HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-09 City Council (14)TO:
FROM:
City of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING
& COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:AUGUST 9, 2004 CMR: 380:04
SUBJECT: ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE - ADOPTION OF A NEW
AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP (AD) COMBINING DISTRICT WHICH
WOULD CREATE AN OVERLAY ZONE PROVIDING FOR FLEXIBLE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR AUTO DEALERSHIPS,
INCLUDING AUTO DISPLAY AREAS, FLEET STORAGE,
LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING AND FULL SERVICE OPERATION.
ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE AD OVERLAY
ZONE WHERE EXISTING AUTO DEALERSHIPS SELLING NEW AND
PRE-OWNED AUTOS CURRENTLY EXIST IN THE CITY, LOCATED
AT: 4180 EL CAMINO REAL (PENINSULA FORD), 4190 EL CAMINO
REAL (CARLSEN VOLVO), 3290 PARK BLVD. (PARK AVENUE
MOTORS), 762 SAN ANTONIO ROAD (HENGEHOLD MOTORS), AND
3045 PARK BLVD. (STANFORD EUROPEAN). ADOPTION OF
ORDINANCES AMENDING THE THREE PLANNED COMMUNITY
SITES TO ALLOW THE AUTO DEALERSHIP FLEXIBLE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR EXISTING AUTOMOBILE
DEALERSHIPS SELLING NEW AUTOMOBILES LOCATED AT 1730
EMBARCADERO ROAD (CARLSEN MOTOR CARS, PC 2554), 1766
EMBARCADERO ROAD (ANDERSON HONDA, PC 3350), AND 690 SAN
ANTONIO ROAD (MAGNUSSEN’S DODGE AND TOYOTA, PC 2592).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and
approval of the following:
Transportation Commission recommend Council
Zoning ordinance amendment establishing Chapter 18.65 of Title 18
(Zoning Ordinance) for the purpose of creating the initial auto dealership
overlay zone (Combining District) in the Service Commercial District (CS),
General Manufacturing (GM) and General
CMR: 380:04 1 of 8
Manufacturing Combining District (GM (B)) to allow for additional site
and design standards for automobile dealerships selling new, pre-owned
and used automobiles (Attachment A).
Auto dealership overlay zone where existing auto dealerships selling new
and pre-owned autos currently exist in the City, located at: 4180 E1 Camino
Real (Peninsula Ford), 4190 E1 Camino Real (Carlsen Volvo), 3290 Park
Blvd. (Park Avenue Motors), 762 San Antonio Road (Hengehold Motors),
and 3045 Park Blvd. (Stanford European) (Attachment B).
Amendments to three Planned Community sites to allow additional site and
design standards for existing automobile dealerships selling new
automobiles located at 1730 Embarcadero Road (Carlsen Motor Cars, PC
2554), 1766 Embarcadero Road (Anderson Honda PC 3350), and 690 San
Antonio Road (Magnussen’s Dodge and Toyota, PC 2592) (Attachment C).
o Direction to staff, through the Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU), to develop
a final Auto Sales Dealership overlay Combining District in addition to the
initial flexible development standards to include the following; 1) analyze
and prepare "performance standards" for specific areas of the city including
E1 Camino Real, San Antonio Road, Embarcadero Road and future sites
having freeway visibility, 2) standards for noise and lighting, 3) standards
for auto dealership’s signage and auto display, and 4) environmental
standards addressing auto dealers full service operation and auto storage.
o Direction to staff to work with auto dealerships and other stakeholders to
develop a strategy for a long term auto dealership retention and recruitment
program, including the identification of potential new areas for multiple
dealer development, potential resources to implement the long-term
strategy, and a.timeline for implementation.
BACKGROUND
On July 28, 2003 a Colleagues Memo presented the conclusions of the Ad Hoc
Committee on the City’s Economic Base. The purpose of the committee was: 1) to
assess and evaluate economic trends that affect the City’s financial bottom line
and 2) to see what actions can be taken to assist and retain businesses.
The Committee recommended a strategy to enhance the City’s economic base,
particularly its auto-related uses. Based on the over 40 business outreach visits that
were completed by staff and Council members and a review of economic data, a
action plan was developed. The action plan is Attachment D.
The primary goals of the plan are:
CMR: 380:04 2 of 8
Retain valued Palo Alto businesses
Enhance the City’s economic base by sharing information with board and
commission members, the community-at-large, neighborhoods, and civic
groups about the need for enhancing the City’s economic base
Streamline processes where appropriate that undercut vibrant economic
activity
Retain retail dollars in the community
Target key projects to avoid overly lengthy processing times
Retain auto dealers in Palo Alto
Identify economic development "best practice" for implementation in Palo
Alto, as appropriate
Economic Development and Planning staff coordinated with the Ad Hoc
Committee to develop an overall auto dealership retention and recruitment plan.
This plan identified potential short and long term goals to address auto dealerships
and their unique use as a commercial land use in the zoning ordinance.
The long-term strategy would be to develop a retention and recruitment program
for existing and new auto dealerships. This involves developing a zoning specific
to auto dealerships as well as strategies to create a synergy for auto dealerships’
and strengthen their competive advantage utilizing location, visibility, full service
operation, and stronger connections with auto manufactures.
While the long,term retention and recruitment strategy is being developed, the
Committee and staff identified a short-.term strategy for the retention of existing
auto dealerships. Over the past two years Palo Alto has lost auto dealerships to
other cities in the immediate Bay Area. The Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU)
therefore identified the best short-term strategy was the implementation of an auto
dealership overlay zone with initial flexible development standards specific to auto
dealerships.
DISCUSSION
Economic Development and Planning staff conducted several meetings with the
existing auto dealerships to identify what tools within the zoning ordinance could
best address their needs at their existing locations. Three main land use tools for
improving their businesses were identified. The first is visibility; lacking the ideal
visibility and access from a freeway, the dealerships identified that enhancing their
existing location’s visibility would be a positive step.
The second is the ability to maintain a full service operation. This includes sales of
new and pre-owned automobiles, and having the storage capacity to deliver an
auto to a customer in a timely matter. Full service also includes the ability to
CMR: 380:04 3 of 8
service customers with repair and warranty maintenance, auto detailing, and other
customer service such as on-site car rental. Most new car auto dealerships service
a broader segment of the community than just the customer purchasing their
automobiles.
The third main element was being able to demonstrate and maintain a strong
corporate or manufacturer’s identity. This included being able to display corporate
logos through signage and auto display. The need to demonstrate to their
manufacturer that the individual dealerships have the tools to be competitive in
auto sales and services was a major component to retaining business relationships.
Dealers also expressed a desire for permit streamlining and having a single City
staff contact that is familiar with their type of business.
Based on the discussions with the auto dealerships and researching what other
cities have implemented through zoning ordinances, staff developed a short-term
retention strategy through the Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU).
The first component was to implement a "Auto Dealership Overlay Zone" that
could be placed on existing dealerships. As a Combining District in the ZOU, this
would retain the underlying Commercial Service (CS) or General Manufacturing
(GM) zoning districts while addressing the unique business needs for auto
dealerships. The overlay zone was also identified to be a good initial step in
showing that a long-term retention and recruitment strategy was a City goal. This
would address some of the immediate needs for existing dealerships, as well as
create a land use. method where the City could continue to develop specific
standards as well as apply the overlay to new auto dealership sites when the
opportunity arises.
The second component of the short-term strategy was to implement initial flexible
development standards within the overlay that specifically address existing auto
dealerships. These flexible development standards include enhancing interior
showroom space, parking and vehicle storage, and automobile display. The
standards also include minor modifications, such as a landscaping buffer, to
existing commercial development regulations to address the existing dealership
site constraints. Siguage is also an important component for dealership visibility
and identity, but staff determined that additional time and research was necessary
in order to develop specific recommendations.
The recognition and coordination with auto dealership uses within Palo Alto
through the development of an overlay zone is a positive first step in the retention
strategy. Staff also views the proposals as minor modifications to existing
commercial standards that would enhance the dealership’s ability to be
CMR: 380:04 4 of 8
competitive with other dealerships in the immediate Bay Area. Staff recommended
that the overlay zone only be applied to auto dealerships having new and pre-
owned automobile sales. Pre-owned automobiles are defined as autos that have the
manufacturers sponsorship and warranty program.
In that there also exists Planned Community Zones (PC) with auto dealership uses,
the application of the recommended flexible development standards would have to
be completed amending their respective PC zone rather than the application of the
overlay zone.
BOARD AND COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
At its meeting of June 16, 2004 the Planning and Transportation Commission
(PTC) reviewed the staff recommendation for a new auto dealership overlay zone,
flexible development standards, and initiation of the overlay zone in the C S, GM
districts, and PC zone amendments, (Attachment E, June 16 staff report and
Commission minutes). After Commission review and substantial discussion with
staff at the meeting, the PTC voted to continue the item until additional
background information and clarification of the proposed standards were brought
back to the Commission. In addition to needing more background information, the
Commission was concerned about how the overlay zone and development
standards would be applied to existing and new auto dealership sites. Specific
concerns included allowances for showroom space, auto display pads, consistency
with the Baylands Guidelines, and how the overlay zone would work given the
geographic diversity of dealerships within Palo Alto. The PTC also requested that
a long-term strategy be developed in conjunction with these initial short-term
steps. Two members of the community, including a representative from the
Chamber of Commerce, spoke in favor of the staff recommendations.
At its meeting of June 30, 2004, staff provided additional background information,
with clarification and modification of the flexible development standards. The
staff report also included discussion and recommendations for initiating a long-
term retention and recruitment strategy (Attachment F, June 30 staff report and
Commission minutes). After reviewing the additional information and staff
recommendations, the PTC voted to recommend that the City Council approve the
five recommendations stated above. This consisted of a new initial auto dealership
overlay zone that will continue to be developed, application of the flexible
development standards on the existing dealership sites, and development of a long
term retention and recruitment strategy. The PTC recommendation included
changes to the staff recommendations, as follows:
That the Auto Dealership Overlay Zone be applicable to used auto sales as
well as new and pre-owned auto dealerships. The PTC believed that this
economic incentive should be open to all automobile sales in Palo Alto.
CMR: 380:04 5 of 8
There is one used automobile sales dealer in Palo Alto. It is not included in
the application of the overlay at this time. However, based on the PTC
recommendation, the Ordinance has been amended to provide for its
application to existing and new and used auto dealerships in the future.
Staff’s reason for not initially including used auto dealerships was twofold.
First, including sales tax, new auto sales dealerships typically provide a full
service operation and therefore, serve a larger community, Secondly, while
application to one existing used auto sales operation would have minimal
affect, as a long-term recruitment land use policy, staff is concerned on the
future implications of attracting used auto dealerships,
The Commission recommended that the auto dealerships be allowed an
additional 0.2 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) that could only be developed for
interior showroom space and that the showroom space would have a
maximum height of 20 feet. In the CS and GM districts, this would allow
an increase in FAR from 0.4 to 0.6. The PCs are site specific for each FAR.
Staff recommended that, as an incentive for auto dealerships to retain or
develop showroom space, the area exclusively devoted to first floor interior
showroom area be exempt from the maximum FAR requirements,
regardless of size. Existing CS and GM building height would be
applicable. The PTC was concerned that this exemption was too open-
ended and could be subject to~ abuse.
Staff believes that the new or expanded showroom area would not need a
defined maximum square foot area or FAR because it can only be used for
the display of automobiles (no sales office or retail uses could be included).
Therefore, since it would not be allowed to be converted to any other use
without it counting toward the maximum building FAR, the auto
dealerships would only build enough showroom space that was
economically feasible for them to display automobiles,
Staff also reiterated that all new improvements for showroom areas would
also be subject to Architectural Review Board review and recommendation,
and therefore, the height and design for showroom areas would best be
addressed through that process rather than having a building height
standard that is specific for the showroom area.
The PTC recommended minor text revisions to the new Chapter 18.65 of
the Zoning Ordinance for the auto dealership overlay. Staff has
incorporated these revisions into the ordinance presented in Attachment A.
CMR: 380:04 6 of 8
Two representatives from the Chamber of Commerce spoke in favor of the staff
recommendations at the June 30, 2004 PTC meeting.
At its meeting of July 28, 2004 (Attachment G, July 28 staff report anti
Commission minutes), the Commission voted to recommend that the City Council
approve the application of the Auto Dealership overlay zone to the five existing
auto dealerships located in the CS and GM (B) zoning districts. The PTC also
recommended that the City Council approve amendments to the PC zoned sites for
the three existing auto dealerships. The Commission requested one additional
revision to the proposed Auto Dealership (AD) Combining District. It
recommended that Section 18.65.070 (Special Requirements), paragraphs (a)(1)
and (a)(2), include text that references the purpose of the eight foot decorative wall
is to mitigate both noise and visual impacts on adjacent residential uses. Staff
concurs with this text revision. Staff clarified that the changes for signage,
lighting, and noise were not being proposed at this time because staff needed more
time to complete additional research and coordination with the dealerships and
neighborhoods before revisions can be proposed.
The Commission asked if the raised auto display platforms could be installed to
allow for moving or rotating platforms. Staff responded that this would not be
permitted, however, some moderate up lighting may be allowed. The Commission
inquired about the level of coordination that staff has had with the auto dealerships
over the overlay and flexible development standards. Staff responded that,
recently, the Director of Planning and the City Manager’s Economic Development
Manager had conducted individual meetings with the auto dealers. Staff stated
that the dealerships have expressed support for the new auto dealership overlay
proposed in the Zoning Ordinance Update. There was no public testimony at the
July 28 PTC meeting.
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 local economy.
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.
CMR: 380:04 7 of 8
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.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Auto Dealership Combining
District
Attachment B: Auto Dealership Overlay Zone for five sites
Attachment C: Amendments to three PC zones
Attachment D: Enhancing the City’s Economic Base Action Plan
Attachment E: June 16 Staff Report and Commission minutes
Attachment F: June 30 Staff Report and Commission minutes
Attachment G: July 28 Staff Report and Commission minutes
PREPARED :
Plkffning Manager
DEPA~/(,T :
Director of Pla~ing ~d Community Environment
EMILY~~;~N
Assistant City Manager
CMR: 380:04 8 of 8
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 18.65 (AUTO DEALER
COMBINING DISTRICT)AND AMENDING CHAPTER 18.04
(DEFINITIONS) AND 18.83 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND
LOADING REQUIREMENTS)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
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
Municipal 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. A new paragraph (12.5), is added to
subsection (a) of section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18
[Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows:
(12.5) "Automobile dealership" means a use primarily
engaged in sale, lease, service, or minor repair of new and used
automobiles and trucks o~ of used
.... an acccssory ........ Other accessory services incidental
and supporting auto sales include service bays for engine,
040803 jea 6030041
transmission, air conditioning, and minor painting, body and
fender repair, car wash, auto rental, and similar services.
SECTION 3. A new Chapter 18.65 (Auto Dealer Combining
District), as shown, in the attached Exhibit A,- is added to
Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
SECTION 4. The following entry is added to Table 1
(Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements of Section 18.83.050
(Schedule of off-street parking, loading and bicycle facility
requirements) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code:
Use
Automobile
Dealerships
Minimum Off-Street Parking
Requirement
1 per 400 square feet of sales
and office administration
area,and 1 per 500 square
feet of exterior sales or
display area,excluding
automobile storage.
Minimum Bicycle
Parking Requirement
Spaces Class
SECTION 5. 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.
II
It
I1
I1
II
II
II
040803 jea 6030041
2
SECTION, 6. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days
after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
Director of Planning &
Community Environment
040803 jea 6030041
Exhibit
DRAFT
Chapter 18.65
Regulations
Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District
Sections:
18.65.010
18.65.020
18.65.030
18.65.040
18.65.050
18.65.060
18.65.070
Specific purposes
Applicability of regulations
Zoning Map Designation
Permitted Uses
Site Development Regulations
Parking and Loading
Special requirements
18.65.010 Specific Purpose
The automobile dealership (AD) combining district is intended to modify the regulations
of the service commercial (CS) and general manufacturing (GM or GM(B)) districts to
create and maintain areas accommodating automobile dealerships primarily engaged in
new and used automobile sales and service on a citywide and regional basis. Such uses
generally require special parking, access, and outdoor display provisions for customer
convenience, servicing of vehicles or equipment, loading or unloading, or parking of
commercial service vehicles.
18.65.020 Applicability of Regulations
The combining district may be combined with a service commercial (CS) district or a
.general manufacturing (GM or GM(B)) district, in accord with Chapters 18.08 and 18.98.
Where so combined, the regulations established by this chapter shall apply in lieu of the
comparable provisions established by the service commercial district or community
commercial district.
18.65.030 Zoning map designation.
The service commercial combining district shall apply to properties designated on the
zoning map by the symbol "AD" within parentheses, following the service commercial
(CS) or general manufacturing (GM or GM(B)) designation with which it is combined.
18.65.040 Permitted Uses
The following uses shall be permitted in the (AD) combining district:
(a)Automobile dealerships
Draft Auto Dealership Overlay
August 3, 2004
18.65.050 Site Development Regulations
The site development regulations in this section 18.65.050 apply to automobile dealership
uses in the (AD) combining district, in addition to the regulations of the underlying
district. Where the regulations of the underlying district conflict with this section
18.65.050, this section shall control.
(a) Floor Area Ratio.
(1)
0.4 to 1.
The maximum floor area ratio for automobile dealership uses shall be
o~..11 ~.-.~ .....~ ~ ......Ao ~.~ ~.,~1 m... ^ ~ o,~;,, An additional 0 2:1 FAR is permitted
exclusively for automobile showroom space, for a total FAR of 0.6:1. "Automobile
showroom space" is that area for the display of new automobiles, located only on the first
floor and excluding all other uses associated with the automobile dealership including
sales office and sale of related merchandise. The Director of Planning and Community
Environment is authorized to determine whether floor area .is automobile showroom
space, as described above. Floor area used for automobile showroom space shall not be
converted to any other use if the total floor area devoted to uses other than automobile
showroom space would exceed a floor area ratio of 0.4:1 following the conversion.
(b) Height. The maximum height shall be fifty (50) feet. Provided, the maximum
height for automobile showroom space, as defined in subsection (a)(2), shall be 20 feet.
(c) Outdoor Sales and Storage. Outdoor sales and display of automobiles and
merchandise shall be permitted subject to the following regulations:
(1) Two automobile display pads shall be permitted in the required setback
area, including landscaped areas, adjacent to a public right-of-way. A single automobile
display pad shall be no higher than eight feet, ;~1,,.~:~. A;~ ..... .~ ,~.-~A .a,.i-,~.-~.~KH~o~
measured to the highest point of the automobile on the display pad, and the surface of the
display pad area shall be no larger than 175 square feet.
(2) Areas for outdoor sales and display of motor vehicles, other than
automobile display pads, shall meet the minimum design standards applicable to off-
street parking facilities with respect to paving, grading, drainage, safety and protective
features, lighting, and screening. Striping for parking stalls shall not be required for auto
display and storage areas
(3) Exterior storage shall screened by a solid wall or fence of between five (5)
and eight (8) feet in height~
18.65.060 Parking and Loading
Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required for all automobile dealerships in
the AD combining district, in accord with Chapter 18.83. Where the provisions of
Draft Auto Dealership Overlay
August 3, 2004
Chapter 18.83 conflict with the provisions of this section 18.65.060, this section shall
control. The following parking requirements apply to automobile dealerships in the (AD)
combining district, in lieu of comparable requirements of Chapter 18.83 and the
underlying district:
.(a) Auto storage and display areas shall not be required to be striped for parking stall
and aisle width.
(b)Areas for customer parking shall be designated.
18.65.070 Special Requirements
The special requirements in this section 18.65.070 apply to automobile dealership uses in
the (AD) combining district, in addition to the regulations of the underlying district.
Where the regulations of the underlying district conflict withthis section 18.65.070, this
section shall control.
(a) Sites abutting or having any portion located within one hundred fifty (150) feet of
any RE, R-l, R-2, RM or any PC district permitting single-family development or
multifamily development shall be subject to the following additional height and yard
requirements:
(1) On any portion of a site in the AJ) combining district which abuts a site in
any RE, R-l, R-2, RM or applicable PC district, a minimum interior yard of ten (10) feet
shall be required and a solid wall between five (5) and eight (8) feet in height shall be
constructed and maintained along the common site line. The minimum interior yard shall
be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen. If the Director determines that location
and installation of the landscape screen is not practical, such landscaping may be reduced
or deleted, if measures are taken to ensure that screening with an eight (8) foot decorative
wall is adequate to mitigate noise and visual impacts to the satisfaction of the Director.
(2) On any portion of a site in the AD combining district which is opposite
from a site in any RE, R-I, R-2, RM or applicable PC district and separated there from by
a street, alley, creek, drainage facility, or other open area, a minimum yard of ten (10)
feet shall be required. The minimum yard shall be planted and maintained as a
landscaped screen, excluding areas required for access to the site. If the Director
determines that location and installation of the landscape screen is not practical, such
landscaping may be reduced or deleted, if measures are taken to ensure that screening
with an eight (8) foot decorative wall is adequate to mitigate noise and visual impacts to
the satisfaction of the Director.
(3) Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-I, R-2, RM
or any residential PC district shall be subject to a maximum height established by a
daylight plane beginning at a height of ten (10) feet at the applicable side or rear site lines
and increasing at a slope of one meter for each two meters of distance from the side or
rear site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the underlying
district.
Draft Auto Dealership Overlay
August 3, 2004
3
ATTACHMENT B
ORDINANCE NO
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE~ THE
ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3045
PARK BOULEVARD FROM "GM(B) " TO "GM(B) (AD)" AND
TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 4190 EL CAMINO REAL, 3290 PARK
BOULEVARD, 762 SAN ANTONIO ROAD, AND 4180 EL
CAMINO REAL F-ROM "CS" TO "CS(AD)"
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows :
SECTION i. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map", is hereby amended by changing the zone
classification of property located at 3045 Park Boulevard from
"GM(B) General Manufacturing Combining District (B)" to
"GM(B) (AD) General Manufacturing Combining District (B) with
Automobile Dealership Overlay", as shown in Exhibit~ "A",
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map", is hereby amended by changing the zone
classification of property located at 3290 Park Boulevard from
"CS Service Commercial District" to "CS(AD) Service CommercialDistrict with Automobile Dealership Overlay", as shown in
Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTION 3. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map", is hereby amended by changing the zone
classification of property located at 4180 E1 Camino Real from
"CS Service Commercial District" to "CS(AD) Service Commercial
District with Automobile Dealership Overlay", as shown in
Exhibit "C", attached hereto and incorporated herein by
~reference.
SECTION 4. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo alto Municipal
Code, the"Zoning Map", is hereby amended by changing the zone
classification of property located at 4190 E1 Camino Real from
"CS Service ~Commercial District" to "CS(AD) Service Commercial
District ~with Automobile Dealership Overlay", as shown in
Exhibit "D", attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTION 5. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map", is hereby amended by changing the zone
classification of property located at 762 San Antonio Road from
040721 jea 6030043
"CS Service Commercial District" to "CS(AD) Service Commercial
District with Automobile Dealership Overlay", as shown in
Exhibit ,!E"~- attached hereto~ and incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTION 6;~~ The Council.-her~eby finds~ that this project
has no significanteffect on the env£ronment.
SECTION 7.~ This ordinance shall become effective upon
the commencement of. the ~thirty-first day after the day of its
adoption. .~ -
INTRODUCED
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Director Of Planning and
Community Environment
040721 jea 6030043
2
Tb~ Cily of
P a-!o A] t o
This map is a product ofth~-
Cib’ of Paio Alto GIS
EXHIBIT "D"
\; OiVO
q-his map is a product of the
Oib, of Paio Alto GIS ¯
"
762 Sm~ ~mtonio Rd.
ATTACHMENT C
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE -OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO RENUMBERING AND AMENDING PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT PC-2554 (1730 EMBARCADERO ROAD)TO
PERMIT CERTAIN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP DESIGN
FEATURES
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION i. .Findings and Declarations.
finds and declares as follows:
The .City Council
(a) On April 30, 1970, the City Council adopted
Ordinance 2554 establishing a PC District permitting an auto
dealership on the property located at-1730 Embarcadero Road.
(b) This ordinance is intended to renumber and amend
Planned Community (PC) district 2554 to permit certain
automobile dealership design standards. The design standards
are substantially similar to those allowed under the City’s
Automobile Dealership overlay district.
