
Vice-Chair Holman: That is fine with me and I guess you would accept it since it is your
language. Then I have a clarifying question if I might for Staff. The conditional use permit,
would those findings then come back to the Commission for review before this goes to Council
or what would Staff suggest on that?
Mr. Lusardi: You want the findings for a conditional use permit for the auto dealership to come
back before we go to Council, is that what you are asking for?
Vice-Chair Holman: That is what I am asking Staff’s recommendation or thoughts on that.
Mr. Lusardi: If we did that we couldn’t make the Council December 12 date that is scheduled
for the overlay consideration.
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 96 off21
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
DRAFT EXCERPT
Vice-Chair Holman: So how would Staff say that we could best look at that?
they go to Council and then - how would you suggest?
Look at them as
Mr. Emslie: We could provide copies to the Commission at the same time that it goes to the
Council. Then you could communicate that to your rep that evening if there were need for
clarification or so forth of what the Commission was thinking that could be expressed to the
Council at the hearing.
Vice-Chair Holman: Mr. City Attorney, would that not be any Brown Act problem?
Mr. Larkin: There shouldn’t be any Brown Act problem because it has already been suggested
here and it would be discussed at a public meeting.
Chair Burt: Paula.
Commissioner Sandas:
general?
I am a little confused.Are we talking about as each dealership or in
Vice-Chair Holman: The conditional use permit findings each dealership would have to satisfy,
them but the findings would be for this area that we are talking about.
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 97 off2]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
DRAFT EXCERPT
Chair Burt: Let’s see if we can summarize the motion because it had several aspects.
make a stab at it. Do you want to make a stab?
Let me
Commissioner Bialson: I was just going to say that with regard to the recommendation I think
starting with the Staff’s recommendation and then adding the things we came up with as
additions and conditions to it is probably the best bet.
Vice-Chair Hohnan: Do you want me to restate it?
Chair Burt: Let me restate the Staff recommendation and then we will add the conditions to it.
The recommendation is that the Council adopt an ordinance, Attachment A, amending Title 18
for the purpose of allowing the auto dealership overlay combining district in the LM districts as
is currently provided in the CS, GM and GM(B) districts, to allow for additional site and design
standards for auto dealerships selling new, pre-owned and used autos, and no inclusion of
signage at this time. Then with the additional conditions that parcels on the West Bayshore only
be allowed if they are fronting the Bayshore Freeway and not adjacent to the low density
residential and that those parcels be subject to any future additional creek setback requirements.
All of these parcels would be subject to a conditional use permit. That the LM district parcels
adjacent to San Antonio Road and t 01 have additional mitigations on environmenta! impacts,
visual and noise and lighting, etc. to be specified by Staff to mitigate impacts on the Baylands.
Does that capture Dan what you were intending? Is there anything that I have left out? Karen.
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 98 of 121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Vice-Chair Holman: I am not sure the motion as restated clarifies three things. That it includes
the additional language provided tonight by Staff having to do with Site and Design Review so
just to reference that.
Chair Burt: Yes. So it would include the language of a separate handout by Staff, Proposed
Revisions to Section 3.
Vice-Chair Holman: The second thing I am not sure that the restatement makes clear is that we
are limiting the application of the overlay to the described properties because there are other
parcels adjacent to the Baylands.
Chair Burt: So then the motion should include that the overlay district is limited to those areas
specified in the motion.
Mr. Lusardi: Just a point of clarification. You are talking about the LM district that is on the
east side adjacent to San Antonio interchange?
Vice-Chair Holman: That is correct.
Mr. Lusardi: Okay, so not the Embarcadero interchange LM districts?
Vice-Chair Holman: That is correct.
Ci.tv of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 99 of 121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Commissioner Bialson: Does that mean we are excluding those from the overlay?
Vice-Chair Holman: Yes, that was always my original intent. They are PCs.
Commissioner Garber: So these are not part of the overlay.
Chair Burt: So now it seems that we have an issue that we have not vetted.
Vice-Chair Holman: There was one other consideration.
Chair Burt: Okay, go ahead and then we will go back.
Vice-Chair Holman: The language about not immediately adjacent or adjacent to single family,
think it is clearer to say referring to the one parcel on West Bayshore that we are rather than
leaving these along the Bayshore, which could be perceived as adjacent to.
Chair Burr: The reason I stated it as I did is to not have it as spot zoning. So I think it achieves
the same end and I believe it would be more appropriate language.