SECTION 2. A new section 5 is hereby added to Planned
Community district ordinance 2554 to read as follows:
~Section 5. The following changes to the development
plan may be made, subject to Architectural Review
approva!, as set forth in Title 18 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code:
(a) ~Automobile display pads may be added in the
required setback area adjacent to a public right-of-way,
including in landscaped areas. Provided no more than
two such pads shall be added, no automobile display pad
shall be higher than eight .feet, as measured to the
highest point of the automobile on the display pad, and
the surface area of each display pad shall be no more
than 175 square feet.
(b) .Parking area modifications may be made, provided
such modifications shall comply with the following
provisions:
~ ~e~ p.~.~d~d must
be at least 1 per 400 square feet of sales and
040"~22 lea 6030044
1
office administration area, and 1 per 500 square
feet of exterior sales or display area, excluding
automobile storage; and
(2) Areas for customer parking shall
designated; and
be
(3) Areas for outdoor sales and display of motor
vehicles, other than automobile display pads, shall
meet the minimum design standards applicable to
off-street parking facilities under Title 18 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code with respect to paving,
grading, drainage, safety and protective features,
lighting, and screening. Auto storage and display
areas are not required to be striped for parking
stall and aisle width; and
(4) Exterior storage shall screened by a solid
wall or fence of between five (5) and eight (8)
feet in height.
(c) Automobile showroom space may be increased,
provided the total automobile showroom space on the site
may not exceed a floor area ratio of 0.2:1. ~Automobile
showroom space" is that area for the display of new
automobiles, located only on the first floor and
excluding all other uses associated with the automobile
dealership including sales office and sale of related
merchandise. The Director of Planning and Community
Environment is authorized to determine whether floor
area is automobile showroom space, as described above."
SECTION 3. section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map", is hereby amended by changing the zone
classification of property located at 1730 Embarcadero Road from
"Planned Community District PC-2554" to ~Planned Community
District PC- ", as shown in Exhibit ~A", attached hereto and
incorporatedherein by reference.
SECTION 4. Except as amended above,
remains in full force and effect.
Ordinance 2554
SECTION 5. 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.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days
after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
Director of Planning &
Community Environment
3
040722 lea 6030044 ’~ -- ~ " -". ...............
This map is a produst of ins
city Of Pato AI~D GIS
Carlson Motor Cars
! 73 0 Bmbarcade~o Road
¯ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO RENUMBERING AND AMENDING PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT PC-3350 (1766 EMBARCADERO ROAD) TO
PERMIT CERTAIN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP DESIGN
FEATURES
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION i. Findings and Declarations.
finds and declares as follows:
The City Council
(a) On July 24, 1967, the City Uouncil adopted Ordinance
2365 establishing a PC District permitting an auto dealership on
the property located at 1766 Embarcadero Road. That ordinance
was amended by Ordinance 3550 on May 3, 1982 to change certain
conditions of approval.
(b) This ordinance .shall renumber and amend Planned
Community (PC)~ district 3550 to permit certain automobile
dealership design standards. The design standards are
substanhially .similar~ to those allowed under the City’s
Automobile Dealership overlay district.
.SECTION 2. A new section 6 is hereby added to Planned
Community district ordinance 2365 to read as follows:
~Section 6. The following changes to the development
plan mayl be made, subject to Architectural Review
approval,’ as set forth in Title 18 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code:
(a.) Automobile display pads may be added in the
required setback area adjacent to a public right-of-way,
including .in landscaped areas. Provided no more than
two such pads shall be added, no automobile display pad
shall be higher than eight feet, as measured to the
highest point of the automobile on the display pad, and
the surface area of each display pad shall be no more
than 175 square feet.
(b) Parking area modifications may be made, provided
such modifications shall comply with the following
provisions:
040"/22 iea 6030045
(i) The number of parking spaces provided must
be at leas,t i per 400 square feet Of sales and
office administration area, and 1 per 500 square
feet of ~exterior sales or display area, excluding
automobile~storage; and
(2) Areas for customer parking shall be
designated; and
(3_)~i ~reas fo.r .outdoor sales and display of motor
vehicles, .o~ther than automobile display pads, shall
meet the minimum design standards applicable to
off-street parking facilities Under Title 18 of the
¯ Palo A~lto Municipal Code with respect to paving,
grading, drainage, safety and protective features,
lighting~i, and screening. Auto storage and display
areas are note required to be striped for parking
stal~and aisle width; and
(4)~ Exterior storage shall be screened by a
solid wall or fence of between five (5) and eight
(8) feet~n height.
(c) Automobile showroom space may be increased,
provided the total.automobile showroom space on the site
_Automobilemay not exceed a~floor area ratio of 0.2:1. "’
showroom space" is that area for the display of new
~automobiles, located only on the first floor and
._~-excluding~all other uses associated with the automobile
dealership including sales office and sale of related
merchandise.. ’The DirectQ~ o~f ...... .p.lanning and Community
Environment ~is~.authorized to determine whether floor
area is automobile showroom space, as described above."
SECTION 3. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning .Map", is hereby amended by changing the zone
classificat.ion of~property located at 1766 Embarcadero Road from
’"Planned Community District PC-3550" to "Planned Community
District PC-__", ~as shown in-Exhibit ~A",~ attached hereto and
incorporated her, ein:!by reference.~~ ~ .~
SECTION 4. Except as amended above and by Ordinance
3350, Ordinance 2365 .remains in full force and effect.
SECTION 5_ The City Council finds that the changes
effected’by this ordinance are exempt from the provisions of the
~=~ Quality a~ ~eE~a~ p=~ section !5D~I
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.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days
after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
Director of Planning &~
Community Environment
012104 ie, a 6030045
EXHIBIT "A"
x
.... ". . ................Zoning: PO-n n ~ O" "" "".,,,
........ ..........Size in Acres (estimated):
........ "4.9 Acres
Building Size: 39,244 sqff"X/’
~P a!o Alto
Anderson Honda
i 766-Embarcadero Road
This map is a proouct of the
City of Palo Alto GJ S
142’
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE .OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO RENUMBERING AND AMENDING PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT PC-2592 (690 SAN ANTONIO ROAD)TO
PERMIT CERTAIN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP DESIGN
FEATURES
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION i. Findings and Declarations.
finds and declares as follows:
The City Council
(a) On January 5, 1971, the City Council adopted
Ordinance 2592 establishing.a PC District permitting an auto
dealership on the property located at 690 San Antonio Road. On
November 19, 1973, a resolution was adopted permitting a change
to the development plan. The ordinance was also amended by
Ordinance 3551 on May 3, 1982 to permit expansion of the
facility.
(b) This ordinance shall renumber and amend Planned
Community (PC) district 2592 to permit certain automobile
dealership design standards.The design standards are
substantially similar to those allowed under the City’s
Automobile Dealership overlay district.
SECTION 2. A new section 4 is hereby added to Planned
Community district ordinance 2592 to read as follows:
"Section 4. The following changes to’ the development
plan may be made, subject to Architectural Review
approval, as set forth in Title 18 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code:
(a) Automobile display pads may be added in the
required setback area adjacent to a public right-of-way,
including in landscaped areas. Provided no more than
two such pads shall be added, no automobile display pad
shall be higher than eight feet, as measured to the
highest point of the automobile on the display pad, and
the surface area of each display pad shall be no more
than 175 .square feet.
(b) Parking area muu~±u~u~un~ may ~, p~uv~de~
such modifications shall comply with the following
provisions:
1
0~722 j~ 6030~6
(i) The number of parking spaces provided must
be at least 1 per 400 square feet of sales and
office administration area, and 1 per 500 square
feet of exterior sales or display area, excluding
automobile storage; and
(2) Areas for customer parking shall be
designated; and
(3) Areas for outdoor sales and display of motor
vehicles, other than automobile display pads, shall
meet the minimum design standards applicable to
off-street parking facilities under Title 18 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code with respect to paving,
grading, drainage, safety and protective features,
lighting, and screening. Auto storage and display
areas are not required to be striped for parking
.stall and aisle width; and
(4) Exterior storage shall screened by a solid
wall or fence of between five (5) and eight (8)
feet in height.
(c) Automobile showroom space may be increased,
provided, the total automobile showroom space on the
site may not exceed .a floor area ratio of 0.2:1.
~Automobile showroom space" is that area for the display
of new automobiles, located only on the first floor and
excluding all other uses associated with the automobile
dealership including sales office and sale of related
merchandise. The Director of Planning and Community
Environment is authorized to determine whether floor
area is automobile showroom space, as described above."
SECTION 3. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map", is hereby amended by changing the zone
classification of property located at 690 San Antonio Road from
"Planned Community District PC-2592" to ~Planned Community
District PC- ", as shown in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 4. Except as amended above, by Ordinance 3351,
and by Resolution 4841, Ordinance 2592 remains in full force and
effect.
SECTION 5. 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.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days
after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED .AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
Director of Planning &
Community Environment
!
¯ Goal
~ Streamiine processes
(including PTC, ARB, HRB,
Building and Planning
processes) that undercut
vibrant economic activity.
~c~ion
B. Ci.ty Council to raise "
issue at joint meetings of
Council, Boards and
Commissions, ¯where
¯appropriate.:
C. Develop a~icles in
..CityPages and include
segments in "CityBeat"
Cable TV shows
D. include economic data
P.esponsible
City Council
Members.
Ma,~’ Hanna
P.A. Moore
All Staff
.Time Frarne/Nieasurabte ¯
Results
Ongoing
One articlewitl be included in
each of the next. three editions
of City Pages. Ci~ Beat Cabie
TV show will explore
enhancement of the City’s
economic base in each-of the
next three segments
Ongoing ’
Probability of
Success
:UNCERTAIN .
HIGH
This Strategy will raise
conscio, usness about
the economic impacts
of land. use decisions
H!GH
Authorization
needed
City Council
City Manager.
City Managerin-resource impact
.section of CMRs that deal
with land use and
development issues and
other City decisions.
This strategy will raise
consciousness about
the economic impacts
of land use decisions -
and other city actions.’
A. Audit practices and
processes in building and
planning. Assign time &
costs for p[ocesses and
practices.
Recommendations will be
made for re-enaine~ring
Auditor,
Planning
Director and
other Senior
¯ Staft
The audit will be conducted with
information from business ~
outreach visits, staff interviews
and previousiy conducted
custemer focas groups and
incorporated into
recommendations. Wherever
HIGH
The audit wil! serve as
a blueprint for needed
changes.
City Council,
City Manager
Comprehensive Plan
Policy, Program
Goal G-2 Informed and
involved civic aid
neighboi’hoo~
organizations and
residents
Goal G-2 Informed and
involved civic and
neighborhood
organizations and
residents
Goal B-3 New
businesses tBat provide
needed local services
and municipa! revenues
Goal B-4 City
regulations and
operating procedures
that provide certainty
and predictability B-5
Maintain distinct
business districts within
Palo Alto as a means of
retaining local services
and diversifying the~
B-10 Promote Palo
Alto~s image as a
business friendly
community
B-16 Encourage
streamlining of City
administrative and
Economic Base Milestones
Page 2 of 4
Goal
4. Retain retail sales dolia~s.
in the community
~.. Targe~key projects to avoid
overly lengthy processing
times
Economic Base Milestones
Page 3 of 4
Action
of various pr.ocesses
A. Conduct "Shop Pa!o
Alto" Campaign
A. Use project manager
or "red teams" for key
projects as they go
through the planning
¯ ,)rocess "
Responsibie
Mayc~r and Ad
Hoc
Committee-
and Economic
DeveloPment.
Staff.
City Manager
Senior Staff
Time Frameli~leasurabie
Results
possible, recommendations will
be implemented immediately.
Longer, term changes will be
broken into measurable goals
and scheduled. The audit will
be completed by October 2003.¯
A semi-annual report will be
prepared to update City Council
Probability of
Success
MODERATE/HIGH
DiffiCult to project
actual dollar impacts of
Authorization
needed
City Manager
Comprehensive Plan
Policy, Program
regulatory processes ¯
G-6 More clearly defined
procedures, standards,
and expectations for
development review.
G-11 Enco.urage the "
development of new
¯ planning processes that
emphasize collaborative
exchanges .of ideas.
Goal B-3 New
businesses that p~ovide
Appr:opriate.projects will be
identified during the bi-weekly
la.nd use meetings. Project
manager or red teams will
report to :City Manager at Land
Use Team meetings
’tShop-Palo Alto" ~
camPaign because of
multiple variables
affecting the outcomel
Raised ~w~reness
about revenues.
supporting .City
services will have a
positive impact.-
~ HIGH¯
By monitoring and
guiding high priority
projects and assigning
a staff "¯point person",
¯ inconsistencies will be
resolved an~t projects "
will be completed on a
timely basis.
City Manager
Boards and
commissions
need to buy
into this
process to
make it
effective
needed local services
and municipal revenues
B-5 Maintain distinct
business districts within
Palo Alto as a means of
retaining, local services
and diversifying the
City’s economic base.
Goal B-4 City
regulations & operating
)rocedures that provide
certainty & predictability.
B-10 Promote Palo
Alto’s linageas a
business friendly
community
B-16 Encourage
streamlining of City
administrative and
regulatory processes
Goa~
6. Retain Auto Dealers in FiaIo
Alto
¯ 7. Identify economic
development "best practices"
for implementation in Palo
Alto, as appropriate.
Action
A. Develop specific
proposals.to present to
the Council for further
action
A. HostJVSV Economic
Development Roundtable
Responsible.
Senior Staff
Ad. Hoc
Committee
Time Fra.me/l’~easurabie
Results
The
Provide options and
recommendations to Council.
Design. and recommend auto
use policy to support auto
dealer sector. Implement .
ouncil recommendations.
auto use policy will be
presented to City Council in
February, 2004.
Probability of
Success
Authorization
needed "
City Council
to identify Silicon Valley
economic development
"best practices"
B, Provide summa~ o~
best practices to the City
Manager and/or City
Council.for local
implementation:
Economic
Development
Forum held on May. 28, 2003
Best practic&s summary to be-
distributed by. September 5,
2003
HIGH
Retention of auto
dealers will be
impacted in both the
short and the long "
term. Imprqved
.relationships will
contribute to auto
dealer retention and
increased City
revenues.
MODERATE
-Identification of bestStaffpractices will assist
staff in addressing Iocal
issues using "real
world" techniques that
have been utilized and
proven effective
City Manager
Comprehensive Pian
Policy, Program
Goal B-3 .New.
businesses that provide
needed local services
and municipal revenues
B-5 Maintain distinct
business listricts within
Palo Alto as a means of
retaining local services :
and diversifying the
City’s economic base~
Goal G-3 A leadership
role on regional issues
G-7 Support active
participation of city
Council members, other
City leaders and City
-staff in the resolution of
regional issues that are
relevant to Palo Alto
Economic Base Milestones
Page 4 of 4
ATTACHMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
1
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:John Lusardi, Planning Manager DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
June 16, 2004
Zoning Ordinance Update - Additional Site Development and
Design Standards for Commercial and Industrial Districts to
allow for an Auto Dealership Overlay on sites where existing
Auto Dealerships are located for the sale of new automobiles.
Amend the existing Planned Community Zones that allow the
sale of new automobiles to provide additional Site Development
and Design Standards for existing Auto Dealerships.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review and
recommend the following:
That the staff prepare a zoning ordinance amendment for the ne~ Chapter 18.65 of
Title i8 (Zoning Ordinance) to provide an auto dealership overlay zone
(Combining District) in the Service Commercial District (CS), General ....
Manufacturing (GM) and General Manufacturing Combining District (GMB) to
allow for additional site and design standards for automobile dealerships selling
new automobiles.
That the Planning and Transportation Commission initiate an auto dealership
overlay zone where existing auto dealerships selling new autos currently exist in
the City, located at: 4180 E1 Camino Real (Varsity Fordi, 41’90 E1 Camino Real
(Carlson Volvo), 3290 Park Blvd. (Park Avenue Motors), 762 San Antonio Road
(Hengehold Motors), and 3045 Park Blvd. (Stanford European).
That the Planning and Transportation Commission initiate amendments to three
City of Palo Alto Page
Planned Community sites to allow additional site and design standards for existing
automobile dealerships selling new automobiles located at 1730 Embarcadero
Road (Carlson Motor Cars, PC 2554), 1776 Embarcadero Road (Anderson Honda
PC 3350), ~nd 690 San Antonio Road (Magnussen’s Dodge and Toyota, PC 2592).
BACKGROUND
The Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU) staffhas been working with the City Manager’s
Office and stakeholders to develop land use policy options for retaining existing auto
dealers in the city that sell new and auto manufactures sponsored (pre-owned)
automobiles. Working with existing auto dealers and the City’s Ad Hoe Committee on
Enhancing the City’s Economic Base, the economic development and planning staff has
identified an auto dealership retention strategy to encourage auto dealerships to remain in
the City. In the last several years, the City has lost auto .dealerships including Carleson
Porsehe and Stanford Nissan.
Elements of this retention strategy include more proactive business outreach, assistance in
developing a dealership "synergy" through ongoing meetings with economic development
and planning staff, and developing land use policies or tools to address the specific needs
that an auto dealership has as a commercial business and be competitive in the regional
market. A key element of this competitive advantage also includes the existing auto
dealers’ ability to demonstrate to their manufacture or corporate sponsor that their sites
can provide identity of corporate logo, full service and enough fleet storage. Included in
the retention strategy is the commitment for staff to continue to work with new auto
dealers to develop both short term and long-term strategies including land use and zoning.
A long term strategy includes looking at opportunities and locations where a stronger auto
dealership synergy may be developed to enhance visibility, efficiency of full service
operations and sharing of resources. Short term strategy consists of addressing the current
zoning code development regulations where existing dealerships are located. This
includes flexible development standards to enhance business operation through visibility,
signage, and services. This strategy addresses only new or pre-owned manufactures
sponsored auto sales. Auto dealers that sell exclusively used cars are not included for the
proposed retention strategy.
In developing the recommendations for the auto dealership overlay, staff researched how
other cities have provided flexible development standards within their zoning ordinances.
This research included the cities of San Leandro, Davis, Menlo Park, and Burbank.
DISCUSSION
The current zoning districts for existing auto dealers are varied including Service
Commercial (CS), General Manufacturing Combining District (GMB) and specific
Planned Community Zoning Districts. In the CS and GM zones auto dealerships require a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP). However, these zone districts do not contain the -
City of Palo Alto Page 2
flexibility necessary to compete with newer auto malls, freeway visibility and large sites
in nearby cities. It is the goal of the City to retain dealerships selling new automobiles as
sales tax generators and businesses that provide a menu oflocaI services to the
community including sales, service and warranty maintenance. The implementation of
flexible development standards through the zoning ordinance update is one component of
the overall retention strategy that staff is developing.
The most recent sales tax figures (Ca!endar year 2003) indicate that sales tax revenue
from local auto related uses contributed $2,i08,201 annually to Palo Alto. This
represents 12.2% of the total sales tax revenue. Auto dealers are located on
approximately 19 acres of land (this figure excludes the former Stanford Nissan dealer
located at 3001 El Camino Real where a used car dealer is now located and Corporate
Motors which has sales for used cars periodically). This generates approximately
$269,000 in average sales tax revenue per acre.
Auto dealerships have minimal adverse impacts in comparison to other potential
commercial land uses. They are low traffic generators and provide valuable services to
the community including automobile repair and warranty maintenance. While
rents/leases in this sector are not very high, leases to auto dealers can often be long term
in nature. Sales tax dollars generated by auto sales have been a historically stable revenue
source to fund city services.
Conversations with auto dealership representatives in Palo Alto in~licate that their goal is
to locate near highways on large parcels of land to obtain maximum exposure to regional
traffic, easy access from regional markets and large on-site inventories. Currently few of
these dealers have the visibility required to maximize their operations.
To retain local auto dealers, Palo Alto should address these needs. While some
limitations occur due to available inventory of sites and environmental constraints, an
auto dealer policy that aims .at retaining auto uses while balancing community needs is
important.
There are currently eight existing new car auto dealerships in the City of Palo Alto, as
follows (see Attaehrnent A, location maps):
Dealership
Carlsen Audi, 1730 Embarcadero Rd.
Anderson Honda, 1766 Embarcadero Rd.
Varsity/Peninsula Ford, 4180 El Camino Real
Carlsen Volvo, 4190 E1 Camino Real
Park Ave. Motors, 3290 Park Blvd.
Stanford European, 3045 Park Blvd.
Zoning Site Size
PC 2.3 acres
PC 4.9 acres
CS 1.8 acres
CS 1.5 acres
CS 0.7 acres
GM (B)1.4 acres
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Magnussen’s Toyota, 690 San Antonio Rd.
Hengehold Motors, 762 San Antonio Rd.
PC 4.4 acres
CS 2.0 acres
ZONING ORDIANCE UPDATE
In order to address the specific needs of auto dealerships with new and pre-owned auto
sales, staff has identified the areas within the existing zoning standards where the need
for flexible auto dealership development standards can be addressed.
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
In the CS zone, the existing maximum floor area currently allowed is .4: I and in the GM
zone, it is .5:1 for non-residential uses. The show room area is avery low intensity use
for the size of the area needed to display automobiles. The auto dealership’s ability to
transfer this same area to other parts of their operation or expand their showrooms would
enable them to expand key operations and services that are provided to their customers.
This would include additional service areas for auto repair, minor body shop repairs, car
wash, and rental.
Staff proposes that the square footage devoted to interior showroom space be exempted
from FAR. This is similar to what is permitted in industrial districts for employee amenity
areas such as cafeterias or childcare service. The provision for exempting showroom
space from FAR would apply to existing and new showroom space. In the draft overlay
ordinance staff will define what constitutes interior auto showroom space. The proposed
development standards for theexemption would also prohibit the conversion of the show
room area to another use.
Parking for customer, employees, se_rvice bays, display and vehicle storage
Auto dealerships are typically a very low traffic generator for customers, administrative
staff and service staffin comparison to the amount of building and site area required to
provide a full service operation. Therefore, flexible parking standards recommended for
this use includes the following: .
One parking space per 400 sq. ft. of salves and office administration area, where
one space per 350 sq. ft. is now required. One space per 500 sq. ft. of exterior sales
or display area; this would delete parking requirement for outdoor storage area.
Dealerships would not be required to stripe auto display and storage areas. The
dealership would still need to maintain any requirements for safety and fire access.
Screening would be required from adjacent residential uses for auto display,
parking and storage. Screening would be required from public view, pedestrian
pathways; and adjacent parcels for auto storage.
With the adjustment to these parking standards, the dealer would be required to
designate visitor parking.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Signage
Visibility is a critical element for the success of auto dealerships. Although areas such as
E1 Camino Real and San Antonio Road provide high volume traffic, most new car dealers
depend upon their ability to capture customers through distinct signage and advertising
including corporate and car manufactures’ logos. Low monument and building wall signs
may not achieve the dealership’s needed visibility. Only four of the eight existing
dealerships are located on E1 Camino Real and San Antonio Road, and none of them have
freeway frontage or vMbility. Freestanding pole signs that advertise the dealer’s
manufactures’ logo are often the preference for auto dealers.
Chapter 16.20 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) addresses sign regulations for
commercial development, including auto dealerships. There are provisions in this chapter
that permit pole signs over 5 feet. The frontage of the site in linear feet determines the
permitted height and sign dimensions. However, pole signs are only allowed in the GM
zone and on E1 Camino Real, in the CN and CS zones. Some of the dealers are not located
in these areas, and the linear frontage may further restrict their ability to maximize the
height of a pole sign. There are other issues that the auto dealers have identified regarding
signage. These include the desire for intemally illuminated signs and temporary signs
including banners for limited times during the year for sale events whereas the City
discourages these types of signs. In addition, there may be cases where existing
dealership signage is legal non-conforming, which could affect the replacement of the
sign.
Staff is recommending that the issue of signage, specifically provisions for free standing
pole signs be further developed and discussed with the existing auto dealerships. Staff
would then provide to the Commission and Council recommendations for revisions to
Chapter 16.20 as well as existing signage for the auto dealerships located in the City.
Display pads or platforms
An additional important element identified by auto dealers is their ability to display new
vehicles as close to the public fight-of-way as possible for both identity and to capture
potential customers’ attention driving by in cars. An auto display also provides a means
for the dealer-to identify their corporate or manufactures logo.
Current zoning standards in the CS (Section18.45.050) and GM (Section 18.55.050)
require that outdoor display of merchandise shall not exceed the gross floor area on the
site, except with a CLIP, and such display shall meet all off-street parking minimum
standards.
Staff is proposing to allow up to two display pads to encroach into landscape areas, but
may not be over 8 feet in height to the top of the vehicle. This displayarea would not
count toward gross floor area and specific display pad size (in addition to height) will be
City of Palo Alto Page 5
defined in the ordinance.
Landscaping and Screening
Because of the need to provide as much full service and auto storage as possible all of the
existing auto dealerships have site constraints for sales and operations. They have
identified the need for flexible landscaping and screening requirements areas that provide
for auto repair, service and storage on site. Often, on-site landscaping requirements
impede the ability to provide fleet storage and display as well as add additional services
such as new service bays. The auto dealers also recognize the importance of being good
neighbors, especially with adjacent residential uses, and that proper screening, lighting
and noise attenuation should be provided and maintained in those areas.
Staff is proposing the following flexible landscape and screening standards for the
existing auto dealerships:
o
o
o
Ten feet wide landscape strip for areas adjoining a public street.
Parking lot trees would not be required ~or display vehicles and fleet storage.
All new improvements shall meet current storm water requirements.
An 8-foot decorative wall shall be required for screening from residential areas,
including when creeks and streets separate adjacency to residences. This would
eliminate the existing requirement for a 10 foot landscape buffer in the CS
(SectionlS.45.070(b)(2) (3)) and GM (18.55.070(b(2)(3)).
. Accessory uses that support full service dealership8
An important element to auto dealerships is their ability to provide a full business service
beyond auto sales. This full service operation not only serves new car buyers, but also a
wider segment of the community that need or desire auto dealerships to service their cars.
In discussions with the auto dealerships, it is apparent that their range of services as
accessory rises needs to be clarified in the new auto dealership overlay zone.
Therefore, in the new auto dealership overlay zone, staff recommends identifying the
following allowed accessory uses: service bays, minor body repair, ear wash, and car
rental facilities. All of these accessory uses would be required to meet alI building, safety,
and environmental requirements from the city.
Auto Fleet Storage allowed in Industrial Zones
Another important element that the existing auto dealerships have identified is the need to
have sufficient fleet storage for new car buyers. This ability to access autos for inspection
or delivery adds to their competition with other auto dealers in the bay area. Because of
their ~.xisting site constraints and the need to continue a full service operation, their ability
to provide onsite storage of autos is limited. Therefore, staff has discussed with the auto
dealerships that a way to address their fleet storage needs is by providing the ability to
City of Palo Alto Page 6
allow off-site storage, within short proximity to their dealerships. The auto dealerships
have concurred that this would be an important assistance for operations with their on-site
saies and service.
Staff has explored several land uses and zones that would accommodate fleet storage
without impacting other land uses such as residential neighborhoods. For the near term
staff is recommending that off-site auto storage, only associated with new auto
dealerships, be allowed in the General Manufacturing (GM and GM (B)) and Limited
Manufacturing (LM) Districts. These areas have large surface parking and lighting to
accommodate fleet storage. They are also located in non-residential areas, where shuttling
of ears would not affect local residential streets.
In addition, where vacant industrial/office buildings exist this could provide an
opportunity for those property owners to generate revenue for unleashed space on their
site. Where buildings may be occupied, should the property owner want to lease unused
spaces, they would f’trst have to demonstrate that the parking requirements have be met
for the occupied building space.
An option for the Commission’s consideration would be to requirea Temporary Use
Permit for up to 120 days for offsite storage, which may be renewed by the Director upon
request. This could provide for monitoring by staff of how and where fleet storage is
being utilized offsite.
The provision for allowing auto fleet storage in the GM and LM zone will be addressed in
the draft R&D and Manufacturing Zoning District Chapter, which is scheduled to be
reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission on June 30, 2004. ,
ZONING ORDIANCE UPDATE - Next Steps,
Staff is recommending =that the flexible development standards for existing new and pre-
owned autos be approved and implemented prior to the adoption of the Final Zoning
Ordinance Update. Based on the Planning and Transportation Commission .........
recommendation for the these standards, staff will prepare a draft Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 18.65 which will establish the New Auto Dealership Combing District (Overly)
for the General Manufacturing (GM), General Manufacturing Combining District (GMB),
and the Commercial Service (CS) District.
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission initiate the
application of the New Auto Dealership Combining District by directing staff to prepare a
Draft Ordinance that would implement the overlay for the five existing auto dealerships
listed above in the CS and GM (B) zoning districts.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission initiate amending
the three PC zoning districts listed above by directing staff to prepare an Draft Ordinance
to include the flexible development standards for the existing new auto dealership in
those zoning districts. ~
On June 30, 2004 the Planning and Transportation Commission will hold a public hearing
to recommend to the City Council the adoption of the ordinances creating the new auto
dealership combing district, Chapter 18.65 of Title 18, and implementing the
development standards for the eight existing auto dealership sites.
The City Council is scheduled to hear these items on August 2, 2004.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Review for adoption of the new Auto Dealership Chapter 18.65 will
proceed with the completion of the ordinance after incorporating all changes to the
recommendations discussed above. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed flexible
¯development standards for new auto dealerships do not have significant impacts and that
they do not go beyond those already analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan.
ATTACtIMENTS/EXttlBITS:
Attachment A: Dealership site locations
COURTESY COPIES:
City Council
Anderson Honda
Varsity/Peninsula Ford
Carlsen Volvo
Park Ave. Motors
Stanford European
Magnussen’s Toyota
Hengehold Motors
Ms. Glenda Gavenman
Susan Arpan
Landee Lopez
Prepared by: John Lusardi, Planning Manager
Reviewed by! Lisa Grote, Chief Plamling Official
iL~s~ote, ~ Plannmg gff~fic~al~-
Cib/ of Palo Alto Page 8
Attachment A
City of
Carlson Motor Cars
(Audi),
173 0 Emb.arcadero Road
Zoning: PC-2554
Size in Acres (estimated):
2,3 acres
Building Size: 17,470 sqft
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
Palo Alto
./Zomng. PC-3350 ~x
Size in Acres (estimated): /
4.9 Acres \,/ ",,,.
Building Size: 39,244 sqft "( \,,,
Anderson Honda
1766 Embarcadero Road
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
Palo AIto
Varsity Ford
4180 E1 Camino Real
This map Is a product of the
Cily of Palo Alto GIS
This map is a product of the
Cib/of Palo AIIo GIS
Calson Volvo
4190 E1 Camino Real
This map Is a product of the
Ci~ of Palo Alto GIS
The City of
PaIo Alto
:2
Magnussen’s Dodge
and Toyota
690 San Antoniio Rd.
This map is a product of the
Cily of Palo Alto GIS
O"99"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
~MEETINGS ~ CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26’,’
Wednesday, June 16 at 6:00 PM
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Paio Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL: 6:00 PM
Commissioners:
Michael Griffin - Chair
Phyllis Cassel- Vice-Chair
Karen Holman
Patrick Butt
Bonnie Packer
Annette Bialson - absent
Lee I. Lippert
Staffi"
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to City Attorneys
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
John Lusardi, Planning Manager, Special Projects
¯Susan Ondik, Planner
Robin Ellner, Staff Secretary
Olubayo Elirnisha, Staff Secretary
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
1.Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU) - PIarming and Transportation review and
recommendation for a new Auto Dealership (AD) Combining District.
2.South Palo Alto School Commute Corridor Study.
3.Discussion and comments on Proposed Walkway Improvements between Oregon Avenue
and Middlefield Road and Oregon Avenue and Louis Road.
Chair Griffin: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Welcome to the Wednesday, June 16
Special Meeting of the Palo Alto Plug and Transportation Commission. Will the Secretary
please call the roll? Thank you.
This takes us to the Oral Communications part of the agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.
City of Palo Alto Page I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
1 Chair Griffin: Do we have any cards for Oral Communications? No. That takes us to New
2 Business.
3
4 CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the
5 calendar by a Commission Member.
6
7 AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONSAND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
Chair Griffin: I will open the public hearing on agenda item number one, which is Zoning
Ordinance Update where the Commission will review and make recommendations for a new
Auto Dealership Combining District. This will involve first of all reviewing and making
recommendations for the establishment of such an ordinance in the Municipal Code. Secondly,
to initiate the combining district to encompass the auto dealerships on El Camino Real and Park
Boulevard and thirdly to initiate amendments to three Planned Community zones that encompass
the dealerships on Embarcadero Road and San Antonio Road at Middlefield. Would Staff please
make a presentation?
NEW B USINESS:
Public Hearings.
Zonin~ Ordinance Update (ZOU) - Planning and Transportation review and
recommendation for a new Auto Dealership (AD) Combining District.
1. Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommendation for the approval
of an Ordinance to add a combining district (overlay) establishing development standards
for existing Auto Dealerships to Chapter 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code.
2. Planning and Transportation Commission to initiate an Auto Dealership (AD)
Combining District zoning for the following existing auto dealership sites: 3001 E1
Camino Real, 4180 E1 Camino Real, 4190 E1 Camino Real, 3290 Park Blvd, and 3045
Park Blvd.
3. Planning and Transportation Commission to initiate an amendment to three Planned
Community Zoning sites to allow new development standards for the existing auto
dealership uses, located at: 1730 Embarcadero Road (PC2554), 1766 Embarcadero Road
(PC3350), and 690 San Antonio Road (PC2592).
SR Weblink: htt’p://www,ciWofpaloalto:or~eiWagenda]_r~ublish/olanning-transportation.
meetings/3406,pdf
Mr. John Lusardi, Planning Manager., .Special Pro_~ects: Members of the Commission I am John
Lusardi of the Planning Department. I would like to introduce Susan At-pan the Economic
Manager from the.City Manager’s Office.
Ms. Susan Arpan, Economic Manager: Good evening. I just want to quickly go over a couple of
facts about the auto dealers to let you know who everyone is. Carlson, the first line there is
spelled wrong it has an ’e’ instead of an ’o’ so I just wanted to mention that. The auto dealers in
Palo Alto that now exist are Carlson Audi, Anderson Honda, Varsity actually it is Peninsula Ford
and a lot of people know it as Varsity Ford, Carlson Volvo, Park Avenue Motors which is
affiliated with Smyth Auto, Stanford European, Magnussen’s Toyota and Hengehold Motors.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1 We have had a number of meetings with auto dealers in the last couple of years and we have ’
2 tried to listen to the kinds of things that they indicated to us would make it easier to keep a
3 location in Palo Alto and to expand in our community. As you know auto dealers provide with
4 low intensity very good services to residents and sales tax revenue to support City services.
5
6
7
8
9
10
1I
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
The criteria for auto dealer locations that most of the auto dealers are looking at are a few of
these things that are on the PowerPoint above. Freeway visibility, it is important for them to be
seen and to be able to be returned to by people so they don’t have to navigate their way through
town. They need to easily accessible. They need easy access for potential regional customers
and they need the availability of land for large onsite inventories. It is better to have the
inventory, we have been told, with the auto dealer but many of our auto dealers have separated
these two functions. For example Carlson Volvo has auto storage at the Elk’s Loge and a dealer
down the road, They need flexibility in requirements for signage. They need large parcels of
land avallable for showroom, storage and parking.
I want to just mention real briefly really what auto dealers contribute to the local economy. The
auto related sales tax revenue for 2003 contributed $2,108,201 to the local economy. That
represents about 12% of the City’s General Fund revenue. So it is substantial. Those numbers
were a little bit higher when the economy was a little bit better but it is eertairdy a portion of the
revenue that supports City services. The average sales tax revenue per acre is approximately
$269,000 yearly. They provide valuable services to residents. I want to sort of point out the fact
that most residents that I talk to like the idea of having the auto dealer in their community so they
don’t have to drive to San Leandro or drive to Redwood City or drive to San Jose to have their
vehicle serviced that they are able to do business in the City. Then of course there is the
multiplier effect of local dollars that are spent locally and that is a value to the City as well.
Mr. Lusardi: The item before you tonight is the initiation of an overlay zone containing flexible
development standards for new auto sales and dealerships. The initial focus is on the existing
auto dealerships for new ear sales and pre-owned sales within the City. We really want to
develop an overlay zone for these auto dealerships. I want to emphasize two points here.
Number one is the overlay zone is not a rezoning it is not a new zone district. It goes over the
existing zoning district. So in the GM and in the CS districts it goes over those districts. The
underlying permitted uses and standards for other uses remain. This just deals directly with an
auto dealership on a particular site and in this ease it is existing auto dealerships. Secondly,
because some of the auto dealerships are Planned Community Zones we cannot put art overlay
on a Planned Commtmity Zone so that is why we are asking the Commission to amend the
Planned Community zoning and then we will arnend it with the same flexible development
standards as the overlay that is being recommended to you tonight.
The real thrust is to address right now the short term needs of the existing auto dealerships by
implementing some initial flexible stand~ds that they have identified that would assist them in
using their sites more efficiently and the site constraints that they have historically built up over
time. We also want to provide, and this is an important step this evening, we want to provide for
that auto dealership combining district in the Zoning Ordinance Update that could be used to
implement both short term strategies and long term strategies. So it really provides for an
opportunity for retention and recruitment in the future. We are asking that this be moved
forward in front of the Zoning Ordinance Update and when we complete the Zoning Ordinance
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Update we will find the proper place for the overlay. Right now we are asking the Commission
to create a new chapter in the Zoning Ordinance just for auto dealership overlay.
This is as Susan pointed out a combined retention strategy, economic development and land use
policy strategy. Auto dealerships currently are identified as auto services and they are permitted
with a CUP in the CS zone and in the GM zone or through a PC zone. The CUP is not intended
to change with this ordinance at this time we will still keep the CUP requirement. There are no
current zoning standards specific to the existing operation for full service dealers or address
existing site conditions and their existing constraints. That is there are no development standards
that specifically speak to auto dealerships and some of their needs. It is general commercial
development standards and some of those development standards do have conflicts with what we
have identified and discussed with auto dealerships as far as their ability to function and ....
compete. This is as I said part of a retention and economic development strategy. We need to
develop the new overlay zone that provides flexible standards necessary t6 compete with new
auto malls, freeway visibility and large sites in other cities. It also assists the auto dealerships in
a very significant way. It gives them the ability to demonstrate to their manufacturers or
corporate sponsors to insure identity and full service operations can be fulfilled within the City.
I think that is an important emphasis for the relationship with the auto dealerships and the
corporations or the manufacturers as far as their ability to maintain that manufacturer’s
sponsorship and relationship.
The combining district itself besides creating the combining district with an overlay zone we
have identified several what I am calling adjustments to the existing commercial or
manufacturing standards that will assist the auto dealerships themselves. The first is floor area
ratio. We are recommending that the new overlay zone exempt the low intensity of the existing
or any new showroom space from required FAR. We need to take that one step further. What
the ordinance says is to define exactly what is that showroom space. Then we also will call out
that that showroom space once it is exempted from FAR cannot be converted to something else.
So that showroom space is really dedicated to the showrooms and the visibility and the activity
of auto sales. I would say it is akin to the existing industrial districts now where an industrial
district of an industrial developer went in and they wanted to put in for instance a cafeteria to
serve their employees that is exempt from floor area ratio. It is that kind of a.bonus to recognize
that kind of a use that is unique to auto dealerships.
The second is parking. We are looking at parking in the way of simply adjusting the parking
requirements to again recognize the specific needs of auto dealerships mainly in the area of
where they and how they have to store their cars and the low intensity use as far as customers
and such or bringing service to the dealers themselves. So we are looking to adjust this some of
the design standards that is striping on parking lots, some of the requirements that may be for
trees in parking lots and some of the parking ratios themselves to reduce that so auto dealerships
can take better advantage of their needs to store fleet ears or do servicing.
Signage is an important component that the auto dealerships have identified as far as enhancing
their visibility and competitiveness with other auto dealerships, At the same time Staff
recognizes that this is a sensitive issue within the sign ordinance itself and on arterial streets such
as E1 C~o and San Antonio. We recognize that something has to be addressed and should be
addressed with respect to auto dealerships and we are simply recommending at this time that the
Commission direct Staffto work with the auto dealers, review Chapter 16 of the Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3I
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Municipal Code which is the sign ordinance and look at existing conditions and look at what
other cities are doing relative to auto dealership signs. Right now there is an array of other cities
doing very different things with respect to auto dealerships as far as signage goes. We want to
explore that further and bring that back to you. Existing conditions for auto dealerships as far as
signs goes of the eight dealerships there are currently four with monument signs, one with a pole
sign and all of them have building signs on them.
The next is display pads or platforms. That is again recognizing something that is not only
unique but also existing with auto dealerships and their ability to display an automobile, which
enhances their corporate identity and enhances their merchandise and what they want to sell. We
want to develop some flexible standards that allows them to increase their visibility by putting in
auto platform display pads within the landscape area and not have it subject to the FAR which
currently in the zoning ordinance requires outdoor merchandise to be counted as part of the FAR.
So in our mind that is an adjustment to again the existing ordinance for auto dealerships.
Landscaping and screening is a further response to the constraints that the auto dealerships have
identified on their sites. Again the thrust here is to deal with the existing constraints of auto
dealerships. A good deal of the operations of auto dealerships is storing their cars, keeping ears
that they have to service during the day and those constraints. Adjunct to that is recognizing the
fact that some auto dealerships have adjacency with residential uses and more sensitive uses. We
think that can be easily addressed with the existing standards of requiring an eight to ten foot
decorative wall which creates that separation but removing the need for the ten foot planting strip
along there which really does reduce their ability to put in driveway space or additional parking
and those kinds of constraints that they are faced with now. If they want to expand and add a
service bay that could trigger more parking, it triggers improvements to the site such as a wall or
a screening, which triggers additional landscape. That has a cause and effect of reducing their
ability to come back and put in a service bay or put in additional space for their operation.
Accessory uses is simply a clarification. These uses are now identified in the definitions of the
Zoning Ordinance and it is identified under the entire auto services use for both new sales and
used sales. What Staff’simply wants to do is recognize the accessory uses that full service
dealerships now have in place and put that in the overlay zone so it is clearly identified for new
auto sales within that overlay zone and those accessory uses are permitted. They would be
subject to all other City standards such as environmental standards, fire and building standards as
well.
The last aspect that we want to address tonight is auto fleet storage. Again, it speaks to the
existing site constraints of auto dealerships within the City, their ability to store fleet vehicles for
both show, for customer inspection and to again create that relationship with corporate and
manufacturers that they have the ability to store enough vehicles to be a full service and a
significant and competitive dealership. We have looked at different ways to address this fleet
storage. Our initial recommendation right now is to look at the existing GM and LM districts
where fleet service could take place in close proximity to auto dealerships so that shuttling of
cars would not be a huge impact to them. It would allow them to increase their fleet storage. It
could be done on sites that would not necessarily be intrusive to residential districts. We want to
be sensitive to that nature. And, we also recognize the fact that there are existing industrial sites
within the City that are vacant. So this could be an opportunity for an industrial property owner
to generate some revenue with an auto dealership while there is a vacancy. We do need to
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
address the issue that if they permit auto storage on their site and part of the building is occupied
that parking for that occupancy is addressed~ Right now we are recommending that that be done
through a temporary use permit so we can monitor the auto storage on industrial sites.
Two additional areas that we need to address in the future and we will address and we recognize
the overall sensitivity of those as well is lighting and noise. We will continue to work with the
auto dealerships and work with those standards for further recommendation to the Commission
and the Council.
This evening Staff is recommending that you direct us to prepare that Zoning Ordinance
amendment to Chapter 18.65 to establish that auto dealership combining zone which would be an
overlay. Then to initiate the overlay zone on the five existing auto dealerships that have
conventional zoning, GM and CS, and then to initiate the amendments to the three existing auto
dealerships that have PC zoning that will have the same flexible development standards that are
in the new overlay zone. We will rettma to the Commission on June 30 for your final
recommendation to the City Council. This item is scheduled to go to the City Council on August
2. Staff is here to answer any questions. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues, do you have questions that you would like to pose to Staff at this
time? Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I have a couple of questions. With regard to Carlson Audi, Anderson
Honda and Maguussen’s Toyota those are PCs. Do you know what those PCs are defined as?
Mr, Lusardi: They are defined specifically for the auto dealership use. Are you talking about
what development standards went into those PCs?
Commissioner Lippert: Yes, within those PCs there are public benefits when they were granted.
Do you know what those are?
Mr. Lusardi: I know two of those PCs were back in the 1970s and I am not sure that public
benefits were at that point. I can’t believe that they were substantial to be honest with you,
Ms. Lisa Grote. Chief Planning Official: We could do the research on that but typically on the
older Planned Community zones the public benefits are not spelled out in the ordinance. So we
would need to research that and look into the files to see if they are even discussed there.
Co~issioner Lippert: Okay. With Carlson Audi and Anderson Honda those are both located
out in the Baylands, they are in the flood zone. Are there any issues with regard to them being in
the flood zone that impact those sites?
M~. Lusardi: Yes there is. It does affect their ability to expand and add structures because they
would have to meet flood zone requirements and that is a big constraint for them. They have
identified that. So we continue to work with them through the Building Department to help them
in doing that. Some of the things we are suggesting here like auto display and those other things
wouldn’t affect the flood zone requirements necessarily. There is also an issue about sensitivity
to the Baylands itself and the Baylands Master Plan calls out for the southerly line where those
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
auto dealerships are next to the Baylands needs to have a sensitive buffer which currently exists
and I don’t anticipate would be changed through any overlay or PC amendments.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Do you want me to continue with my questions or pass it along
to someone else?
Chair Cu-iffin: I would like to pass it on down ifI could. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Yes. The last question that Lee asked and your response. These
dealerships on Embarcadero are subject to Site and Design Review. There are design standards
for the Baylands that are being compiled. But there are constraints. There are supposed to be
compatible with the environment. So how would you see these recommendations being in
concert with those?
Mr. Lusardi: The two specific design standards that are called out in the Baylands Master Plan
and first let me say that the two PC zonings for these two sites occurred before the Master Plan
was adopted. The Baylands Master Plan as we identified calls out two specific development
standards. First is along that Embarcadero corridor which is kind of the gateway into the
Baylands that sensitivity be addressed with respect to expansion or more intrusive uses within
that area that could affect the Baylands. We don’t anticipate that either of those two dealerships
are going to expand to the extent that it is going to be more intrusive than the existing
development already is with respect to the Baylands. The s.econd specific development or
guideline standard is as I said that sensitive to the southerly portion of those two dealership sites
that are adjacent to the Baylands. It calls out that a sensitive buffer must be maintained with
respect to the Baylands on the southerly portion. Those are the two key guidelines that we have
identified in the Baylands Master Plan as far as addressing those businesses on Embarcadero
Road in that area.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: A follow up to that is we recently reviewed, I unfortunately don’t have
the Baylands Master Plan memorized, but we did recently review a large development at East
Bayshore Road and Embarcadero. It was subject to compatibility guidelines and standards. It
would seem to me that changes to these projects here whether or not they were developed before
or after the Baylands Master Plan was adopted should be subject to those same criteria.
Wouldn’t that be?
Mr. Lusardi: I can’t speak to the specific criteria of that development. I don’t disagree with you
and I am not saying that because the zoning occurred before the Master Plan that they are not
subject to the Master Plan at this time. I agree with you in that respect. I think what we are
saying is the standards or the flexible standards that we are proposing here we don’t anticipate
having a great effect or impact on the Baylands. A lot of what we are talking about here is more
on the Embarcadero Road portion of it. The fleet storage occurs further back where the
Baylands are and I don’t think we would anticipate or even support any kind of change to that
buffer area that currently exists between the auto dealerships and the Baylands. So I think I
agree with you that it does have to address the sensitivity to the Baylands and I think any
improvements would.
CiO~ of Palo dlto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a question about the scope of the overlay. As I understand it the
overlay zone woutd apply to all parcels that are now zones CS and al! parcels that are now zoned
GM and GM(B) whether or not those parcels have an auto dealership on them. Is that correct?
Mr. Lusardi: Yes, that is correct.
Commissioner Packer: So that means that conceivably any of these parcels if they wanted to
have an auto dealership on them would be under the same new development guidelines. Is that
right?
Mr. Lusardi: That is correct.
Commissioner Packer: Many of the CS properties, in fact almost all of them are either on El
Camino or San Antonio Road or Fabian Way and Encino Way. So I wonder if any consideration
was given as to what impact this would have on CS properties visa vie the E1 Camino Design
Guidelines?
Mr. Lusardi: I think any new development would be subject to the ]El Camino Design
Guidelines. That is my feeling. Furthermore, I want to point out although we are creating an
overlay that could be applied within the CS or the GM zone it technically is a rezoning. That
means that we require an application by an applicant or a developer to apply that zone. We are
not intending that someone could just walk in and just put that overlay zone on their property and
develop an auto dealership. So it would be a zoning process. It would be a Planning
Commission review and a Council review to apply that overlay zone on any other property on
the City other than what we are recommending this evening which is the existing dealerships.