Now we have the issue that evidently we really hadn’t adequately discussed and do not have
agreement on the Embarcadero area. So I guess we need to open it up for discussion before we
can vote on the motion. Dan.
CiO, of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 100 of 121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Commissioner Garber: So Karen, what was your concern about the areas on Embarcadero Road
and why wouldn’t you consider them as part of the overlay?
Vice-Chair Holman: Partly because they do - well we spent a great deal of time on the
Commission, we have some Commissioners that are new since then but we spent a great deal of
time, talking about the design the project at 2300 East Bayshore and we talked about it as did the
ARB about it being a gateway to the Baylands and how important the design of it was. Some of
the aspects of the auto dealership overlay I think are really not compatible for that gateway
aspect along Embarcadero Road for instance the elevated cars on pads, some of the signage. I
think that that really is the gateway to the Baylands and it is how we described it when reviewing
2300 East Bayshore. So I think it an inappropriate location. We do have a couple of them there
now but I guess this is one area where my comment would be we do have a couple but where
you have something that isn’t necessarily wt{at is the most desirable to exacerbate or compound
that use or that impact is not a direction I think we should be going.
Chair Butt: May I just add if I understood Staff correctly these are sites that are not deemed to
be attractive by the dealerships? Is that correct? Are these areas that are in play?
Mr. Emslie: Nothing that would be immediately adjacent to the Baylands with the probably
exception of the one - I think you need to assume that any existing dealership we need to have
some flexibility with that because it may have some ultimate role to play. The ones that I am
noticing are PCs but that would be the only thing that I am aware of that has any bearing on this.
City of Palo Alto Oc¢ober 26, 2005 Page 101 of ]2]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
!1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Chair Burt: Annette.
DRAFT EXCERPT
Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate the concern that was expressed by Karen with regard to this
being a gateway. I think it can be addressed in any conditions that we impose so that the feeling
we want from that area could be maintained. We also have to recognize that that whole area has
been developed already and some of it not very sensitively but that is what it is and we have
gone through a lot of concerns and issue with regard to the new development at the true gateway
to the area. I think that this is a long with these other areas that we have been talking about near
San Antonio, the MSC ripe for use by the dealerships. Again, I want to keep options open and
let the marketplace help us decide what is or is not appropriate. We should not be doing that.
Once someone comes to us then we can start dealing with what needs to be done to make it seem
appropriate as a gateway or any other way you want to describe it.
I feel strongly enough about this that I would like to make a substitute motion which is in line
with that expressed by Pat but includes these lots or parcels off Embarcadero Road.
Chair Burt: One other possibility we might have is to break this into two motions. The one that
we have on the table and then address the Embarcadero separately so that if we are unanimous
on one and however we may vote on the second one we could have those signals as opposed to
having people drop off support for what we all agree on because of a division on the
Embarcadero area.
Cio’ of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 102 of ]21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Commissioner Bialson: I would sort of like to have one motion go to Council so that we are a
little more consistent in the message that we are communicating to Council.
Chair Burt:
thing.
I am concerned we won’t be consistent if we end up with a split vote on the whole
Commissioner Bialson: Fine. Why don’t we divide it up and then ! will make a motion with
regard to the parcels off of Embarcadero Road.
Chair Burr: Okay. Dan?
Mr. Larkin: Well, you are going to need to restate the motion because as stated originally it
included the Embarcadero Road area.
Chair Butt: Actually I think as stated we specify the two areas that it applied to.
Mr. Larkin: No, you didn’t specify.
Chair Butt: Okay. So then the motion would include the LM district adjacent to San Antonio on
the east and west side of Bayshore. Would that describe it adequately?
Mr. Larkin: That is the first part.
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 103 of l2I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Chair Burt:
DRAFT EXCERPT
You want me to restate everything?
Mr. Larkin: That is required to restate the motion and it is unfortunate that the motion is so
extensive. I can take a stab at doing it for you.
Chair Burt: That would be nice.
Mr. Larkin: The motion would be to approve Staffs recommendations with the amendments
that the auto overlay apply only to the LM zone immediately east of Bayshore Freeway and San
Antonio Road and the zones west of Bayshore Freeway adjacent to 10 t but not adjacent to low
density residential, subject to creek side setbacks, would require a conditional use permit and
specifically require additional screening and environmental mitigation for properties adjacent to
the Baylands.