Commissioner Packer: I don’t understand how that works legally. I thought if there is an
overlay on the zone then it just applies. Why would you treat these existing ones differently?
Mr. Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to City Attorneys: There is actually two parts to your
action. First of alI you are establishing the text of the district and then the second
recommendation is actually applying that. You do have to take a separate action to apply.it to
the various properties. As John pointed out right now Staff is only recommending that we apply
it to those existing dealerships but later on if somebody had a property other than one of those
existing dealerships and was in one of those districts then you would have a chance to consider
that separately. That is a discretionary zoning action.
Commissioner Packer: So another parallel kind of process could be that the dealerships that
currently do not have a PC could apply for a PC and that would also be a zoning process. So
would the process be more cumbersome if instead they just applied for a PC that had relaxed
standards as opposed to having an overlay on all the CS properties?
Ms. Grote: Well, currently a PC rezoning application would require a public benefit component.
This particular overiay that is being proposed would not have a public benefit component it more
specifically addresses the needs of auto dealerships.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Why do you consider an automobile use a low intensity use?
Mr. Lusardi: Maybe Susan wants to answer this but what we have identified is the fact of how
many customers come during a period of time in the evenings and on weekends. It is low
customer as far as during the overall period. The customer servicing usually come in very early
in the morning and then arrive at five or six o’clock. So it is not necessarily a day-long retail
type of business or a large business where you have a lotof customers coming in continually and
doing shopping and buy small stuff. They are purchasing a ear.
Vice-Chair CasseI: Can I ask another question? Unless you wanted to respond?
Ms. Grote: The only other thing that I was going to mention is that it is low intensity in terms of
the number of employees per square foot too.
Vice-Chair Cassel: The other very strong characteristic about these services is that they have a
lot of impervious surface on the site. With the new materials that are out could you include in
this ordinance some way to use some of the more pervious surfaces that might also meet their
needs?
Mr. Lusardi: Yes we would. We have identified that we would be applying new storm water
retention requirements that could include pervious pavers instead of asphalt. Again, just to
emphasize what we are realIy addressing tonight are some existing conditions and to get the
overlay initiated and to address the existing conditions. If there is new paving coming in for the
existing motor dealerships we will certainly work with them to try and develop pervious material
that would work for them and help the City as well.
Chair Griffin: John, you say that Staffresearched how other cities are providing flexible
development standards and you list San Leandro, Davis, Menlo Park and Burbank. Is Burbank
Burlingame perhaps?
Mr. Lusardi: No it was Burbank. In response to an email to a Commissioner I indicated this
afternoon that we did not look at Burlingame. I subsequently talked to our Staff and we have
looked at Burlingame and Burlingame has a similar overlay standard. Their flexibility standards
are significantly more than what we are proposing here as far as allowed signage goes, as far as
exempting parking that already exists so they do have an auto overlay zone similar to what we
are proposing. We did research Burlingame I just wasn’t aware of that at the time.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I just want to follow up with Phyllis’s line of questioning. With regard
to the pervious surface area what the City is recommending is something similar to what we
require now of parking lots for commercial buildings where they put in the parking lots for the
employees and that needs to have storm water retention?
Mr. Lusardi: Yes, it would trigger the current storm water retention requirements. So whether it
was pervious material or a different retention system obviously adding a lot of landscaping and
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
bioswales is probably not going to work for the existing auto dealers. So they could put in a
different retention system and still meet the current requirements. It would also require them to
meet any current standards for car washing, retention of water from car washes or anything that
they add as far as those facilities.
Commissioner Lippert: That just brings me to one other question, which is associated with that.
What about lighting in those areas? Obviously if you have a lot ofears there they are going to be
subject to people wanting to break in and maybe steal them. How would those parking lots be
illuminated? Would they have to meet the same standards for commercial buildings’?.
Mr. Lusardi: You are talking about the auto fleet storage areas in the industrial zones that we are
proposing? I think that issue of security we are looking at to be worked out between the City
with the temporary use permit, the owner and the auto dealer. Obviously the auto dealer is going
to have a high degree of concern about security there. We are not proposing any different
relaxation of parking standards that are now in place for parking lots in those areas, which
require lighting and the same types of striping and everything. If security were in the sense of
fencing needs to be added I think that would be something we would address through the
temporary use permit and quite conceivably an ARB permit if that were required.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay. I have one follow up on that and then I will let somebody else
have a chance. The reason I am asking this line of questioning is right now we have a cap or a
limit as to how much foot candles parking lots can have and that is so we don’t wind up with a
whole bunch of light pollution. If you drive down the E1 Camino for instance gas stations appear
to just sort ofblast their light and it goes everywhere. They are using high intensity discharge
lighting. We are not going to have a situation like that where the auto dealers are illuminating
their parking lots late at night to show off the cars and annoying the neighbors.
Mr. Lusardi: You are still talking about the storage areas?
Commissioner Lippert: Storage and display now.
Mr. Lusardi: No, at this time we are not proposing any changes to the existing lighting standards
whether it is in the GM and LM zones for the fleet storage opportunities or whether it is with the
existing dealerships. We do recognize that that’s an issue but we recognize that it is an issue we
need to be very careful about and we will address it in the future under this overlay zone. Right
now we are not proposing to change any of the existing standards.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I posed several questions to Staff earlier and one of them I am looking
actually for some response from the public when they speak so that’s why I want to get it on
now. I had asked if there is any known relationship between the amount of showroom space and
.the rest of the dealership space? The reason I am going there is because if you look at a worst
case scenario and especially considering that dealerships are separating their inventory from their
show room and sales spaces in a worst ease scenario you could have a dealership have a very
large all exempted fxom floor area ratio showroom space and its sales site be in another city, say
if it is in South Palo Alto and there is a small sales site in Mountain View very nearby Palo Alto
could still be losing the retail sales tax dollars. So that is something that came up for me and I
City of Palo Alto.Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
just wanted to put that on the table and hopefully the speakers that are here from the auto
dealerships can tell me what the relationship is between those.
I had questions also about the landscape buffer, which is now ten feet, the landscape strip and
Staff is recommending an eight-foot wall. Especially where these adjoin residential areas an
eight foot wall could have an impact and if we are allowing driveways right along beside those
eight foot walls that could have a significant impact also on neighboring parcels. So I had posed
a question about if we are going to relax the ten foot Iandseape strip that it maybe not be ten feet
and that there be some required trees or tall shrubs along there to help buffer the noise. Also I
was wondering why eight foot as opposed to six feet because walls can act as reverberaters of
noise and landscape can actually help muffle that so why the eight feet? John you did respond to
the landscape but it raised other questions about driveways and such and I am concerned about
noise.
Mr. Lusardi: The current zoning for that wall in the CS and the GM zone would require a five to
eight foot wall. So simply we looked at other cities and what they are doing as far as that
decorative wall issue and that separation. A lot of them are requiring eight-foot walls. The
current zoning ordinance requires a five to eight foot wall as far as that separation. So all we are
doing is taking that maximum number of eight feet and making that the requirement.
As for as noise attenuation I think it has been demonstrated that an eight foot wail provides as
much or enough noise attenuation as what could be the minimal landscaping on that landscape
strip that is added to that wall. I don’t think you are going to get significant trees to add to that
noise attenuation along that wall. You are getting minimal landscaping. You are getting ground
cover. You are getting ivy that grows up the wall. I don’t think additional landscape strip adds
to the noise attenuation. So we are just again simply recognizing the site constraints of the
existing auto dealerships and trying to address that.
Commissioner Holman: Our ARB member can answer this more succinctly than I and in a more
educated fashion that I but it seemed to me that it doesn’t take that lfirge a planting area to get
trees of some reasonable size and the trees add not only some sound btn~er but also some air
pollution buffer too. Again I just want to make sure I am clear here that I am not talking about
planting oaks here.
Mr. Lusardi: No, I think Staff understands that. What we are also trying to address is reality.
We are not getting significant trees in those landscape buffers. What is happening and this is
really one of the reasons we are trying to address this issue and I will give you a circumstance of
what happens. If an auto dealer wants to come in and add two or three service bays to increase
their service for their operation that triggers an ARB permit which may trigger them to have to
add that decorative wall and landscaping along that perimeter of that adjacent land use. When
they factor in the wall that is not an issue as far as their site constraints go. When they put in that
landscape strip that starts to reduce their driveway width, it starts to reduce the new parking
requirements that those new service bays would require and as I said earlier it has this cause and
effect of almost prohibiting them to come in with the service bays because that landscape strip
causes such a site constraint that they can’t meet their other requirements as far as driveway
access and parking in conjunction with those new improvements.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 11
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
1
2 Commissioner Packer: I have a follow up to Karen’s first question. It is something that has been
3 concerning me. That is the proposal to eliminate from the FAR the entire showroom space.
4 Both of these zones have either very minimal or no setback requirements and .they are 50 foot
5 height limits unless they are close to residential and it is 35 foot height limits. So what is to
prevent an auto dealer from building a structure perhaps even two stories worth of showroom
space? I know on Van Ness the ear dealerships are all indoors in these very beautiful
showrooms. What is to prevent that from happening and how would that impact the areas in
which these zones exist?
Mr. Lusardi: Well, the Commission can direct Staffif you are concerned about that to come up
with more strict standards as far as how that showroom space could be expanded. We have
already identified that that showroom space has to be clearly defined within the new zoning
district that it is for showroom space and it can’t be converted. If there is a concern that we are
creating an opportunity for an expansion of the showroom space .that intrudes towards the front
of the site or goes too tall or something we can look at that and put in specific standards that
would address that. It would also be subject to an ARB review, which would be looking at it in
that regard too as far as those kinds of intrusions or overbuilding or massing and scale issues.
The second option would be instead of just exempting existing or new showroom space is some
cities come up with a percentage. They just exempt for instance 25% of the total FAR of the
auto dealership and that 25% can be used for whatever. I think we were trying to identify the
showroom space because that is again a unique space to the auto dealerships. We can look at an
alternative. We can maximize the square footage, how much square footage would be allowed
or like I said it can be a percentage. It would all still be subject to an ARB review and looking at
those kinds of design issues and visual impact issues that you are addressing.
Commissioner Packer: Had you considered instead of using an overlay zone to accomplish these
goals by simply creating another Planned Community vehicle just for auto dealerships? For
example, allowing those in the CS zone and those with the existing older PCs to come in for a
new PC with standards that we all come up with that would help meet our goals rather than
having overlays over these two big zones.
Mr. Lusardi: Overlay zones already exist in the zoning ordinance by way of combining districts.
So it is an existing tool that is already in the Zoning Ordinance that we thought would be the best
method for doing this. Quite frankly I think the direction that we want to go with respect to PCs
is to move away from PCs as much as possible and create development standards and zoning
district standards that don’t trigger PCs as much as they have in the past. The public benefit
issue would be a difficult issue I think to address especially with respect to the existing auto
dealerships to go through a PC rezoning process in ,that regard. Also I think in creating the ’
overlay the combining district in order to not only address the existing auto dealerships which is
what we are succinctly doing this evening and at this time but also to provide for the opportunity
for other auto dealerships if they do want to come in and they meet the development Standards
that that opportunity is available to them as well. Right now our focus is retention of auto
dealerships and the best tool that we can fred and the tool that most other cities use is overlay
zones or combining zones and not necessarily PC zones or new auto dealership zones
themselves.
City of Palo Alto .Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
3I
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: John, it seems that the SR talks about some six different quick fixes. As opposed
to a band-aid approach did Staff consider a more broad scoped solution to this? The reason that I
am saying that is because it seems to me that auto dealerships really want freeway frontage as
opposed to being scattered up and down the E1 Camino and dribbling off into different arterials.
Is there anything that we can do to assist them eventually relocate these dealerships and put them
out on East or West Bayshore frontages?
Mr. Lusardi: I think the first thing that can be done to address that opportunity is to create an
overlay zone where if the opportunity arises you can apply the overlay zone to allow a new auto
dealership to go into a specific site or a couple of sites. We agree with you that the best place
and I think the auto dealerships would agree with you that the best place for them to locate is
along Bayshore Freeway along either side of Bayshore Freeway. I think they would also tell you
that the best opportunity for them is to create a synergy that is several dealerships in one
particular area. The constraints with that in reality are is there is very little funding available
either from the auto dealerships certainly not from the City to implement that goal right away.
So although this is a short term fix it is viewed as creating a long term opportunity if funding
becomes available, if a master developer comes in, if a property owner sees it advantageous to
have an auto dealership on their site an overlay zone allows us to implement it much quicker. I
think that is something we are striving for. We are talking to the auto dealerships about the best
opportunities for that. Staff is discussing it with Economic Development Staff and Planning
Staff and where those opportunities may best be implemented and this is the first step by creating
that overlay zone.
Chair Griffin: I will retum back to my previous question about what I am going to say is kind of
a curious choice of cities that Staff examined trying to come up with different approaches. I
somehow would have thought you would have looked at more immediately adjacent cities such
as Redwood City or Sunnyvale or some other peninsula cities that are more successful than we
are here in Palo Alto in terms of retaining dealerships and at the same time being sensitive to the
peninsula citizens’ view on pole signage or other visual impacts that are part and parcel of the
automotive business. Am I clear as to what I am trying to find there?
Mr. Lusardi: Yes. We will continue to research as this overlay zone gets developed further.
Again, what we are trying to address is existing needs of the existing auto dealerships right now.
Every city that we have looked at and we will look at other cities and I would be surprised if they
are doing something differently than creating that auto dealership overlay zone as far’as the
impetus to start that retention and recruitment of auto dealerships. That really is the first thrust.
Other cities are doing that and that iswhy we are taking this first step with respect to that. So we
will look at other cities. A lot of other cities that we have looked at really provide greater
flexible development standards than we are suggesting right here. Burlingame for example
allows twice as much signage square footage in an auto dealership than any other commercial
use within that zone district. They allow auto dealerships to be exempt from any new parking
requirements from what they already have on their sites. So they are a lot more flexible
development standards and greater development standards that cities are developing for auto
dealerships than we are proposing right now. So again, you are right, this is a first step and we
will continue to research this issue but I think it is important that we take that step.
Chair Griffin: One last thing. Back to signage. How important is it to these dealerships to have
increased flexibility in terms of pole signage? The background for my question is that it seems t
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
me for the last 30 years we have waged quite a struggle to tame signage on major arterials. I
think we have finally succeeded and now at this stage to open that Pandora’s box again I have
some temerity about that. I worry about public reaction to going there. So that is the
background. The question is is it a big deal for these guys to have pole signs?
Mr. Lusardi: I think it is a big deal for them to have what they consider better visibility and
better identity. I can’t say fight now that that involves pole signage. I would suspect that if you
asked them they would probably say yes they wouid prefer pole signage. Their opporttmity is to
capture a drive-by customer and to the extent that that customer sees it further from a distance
than when they are right on top of the site is very advantageous to them. I will be honest with
you I don’t think we are suggesting pole sign standards that would allow any of the existing
dealerships to have signs that can be viewed from 101 right now. I don’t think that is as far as
we are going. You can put pole signs right now on E1 Camino and in the GM districts. They are
subject to height requirements and size requirements given the linear frontage of the site so there
is within the code opportunities for pole signs. I don’t think I am suggesting that we expand that
beyond what is already there. What I am suggesting is we need to investigate it now and we
need to look at it specifically for auto dealerships. There are other issues within the sign code
that I think are just as important to look at and that is there are clauses in the sign code which
limit logos or manufacturers identities on signs that they be subservient to the name of the
business. I think if you ask an auto.dealership would they rather have the Mereedes Benz or the
Audi logo up there more than their name I think they would say yes. Those are the kinds of
flexibility things we want to look at and bring back to the Commission and the Council. Not just
large, tall pole signs.
Chair Griffin: I will move up to Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: When we go into let’s say the high tech boom number three or is it
number four that we are going to go into? And as you can see along the E1 Camino Real
particularly in Menlo Park the demise of the auto dealer along there more and more web sales are
happening. So the dealerships feel as though they want to get out of town and they don’t want to
be there. Because some of these are general manufacturing zones there is going to be perhaps
pressure that these buildings be converted into something high teeh related, the commercial high
teeh industry. Would all the parking have to comply with our current standards for parking for
an of-flee building or a manufacturing building? Would they have to landscape it then? Would
those buildings be allowed to have their increased FAR for the showroom space stay because it is
a legally existing nonconforming use or would that square footage have to go away.and comply
within the development guidelines for whatever use is going in there?
Mr. Lusardi: Again, you are talking about if the existing auto dealerships were converted to
another use. Is that right?
Commissioner Lippert: Correct. As we saw in the last high teeh boom a lot of what we consider
retail spaces disappeared and became high tech offices for startups.
Mr. Lusardi: Which is another purpose of creating an overlay district rather than a new zoning
district. The overlay district overlays that particular site. The underlying zoning whether it is CS
or GM remains. So if that auto dealership were to leave and a developer wanted to convert that
to another use that new use would have to meet either the GM standards or the CS standards
City ofPalo ~llto Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
whatever they were as far as landscaping, parking, etc. If there was a showroom in there and
they wanted to convert that showroom to an of-flee space that showroom would then count
towards their FAR. So it wouldn’t give a change of use any more than what is already existing
under the existing zoning ordinances. It just allows for that flexibility of standards for auto
districts of new ear sales.
Commissioner Lippert: Just to clarify. If the dea.lership were to go away would what they have
count as a legally existing nonconforming use and be allowed to just then simply be converted
into whatever that other use is?
Mr. Lusardi: No. I don’t think so. Once the auto dealership went away and a new use the
nonconforming auto dealership use doesn’t give a new use any more rights or any different rights
than what the existing zoning ordinance would require.
Chair Griffin: Before I go to another Commissioner I am going to remind members, of the public
that we do have the facility here to hear your opinions. I only have two cards at this moment for
this item. We would like to hear from more of you if that is possible. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I am going to come at this from a different direction and ask a question
recognizing the absolute importance of the auto dealerships. I am wondering about the approach
of making what I consider several changes to the existing sites where our dealerships are as
opposed to maybe making some changes. Whatever we do it isn’t going to get them in the best
locations. They are not where they want to be as far as loeal is concerned, they aren’t clustered
and they are not along the Bayshore. So what I am wondering is going at this from a little
different direction is putting an overlay on the areas that we really want to encourage the auto
dealerships and perhaps, I don’t have the answer to this that’s why it is a question, perhaps if we
make all these changes that Staff is recommending to an overlay where the dealerships currently
are there might be a comfort and if they invest in building expansions for instance there is an
investment that has to amortize for instance but if we just put the overlay where we want to
attract them to and maybe assist them with a faster planning process or whatever to move to
these other sites. I know there are issues about ownership and lease rates and that sort of thing
but I am just wondering about that kind of approach as opposed to what we are doing here which
seems maybe piecemeal.
Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director: I think that is the approach suggested in the Staff Report.
It is a two-step process, If we don’t do something now we are losing them. They are going
away. We have lost how many inthe last five years? We have fewer dealers now and if we
don’t do something to accommodate some flexibility we will continue to lose them. This is the
premise that it is much better to keep what we have it is much harder to attract them. If we lose
them and they go to a different market area the chances of them coming back are much greater.
We do also recognize that as a long-term goal that we do need to identify areas through the
Zoning Ordinance Update where the overlay would be appropriate as an enticement to perhaps
relocate within the City to more suitable locations. Butwe need to make sure that we stop the
bleeding. This is a fairly urgent measure to move forward to provide the kind of flexibility.
Let me say a little bit about the kind of the nature of the industry and I am sure some of the
speakers could correct me if I misspeak but it is our understanding that these decisions aren’t
really driven locally. The ownership has very little decision-making authority it is really driven
CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2I
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
by the manufacturer of the various auto lines. They have essentially very specific criteria that
they expect their franchisees to implement. If they do not implement them then they look for
franchisees in the same market area that can implement them. Competition for franchises is very
fierce so it is an issue that is driven. Palo Alto has two things working for it and several things
working against it. One is we do have great demographics for an auto dealer. Certain auto lines
have a great deal of acceptance in this community. We have high-income levels, which is very
attractive to auto dealers. We have problems working against us. We have small lots. They
don’t meet the current standards and they are very expensive. So it is very expensive to
accommodate the factory requirements of space and size and service and so forth on very
constrained sites. So that is one of the reasons why giving some flexibility on the landscaping is
very important because every square foot does count in meeting these requirements. I just want
to emphasize that it is pretty important that we do what we can to address the existing dealers
and still keep our eye on the long term. It is an effort that is not going to go away it is something
that we are still going to continue to look as appropriate areas become more available for
relocation of these dealers on a more consolidated basis. But we have to do something
immediately.
Chair Griffin: I am going to open the discussion to the public here and ealI for our two speakers
to come forward. First Mr. Charles Burton and then followed by Audrey Jacob. So if we could
hear from Mr. Burton first. If you would introduce yourself to us please, sir.
Mr. Charles Burton, Carlson Audi/Carlson Volvo: I am the president of Carlson Audi and
Carlson Volvo. We have been in Palo Alto for 30 years as a ear dealer. We used to have four
brands in Palo Alto and two of them have been moved to Redwood City and we now have Volvo
that is looking for a larger facility.
We would like to speak on behalfof supporting the auto zone overlay because it is something we
need., Any flexibility that you can give us helps us meet the rigid factory standards. Just as a
guideline on the factories they in the last five or six years have come up with methods to force
dealers to comply with 100% of their des!gn features and they keep increasing those type of
features as they see one factory gets something adopted for their dealers and then the other guys
start adopting it. So they change every year and they are all consumer oriented usually. The
latest thing that we have had to meet is obviously the service facilities have to keep expanding
and they have certified used ears that require signage and displays. To be flexible we need
something like this so that we can come to the City and get a decision without taking too long.
With our Audi we just renovated our Audi store and finished it about a year and a halfago. We
spent over two years in the Planning Department here in Palo Alto in the meantime we had to
move our Porsehe facility to Redwood City. We went through Planning, built the facility and
moved in and we are still in Planning in Palo Alto. So it helps for us to have that flexibility. The
factories are rigid. They give us a point scale, they hold back money from the cost of our ears,
and we re-earn that money by being in compliance with all their requirements. If we aren’t in
compliance then we basically aren’t competitive with the other dealers around us and we lose
sales and basically are forced out of business or to move to a market where we can be
competitive. So that is basically kind of a recap from our side. I just request that the
Commission does take this under advisement and support this move. I know it is not a real high
impact. I think it is a very low impact as far as to the public and to the citizens of Palo Alto as
far as viewing our facilities. I know I heard someone mention we have ten-foot offsets but I
happen to have a facility that had to have a 70-foot offset from the property on Embarcadero and
City of Palo Alto Page 16
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
1 I know the Honda store has about a 50 foot. So when PC zoning comes in you are at the mercy
2 and we don’t get the same shake the other zoning codes do like CS. Also we definitely need this
3 type of thing to prevent us from having to have all that open space that restricts us from meeting
4 the factory requirements on parking and customers assistance, parking for the service customers
5 and expanding our service facilities. Other than that I would like to thank the City Planners for
the effort they put into this. They poured in a lot of time with the dealers and worked together
with us and we would like to see these changes made if possible. Again I request your support
on this. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you Mr. Burton. Audrey Jacob.
Ms. Audrey Jacob, Chamber of Commerce: Good evening Commissioners. I am Audrey
Sullivan Jacob, Director of Government Relations for the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce. I
am here to support this overlay zone.
I regret that there aren’t more auto dealers here to speak on this matter as I went to an outreach
meeting and there were several dealers there who were in favor of this and I wish they were here
tonight. I do have a letter from our Chair of the Board of the Chamber that I will read into the
record and pass out to you afterwards.
Dear Commissioners, the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce endorses changes to the zoning code
which benefit land uses in Phlo Alto by auto dealerships. These adjustments to the code
accommodate the special needs of auto dealerships often located on land locked lots in Palo Alto.
We need to make these changes as soon as possible before Palo Alto loses another auto
dealership. Auto dealerships are an important part of the sales tax base in Palo Alto. Currently
the eight auto dealerships as you noted in the Staff Report in Palo Alto generat~ 12.2% or
$2,108,201 in sales tax revenue. In addition because auto dealerships have minimal adverse
impacts compared to other commercial uses Palo Alto wants to encourage the retention of these
uses. Changes to address the needs of the auto dealerships include flexible parking for
customers, employees, service bays, display and vehicle storage to display pads and landscaping,
flexible landscaping screening standards and new allowed accessory uses. The Chamber of
Commerce encourages the Planning and Transportation Commission to adopt the Staff
recommended changes to the zoning code for the benefit ofPalo Alto’s dealerships. Thank you
for your consideration.