Chair Burt: And including the revisions to Section 3 in the handout tonight?
Mr. Larkin: Yes, that is the Staffs recommendation.
Chair Burt: Annette.
Commissioner Biatson: I think that you may have misspoken because you said that the LM zone
will apply only to those parcels and if you say only that means that someone who votes for that
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 104 of ]21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
cannot vote for additional.
yOU.
So can we say with respect to those parcels rather than only?Thank
Mr. Larkin: With respect to.
MOTION PASSED (5-0-2-0, Commissioners Lippert and Cassel absent)
Chair Burt: Does that cover it for everyone? All in favor say aye. (ayes)
passes unanimously. Now let’s move on to Embarcadero Road. Annette.
Opposed? So that
MOTION
could say East Bayshore.
Embarcadero Road area?
Commissioner Bialson: With respect to those parcels off Embarcadero Road and I guess you
How would you describe those parcels there? East Bayshore in the
The vicinity? I would move the Staff Report as amended by the
handout at our places tonight. I need some help here folks.
Vice-Chair Holman: Do you want to just reference the other motion but apply it to this location?
That might be the easiest.
Commissioner Bialson: I think so. I think we will have more in the language than we need to
with respect to creeks and various other things.
CiO’ of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page ]05 of J2]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
Chair Burr:
DRAFT EXCERPT
So first do we have a second for that motion?
Commissioner Garber: Do we have the motion yel2
Commissioner Bialson: As punchy as I am ihat was a motion.
SECOND
Commissioner Garber: Sure, I will second it.
Chair Burt: Let’s have some discussion on it. Iam sorry I am out of order. Would the maker of
the motion like to make your comments first and then the seconder?
Commissioner Bialson: I think I have made them already.
make some pithy comments.
I believe the seconder is waiting to
Commissioner Garber: Let’s set those expectations high, okay? If I am understanding this
correctly what we are doing is we are taking all the things that we said for the other districts and
we are applying it to the ones that are adjacent to the Embarcadero Road area. I would
emphasize that once again for the portions of the sites that abut and are adjacent to the parklands
that they would have the same boundary sensitivities that we are looking to apply in the other
ones. It occurs to me that we may want to do the same sort of thing but do address some of the
more environmentally, I don’t want to say sensitive because we have a roadway there it is not
City of Palo Alto October 2~, 2005 Page 106 off2]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
parkland, but some of the more gateway-like aspects of that roadway so that that doesn’t become
a Steven’s Expressway sort of look there but that it retains some of the character that it has now.
I don’t ~know if that is discussion or a friendly amendment or what. You are welcome to guide
me.
Commissioner Bialson: Are you suggesting to change the motion?
Commissioner Garber: I am suggesting that we add this other piece to address Karen’s concern.
Commissioner Bialson: More so than the language we used with respect to the other sites?
Commissioner Garber: The language to the other sites addressed specifically the boundaries to
the parklands. Karen’s concern was what the street actually looks like when you are going down
it.
Commissioner Bialson: My feeling is that given what presently exists and is likely to exist for a
period of time and in light of the comment that was made by Steve with regard to the greater
sensitivity in the last ten years of how dealerships are created m~d it being in their best interest to
present a decent face.
Commissioner Garber: You would rather deal with it through the usual process like the ARB?
Commissioner Bialson: Exactly.
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 107 of l2]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Commissioner Garber: Okay.
Commissioner Bialson:
those things.
I think the ARB and the other review processes we have will address
Commissioner Oarber: I will withdraw my suggestion.
Commissioner Bialson: Thank you.
Chair Burt: Well, I have concerns along the lines of Dan and Karen’s that we have a gateway
issue. We may already have that covered adequately with the language that Staff had put as the
revisions to Section 3 where it says that all development is subject to policies and guidelines
outlined in the Baylands Master Plan and the Site and Design guidelines for the Baylands Nature
Preserve. As I recall the Master Plan I think that it does specifically address these concepts. I
certainly want to make sure that it is not merely the buffer adjacent to the Baylands themselves
but this entire boulevard leading to the Baylands. I think that this language may address it
adequately but does Staff agree that the concerns expressed would be addressed adequately by
this language?
Mr. Emslie: Yes.
Chair Burt: Okay. Any other comments? Karen.
CiO, of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 108 of 12I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
DRAFT EXCERPT
Vice-Chair Holman: Two, and then if Staff or the Chair would please remind me, I hate like
heck to say this but to go back to the previous motion for a clarification of something I am not
sure was included. I do apologize. I am not going to be able to support the motion because it is
an inherent conflict because the auto dealership overlay allows cars on raised pads up to eight
feet in the front setback. I don’t understand how any design review that we are going to apply to
this is going to A) satisfy, the sensitivity of this gateway to the Baylands and, B) satisfy the very
stated specific needs of the dealerships. So I think we are putting in place a very stated conflict.
So I am not going to be able to support the motion.
Chair Burt: Dan.
Commissioner Garber: Is that in thct true?
Mr. Lusardi: Yes, that is true. The AD overlay does allow up to two cars on platforms on a
frontage. That is consistent with what the existing AD overlay al!ows and it is also consistent
with the Council’s amendment to the two auto dealership PC zones that are out there now when
they amended the PC to allow that as well.
Commissioner Garber: In respect to the comments that the Council made, can you explain that a
little bit more? I’m sorry.
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page ]09 of 12]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Mr. Lusardi: When the AD overlay was first proposed to be applied to auto dealerships the auto
dealerships are in the GM and CS zone where the auto dealership overlay was applied for those
existing dealerships. There are dealerships that are PC zoned and you cannot apply the overlay
to a PC zone. So the Council amended the PC zones to allow for the same flexible development
standards that the overlay had on those PC auto dealership sites. That included platforms.
Commissioner Garber: So if this motion were to be made and the Council were to make it and
somebody wanted to create a new dealership here and they came and had a raised pad that would
be allowed or if it went through the ARB and the ARB said in this particular case we don’t want
that to happen would that be allowed?
Mr. Lusardi: Yes that could be denied as part of the Site and Design Review process and could
be considered as part of the conditional use permit process as well.
Commissioner Garber:
comprehensive plan?
It could be justified as part of the response to that particular area’s
Mr. Lusardi: Right and let me clarify that. Autos on pads are not allowed by right on the auto
dealerships you would still have to get the ARB review or in the case of a PC get a PC ARB
review.
Commissioner Garber: So it is a conflict that would have to be resolved by the process.
Cir. of Palo Alto October 2& 2005 Page ] l O of l 2 l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Mr. Lusardi:That is correct.
DRAFT EXCERPT
Chair Burt: Karen.
Vice-Chair Holman: One last time I would just state that without them we aren’t satisfying the
needs of the dealerships. So I think we are setting up a scenario where we got a struggle going
on between what they want, what they think they can get and what may or may not be approved
because of the sensitivity to the Baylands. So I don’t want to send applicants through a process
that is frustrating and contentious potentially and not productive. I am sensitive to their needs
and I am also sensitive to our responsibilities in regards to Site and Design Review which this all
this are is. It has a D overlay on the whole thing.
Chair Burt: IfI might jump in there. I think we do have a dilemma here because it seems
unlikely that we could reconcile the full options for an auto dealership that we have granted
elsewhere with an auto dealership that would be located at this gateway to the Baylands. So is
there a way that we can avoid misleading prospective auto dealerships that they might be able to
ram through these sorts of dealership models that we might allow elsewhere and they wouldn’t
be allowed here, we don’t want them to think that they can have them here? Any thoughts on
that, Steve?
Mr. Emslie: Well, they are already allowed there. They are allowed in the PCs so a significant
amount of the frontage already allows the auto pads.
City of PaloAlto October 26, 2005 Page ll] of l2]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
!7
18
19
2O
21
DRAFT EXCERPT
Chair Burt: So essentially we went through a deliberative process where those were PCs, we
grandfathered in not only those dealerships but that they would have the same rights as other
dealerships to improve their signage and their display. The question now becomes if we were to
vote in favor of the motion that we have here are we explicitly or implicitly conveying that new
dealerships would be able to do the same sort of thing on these parcels?
Mr. Emslie: You would have consistent regulation for that area based on the precedent of
already including in the PCs the provisions of the auto overlay.
Chair Burt: Annette and then Paula.