Chair C~ffm: Thank you, Audrey. I will close the public hearing now and bring the discussion
back to colleagues here at the desk. Commissioners, do you have any eom~. ents or questions
that you would like to pose at this time? Karen? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I just have some comments because I have been struggling with this. I
understand that there is a desire to retain the auto dealerships but I am just wondering if this is
the best way to go about allowing the flexibility that is needed. A lot of the proposal I don’t
have a lot of problems with except with the FAR I think that is rather extreme. Having some
flexibility in the way that the signage is, reducing the landscape buffers and allowing more space
that is free but I wonder why that can’t be done on a site-specific basis via a PC without
requiring public benefits. We created a special kind of PC for SOFA II why couldn’t we discuss
whether a special kind of PC would be appropriate for auto dealerships? They still would have
to come in for Site and Design review anyway and this will have to go through a process. So a
Cl~y of Palo Alto Page 17
1 simplified PC process that maybe we have in the process that it be expedited that the stuff
2 doesn’t have to get stuck in the Building Department or the Planning Department that these
3 things can happen. That we can accommodate this without doing a broad overlay and without
4 giving away all that FAR. Those are some ideas I would like to throw out for discussion and see
5 how other Commissioners think about it.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Chair Griffin: I am thinking for myself the thought of accomplishing this via a PC process sort
of chills my blood in that PCs are hot button items in town and they should be and to subject car
dealerships to a PC over an issue that could more expeditiously be handled via this overlay
zoning well I am going to say I think I would rather stick with the overlay zoning but that is my
opinion. Anyone else wish to weigh in on this? Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I think the overlay zone is the way to go if we are going to do this. It will
give us the specific design standards I think we need for the site. I agree we are trying to get
away from PC zones if we can. The PC zone that we now have gives I think more flexibility
than we probably want in this site. So for that issue that is where I stand.
I am also concerned about the showroom not being in the FAR but that may mean that what they
can do is start looking at this issue a little more broadly as to what it means and what is implied
in that. Also some height concerns if this is going to be a special overlay zone, which I think
Bonnie recognized. If the underlying zoning is 50 feet we may not want 50 feet on a single
showroom. That may be part of the issue and a eoneem is how that is done. On the other hand
the second story for offices may allow them to keep the mass of the building down some. I guess
mass is part of this issue as well as light and huge signs. They may want and need large signs
and yet lille everyone else that has been speaking so far I am uncomfortable with these very large
signs. They need to be identified and what words are allowed to be large or small I am not so
concerned about but rather the size and whether they get turned off at night, general
environmental issues about how much electric power and things of that sort we are using just to
light these places up. I guess I am not comfortable with auto dealerships in other places so that is
probably what is driving my concerns. I think that the overlay zone is the way to do it and I
think specific design guidelines are the way to do it.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I think an overlay zone is the way to do this. I am uncomfortable with
several things though. I am comfortable with some and uncomfortable with others. Not
counting showroom space at all towards FAR is very uncomfortable for me for reasons I stated
before and which Bonnie has stated concerns about that too. I am uncomfortable making a
recommendation without knowing what public benefits there may or may not have been
regarding the PCs that exist on some of these sites. I disagree about the design standards and
other impacts that should be subject to the Baylands Master Plan as far as the Embarcadero site.
I think some comments have been made, it is One of the questions I submitted too and two other
Commissioners have spoken to it too about pervious versus impervious surfaces. I have
concerns about noise, I don’t see anything in the Staff Report that really makes me feel
comfortable about noise impaets. I understand that dealerships need to add service bays and the
~er you get away from an eight foot wall and you are not going to have the service bay
probably right up against the wall, I can’t swear to that, but one of the responses I got was that it
would be used for parking of vehicles and driveways. So if you move a service bay, which are
City of Polo Alto Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
open, further away and sound travels up like this I have real concerns about noise. I also have
concerns about lighting. I don’t think that is vetted enough here to my satisfaction to be able to
actually take art action tonight. I am sympathetic eertairdy to the sales tax revenues. I am
sympathetic to the demands put on the dealerships that corporate makes. I am okay with some
consideration of floor area exemption. I am okay with some exemption of parking requirements
for fleet storage for instance but I am really not comfortable given the information we have
tonight even after I submitted several questions to Staff to make a recommendation this evening
other than to come back ASAP with more information regarding the concerns that I have
regarding this. I just want to state again that and maybe other Commissioners beg to differ or
maybe not but one of the other concerns I have is I would echo Chair Griffin’s concerns about
the signs and Commissioner Packer’s concerns about the signs too. How tall are we talking
about? What kind of letters, what size letters? There are all kinds of issues again that aren’t
vetted here. What are we looking at? The other thing that nobody has brought up yet and I did
bring it up in one oft_he questions I submitted to Staffwas the eight-foot pad for automobiles. I
don’t know how successful the dealerships are in Menlo Park but I don’t remember any of those
in Menlo Park at their auto dealerships. I am just informed from my fight that the Cadillac
dealership does have one. I understand that we need to do something quickly but without having
more information and more definitive information about what is being proposed I am not
comfortable doing this now. I would hope that what we would also do is if we are fast tracking
this to get it to the Planning Commission and to City Council we would also fast track where we
want to encourage these dealerships to go and fast track that to us and the Council as well.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I am coming at this from a slightly different point of view, which is that
first of all I see that the dealerships are a necessity to the City in.terms of revenue as well as from
an economic point of view. Where I am having some difficulty is that I think that the overlay
zone, which I am in support of, is a one-size fits all proposition here. What I see is we have a
number of parcels spread throughout the City two of which are in the PC zone out in the
Baylands. In doing some research several years ago and having discussed the PC or the benefit
that was overlaid on those sites were landscape zones. That is what they did back in the 1970s
and the reason being and maybe Staffcan find out a little bit more is that because of its
proximity to the Baylands they wanted some green area because that was the way they addressed
the natural environment back then. Early on in the year, actually a couple of years ago, we had
reviewed one of those sites for making some modifications on the Architectural Review Board
and found that that landscape strip was very desirable and we wanted to preserve that and
enhance that when I was on the Board, I feel a little differently about the ones that are along
Park Avenue though. Here we have an area that abuts the railroad tracks and aetually creates a
buffer between that and a future area that will be the Cal Ventura residential area which is
undergoing amortization and my expectation is that it will be built within the next ten to 15
years. So you will have auto dealers directly across the street from residential properties and
again what will the interface be there? Do we want to have more landscaping? Do we want to
have less lighting? Do we want the sound walls to abut the railroad tracks? So again I look at
those a little bit differently. Then the ones along E1 Camino Real if you were to talk about urban
principles and theories with people like [Andres Duwani] they say E1 Camino Real is a prime
example of where you sort of can let it all hang out and you should have some guidelines but
things like McDonald’s and auto dealers and those sort of things are going to happen and if they
are going to happen within a community that is the appropriate loeation. So I don’t see this as
City of Palo Alto Page 19
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
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
necessarily as a one size fits all proposition. So that is where I am having great difficulty getting
my hands around the overlay zone and what is being proposed here.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I think Lee, you just gave my speech for why I don’t like the overlay
zone and would rather go with a more site specific with the PC process. Maybe we shouldn’t
call it a PC but something that allows us to have guidelines that fit the area in which these auto
dealerships are. That would give us the ultimate flexibility, which the overlay doesn’t. That is
my eoneem with the overlay so thank you for giving my speech.
Ch~ Griffin: I wonder if we could hear from Commissioner Butt.
Commissioner Burr: I just want to wade in on those two different variations of how we might
contend with the problem of one size not fitting all of the automotive dealership areas. I am
more inclined to what I think is the distinction that Lee was making. Instead of a site specific we
really have at least three different automotive type districts. I would throw in the Toyota on San
Antonio in the same sort of environment as we have on E1 Camino. If we are looking at how we
address dealerships that are on those kinds of major thoroughfares we might have one slightly
different set of standards than we might have either adjacent to the Baylands or adjacent to future
prospective residential. So I am also inclined toward looking at this more carefully. I think I
have heard from all the Commissioners and I concur that we want to take actions that will help
support not only maintain the existing dealerships but make them thrive even more and I think
we can achieve that in an expeditious manner and still do it more carefully than we maybe would
if we tried to rash through an approval to one set of proposals tonight. So I think I am hearing
from everyone that we are supportive of the principle, we support a lot of the aspects of it but
that we want to get it right and this needs a bit more work is what I think I am hearing and would
be my inclination as well.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair CasseI: What I hear the Staff asking us to do ifI go through this is they want us to
initiate the process. They are not asking us to make a final decision on final design reviews, etc.
tonight. So they are asking us to initiate the development of a zone, they are asking us to initiate
the process so that they would consider these general districts as appropriate districts and we
may want to look in the future at others and that we i~tiate amendments to the Planned
Community sites to allow additional site and design standards for existing automobile
dealerships selling new automobiles. It doesn’t indicate that these are the final design guidelines
I believe. What you are doing is initiating a process, you are going to do more research and you
are going to look at the issues and questions that we have raised today. May I ask if that is
correct with Staff?.
Chair Griffin: John would you respond please?
Mr, Lusardi: Basically that is correct. Some of the information you have asked for our target is
to come back to the Commission on June 30 and some of the information you have asked for I
am not sure we can bring back by June 30 but what Commissioner Cassel is saying is basically
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1I
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
correct. If you want to move forward with this we will bring back and develop as much of the
information on the site specifies and certainly the PCs that you are asking for.
Chair Griffin: Are you finished?
MOTION
Vice-Chair Cassel: Well based on the fact that this is going to come back to us and that you will
consider items that we have been talking about such as looking at some of these areas slightly
differently in the design guidelines I will move the Staff recornmendation with the conditions
that one it comes back to us and two that we are looking at some possible ways of incorporating
into those design standards a recognition that some parts of these areas are actually quite
different.
Chair Griffin: Do we have a second to that? That dies for lack of a second.
So it looks like we are open for further discussion. Does anyone wish to eorfie forward with a
way to divide this up more specifically?
Commissioner Burr: Without making that proposal I would just like to say that what I heard
Commissioner Cassel say and Mr. Lusardi say is a bit different from what I was reading literally
in the amendment but that was how you were characterizing the Staff Report. I see here that we
would review and recommend that the Staff prepare an amendment that would come back to us
as the next step. It sounds to me like the Commission wants to have options flushed out as
opposed to a specific amendment to Title 18 at our next meeting. Is that the correct sense of
where the Commission is coming from at this time?
Commissioner Lipped: I would feel much more comfortable looking at options, proposing
various options and specifically not necessarily taking a one size fits all approach.
Chair Griffin: Without putting words in your mouth are you thinking that pe’rhaps it would be
one version of these suggested modifications? One version of them that would apply to the PC
zones, another version that might apply to the El Camino Dealerships including the Toyota
dealership on San Antonio and Middlefield and a third set of criteria for the Park Avenue
locations?
Commissioner Lippert: I am not trying to be site specific in this pointing out specific sites and
saying.
Chair Griffin: This was a zone approach or at least that is what I heard.
Commissioner Lippert: I think that each of those various geographies have challenges. Right
now I am not comfortable with removing the PC zoning on the ones that are out’by Bayshore for
a number of reasons. I think I have gone through those and there are a couple more reasons. I
really think that Staff is going to have to look at the geography and what it means having these
sites near various different types of environments, these located in different types of
environments. It means something very different. If you look at the Bayshore all the buildings
along Embarcadero are all stepped back they are all setback. Whereas along El Camino Real
City of Palo Alto Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
there is no reason why you can’t almost bring that building all the way out to the street frontage.
I would never ever say that you could bring the building along Embarcadero out to the street
whereas a dealer would want a showroom along the street so that as you drive by you see the
cars.
Chair Griffin:
MOTION
I am Iooking for a motion. Bonnie.
Co~issioner Packer: I will try a motion, I move to ask Staff to come back to us with another
proposal that looks at refining this one overlay proposal into two or more variations depending
on the area, that Staff look at another way of dealing with the size of the showroom, re-look at
their proposal regarding exempting the showroom from FAR at the 100% level, give us some
different proposals under these different overlays with regard to landscape buffer maybe a
different one in the Bayshore areas as opposed to the central part of town, that they come back
with some more ideas as they said they were going to regarding noise and lighting that we can
look at and maybe Karen can add to the list.
SECOND
Commissioner Holman: I will second the motion. Then I will with the maker’s agreement add
that the Staff also come back with the full descriptive information about the PCs that are
currently zoned, that the Staff give a general description and general vicinity goal of where they
would like auto dealerships to be and what kind oftimeframe that could come to us on. I see Mr.
Emslie is shaking his head.
Commissioner Packer: I will accept those changes. I think this is joint motion that we are
making if that is doable according to Robert’s Rules of Order.
Chair Griffin: Before we vote on that I am going to ask for clarification. When you, say what is
the geographic zone that is the preferred Staff solution to this situation you are saying where
would we really like to have auto row located? Am I saying that right?
Commissioner Holman: Correct.
Commissioner Packer: I don’t know ifI listed this but I would also like some of the specific
ideas that you would be reeornmending visa vie signagel
Karen seconded that additional part.
Chair Griffin: So we have an agreement on our motion. Would Staff be able to restate that
motion for us?
Ms. Grote: It was moved to ask Staff to return with refined proposals that include at least two or
more area-based variations including looking at the size of the showroom and not necessarily
exempting 100% of that showroom from the FAR, looking at landscaping buffers perhaps
viewing them differently along Bayshore, proposing some noise and lighting standards. Then
also it was added that you would like more complete.information on the PCs that are in existence
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
and if possible what their public benefits were, a general description of the vicinities where we
would propose to put auto dealerships and ideas for signage.
Chair Griffin: Do you wish to speak to the motion?
Commissioner Lippert: Actually I have a question I would like to ask Staff particularly Steve
Emslie if that is workable.
Mr. Emslie: Yes, of course we would take that direction and follow up on it, sure.
Commissioner Lippert: Thank you,
Chair Griffin: Comment? Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I support the motion.
Mr. Emslie: We may not be able to stay on schedule for Council knowing the break coming up.
We will certainly try to keep on schedule we know time is of the essence in this but the motion
puts some doubt in us being able to meet our Council deadline.
Commissioner Burr: Commissioner Lippert earlier had talked about some of the original goals
for the landscape buffer zone on Embarcadero out near the Baylands and how that originally had
some objectives there for compatibility with the Baylands. I agree with him that the landscape
and setback standards for that area in all likelihood should be different from say E1 Camino. I
would just like to throw in that I might be willing to look at some relaxation of the landscape
standards if we moved from landscaping vegetation that basically wasn’t indigenous to the
Bayland and not very compatible to the Bayland to a smaller amount of landscaping that is more
compatible with the Baylands. So that would be an option that I would be interested in seeing
and it might be one that does a better job of achieving the original landscape objective and still
provides some benefit to the dealerships.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I jut want to make a comment for the sake of the public and also to have
on the record, this is quite a large issue and the Staff has been working on this for a long time. It
almost feels to me like this needed to be a study session for the Commission because it is So
much digest and a lot of information. So that is how as we got further into this discussion this
evening .and have viewed this as kind ofasa study session. I want to make sure that there is no
interpretation of our wanting more information and not taking an action tonight should be
interpreted as lack of support for the auto dealerships because that is certainly not what I have
heard from anyone. I want to make very certain that that’s not how it could be heard because
that is not the case. We just have a responsibility and want to get this fight’for everybody.
MOTION PASSED (6~0’0-1 Commissioner Bialson absent)
Chair Griffm: Let’s vote on this item then, All those in favor of Bormie’s motion say aye.
(ayes) Opposed? There are none. The item does carry unanimously.
Ci{y of Palo Alto Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Vice-Chair Cassel: Wait a minute. We missed a portion of this I believe. Should we make a
motion that the direction to move is to use the overlay zone rather than the PC zone?
Commissioner Packer: My motion was come back with different variations on these overlay
zones.
Chair Griffin: Finished? All right. That takes us to the end of agenda item number one. I
would entertain an eight-minute break.
Good evening ladies and gentlemen I would like to reconvene our meeting. We will reopen with
agenda item number two which is the South Palo Alto School Commute Corridor Study.
Commissioner will review and make.recommendations regarding the improvements identified in
the South Palo Alto Commute Corridor Study to improve safety along school routes. Would
Staff please make a presentation?
South Palo Alto School Commute Corridor Study: Review and recommendations
regarding the recommended improvements identified in the South Palo Alto School
Commute Corridor study to improve safety along school commute routes for the 10
schools located south of Oregon and Page Mill Expressways.
SR Webllnk: http_ ://www.citvofoaloalto.or_g,/citya~_enda/publish/planning-transportation-
meetings13407.pdf
http:/~www.~it¥9fpa~a~t~.~r~eityag~nda~pub~is~p~anning-transp~rtat~n-meetings/34~8.pdf
http://www.eityofpaloalto.org/eitvagend a/publish/planning-transportation-meetin.~s/3409.pd f
Ms. Ga¥1e Likens, Transportation Plarmer: Good evening._ I would like to make the presentation
in concert with our eonstdtant. I would like to introduce Rob Reese from Fehr & Peers who is
sitting in the front row and will be participating in the presentation. I believe our Secretary is
distributing some additional correspondence we received later to you right now.
I would like to begin by giving a brief background on why we are here and how we got here with
regard to this particular study and then discuss the purpose of the study. At that point I am going
to rum the presentation over to Rob Reese who will go into more depth about how the study was
conducted, what our data collection was, the methodology that was used and the study
recommendations. I would also note that in the audience are a number of members of our Study
Advisory Committee and I will !ntroduce them shortly.
This study follows on a series of prior studies and work that our Transportation Division has
done in concert with the school community and the Palo Alto Unified School District over the
last decade but at least the last five to six ye~s. Most importantly in the mid 1990s the City
Council directed us to do a Citywide school commute s~ety study. That is a pretty large
undertaking and the first phase was to study the school commute routes in North Palo Alto.
There were ten schools in North Palo Alto at the time and we worked with Fehr & Peers as our
consultant and developed a methodology that involved using a performance standard, using a
methodology that had more objective performance measures for both linear corridors and
specific intersections as they relate to bicycle and pedestrian safety. In addition to the
engineering component that study focused also on education and encouragement efforts that
could enhance what the City was doing to improve safety on our school commute routes. This
study to the contrary is focused more on the engineering solutions because much of the
City of Palo Alto Page 24
ATTACHMENT F
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
1
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
John Lusardi, Planning Manager DEPARTMENT: Planning
June 30, 2004
Zoning Ordinance Update - Additional Site Development and
Design Standards for Commercial and Industrial Districts to
allow for an Auto Dealership Overlay on sites where existing
Auto Dealerships are located for the sale of new automobiles.
Amend the existing Planned Community Zones that allow the
sale of new automobiles to provide additional Site Development
and Design Standards for existing Auto Dealerships.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend the
following:
That the City Council approve a zoning ordinance amendment for the new Chapter
18.65 of Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) for the purpose of establishing the initial
auto dealership overlay zone (Combining District) 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 and pre-owned automobiles (Attachment A).
That the Commission initiate the auto dealership overlay zone where existing auto
dealerships selling new and pre-owned autos currently exist in the City, located at:
4180 El Camino Real (Peninsula Ford), 4190 El Camino Real (Carlson Volvo),
3290 Park Blvd. (Park Avenue Motors), 762 San Antonio Road (Hengehold
Motors), and 3045 Park Blvd. (Stanford European).
3.That the Commission initiate amendments to three Planned Community sites to
City of Palo Alto Page 1
allow additional site and design standards for existing automobile dealerships
selling new automobiles located at I730 Embarcadero Road (Carlsen Motor Cars,
PC 2554), I766 Embarcadero Road (Anderson Honda PC 3350), and 690 San
Antonio Road (Magnussen’s Dodge and Toyota, PC 2592).
Direct staff, through the Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU), to develop a final New
and Pre-Owned Auto Sales Dealership overlay Combining District inaddition to
the initial flexible development standards to include the following; 1) analyze and
prepare "performance standards" for specific areas of the city including E1 Camino
Real, San Antonio Road, Embarcadero Road and future sites having freeway
visibility, 2) standards for noise and lighting, 3) standards for auto dealership’s
signage and auto display, and 4) environmental standards addressing auto dealers
full service operation and auto storage.
Direct staff to work with Auto Dealerships and other stakeholders to develop a
strategy for a long term auto dealership retention and recruitment program,
including the id.entification of potential new "synergy" areas for multiple dealer
development, potential resources to implement the long term strategy, and a
timeline for implementation.
SUMMARY OF LAND USE ACTION:
At the meeting of June 16, 2004, the Planning and Transportation Commission voted
(6-0-1, Bialson absent) to direct staff to prepare additional information and analyses prior
to implementation of the Auto Dealership overlay zone (Combining District). The
additional information and analysis should contain the following;
1.Development of multiple overlay zones based on auto dealership location
including: E1 Camino Real, San Antonio Road, Embarcadero Road, and the
GM zoning districts,
2.Develop alternatives to auto dealership interior showroom exemption from
Floor Area Ratio (FAR),
3. Develop alternatives to eliminating the requirement for a landscape buffer
adjacent to residential uses (CS and GM zone districts),
4. Address noise, lighting and specific standards for signage,
5. Analyze the existing auto dealership PC zones, specifically their public benefit
requirements, and,
6.Provide a strategic plan with goals and fimeframe for siting a long-term "auto
row" type development.
In addition to the direction above, the Commission also requested additional information
on the Baylands Master Plan Guidelines and additional local cities that have developed
auto dealership overlay zones.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
DISCUSSION
At the :lune 16, 2004 meeting the Commission recommended that the staff provide
additional information and clarification addressing an auto dealership overlay zone for the
city, specifically to be applied only on existing new auto sales dealership sites at this time.
This report addresses the key issues raised by the Commission.
Staff is recommending that the Commission recommend that the City Council adopt and
implement an auto dealership overlay as delineated in the recommendations stated above
and based on the additional information discussed in this report. There are two key
elements in staff’s recommendation to move forward at this time.
The first is that this is viewed as an initial step in order to create a New Auto Dealership
Combining District as an overlay for the Commercial Service (CS) and General
Manufacturing (GM and GM(B)) zoning districts. Essentially, this step is a plaeeholder to
create the impetus to develop the overlay zone more fully through the.zoning ordinance
update and with the City’s Long Term Retention and Recruitment Strategy for New Auto
Dealerships Sale and Service.
The second key element for mo~ing forward is to recognize existing auto dealers in the
city, assisting them within their existing conditions and constraints to improve their
ability to remain in Palo Alto, to compete with newer auto mails, access freeway visibility
and compete effectively with large sites in riearby cities. It is the goal of the City to retain
dealerships selling new and pre-owned automobiles as sales tax generators and businesses
that provide a menu of local services to the community including sales, auto related
services and warranty maintenance. Staffbelieves that the moderate flexible development
standards proposed at this time recognize the needs of auto dealers and wouldnot result
in significant visual or development intensification in the areas where they are located.
There are currently eight existing new car auto dealerships in the City of Palo Alto, as
follows (see Attachment B, location maps):
Dealershil~
¯ Carlsen Audi, 1730 Embarcadero Rd.
Anderson Honda, 1766 Embarcadero Rd.
Varsity/Peninsula Ford, 4180 E1 Camino Real
Carlson Volvo, 4190 E1 Camino Real
Park Ave. Motors, 3290 Park Blvd.
Stanford European, 3045 Park Blvd.
Magnussen’s Toyota, 690 San Antonio Rd.
Hengehold Motors, 762 San Antonio Rd.
Zoning Site Size.
PC 2.3 acres
PC 4.9 acres
CS 1.8 acres
CS 1.5 acres
CS 0.7 acres
GM (B)1.4 acres
PC 4.4 acres
CS 2.0 acres
City of Palo Alto Page 3
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES
New Auto Dealership "Overlay" as a Combining District in the Zoning Ordinance
The "overlay" zone is implemented as a Combining District within the existing Zoning
Ordinance. Therifle "Combining Districts" will remain as the tire for existing and new
overlay zoning with the zoning ordinance update. Combing District requirements are
added to or combined with other zoning districts and the underlying zoning remains, in
this case, the CSand GM districts.
Creating an overlay Combining District zone does not give any automatic entitlements to
all of the sites within the underlying zone. The application of a combining district to a
spe~i.fie site is subject to Chapter 18.98 of the Zoning Ordinance, Amendments to Zoning
Maps and Zoning Regulations. Whether initiated by an applicant or the city, a full zoning
process, including public hearings, is required with review and recommendation by the
PTC and approval by the City Council. Therefore, application of the New Auto
Dealership overlay Combining District within the CS and GM zones would require that
zoning amendment process.
An overlay Combining District identifies specific permitted land uses and development
standards for sites where the overlay is applied, in this case, for new auto dealership sales.
All other permitted land uses are subject to the use regulations and development standards
of the underlying zoning. In this case, an office use or commercial use cannot use the auto
dealership flexible standards, even if it replaces an existing dealership use.
The flexible development standards that are proposed at this time may only be used by a
new auto sales dealership. The dealership would be required to conform to all other
development standards that are not specified in the overlay Combining District, but are
contained in the underlying zoning district. This would be the CS or GM district, where
standards such as building setback and height would be required.
Attachment C shows the flexible development standards are being proposed for the auto
dealership overlay as well as those standards, which will not change from the CS or GM
zoning districts. Staff is also preparing a matrix that shows the comparison of staff’s
proposed overlay standards with what other cities have implemented, and includes
additional local cities as requested by the PTC. This matrix will be sent to the
Commission under a separate cover.
Within the auto dealership overlay Combining District, staffis .not proposing any changes
to the development review process that is now required for the existing auto dealership
sites in the CS, GM, and PC zones. Where minor improvements or new development is
proposed on the existing sites, it would be subject to the same ARB, Site and Design and
City of Pa/o Alto Page 4
CEQA review that i~s now required by either the underlying zoning or location of the site.
A Planned Community zoning is a site-specific zoning that removes the underlying
zoning and requires a substantial public benefit. Staff does not recommend using this
process in place of the Combing District process. An effective auto dealership overlay
would eliminate the need for fiature PC zonings as well as add more assurance regarding
how auto dealership development would occur in the city.
Development of Multiple Overlay Zones based on Auto Dealership location
The Commission recommended multiple overlay Combining District zones based on
location in order to address specific needs based on streetscape, visibility and location
within the city. The recommendation included possible individual overlays for E1 Camino
Real, San Antonio Road, Embarcadero Road and the GM zones.
Staff does not recommend multiple individual auto dealerships overlay Combining
Districts based on geographic area or a specific commercial street. Given the size of Palo
Alto, multiple overlay zones would not be an efficient strategy for auto dealership land
uses. Within the single Combining District, the purpose, permitted land uses and general
development standards would be the same for all areas permitting the auto dealerships.
Multiple overlay Combining District districts in the Zoning Ordinance should not be
developed to achieve specific design guidelines. Where auto dealerships are located
within the boundaries of approved guidelines such El Camino Real and the Baylands
Master Plan, these guidelines would continue to apply to existing and new development.
Staff recommends that a single auto dealership overlay Combining District be adopted as
Chapter 18.65 in the existing Title 18 (this may change with the final ZOU). Within this
auto dealership Combining District, staff can analyze the need for specific "performance
standards" for specific areas. The performance standards would be a subsection in the
overlay Combining District zone and could address specific issues for commercial street
or industrial area. Performance standards could also be Usedto enumerate and emphasize
environmental standards including the use of pervious pavers, storm water retention,
sensitive receptors for noise, lighting and accessory uses such car washing. This
subsection would also be an opportunity to address long term goals by developing
performance standards for future sites with freeway visibility and the alternative
"boutique dealership" development concept.
Proposed Flexible Development Standards with initial adoption of the overlay Combinin~
Distric_~t
As staffhas stated, the key objective for creating a New Auto Sales Dealership
Combining District is to address an economic and land use strategy for auto dealerships,
recognize the unique character of this commercial use, and implement some initial
City of Palo Alto Page 5
moderate flexible development standards for existing dealerships. The long-term goal is
to develop a full Auto DealersMp Combing District for existing and new development
through the ZOU and the overall Auto Dealership Retention and Recruitment Strategy.
At the June 16 Commission meeting, staff recommended that this initial adoption include
five flexible development standards, an approach to revising the sign ordinance, and J
allowing new auto fleet storage in specific industrial zones. Based on Commission
discussion and recommendation, staff is providing additional information for the
Commission’s consideration.
Auto Dealership Interior Showroom Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Staff continues to recommend that interior showroom space be exempted from overall
FAR for the site. This area would be only that area located on the ground floor that is
exclusively devoted to the display of new automobiles, is open to the publie during all
business hours and excludes areas used for sales offices or sale of merchandise (typically
located at the auto service counter area). O~ace designated and documented by the City the
showroom space cannot be converted to any other use.
Exempting the showroom space does not eliminate the other requirements or development
standards including setbacks, building height, etc. within the base zone. When additional
standards in the Auto Dealer Combining District are developed further, it would require
PTC and Council review. In addition, as stated above, any new improvements would be
required to go through the existing Architectural Review Board (ARB) review process.
Those sites located on Embarcadero Road would also require a Site and Design Process.
The primary goal at this time is to recognize the unique nature and low intensity of this
space as well as encourage auto dealers to utilize showroom space that may increase their
competitive advantage. The exempted FAR could also be used to increase their operations
in other areas such as sales offices and service bays.
An alternative for the Commission’s consideration would be to consider setting a
percentage of the total FAR or maximum square footage as long as it was used for
showroom space.
Parking for customers, employees, service bays, display and vehicle storag~
Staff’s recommendation from the June 16 meeting remains as follows:
One parking space per 400 sq. ft. of sales and office administration area, where
one space per 350 sq. ft. is now required. One space pe.r 500 sq. ft. of exterior sales
or display area; this would delete parking requirement for outdoor storage area.
Dealerships would not be required to stripe auto dispIay and storage areas. The
dealership ~¢ould still need to maintain any requirements for safety and fire access.
City of Pafo Alto Page 6
Screening would be required from adjacent residential uses for auto display,
parking and storage. Screening would be required from public view, pedestrian
pathways, and adjacent parcels for auto storage.
With the adjustment to these parking standards, the dealer would be required to
designate customer parking.
Staff will add additional language addressing the use of pervious pavers and requirements
for storm water retention.
Signage, lighting and noise
As stated at the June 16 Commission meeting, staff is not recommending any revisions to
the existing development standards for signage, noise and lighting for commercial
development in the CS, GM, and GM(B) zones at this time. Also, there are no changes to
the PC specific development standards being propos.ed at this time.
Howeyer, as discussed in the June 16 staff report under signage, staffhas identified that
this is an important issue for auto dealerships and should be developed specifically for.
auto dealerships.in the Combining District. Of the eight existing dealerships in the city,
all of them have wall signs, four dealers (Peninsula Ford, Carlsen Audi, Anderson Honda
and Magnussen’s Toyota) have monument signs of varying height, and Hengehold
Motors has a freestanding (pole) sign.
Before recommending specific sign regulations for auto dealerships, staffneeds to do
additional research on the existing signs at the dealer sites, the sign ordinance regulations
currently in place (how it applies to different commercial streets or zoning districts in the
city) hnd what other cities allow for dealerships. There are also other minor items within
the existing sign ordinance that need to be addressed for auto dealerships such as the
limitation on advertising or display of the make, brand name of manufacturers name
unless it is incidental to the naming of said business (Section 16.20.09 of the PAMC).
Similarly, staff is recommending that additional development and performance standards
for lighting and noise should be developed, Like signage, existing conditions and
regulations as well as researching current technology and what other cities use needs to be.
completed before new standards would be recommended.
Staff is recommending that, at this time that sections within the Auto Dealership overlay
zone be established and, in the interim, will reference existing regulations in the CS, GM,
and GM(B) or other p .arts of the PAMC for signage, lighting and noise. All new
development standards will require PTC and Council review and approval.
Display pads or .platforms .....
The visual display of the dealerships autos is as important as signage and the ability to
City of Pale Alto Page 7
display a manufactures’ brand. The ability to have display pads as close to the public
right-of-way is important to visually "capture~’ customers driving by the site, maintain
competitive advantages and demonstrate this ability for display to a manufacturer.
Typical surface paved parking areas are currently allowed in the setbacks in the CS, GM,
and GM(B) zones, but not in the landscaped area. All other cities that staffhas researched
have standards that allow display pads in the front setback and/or landscape areas. Several
existing dealers currently have autos displayed in these areas.
Staff is proposing to allow up to two display pads to encroach into landscape areas, but
may not be over 8 feet in height to the top of the vehicle. The 8 feet (used by other cities)
allows an approximately two-foot high display pad and the height of a standard SUV
vehicle. The pad size ~vould be 9 by 18 feet (typical 90 degree parking stall). All display
pad improvements would require an ARB permit.
Landscaping and screening
Staff is proposing the following flexible landscape and screening standards for the
existing auto dealerships:
Ten percent of the site area must be Iandseaped.
Parking lot trees would not be required for display vehicles and fleet storage.
All new improvements shall meet current storm water requirements.
An 8-foot decorative wall shall be required for screening from residential areas,
¯ including when creeks and streets separate adjacency to residences. This would
eliminate the existing requirement for a 10 foot landscape buffer in the CS
(Secfionl 8.45.070(19)(2) (3)) and GM (18.55.070(b(2)(3)).
As discussed in the June 16 staff report, this was proposed mainly to address existing site
and recognize some existing standards that create constraints to dealer’s ability to mainly
improve service operations. These proposed standards are typieally applied in the rear and
interior sides of the sites. The 8-foot decorative wall is a standard used.in other cities and
is also the maximum forthe existing standards in the CS and GM zone, which is 5 foot
minimum to 8 feet. As a reference, review of an acoustical report for the recent addition
of service bays at Park Avenue Motors concluded that a six-foot wall w.as adequate for
noise attenuation.
In addressing the Commission’s concerns for the flexible standard for only an 8-foot wall
without a landscape buffer, the Commission may want to consider an alternative standard.
This alternative would leave the existing 5 foot minimum to 8 foot wall and landscape
buffer, but allow the Director of Plarming and Community Environment the discretion to
reduce or eliminate landscape buffer based on demonstrated site constraints to achieve the
desired improvements and where existing noise Standards would still be met.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Accessory uses that support full service dealerships
This recommendation hasnot changed from the June 16 staff report. An important
element to auto dealerships is their ability to provide a full business service beyond auto
sales. This full service operation not only serves new car buyers, but also a wider segment
of the community that needs or desires auto dealerships to service their cars. In
discussions with the auto dealerships, it is apparent that their range of services as
accessory uses needs to be elarified in the new auto dealership overlay zone.
Therefore, in the new auto dealership overlay zone, staff recommends identifying the
following allowed acc+ssory uses: service bays, minor body repair, ear wash, and ear
rental facilities. All of these accessory uses would be required to meet all building, safety,
’ and environmental requirements from the city.
Auto Fleet Storage allowed in Industrial Zone,~
The provision for allowing auto fleet storage in the GM, GM(B) and LM zone will be
addressed in the draft R&D and Manufacturing Zoning District Chapter, which is also
scheduled to be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission on June 30,
2004.
Auto Dealerships with existing Planned Communi _ty (PC) Zoning Districts - standards
.and publie benefits
At the June 16 meeting, the Commission asked for additional information on the three
existing Planned Community sites, specifically on the issue of their public benefits. As
indicated by staff at the June 16 Commission meeting, none of the three PC zonings
contained a "public benefit". Attachment D contains the Ordinances approving and
amending the auto dealership PC zonings. At the time of their adoption a public benefit
was not required for a PC zoning.
=
=
1766 Embarcadero Road, Anderson Honda - Ordinance No. 2365 appr.oved in
I967 allowed new and used automobile sales and service, auto museum and paint
and body shop. This was amended by Ordinance 3350, approved in 1982, allowing
for an additional auto dealerships and revisions to the site improvements. No
public benefit component was adopted.
1730 Embarcadero Road, Carlsen Motors - Ordinance 2554 approved in 1970 for
a new auto dealership. No public benefit component was adopted.
690 San Antonio Road, Magnussen’s Toyota- Qrdinance 2592 approved in 1982
to allow for new and used automobile sales and service and necessary accessory
uses. No public benefit component was adopted. Ordinance 3351 was adopted in
1971 allowing additional .site revisions and Resolution 4841 was approved in 1973
allowed sign modifications. No public benefit component was adopted.
City of Pa/o A/to Page
Baylands Master Plan
The ZOU staff has coordinated with Advance Planning staffto confirm the application of
the Baylands Master Plan for the two PC auto dealerships on Embarcadero Road. The
Baylands Master Plan addresses these two sites in the context of the industrial and
commercial development on Embarcadero Road that are located in the gateway area of
the Baylands. Also, the Caflsen Motors (1730 Embarcadero Rd.) auto dealership has
adjacent baylands along the southern boundary of the site.
Advance planning staff is currently updating the Baylands Master Plan. and have
identified the following as applicable to the auto dealership sites:
The Embarcadero Corridor is part 6fthe area included in the Baylands Master
Plan, so general policies such as integrated planning and protection of the
Baylands would apply. A general circulation policy is that "automobile traffic will
be reduced in the Baylands while bicycle and pedestrian activities will be
expanded."
Provisions. specific to the auto dealer sites:
"Recognize and maintain the relationship between the urbanized Embarcadero
Road corridor in the northwest and the remaining recreation-oriented three-
quarters [quadrants]. Allow no more urban intrusion." On other sites, this has
been interpreted to mean no significant intensification of use.
"Provided access from the public easement to Byxbee Park along the south side
parallel to the urbanized area."
"Provide screen planting along the southerly urbanized edge of the private property
facing the former’ ITT property."
"Privately Owned Lands- Be sure any future development is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and continues to receive extensi~ce design review."
Note that the last item about future development receiving "extensive design review" is
referring to the (D) overlay requiring Site and Design review. The flexible development
standards that are being proposed are not anticipated to result in a significant
intensification of the existing auto dealerships. In addition, the southern portion of the
Carlsen Motor site that is has screening adjacent to the Baylands is would be removed or
reduced. The new Baylands Design Guidelines will include some material for the
commercial sites and should provide more guidance for development projects. The
City of Palo Alte Page 10
Guidelines would acknowledge and address any revisions to auto dealership development
in the area, including the new auto dealership overlay Combining District zone.
Long Term Strategy for Auto Dealership Retention and Recruitment
Over the past year, economic development and planning staff have been meeting with the
auto dealership owners as part of the action plan the City’s Ad Hoe Committee on
Enhancing the City’s Economic Base to develop an auto dealership policy utilizing
economic and land-use strategies. The first priority that was identified was to implement
some positive steps to encourage existing dealers to remain in the City. That is the major
objective with the initial Auto Dealership Combining District proposed in this report.
A second priority was to develop a long-term strategy that could assist existing
dealerships in Palo Alto to relocate or new dealers to locate in areas of the City that
would create a synergy for multiple dealers and increase their ability to be more
competitive. This includes greater visibility and access. Meeting with the dealership
owners, staffhas identified three "corridors" that could achieve specific needs for auto
¯ dealers and economic development goals for the City. The corridors are Highway
101/Bayshore Road, Highway 101/San Antonio Road and E1 Camino Real. Very
preliminary work has been done on these corridors and a long-term retention/attraction
strategy. Because of limited resources, staff has focused on the short-term goal of
retehfion.
Development of a long-term strategy, including new multiple dealership sites, requires a
significant increase in the work program for staff. It involves researching potential new
areas, including existing real estate and building conditions, discussions with auto dealers,
property owners and other stakeholders as well as identifying development resources. It is
generally recognized that Palo Alto does not have the ability to develop a major "Auto
Row" similar to what other cities have done. Therefore developing a constraints and
opportunities analysis would assist in developing creative and achievable strategies for
the City. Over the next six months economic development and planning staff will
continue to develop the Auto Dealership Combining District, long-term strategies,
potential dealership areas, and economicresources for implementation.
NEXT STEPS
Staff is recommending that the flexible development standards for existing new and pre-
owned autos be approved and implemented prior to the adoption of the Final Zoning
Ordinance Update. Based on the Planning and Transportation Commission
recommendation for the these standards, staff will prepare a draft Zoning Ordinance
Chapter 18.65 which will establish the New and Pre-Owned Auto Dealership Combing
District (Overlay) for the General Manufacturing (GM), General Manufacturing
Combining District (GMB), and the Commercial Service (CS) District.
Cily of Pa/o A/to Page 11
Staffrecommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission initiate and
recommend approval of the application of the New Auto Dealership Combining District
that would implement the overlay for the five existing auto dealerships listed above in the
CS, GM and GM (B) zoning districts.
Staffreeommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission initiate and
recommend amending the three PC zoning districts listed above to include the flexible
development standards for the existing new auto dealership in those zoning districts.
The City Council is scheduled to hear these items on August 9, 2004.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Environmental Review for adoption of the new Auto Dealership Chapter 18.65 will
proceed with the completion of the ordinance after incorporating all changes to the
recommendations discussed above. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed flexible
development standards for new auto dealerships do not have significant impacts and that
they do not go beyond those already analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachment A: Draft New Auto Sales Dealership Combining District, Chapter 18.65
Attachment B: Existing Dealership site locations
Attachment C: Proposed Flexible Development Standards with existing CS, GM
Standards
Attachment D: Auto Dealership Planned Community Ordinances
COURTESY COPIES:
City Council
Anderson Honda
Varsity/Peninsula Ford
Carlsen Volvo
Park Ave, Motors
Stanford European
Magnussen’s Toyota
Hengehold Motors
Ms. Glenda Gavenman
Prepared by: John Lusardi, Planning Manager
Depar~ent/Division Head ApprovaI:._~ ,~. ~
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Attachment A
DRAFT
Chapter 18.65 NEW AND PRE-OWNED AUTO SALES DEALERSHIP
COMBINING DISTRICT (AD) REGULATIONS FOR THE
COMMERCIAL SERVICE (CS), GENERAL MANUFACTURING (GM),
AND GENERAL MANUFACTURING COMBINING
DISTRICT (GM (B))
Sections:
18.65.010
18.65.020
18.65.030
18.65.040
18.65.050
18.65.060
18.65.070
Specific purposes
Applie.ability of regulations
Permitted Uses
Site Development Regulations
Parking and Loading
Special requirements
Recycling storage
18.65.010 Specific Purpose
The new and pre-owned auto sales combining district is intended to modify the
regulations of the service eomlnercial and general manufacturing districts to create and
maintain areas aecornmodating citywide and regional sales and services for new and pre-
owned automobile dealerships, and which generally require automotive access for
customer convenience, servicing of vehicles or equipment, loading or unloading, or
parking of commercial service vehicles.
18.65.020 Applicability of Regulations
The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and procedures
established by Chapters 18.83 to 18.99, inclusive, shall apply to all CS, GM and GM(B)
service eommereiaI and manufacturing districts.
18.650.30 Permitted Uses
The following uses shall be permitted in the AD combining district:
(a)Automotive services means a use engaged in sale, lease, service, or minor repair
of new and pre-owned automobiles and trucks. Accessory services incidental and
supporting auto sales including service bays for engine, transmission, air
conditioning, and minor painting, body and fender repair, ear wash, auto rental,
and similar services.
(b) For the purpose of this chapter new and pre-owned automobiles are those vehicles
that are certified for sale or leasing by a manufacturer of new automobiles.
(e)Temporary banners for special auto sales with Temporary Use Permit, not more
than four times in one calendar year.
Draft Auto Dealership Overly
June 24, 2004
18.65.040 Site Development Regulations
The following site development regulations shall apply-in the AD new automobiles
sales dealership combining district, provided that more restrictive regulations may be
recommended by the architectural i’eview board and approved by the director of planning
and community environment, pursuant to Chapter 16.48 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code:
(a)Site Area. No requirement is established.
(b)Site Width. No requirement is established.
(e)Site Depth. No requirement is established.
(d)Front Yard. No requirement is established.
(e)Rear Yard. No requirement is established.
(f)Side Yard. No’ requirement is established.
(g)Floor Area Ratio.
(1)The maximum floor area ratio for new automobile sales dealership and
service uses shall be .4 to 1, except as provided in Section 18.65.040 (g) (2)
(2) Interior floor area devoted exclusively to automobile showroom space shall
not count towards the total Floo~ Area Ratio. Automobile showroom space is that area for
the display of new automobiles, located only on the first floor and excluding all other
uses associated with the automobile dealership including sales office and sale of related
merchandise. The Director of Planning and Community Environment shah determine the
space designated as automobile showroom.
(h)Site Coverage. No requirement is established, except as provided in
(i)Height. The maximum height shall be fifty (50) feet.
(j)Accessory Facilities and Uses. Regulations governing accessory facilities and
uses, and governing the ’application of site development regulations in specific instances
are established by Chapter 18.88.
(k) Outdoor Sales and Storage. Outdoor sales and display of automobiles and.
merchandise shall be permitted subject to the following regulations:
(1) Two automobile display pads shall be permitted in the required setback area,
including landscaped areas, adjacent to a publie tight-.of-way. A single automobile
display pad shall be no higher than eight feet, including display pad and automobile, and
the surface of the display pad area shall be no larger than 175 square feet .....
(2) Areas used for outdoor sales and display, other than automobile display pads,
of motor vehicles shall meet the minimum design standards applicable to off-street
parking facilities with respect to paving, grading, drainage, safety and protective features,
lighting, and screening. Striping for parking stalls shall not be required for auto display
and storage areas
(3) Exterior storage shall screened by a solid wall Or fence of between five (5)
and eight (8) feet in height.
(1) Special Setbacks. Where applicable, setback lines imposed by a special
setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of this code shall be followed for the purpose of
determining legal setback requirements.
D~aff Auto Dealership Overly
June 24, 2004
(Ord. 414__.._0.0 9 14, 1993: Ord. 4016 9 27, 1991: Ord. 389__.~0 9 11, 1989: Ord. 375"/§ 16,
1987: Ord. 3631 § 3, 1985: Ord. 346_.._~5 99 14, 36, 1983: Ord. 304_...~8 (part), 1978)
18.65.050 Parking and Loading
Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required for all auto dealerships in the
AD combining district, in accord with Chapter 18.83. All parking and loading facilities
on any site, whether required as minimums or optionally provided in addition to
minimum requirements, shall comply with the reguIations and design standards
established by Chapter 18.83, except where noted below.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
One parking space per 400 sq. ft. of sales and office
administration area.
One space per 500 sq. ft. of exterior sales or display area,
excluding auto storage. Auto storage and display areas shall not
be required to be Striped for parking stall and aisle width as
otherwise described in Chapter 18.83
Areas for customer parking shall be designated.
Location of Parking and Loading Spaces. No requirement is
established except as established by Chapter 18.83 or other applicable
provisions of this title.
18.65,060 Special Requirements
The following special requirements shall apply in the A_D combining District district:
(a) Sites abutting or having any portion located within one hundred fifty (150)
feet of any RE, R-l, K-2, RM or any PC district permitting single-family development or
multifamily development shall be subject to the following additional height and yard
requirements:
(1) On any portion of a site in the AD combining district which abuts a site in
any RE, R-l, R-2, RM or applicable PC district, a minimum interior yard of ten (10) feet
shall be required and a solid wall between five (5) and eight (8) feet in height shall be
constructed and maintained along the common site line. The minimum interior yard shall
be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen. If the Director determines that location
and installation of. the landscape screen is not practical, such landscaping may be reduced
or deleted, if measures are taken to ensure that screening with an eight (8) foot decorative
wall is adequate to reduce noise to the satisfaction of the Director.
(2) On any portion of a site in the AD combining district which is opposite from
a site in any RE, R-l, R-2, RM or applicable PC district and separated there from by a
street, alley, creek, drainage facility, or other open area, a mi~mum yard often (10) feet
shall be required. The minimum yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped
screen, excluding areas required for access to the site. If the Director determines that
location and installation of the landscape screen is not practical, such landscaping may be
reduced or deleted, if measures are taken to ensure that screening with an eight (8) foot
decorative wall is adequate to reduce noise to the satisfaction of the Director.
(3) Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, P,.-1, R-2, RM or
any residential PC district shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight
plane beginning at a height often (10) feet at the applicable side or rear site fines and
Draft Au.to Dealership Overly
June 24, 2004
increasing at a slope of one meter for each two meters of distance from the side or rear
site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the AS combining
district.