Commissioner Bialson: We have heard from Staff and from members of the public that the
design of both the facilities and the methods of sale have changed dramatically in the last few
years and will continue to change. So for us to sit here and come up with whether or not it is
feasible or perhaps misleading to dealerships to open up this area for dealership use by applying
the overlay I think is inappropriate. If we are clear with regard to what our sensitivities are leave
it to the dealerships to decide whether or not they want to respond to those sensitivities. I think
that what Council has indicated is that they want to seem attractive as much as possible in order
to retain sales tax revenue to dealerships. So for us to make the decision for them seems totally
inappropriate.
Cio’ of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 112 of 121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
DRAFT EXCERPT
Chair Burt: I think Steve just clarified that my concern is not one that would then be at the
discretion the precedent has been set. He just said that any new dealerships that would locate
there would have those same sorts of rights as I just heard it. Paula.
Commissioner Sandas: I just wanted to make the comment that one of the huge concerns that we
have in Palo Alto is that we are not friendly to business. So ! am not sure where we as a
Commission go with this because we want to be friendly and open to retain or expand our sales
tax revenue base and at the same time I am sympathetic to what Karen says. We don’t want to
start the process rolling and then slap somebody down which just reaffirms that Palo Alto may or
may not be friendly to business. So how do we mitigate that?
Chair Burt: Dan.
Commissioner Garber: Just so I understand your comment, Steve. ! am not sure I got this right.
What you just said is that the conflict already exists.
Mr. Emslie: Yes. What John explained earlier is that last year the Commission and the Council
approved amendments to the two PCs on Embarcadero that contained the two auto dealerships
that are there. Those PCs were amended to include the proposed provisions of the auto overlay,
which include two raised pads. So on those auto dealerships they already have the right to ask
for, they do need to get the review, but they have the right to ask for certain amenities like the
auto pads. So if you were to have different regulations for the overlay, for the LM districts, then
Ci.ly of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page ] 13 of 121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2!
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
that would be in conflict with that because you would have two different set of standards for
achieving the same results.
Commissioner Garber: Just so I am getting it straight, the motion that is currently on the table
here is to apply the same set of criteria uniformly over all these districts that are adjacent to the
Embarcadero Road? Yes. So that being the case we are also not implying that there are
additional steps to the process that have to be taken. Anyone would have to go through prior to
this motion or after this motion the same steps. You would still have to apply to the City, go
through the ARB, go through the Planning process, etc.
Mr. Emslie: That is correct.
Commissioner Garber: So we are not applying anything new.
Mr. Emslie: No.
Chair Burt: So I will just state for the record and fellow Commissioners that when we went into
this discussion I was uncertain on my thinking and now having heard that if there were dealers
who wish to locate there what the impact would be I just don’t think it is appropriate for this
gateway to the Baylands. On top of that we have heard that there really isn’t much interest in
locating dealerships here anyway. So I will be opposing the motion.
Karen and then Annette.
CiO, of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page ] 14 of 121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Vice-Chair Holman: Just a clarifying question and this is my question that I will have to refer
back to the previous motion that we passed too. I am not certain that the conditional use permit
was added to the previous motion, which was then duplicated here, was it included? Thank you
so much. That clarifies that. Thank you.
Chair Burt: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I reiterate we have got to stay open and recognize that the marketplace
is changing and we may have dealers who come up with a brilliant idea that it might be a good
idea to have part if not all of their facilities on Embarcadero Road because of convenience. One
of the things we need to keep in mind is part of the group that we are trying to be convenient for
are Palo Alto residents. We don’t want our Palo Alto residents having or being forced to either
purchase their cars or service their cars outside of Palo Alto. Think about the number of car trips
that we are talking about. While we talk about certain places being appropriate for auto carriers
and not appropriate the dealerships are going to be contending with the fact that they can’t
accumulate three to five acres adjacent to one another. They will place things off sites and where
are they doing to do that and where is it appropriate to do it but on Embarcadero? I think that
they can develop it sensitively to meet all of our needs for a gateway. So I feel strongly that we
should let the Commission vote on this and have the statements go forward to Council and let
them deal with it but let’s have a vote. It is now almost eleven o’clock. I think we have vetted
this as much as we can. So I would call the question.
City of Pa!o Alto October 26, 2005 Page ] 15 of ]21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
!6
17
18
19
20
21
22
Chair Burt:
DRAFT EXCERPT
Okay, given your lone speech we can call the question.One more, Pauta.