(b) All uses, whether permitted or conditional, shall be conducted in sueh a
manner so as to preclude any nuisance, hazard, or commonly recognized offensive
conditions or characteristics, including creation or emission of dust, gas, smoke, noise,
fumes, odors, vibrations, particulate matter, chemical compounds, electrical disturbance,
humidity, heat, cold, glare, or night illumination. Prior to issuance of a building permit or
occupancy permit, or at any other time, the building inspector may require evidence that
adequate eontrols, measures, or devices have been provided to ensure and protect the
public interest, health, comfort, convenience, safety, and general welfare from such
nuisance, hazard, or offensive Condition.
18.65.070 Recycling Storage
All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more
floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior
enclosures for the storage ofrecyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design,
construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to
approval by the architecturalreview board, in accordance with design guideIines adopted
by that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 16.48.070.
(Ord. 4069 § 8, 1992)
Draft Auto Dealership Overly
June 24, 2004
4
Attachment B
’The Ci|y of
Palo Alto
Zoning: PC-2554
Size in Acres (estimated):
2.3 acres
Building Size: 17,470 sclft
Carlson Motor Cars
(Audi),
173 0 Embarcadero Road
This map is a product of Ihe
City of Palo Alto GIS
Tll~ Cil!
PaIo Alto
o
cS
Size in Acres (estimated): 1.8.
acres (includes 2 parcels).~./Building Size: 23,307 sqft /
Palo Alto
:2
Varsity Ford
4180 El Camino Real
This map is a produc~, of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
The
Palo Alto
Calson Volvo
4190 E1 Camino Real
This mapis a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
/ Zoning: CS
/ Size in Acres (estimated):
0.7 acres
Buitding Size: 7,200 sqf~
,..,-
Palo Alto
Park Ave Motors
3290 Park Blvd
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
/I °4,
.%,
Zoning: GMB
Size in Acres (estimated):
’1.4 acres
Building Size: t 7,956 sqf~
(2 stories)
Palo Alto
Stanford European
3045 Park Blvd
This map is a product of th’e
City of Palo Alto GIS
@
The City of
Palo Alto
Magnussen’s Dodge
and Toyota
690 San Antoniio Rd.
Zoning: PC-2592
.~Size in Acres (estimated):
4.4 acres (includes 5
Building .Si.ze: l l, 258 sqft
This map is a product of the
Cl~y of Palo Alto GIS
Palo Alto
Zoning: CS
Size in Acres (estimated):
2 acres ¯(includes 2 parcels)
Building size: 5,161 sqft
Hengehold Motors
762 San Antonio Rd.
ATTACHMENT C
Potential Standards to Provide Flexibility with new Car Sales for Auto Dealerships
Flexible Zoning Standard
FAR - Limitation on maximum Floor
Area Ratio
Parking - Reduction in required
parking spaces for customers and
employees
Signage-Dealershi~ kvant additional
square footage and often times
additional monuments signs, wall
signs, and pole signs. May violate
sign codes with temporary signs such
a’s balloons, banners, flags, etc.
Outdoor Sales and Storage (Display
pads or platforms) - Allow limited
number of cars or trucks to be
displayed on elevated platforms
Landscaping - Reduction in required
landscape area with screening
Accessory uses - Clarify and update
uses that support dealerships
New auto storage- Industrial areas
GM, LM
Existing PA Municipal Code
GM, GM (B) - CS District
Standard
CS .4 to 1 for non-residential
uses
GM .5 to 1
1 space per 350 sq. ft. of
enclosed area
1 space per 500 sq. ft. of
exterior sales or storage
Off-site adwrtising not
allowed
Total allowed signage is 200
sq. ft. maximum
Internally illuminates signs
are not allowed
30 day temporary signs with
15 day extension
Pole signs only allowed on
San Antonio and El Camino
Not allowed in setback or
landscape area
Soli’~ wall screening with i 0
feet landscaped buffer next
to residential districts
¯Contained in definitions
under "Auto Services"
Prohibited
Auto Dealership Overlay
Permitted Use
Exempt interior auto showrooms from
FAR
1 space per 400 sq. ft. of sales, office
admin area
Remove parking requirement for auto
storage
Dealer is not required to stripe
display and storage areas
Screening required from publie view,
pedestrian pathways, and adjacent
parcels
Storm water run off and retention
standards
Review Chapter 16.20, sign code for
pole signs, illuminated and corporate
loges
Allow temporary signs for sales
events
Up to 2 display pads may encroach in
landscape area, may not be over 8’ in
height (to the top of the vehicle)
10% of the site area must be
landscaped
Parking lot trees not required for
display vehicles and fleet storage
8’ high solid decorative wall adjacent
to residential without landscape
buffer
Allow service bays, body shop,
storage, ear rentals, ear washing,
accessory to new automobile
dealerships
Permitted with T~mporary’ilse Permit
Underlying Zone Development Standards
CS, GM, GM 03)
Zoning Standard
.... Site Area
Site Width
Site Depth
Front Yard
Rear Yard
Side Yard
Site Coverage
....... might
Special Setbacks
Special Requirements - Sites abuttin’g
or within 150 feet of residential
Height
Daylight Plane
Adjacent Property Line to
Residential
i8.~15.070(2)(d) for all non-
residential uses
New improvements
Existing CS, GM, GM (l~.)
o No requirement is
established
No requirement is
established
No requirement is
established
No requirement is
established
No requirement is
established
¯ , No requirement is
established
No requirement is
established except as
required under special
provision 18.55.070 and
18.45.070
50 feet
Arastrade~o Road - 8 feet
San Antonio Road - 24 feet
Leghorn Street- 15 feet
feet
Required whe;a ~haring a lot
line with residential
5 - 8 foot fence or wall; 10
foot landscape buffer
/~11 uses shall preclude
nuisance and hazardous
conditions
A.RB permit
/i~uto Overlay
¯N~ change
o No change
¯ , No change
¯No change
¯No change
¯No change
¯No change
-No el~ange
(Carlsen Volvo)
¯No change
(Hengehold Motors)
No change
(Hengehold Motors)
Carlsen Volvo, Peninsula Ford, Park Ave
Motors, Stanford European
No change
No change
foot wall with flexible 10 foot
landscape buffer
No change
No change
¯No change
Agenda Date: June 30, 2004
To:
From:
RE:
Planning and Transportation Commission
John Lusardi, Planning Manager
Palo Alto~s Proposed Overlay Zoning Standards Compared with Other Cities
Staff has prepared two tables that cOrollate the zoning standards among several cities that have
strong auto dealership presence. Table 1 compares the "type" of zoning (i.e., base zone, overlay
zone, precise plano etc.) that is used for each of the sample cities. Table 2 compares the specific
zoning standards ’(i.e., FAR., signage, parking requirements, etc.) between the cities.
Table 1. General Overview of Zoning Districts for Auto Dealersldps
Oty
Palo Alto (existing standardsi
¯Palo Alto (propo.sed Auto Sales
Dealership Combining District
MeMo Park
Burlingame
.R.=dwood City
Davis
San Leandro
Type of Zoning District
Conditional Use in commercial and manufacturing
zones (CS, GM, GM(B)) and PC zones.
Proposed overlay zoning district that can be combined
with specific commercial and manufacturing zones
(CS, GM, GM(B)) and PC zones.
Designated areas (e.g., El Camino Real) of a specific
commercial zone.
Desig-n’ated’’s~b-area’’ of the commercial zone(C-2) on
California Drive between Burlingame Avenue and
Peninsula Avenue
V (Vehicular) Combining District may be applied to
CG., CP, IR or IP districts.
Specific zoning designation (AC-Auto Center) for
freeway-oriented "auto mall"
"S" (Special Review) Overlay District for the San
Leandro Marina Boulevard Auto Mail (within
Redevelopment Project Area)
Note: The CitT of Sunn~’ale does not have specific zoning standards for auto dealerships; and
therefore has not been included in this comparison study. Many of Sunnyvale’s existing
dealerships that are located on E1 Camino Real are non-conforming "graudfathered" uses. New
dealerships or expansions require a conditional use permit. The City of 8urmyvale is currently
studying a new sigaaage poiicy for auto dealer banner pro~ams.
~:~.RD~NAN~E NO. z365
ORDINANCE OF THE COURCiLDF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 3.02 OF ORDINANCE NO. 1324, THE
ZONING ORDINANCE, CHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN
PROPERTY ~INOWNAS 1766 EMBARCADERO ROAD FROM L-M:D
Attachment D
TO P-C
The Council of the Cit~ of P~lo Alto does OP~DAiN as
follows:
SECTION I. Ordinance No. 1324, the Zoning Ordinance, is
hereby amended by amending Section G.0i, the "Zoning Map", by
c~anging the zoning of certain property known as 1766
Embarcadero Road from L-M:D to P-C,
SECTION 2. Said property is shown on a map attached
hereth,- incorpbrated herein by reference,, and entitled "Change
of District from L-M:D.to P~C."
SECTION 3. The" plans anti=led:
Buildings For Project #733, Palo Alto,
California, Site Plan", drawing No. P-I
of 3 sheets;
b)"Buildings for Project #733, Sales and
SerVice Building~ Used Car 0ffic~",
Drawing No. P-2; and
"Buildings For’Project #733, Body Shop,
Au~ Museum", Drawing No. P-3;
affixed hereto and by reference m~de a part hereof, are hereby
made the Development Plan. for the parcel d~scribed.in Section
i hereof.
SECTION 4. The Development Plan’ is approzed inacco<dance
with the following cohditions:
i. Use
Ne~ and used automobile sales and service/
auto museum, and paint and body repair,
2. Improvements: -.
Building¯ locations, dimensions, setbacks,’
off-street parking and all other improvements
shall be substantially as shown on the
approved Development Plan.
Landscaping shall be substantially as _~
shown on the approved Development Plan with
the following conditions:
i) The combination of public and private
trees along Embarcadero Road and Mozart Way
shall make a hontinuous screen above eye level.
b) The rear and side perimeter planting area
shall have a minimum width of six (6) feet
where trees occur and a minimum width of four
(4) feet otherwise.
~) Planting in the interior of the parking
area shall have a minimum dimension of six (6)
feet.
d) Planking areas for trees shall he planted
with suitable ground cover and shrubbery.
Signs shall be as shown on the ’approved
Development Plan provided that the signs sho~m
meet the requirements for s~gns in the C-3
District. Additional signs shall be ’limited
to those identifying the buildings shown on
the Site Plan as.Used Cars Sales/Service, Auto
Museum,. and Paint/Body Repair; such signs shall
be subject to the approval of the Zoning Ad-
ministrator.
A six-foot high wooden fence shall be sub-
stituted for the six-foot high security chain
link fence in the vicinity of the future auto
museum and to its connection with the Pain~
and Body Shop.
At the Used Car Entrance, as well as at t~e
Service Entrance, access’shall be restricted on
Sunday by a chain across the entrances with a
sign attached indicating_an entrance on Mozart
Way.
3.Development Schedule:
a)Start of construction of the new car sales
department, the used car sales, department,
the paint and body shop, and the service and
parrs department within six months after City
Council approval and completion within eighteen
months after start of qonstruction.
b)"Start of construction of the future service
.department expansion, the future paint and
-2 -
,C~L~CE OF DISTRICT FROM L-]~I:D TO P-C
~ 7-zc
body shop exRansion, and the future auto
museum within five years after City Council
app=oval and complet±on within eightegn months
after start of construction.
SECTION 5. This iordinance shall become e£fective upon the
expiration of thiPty days from %~s passage.
INTRODUCED.: July I0, !967
PASSED:July Z4, 1967
AYES : Beahrs, Berwald, Clark, Dias, .Gall~gher, Wheatley
ABSTAIN: .P.ears oriNOES :- "Comstdck
ABSENT: J~:~’ol~l., Cooley, Spa~th ’’ , -
ATTEST : ,..~.....-’, , .,, . APPROVED: ¯
1~._. ~__,_- ~-..,--_~~.~"~_~~
Att~)ney ~
APPROVED AS TO COGENT:
-"O,R G I NAL
ORDINANCE OP TIlE COUNCI5 OF TH~ C~TY OF PALO ALTO
~MENDING PC ORD~NANCE~NO~2365.APPLYING TO PROPERTY
£NO~ AS ~:1.7.66".EMBARC~ERO ROAD . "
WEEREAS, on July 24, 1’976, by Ordinance No. 2365, the Ci.ty of Palo ¯
Alto approved a Planned Community IPC). zone for certain property known
as 1766 Embarcadero Road to allow an automobile dealership; ana
WHEREAS/ the property owner has applied for modifications to the
Development Plan and Development Schedule established by ’the. aforemen-
tioned ordinance to permit changes to the present improvements and to
permit the construction of furthe{ improvements for the purpose of ac-
commodating a third automobil~ dealership; and
WBEREAS, the property owner has requested to eliminate a condition
of approvalof the Development Plan established by the aforementioned
.ordinance ~equir.ing construction of" a wooden fence between building~
designated as the."Aato Museum" and the "Pain~-.and Body Shop"~
NOW, TEEREFORE, the Council of ihe City of Palo Alto does QRDAIN
as follows: ~
SECTION I. Section 3 of Ordinan’ce No. 2365 applying to property
known as 1766 Embarhadero Road is hereby amended to read as follows:
,"SECTION 3. The.plans entitled:
(a)"Wheeler Alterations,’ Sit~ Plan, Sheet "-A-I,
Revised for ARB March 4, 1982";
(b)."Wheele~.Alterations,.Floor Plans, Sheet A-2,
Revised for ARB March 4,
(c)"Wheeler Alterations, Perspective~, Sheet A-3";
(d)"Wheeler Alter~tions, ~lev~tions, Sheet A-4";
(e)"Wheeler Alterations, Landscape Plani Sheet L-I,
March 4,
affixed hereto and by reference made a part hereof,
hereby constitute the Development Plan for the
property described in Seo~ion I hereof."
. SECTION 2.. The Development Plan referred to in Section 3 of
Ordinance No. 2365 .as amended is ~pproved subject to the following
.conditions:
Customer park.ing spaces shall b~ designated by
pavement signage.
Rear perimeter lanascaplng shall be completed
prior to issuance-of a use and occupancy per-
mit for the new car sales addition and museum
conversion.
Fencin~ along Faber Place siall.b~ installed
between the paint/body shop and the rear Drop-
erty line prior to issuance of a use and ~ccu-
pancy permit for the new car sales addition
and museum conversion and shall be view-
obscuring.
All reguired parking spaces shall be striped
prior to issuance of the use and occupancy
permit.
The addition to th~ used car sales .bu’ilding
shall have a minimum floor elevation of
feet above mean sea level.
The museum building upon conversion to auto
parts 9nd service use shall be .fire sprink-
lered.
A .drainage $lan shall be approved by the City
Engineer prior to issuance of a building per-
mit.
The circulation plan ~roposed, including
directional arrows painted on the pavement and
¯ signage, shall be implemented prior to issu-
ance of a use and occupancy permit.
The interior parking lot landscaping shall be
improved as proposed with additional "trees,
ground cover~ ’and irrigation prior to issuance
of a use and.occupancy permit.
SECTION "3, Section 4 of Ordinance No. 2365 is hereby amended to
eliminate that condition requiring construction of a six-foot high
wooden fence in the .vicinity of the auto museum and t~_its connection
with the paint and body shop.
’[ SECTION 4. The. Development Schedule referred’to in Section 4 (3)
of ~r~-l~nce l~o. 2365 is hereby revised as follows:
Development Schedule:
(a) Start of ~construct~n of addit-ion to
-.existing .used .car sales "building to ~be
: converted to new car sales and conversion
of the museum to auto parts and service
facility withih four months after .Ci’ty
Counci-i approval and completion within
six months afte~ start of construotion."
SECTION 5. All other pPovisions of S.ection 4 of Ordinance No.
236~, as am~hded, not in cohflict herewith .shall-remain i~ full force
and effect.
SECTION 6, The Council finds that this project.will have no sig-
nificant environmental impact.
SECTION 7. This ordinance shall become effeetiv.e upon the com-
mencement of the thirty-first day after the day of its passage.
INTRODUCED: Ap~j] 19, 198~
PASSED= May 3, 1982
AYES: ~echte], Hye~]y, £azz~n0, Kick,, .Levy, ~thersp0on
NOES: None
ABSTENTIQNS: -~0ne
ABSENT:... ’~ob.b,’-£’] etcher, Re~zel
Assistant. Ci’ty. At’torna~
~ing and
Communit~ Environment
ORDI~C~ O~ ~ ~OUNaZ~ O~ ~ CZ~ O~ P~O ~0
~NDING SECTION Z8,08.0~0 OF THE e~LO ALTO MONICIP~
coo=
AS ~.1730 .~ARCA~RO ROAD FROM L-M-D TO P-C.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto @oes ORDAIN as fol-
lows:
SECTION i. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Al~o Municipal
Code ~Zoning Map) is hereby amended by changing the zoning of
certain property knQwn as 1730 Embarcadero Road from L-M-D to
P-C. Said propert~ is shown.on a map attached hereto, incor-
porated herein by reference and entitled "Change from L-M-D
to P-C, 1730 Embarcadero ~oad."
SECTION 2. The diagrams attached hereto entitled:
(a)Drawing No. P-I "Site and ~loor Plans";
(b)D~awing No. P-2 "Elevations and Sections";
(c)Preliminary Landscape Plan,.dated April 7, 1970;
(d)Ad-Ar’t Sign Plan, sheet i of 2, and Design
No. WC9-844, sheet 2 of 2, dated April 8, 1970..
affixed heret~ and by reference made a part hereof are hereby
made the Development Plan for the parcel.described in Se~ion
hereof. ’-
SECTION 3, Said. D.evelopment Plan is approved pursuant to
Section 18.68.070. of the Palo Alto Municipal Code subject to
the following conditions:
i. There shall be no sign on the proposed building.
Ohher smaller signs for the used cars and direction
s’igns shall be as indicated-on the Plan, Sign lighting
shall be turned off at 10:00 p.m.
2. Access agreements for the common entrance driveway
at the property line between 1730 Embarcadero Road and 1766
Embarcadero Road and theaccess from 1730 Embarcadero Road
to Faber Pl@ce across the property at 1766 Embarcadero Road
shall include the City as the third party beneficiary in
accordance with Section 18~84.~30 of th~ Zoning Ordinance
and as approved b> the City Attorney.
3. There shall be an irrigation system for all planted
ar~as.
4. One-way spikes the full width of the driveways shall
be provided &t the driveways on Embarcadero Road to prevent
exit onto Embarcadero Road.
5. There shall be no tree limb, shrub,.plant, fence,
wall or berm reaching a height mor~ tha~ three (3) feet above
the curb grade except’tree ~runks "having no limbs low~r t~an
nine {9) feet above curb grade within’the thirty-five .(35) foot
triangle measured from the projected curb lines at the inter-
section of Embarcadero Road and Faber Place.
6. The driveways and traffic-ways ~hr~ugh the property
shall be unmistakably marked’in a manner similar to the
traffic-way markings of the San Francisco airport.
7. The landscape plan shall be completed and-consistent
with the site plin.
8.’ Development schedule=
(a) Start of construction within six (6[ months
after City Council approval;
(b)completion of all construction and develop-
ment within one (i) year of start of con-
struction.
9. There shall be no roof mechanical equipment visible
from the street.
10. Applicant shall build and develop according to
the fire and building codes in force at the date each
-2-
’bu. ildihg permit is issued, any design feature of the
Development Plan approved heriby to the contrary notwith-
standing.
ii. No ~ouds.peaker shall b~ so located as to be
audi~le beyond the property line.
-SECTION 4. This ordinance shall become effective uponthe
expiratio~ of thirty (30) days from its passage.-’
INTRODUCED:March 30, 1970
PASSED:April 13, 1970
AYES:
NOES:
¯Arnold, Beahrs, Berwald, Dias, Gallagher, Norton, Spaeth, Wheatley
l~one
ABS~T.: Cla.rk, C’oms~ock, Pearson
.ATTES T :
APPROVED. ASTO FORM:
APPROVED :
stant y
C}IANGE FRON L-M-D TO P-C
1730 E~ARCADERO ROAD
REMAINS
P-F
REMAINS P-C
CHANGE L~M-D
TO P-C
REMAINS
P-C REMAINS
L-M-D
69-ZC~ 16
~~ZONE CHANGE BOUNDARY
¯.~EXISTING ZONE BOUNDARY
--e--e-CITY LIMITS BOUNDARY
SCALE ~O’ 200’ ~i00’ 600’
AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MONICfPAL
COD~ dHANGING THE ZONING OF CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN AS
~:690,~ SAN’A!~ONIO A’VaNUE FROM P-e AND L-M:S-D
The Council of the City of Palo Aito does ORDAIN as fol-
lows:
-’--~:~N~Ce. :NO.,
ORDINANCE OF TIIE CO~C~L OF TgE CT~y OF PALO ALTO
SECTION i. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code (Zoning Map) is hereby amended by changing the zoning of
certain property known as 690 San Antonio Avenue from P-C and
L-M:S-D to P-C, Said property is shown on a map attached hereto,
incorporated herein by reference and entitled "Change from
and L-M:S-D to P-C (Automobile Salhs and Service Agency) i"
SECTION 2, The diagrams attached hereto entitled "Developr
ment Plan" are incorporated herein by reference, Said .Development
Plan is approvei pursuant.~o Section 18,,68.070 of the. Palo ,Alto
Municipal Code subject to the following conditions:’
i.Use.
New and used automobile sales and service and
necessary accessory uses.
2. Improvements,
All construction and ~evelopment shall, comply
with all applicable Codes and Ordinances and
shall be subs£intially as shown on the approved
Development Plan with the following exception;
that along all areas where Pinus Pinea will be
planted there should be additional planting of
fast growing trees.
3.Development Schedule.
Start of construction within 120 days ~f the
effective date of this Ordinance and completion
of all construction and development within 240
days thereaft@r,
SECTION 3.
nance No~ 2~92
tions:
~veloDment Schedule.
Start of’constr~ction of Phase I, which
includes expansion of the Parts Depart-
ment, Service Department and offices, as
well "as grading, landscaoing and paving
Assessor’s Parcel Number ~47-9-38, within
two months after City Council approva!
and completion of construction within
eighteen months after starts, of construc-
tion.
~tart of construction of Phase I~, in-
cluding d~molition ’of the restaurant
strhcture, grading,.landscaping and pav-
ing Assessor’s Parcel ’Numbers 147-9-23
and 147-9-64, within twenty-four months
after City Council approval and comple-
tion within tweive months after start of
construction."
The Development Plan referred to’in Section 2 of Ordi-
as amended is approved subject tO the following condi-
4.That refuse be stored only within the proposed
refuse area.
2.~hat an on-slte fire hydrant be provided by.
~he applicant as require~ by the Fire Depart~
.me,to
That the developer remove ail abandoned drive~
ways and replace with standard curb and gutter
and that damaged driveway c~rbing (such as at
the Middlefield entrance) be replaced..
That the developer furnish and plant addi-
tional street trees as required by the City
Parks Department. ¯
That the internal drainage pla~ be approved, by
the City Engineer prior to issuance of a
building permit.
That the existing outdoor loudspeaker system.
be £emoved.
w That noise "levels comply w~h the Palo Alto
Noise Ordinance at the rear prope£ty line.
That ~o service work be performed outside of
the service building.
That lighting adjacent to the rear property
line abutting the" residential development be
turned off by 4:00 p.m. each evening with the
e.xception of the single fixture behind the
se;vice and parts building which may be left
on at night for security reasons..
10. ’ That the existing identification signs at ~he
Middlefield and-San Antonio entrances be re-moved prior to installation of the new identi-
fiqation and movement signs,
’S~ECTION 4.
2592, as amended, not i-n conflict herewith shall"remain in
and ~ffect.
’All other provisions of Section 2 of Ordinance No.
full force
SECTION 5. Ordinance No. 1400 is hereby repealed and ~Ii s~te
development’ r6strictions for the parcels formerly covered under this
ordinance are superceded by Ordinance No. 2592 as amended.
SECTION 6. The Council finds that this project .will have no sig-
nificant environmental impact. .
SECTIO~ 7. This ordinance sh&ll become effectiv.e upon the com-
mencement of the thi~ty~first day afterthe day bf its passage.
INTRQDOCE~:’ April. 19~ 1982 ’
PASSED: May 3, .1982
AYES:
NOES.