Commissioner Sandas: I just have one more question and it is one of practicality and it has just
been kind of bothering me. The Elks Club site is going to be redeveloped at some point soon and
! notice that the Volvo dealership stores their cars in the parking lot of the Elks Club. So it gives
me a sense of anxiety feeling like there might be some pressure to retain the Volvo dealership in
Palo Alto. Am I correct about that?
Mr. Emslie: It is huge. They are in an extremely small site and the fact that they are storing cars
in an offsite location is a strong indication of their space needs.
Commissioner Sandas: That is what I see. I am wondering if this is a question that you can
answer at all but have they been talking about leaving Palo Alto or moving within Palo Alto
somewhere?
Mr. Emslie: Yes. We "know that they are actively being courted by other cities.
Chair Burt: So we have just opened up already tonight 50-plus acres for prospective automotive
sites. I guess my thought would be if we had an alternative that was more restrictive in its use to
service and storage but since the motion before us does not make those distinctions that is why I
can’t support it. Everybody ready to vote? Okay. You want to give it a shot Don?
CiO’ of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 116 of 121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT EXCERPT
Mr. Larkin: The motion would be to approve the Staff’s recommendation as amended with
respect to the LM zone in the vicinity of Embarcadero Road but amended to require a conditional
use permit and require additional screening and environmental mitigation measures on parcels
adjacent to the Baylands.
MOTION FAILS (2-3-2-0, Commissioners Bialson and Garber in favor, Commissioners Sandas,
Holman and Burt opposed and Commissioners Lippert and Cassel absent)
Chair Burt: All in favor? (ayes) That motion fails with Commissioners Bialson and Garber
voting in favor and Commissioners Sandas, Holman and Burt opposing.
So when would we be able to give comments on signage and the MSC?
Mr. Emslie: Do you have the upcoming agenda?
Chair Burt: On the ninth we have East Meadow and TOD overlays and then we have nothing.
Then November 30 is the Retreat. That is not Thanksgiving week? It is the week after.
Mr. Emslie:
night.
The ninth might be pushing it for having three items but we could be ready that
Chair Butt: Okay, why don’t we do that.
City of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 117 of 121
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
DRAFT EXCERPT
Mr. Emslie: We wilt put it last on the agenda and we can push it back if we run out of time.
Chair Burt: Okay, great. That completes item two. Item three was postponed.
PLEASE NOTE: ITEM NO. 3 IS CONTINUED TO THE MEETING OF NOV. 9, 2005.
o 1101 East Meadow Drive & 1010 East Meadow Circle [05-PLN-002891*: Request by
Trumark Companies on behalf of Batton Associates, LLC and HDP Associates for a
Vesting Tentative Map for a proposed residential infill development. This map is
required in order to merge two parcels (approx. 4.4 acres) and create 75 condominium
units. Environmental Assessment: Negative Declaration per the California
Envirorunental Quality Act. Zone District: LM.
Chair Burt: We have approval of minutes for September 14 and 28.
APPROVAL OFMINUTES: September 14 and 28, 2005.
Commissioner Bialson: I am going to have to not vote with regard to the minutes of September
28 because I was absent.
Chair Burt: On the minutes for September 14 1 was absent for item number one. You said you
missed the 28th.9 Okay. So let’s have a motion to approve September 14.
MOTION
Commissioner Garber: So moved.
Cir. of Palo Alto October 26, 2005 Page 118 of ]21
ATTACHMENT B
" ~ ~~1
Legend
i~c3 City Boundaries
~ Qua~er Mile from 101/San Antonio Interchange~~
@
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
10 ]/San Antonio Interchange
~Auto Dealership Overlay
The Cily 01"
Palo Alto
mg Avenue
I
Legend
ll."~,b~c,=~~ City Boundaries
~.= ~ Quarter Mile from 101/Embarcadero Interchange
The Cily of
Palo Alto
10l/Embarcadero Interchange
Auto Dealership Overlay
This map is a product of lhe
City of Palo Alto GIS
Th~ City oF
Palo Alto
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
150’
!8!~!~i~i~i~i~i~i~:~:~:~~.~.~.~.~.~!~i~i~i8i~i~8i~!~.~......................................i~i~!~iiii!iii!iii~i~!.!~! ..............
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
~ 0
0 m
0
0 0
¯ 0
0
.,-I
o
0
0
Z
,/
,.- E >~~._o or..
~R,-~
~ E ~0
~ ~ o
Z
LU
z
<
IIS
r’-
0
d
0
0 cCL.o
o
LL , ~ e
o
C