Bebhtel, Eyerly, Fazzino, Klein Levy, Withersp’oon
None
ABSTENTIONS: None
etc RenzelABSENT: Po6bA F! ~er,
"" ..:
nt Ci
AP
,ng
Community Environment
ORDINANCE NO. 335£
ORDINANCE-- OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CI.~Y.:’OF PAL0 ALTO
AMENDING PC ORDINANCE NO. 2592 A~P.~.Y~NG TO PROPERTY
KNOWN AS 690 SAN ANTONIO AVENUE AND REPEALING PC
ORDINANCE NO.. 1400 APPLYIN8 TO PROPERTY KNOWN AS
698 SAI~ ANTONIO AVENUE
-WHEREAS, O~ January 5, 1971, by Ord£nance No~"2592, the City of
Palo Alto approved a Planned Community (PC) zone lot’.certain property
known as 690 San Antonio Avenue to .allow an automobile dealership; and
WHEREAS, on January" 24, 1952, by Ordinance No. 1400, the city of
Palo Alto approved a Planned Commun.~ty (PC) zone for certain proper~ty
known as 698 San Antonio Avenue to allow a .gasoline service station and
. restaurant~ and
WHEREAS,.the property owner.of all five parcels of land com_mrisingthese two PC zones .has applied for modifications to the Development
Plan and Schedule established by Ordinance No. 2592 to permia the con-
struction of further improvements and expansion of the a~to dealership
onto property subject to Ordinance No.’1400;
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the Cit-y of Palo Alto does" ORDAIN
as follows:
SECTION I. Section 2 (2) of Ordinance No. 2592 establishing a
Development Plan for property known as 690 San Antonio Avenue.is hereby
amended to ~ead as follows:
"SECTION
2.Improvementl.
~Ii construction and development shall comply
with all applicable.codes and ordinances and
shall be substantially.as shown on the approv-
ed Development Plan. The plans enti£1ed:
a.."Toyota of Palo Alto Expansion, Phase 1
Site Plan, Sheet I ";
"b."Toyota of Palo Alto Expansion, Phase 2
Site Plan, Sheet 2";
"Toyota of Palo Altb Expansion, Landscape
Plan Phase I and 2, Sheet 3’!I
"Toyota of Palo Alto Expansion, Floor
Plan, Sheet 4";
" "Toyota of Palo Alto Expansion, Sections,
Sheet 5";
"Toyota of Palo Alto.Expa~sion, Exterior"
E~evation, Sheet 6";
g. "Ad Art, Toyota of Palo Alto Signs"
affixed hereto and by reference made a par~
hereof, are hereby made the Development Plan
for the property described b~ Ordinance Nos.
1400 an~ 259~."
SECTION 2. Section 2 (3) of Ordinance No. 259.2 establishing a
Development Schedule for property known as 690 San Antonio Avenue is
hereby amended to rea~ as follows:
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective upon the
expiration of thirty (30) days fromits passage.
INTRODUCED:December 14, 1970
PASSED:J~nuary 5, i971
AYES: Arnold~ Beahrs, Cl~rk, Cornstock, Dias, Gallagher, Pearson, Whe~tley
"NOES: Non, e
APPROVI
byor
, I.
RESOLUTION NO. 4841
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE C~TY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDXNG ORDINANCE 90, 2592 TO CHANGE THE ’P-C
DEVELOPMENT P’LAN APPLYING TO 690 SAN ~%NTONXO AVENUE
r:.!;~.~O ALLOW SIGN’ MODiFiCATIONS
)~: WHEREAS, on January 5, 1971, the Council passed Ordinance
San Antonio Avenue from P-C. and L-M:S-D to P-C and approving the
"Development Plan and Development Schedule therefor; and"
WHE~AS, theapplicant has requestdd a change to allow sign
modifications, for the.development; and.
" ;’.WHE~AS,.this’ change of P~C DevelQpment Plan is found to be
within the’ public interest, safety, convenienoe~ and general
welfare; f~rther, that sigds are exempt from the requirement for
environmental impac~ assessment.
.NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of yalo Alto does
RESOLVE as fol’lows:
SECTION i. Section 2 of Ordinance No.’2~92 is hereby amended
.’to change the "Devel9pment Plan" as it pertains to signs, in
acoord’ance with the diagra~ attached hereto and inoorpQrated
hgrein by reference’.
¯. SECTION~2..All’°ther provisions of Ordinance No. 2~92 sha~l
.remain in full force and effect as-’originally adopted.
~NTRODUC~.D AND PASSED: ~ovembe~ 19, 1973
Beahrs~ Berwald, Clay~ Coms~oek, Henderson, ~0rton, Pearson, RgsenSaum, SherAYES:
" NOES : None
APPROVED : .
.Mayor
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:
FROM: John
AGENDA DATE:
.PLA~I~G & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
L~~ing Community Environment
Manager
June 30, 2004
SUBJECT: Item No. 1 - New Auto Dealership Combining District Ordinance
DISCUSSION
The attachment provides the Commission with the legal Ordinance amending the Title 18 to
create a new Chapter 18.65 for the Auto Dealership Combining District (overlay).
The attached Exhibit 1 with the ordinance is the Chapter 18.65. The Commission received a
draft of this Chapter 186.65 with your packet, Attachment A. The copy included with the
ordinance in this memo has some minor revisions. The revisions as follows:
1.The definition for auto dealerships has been clarified to reflect the new use
underlay "auto dealerships" and added to the definitions section of the zoning
ordiance. This was done to provide a better separation from the "automotive
services" definition in the existing code.
2. The permitted uses allowing temporary banners was deleted because it
technically represents signage and staff wants to include it with the future
analysis and recommendations under signs.
3. The site development regulations section (18.65.050) was revised tO state that
all development standards in the underlying district would apply in addition to
the flexible development standards identified in this section for auto
dealerships:
City of Palo Alto Page
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Department/Division Head Approval:
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Afro Page 2
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO CREATING A NEW CHAPTER 18.65 (AUTO DEALER
COMBINING DISTRICT)AND AMENDING C}{APTER i~.04.
(DEFINITIONS) AND 18.83 (OFF-STREET PARKING AND
LOADING REQUIREMENTS)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
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
Municipal 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 Ecohomic
Base (~Ad-hoc tommittee") whose purpose was to 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: retain valued Palo Alto
businesses; enhance the economic base by sharing information
with Boards and Commissions; streamline: processes where
appropriate that undercut vibrant economic activity, retain
sales dollars in the community; identify economic development
"best practices" for implementation in Palo Alto; and retain
auto dealers in Palo Alto.
SECTION 2. A new paragraph (12.5), is added to
subsection (a) of section 18.04.030 (Definitions) of Title 18
[Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to read as follows:
(12.5) "Automobile dealership" means a use primarily
engaged in sale, lease, service, or minor repair of new
automobiles and trucks. Sale of used cars, if part of the use,
is of an accessory nature. Other accessory services incidenta!
and supporting auto sales include service bays for engine,
9ransmission, air conditioning, and minor painting, body and
fender repair, car wash, auto rental, and similar services.
SECTION 3. A new Chapter 18.65 (Auto Dealer Combining
District), as shown’in Exhibit I, is added to Title 18 [Zoning]
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
SECTION 4. The following entry is added to Table 1
(Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements) of Section 18.83.050
(Schedule of off-street parking, loading and bicycle facility
requirements) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code:
Minimum Bicycle
Parking Requirement
Us’e Spaces Class
Automobile
Dealirships
Minimum offiSt’~eet Parking
Requirement
I per"~’"~’~--~qiare feet of"sales
and office administration
area,and 1 per 500 square
feet of exterfor .sales or
@isplay area,excluding
automobile .~orage.
SECTZON 5. The City Council finds that the ehange~
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.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective 90 days
after the date of its adoption.
//
//
//
//
//
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:"
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Mayor
APPROVED:
City Manager
Director of Planning &
Community Environment
Attachment A
Chapter 18.65
Regulations
Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining District
Sections:
18.65.010
t8:65.020
18.65.030
18.65.040
18.65.050
18.65.060
18.65.070
Specific purposes
Appticabihty of regulations
Zoning Map Designation
Permitted Uses
Site Development Regulations
Parking and Loading
Special requirements
18.65.010 Specific Purpose
The automobile dealership (AID) combining district is intended to modify the regulations
of the service commercial (CS) and general manufacturing (GM or GM(B))distriets to
create and maintain areas accommodating automobile dealerships primarily engaged in
new automobile sales and service on a citywide mad re~onal basis. Such uses generally
require special parking, access, and outdoor display provisions for customer convenience,
servicing of vehicles or equipment, ioading or unloading, or parking of commercial
service vehicles.
18.65.020 Applicability of Regulations
The combining district may be combined with a service eomrnereial (CS) district or a
general manufacturing (GM or GM(B)) district, in accord with Chapters 18.08 and 18.98.
Where so combined, the regulations established by this chapter shall apply in lieu of the
comparable provisions established by the service commercial district or community
commercial district.
18.65.030 Zoning map designation.
The service commercial combining district shall apply to properties designated on the
zoning map by the symbol "AID" within parentheses, following the service commercial
(CS) or general manufacturing (GM or GM(B)) designation with which it is combined.
18.65.040 Permitted Uses
The following uses shall be permitted in the (AD) combining district:
(a)Automobile dealerships
Draft Auto Dealership Overly
~[une 24, 2004
18.65.050 Site Development Regulations
The site development regulations in this section 18.65.050 apply in the (AD) combining.
district, in addition to the regulations of the underlying district. Where the regulations of
the underlying distri.ct conflict with this section 18.65.050, this section shall control.
(a) ¯Floor AreaRatio.
(2)
0.4 to I.
The maximum floor area ratio .for automobile dealership uses shall be
(2) ~terior floor.area devoted exclusively to automobile showroom space
shall not count towards the total Floor Area Ratio. "Automobile showroom space" is that
area for the display of new automobiles, located only on the first floor and excluding’all
other uses associated with the automobile dealership including sales office and sale of
related merchandise. The Director of Planning and Community Environment is
authorized to determine whether floor area is automobile showroom space, as described
above.
(b)Height. The maximum height shall be fifty (50) feet.
(c) Outdoor Sales and Storage. Outdoor sales and display of automobiles and
merchandise shall be permitted subject to the following reguIations:
(1) Two automobile display pads shall be permitted in the required setback
area, including landscaped areas, adjacent to a public right-of-way. A single automobile
display pad shall be no higher than eight feet, including display pad and automobile, and
the :surface of the displaypad area shall be no larger than 175 square feet.
(2) Areas for outdoor sales and display of motor vehicles, other than
automobile display pads, shall meet the min~um design standards applicable to off-
street parking facilities with respect to paving, grading, drainage, safety and protective
features, lighting, and screening. Striping for parking stalls shall not be required for auto
display and storage areas
(3) Exterior storage shall screened by a solid wall or fence of between five (5)
and eight (8) feet in height.
18.65.060 Parking and Loading
Off-street parking and loading facilities shall be required for all automobile dealerships in
the AD combining district, in accord with Chapter 18.83.. Where the provisions of
Chapter 18,83 conflict with the provisions ofthis section 18.65.060, this section shall
control. The following parking requirements apptyto automobile dealerships in the (AD)
combining district, in lieu of comparable requirements of Chapter 18.83 and the
underIyktg district:
Draft Auto Dealership Overly
June 24, 2004
2
(a) Auto storage and display areas shall not be required to be striped for parking stall
and aisle width.
(b)Areas for customer parking shallbe designated.
18.65.070 Special Requirements
The special requirements in this section 18.65.070 apply in the.(AD) combining 6istrict,
in addition to the regulations of the underlying district. Where the regulations of the
underlying district Conflict with this section 18.65.070, this section shall control.
(a) Sites abutting or having any portion located within one hundred fifty (150) feet of
any RE, R-l, R-2, RM or any PC district permitting single-family development or
multifamily development shall be subject to the following additional height and yard
requirements:
(1) On any portion of a site in the AD combining district which abuts a site in
any RE, R-l, R-2, RM or app.ficable PC district, a minimum interior yard of ten (10) feet
shall be required and a solid wall between five (5) and eight (8) feet in height shall be
constructed and maintained along the common site line. The minimum interior yard shall
be plated and maintained as a landsc .aped screen, tfthe Dix~ctor determines that location
and installation of the landscape screen is not praeticaI, such landscaping may be reduced
ordeleted, if measures are taken to ensure that screening with an eight (8) foot decorative
wall is adequate to reduce noise to the satisfaction of the Director.
(2) On any portion of a site in the AD combining district which is opposite
from a site in any RE, R.-1, R-2, RM or applicable PC district and separated there from by
a street, alley, creek, drainage facility, or other open area, a minimum yard often (10)
feet shall be required. The rninirnum yard sha/t be planted and maintained as a
landscaped semen, excluding areas required for access to the site. If the Director
determines that location and installation of the landscape screen is not practical, such
landscaping.may be reduced or deleted, if measures are taken to ensure that screening
with an eight (8) foot decorative wall is adequate to reduce noise to the satisfaction of the
Director.
(3) Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any P-,E, P,.-1, P~-2, RM
or auy residential PC district shall be subject to a maximum height es.tablished by a
dayfight plane begirming at a height often (10) -feet at the appIieable side or rear site lines
and increasing at a stope of one meter for each two meters of distance from the side or
rear site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the underlying
dis~ct.
03) All uses, whether permitted or conditional, shall be conducted in such a
manner so as to preclude any nuisance, hazard, or commonly recognized offensive
conditions or characteristics, including creation or emission of dust, gas, smoke, noise,
fumes, odors, vibrations, particulate matter, chemical compounds, electrical disturbance,
humidity, heat, cold, glare, or night illumination. Prior to issuance of a building permitor
Draft Auto Dealership Overly
June 24, 2004
3
occupancy permit, or at any other time, the building inspector may require evidence that
adequate controls, measures, or devices l~tve been provided to ensure and protect the
public interest, health, comfort, convenience, safety, and generaI welfare from such
nuisance, hazard, or offensive condition.
Draft Auto Dealership Overly
June 24, 2004
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
Wednesday, June 30 at 7:00 PM
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL: 7:03p.m.
Commissioners:
Michael Griffin - Chair - Late: 8:40 p. m.
Phyllis Cassel - Vice-Chair- Left at break
Karen Holman
Patrick Butt
Bonnie Packer
Annette Bialson - Absent
Lee L Lippert
Staffi"
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Lisa Grote, Chief PIanning Official
Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to City Attorneys
John Lusardi, Planning Manager, Special Projects
Curtis Williams, Consultant Planner
Robin Ellner, Staff Secretary
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
1.Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU) - Planning and Transportation review and
recommendation for a new Auto Dealership (AD) Combining District.
3.Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU); Chapter 18.24 Office, Research, and Manufacturing
Districts.
APPROVAL OFMINUTES: Minutes for the Regular meeting of April 28, Special meeting
of June 2 and Regular meeting of June 9, 2004.
Vice-Chair Cassel: We are having some problems with the mikes tonight. If it starts to buzz
loudly our nice Secretary is going to turn it off and start it again. They have tried to fix it and
they haven’t been able to any more than this.
Would the Secretary please take the roll? Thank you.
The next item on the agenda is Oral Communications. I have one card and it is three minutes,
Bonnie.
Cit~ of Palo Alto Page I
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
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
Transportation Commission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you. This is Roxy Rapp.
Mr. Roxy Rapp, P.O.B.ox. 1672, Palo Alto: Thank you. In 1997 there was a master plan for
Downtown Urban Design Improvement for the Downtown area. During that area we looked at
alI the intersection and we also looked at wfiat we call Lytton Plaza, which is on the comer of
University and Emerson. And at that time after we went through the budget and the plan was
passed we didn’t have enough money to do Lytton Plaza. It was kind of my dream at some point
to be able to do it. Then about three years ago one our ex-mayors Lee Levi wanted to donate a
fountain to the City and he always felt that Lytton Plaza would be a great area to do something
there. The citY fathers heard about this and they knew of my interest and sort of put us together
on that. So Lee and I got together and we thought this would be great to work on together. So I
am just here tonight to show you the.master plan. I have a copy for you, and to let you know that
we are just starting out. We are going to be working with Steve Emslie, Public Works, the
Architectural Review Board, the Historic Board and of course the Public Arts Commission. So
if you have any input or you want to say anything please feel free to contact me or Lee. We
would love to get any input from you. We are working with a local landscape architect and
that’s all. I am just here tonight to let you know that we are starting the process. Thank you..
Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you very much, Roxy for that information.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the
calendar by a Commission Member.
Vice-Chair Cassel: There are no items on the Consent Calendar.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Agenda Changes. We have been asked by the Staffto take item number
two, the discussion of recommendations and alternatives for eastbound bicycle travel from the
new bicycle and pedestrian undererossing offthe calendar for this evening and move that to a
date certain on July 28t~. Bonnie, could you move that?
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: I would like to make a motion that we move item number two so that it
can be renoticed to July 28 of this year.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Is there a second?
SECOND
Commissioner Burr: Second.
MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2 with Commissioners Bialson and Griffin absent
City of Palo Alto Page 3
2
3
Vice-Chair Cassel: All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) Thank you.
4 We are now ready for item number one, Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU) Planning and
5 Transportation review and recommendation for a new Auto Dealership (AD) Combining District.
6 This includes three parts, Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommendation
7 for the approval of an Ordinance to add a combining district (overlay) establishing development
8 standards for existing Auto Dealerships to Chapter 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; Planning
9 and Transportation Commission to initiate an Auto Dealership Combining District zoning for the
10 following existing auto dealership sites: 3001 E1 C~’nino Real, 4180 El Camino Real, 4190 E1
11 Camino Real, 3290 Park Blvd, and 3045 Park Blvd. The third item is Planning and
12 Transportation Commission to initiate an amendment to three Planned Community Zoning sites
13 to allow new development standards for the existing auto dealerships, located at: 1730
14 Embarcadero Road, 1766 Embarcadero Road, and 690 San Antonio Road. Would Staff like to
15 introduce the Staff and make a presentation?
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.24
25
26
27
28
29
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
Public Hearing:
Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU) - Planning and Transportation review and
recommendation for a new Auto Dealership (AD) Combining District.
1. Planning and Transportation Commission review and recommendation for the approval
of an Ordinance to add a combining district (overlay) establishing development standards
for existing Auto Dealerships to Chapter 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code.
2. Planning and Transportation Commission to initiate an Auto Dealership (AD)
Combining District zoning for the following existing auto dealership sites: 3001 E1
Camino Real, 4180 E1 Camino Real, 4190 E1 Camino Real, 3290 Park Blvd, and 3045
Park Blvd.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2I
22
23
24
25
26
27
3. Planning and Transportation Commission to initiate an amendment to three Planned
Community Zoning sites to allow new development standards for the existing auto
dealership uses, located at: 1730 Embarcadero Road (PC2554), 1766 Embarcadero Road
(PC3350), and 690 San Antonio Road (PC2592).
SR Weblink: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/eityagenda/publishlplanning-transportation-
meetings/3489.pdf
Mr. John Lusardi, Planning Manager, Special Proiects: Members of the Commission, at your
June 16 Commission meeting Staff introduced this item with the recommendations for initiating
and starting creating an auto zone overlay or combining district for auto dealerships selling new
cars and preowned cars. At the June 16 Planning Commission review the Commission provided
Staff with direction and recommendations for additional information and further steps to take.
Those steps included to address uses of an overlay zone in different areas of the City. Staff is
recommending that we address that through the proposed overlay zone in the future through
performance standards rather than creating more than one overlay zone for auto dealerships. The
Commission asked us to look at alternatives to flexible development standards. Staff has done
that and presented that in the Staff Report and we will discuss that briefly again tonight. The
Commission asked Staffto review the PC zones that are existing and what public benefit
component was included in those. That information is included in your Staff Report as welt.
The Commission asked and directed concernsregarding the Baylands Master Plan Guidelines
and how the two auto dealerships out there might be treated pursuant to the guidelines. Staff has
included the existing guidelines in your Staff Report and coordinated with Advanced Planning
Staff on that. At your seats tonight Staff has also given you a copy of the draft Baylands
Guidelines that are being developed with Advance Planning Staff. Under separate cover you
also received a table comparing what Staff is proposing as far as the auto overlay zone and
flexible development standards with what other cities have implemented, at the request
Commission has asked for. Tonight Staff has provided the additional information to the
City of Palo Alto Page 5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1 Commission and addressed the Commission’s recommendations with a revised report including
2 additional recommendations on how to proceed with the auto overlay zone in the short term that
3 is implementing the new flexible development standards and continuing to develop that auto
4 overlay zone in the future and bring it back to the Commission. Staff has also included a
5 recommendation that a long term auto dealership strategy and strategic plan be developed and be
brought back to the Commission and to the City Council.
I want to briefly touch upon the flexible development standards as we are identifying them at this
time in the recommendation. First, as Staff explained in the Staff Report how an overlay zone or
a combining district functions with an underlying district, that is the existing CS or GM districts
as we are recommending here and how it is applied through a zoning process and not
automatically applied to a site or not automatically applied to every site within that district. Staff
also wants to reiterate that these steps are being taken in conjunction with the development
review process and the streamlining of that process that Staffis working on.
One of the issues or concerns that the auto dealerships have brought up in relation to the auto
dealership overlay is the development review process and some of the entanglements that they
have encountered and expected. One of the things that we want to do through this is work with
that development review process by identifying standards elearty and cleanly within the Zoning
Ordinance so when .they are applied there is no question or no gray area as far as what can be
applied on the auto dealership sites. Furthermore, we also want to reiterate that all of the flexible
development standards that we are recommending here do require an Individual Review, a
design review, whether it is Site and Design out in the Baylands or an ARB permit in the other
CiO~ ofPalo ~tlto Page 6 ,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
districts. So they do require a permit. These flexible development standards are not just an
entitlement that is applied by right they do require a discretionary review.
The development standard that Staff is recommending in the new chapter at this time is a floor
area ratio for a showroom space. That is exempting the showroom space for an auto dealership
as far as counting towards floor area. Just to provide some additional information on that Staff
has done some preliminary research with the existing auto dealerships. The four auto dealerships
in the Commercial Service zone right now do not meet or exceed their .4 FAR so they do have
room to add on to their FAR with other uses or with an auto dealership. The one auto dealership
in the GMB zone does have a restriction through its CUP of a maximum size of 18,000 square
feet. The building right now I think is approximately 17,900 square feet. So they are limited in
their ability to grow or expand. The three PCs are limited by the PC sites themselves that is their
FAR is established within their own PC and they are built out through their PC so their FAR for
these purposes is maxed out.
Staff also wants to reiterate that the purpose of the exemption for the showroom space is not just
to give FAR to the auto dealerships but to provide an incentive for them to retain or build upon
the showroom space which is an unique use and it helps with their identity as an auto dealership,
it helps with their identity with manufacturers and it also is an added plus with respect to that
identity in reducing to some extent the need for additional signage. So there is an incentive built
into this for auto dealerships to maintain or enhance their auto showroom space and not just
expand their business in general.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1.0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Parking standards as described in the Staff Report have not changed from the last Commission
meeting. Staff is simply asking for some relief from some of the parking standards with respect
to how cars or how parking is counted with respect to auto storage and how parking lots are not
required to be striped in the auto storage areas.
The display pads’ and platform recommendations have not changed from the last Planning
Commission report although I do want to recognize the fact that two of those auto dealers are in
the Baylands and under the Baylands Master Plan. Staff will continue to work with Advance
Planning Staff regarding the sensitivity of that area with respect to the guidelines and how this
element could be applied to those dealerships.
Landscaping and screening, the Commission raised a concern at the last meeting about just
removing the screening, the landscape buffer element, from the screening on adjacent residential
properties or across the street. The alternative in the current Staff Report is to maintain the
standard for a five to eight foot decorative wall as far as screening goes, maintain the standard
for the Iandseape buffer with the Directox~ to have the discretion to reduce that buffer or eliminate
that buffer if it becomes a site constraint with respect to the auto dealership’s ability to add
services on their site. It would also have to be demonstrated that the decorative wall would meet
all noise attenuation requirements as well.
The definition of accessory uses issue from the last Staff Report has not changed. This is an
important element in the fact that what we have done is to clarify what a new auto dealership
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
new sales involves and create a new definition so there is no confusion with the automotive
services definition within the exis.ting zoning ordinance and the relationship to used car sales.
Signage, lighting and noise standards are identified in the Staff.Report as a key element to be
looked at with the auto dealerships. At this time Staff has not done enough research or had
enough discussion with the auto dealerships to come forward with recommendations. So
basically what we would Iike to do is create that holding place in the new chapter and come back
to the Commission and the Council with further development 6fstandards for signage, lighting
and noise standards. This could also conceivably be folded into performance standards for
individual areas whether it is E1 Camino or the GM district or San Antonio Road. So they could
be built in specific performance standards or the Baylands as well.
The last item is the auto fleet storage. Staff is recommending that the Commission address that
on the second item on this agenda with the industrial and Manufacturer Zoning Ordinance
Update.
Thisevening the Staffis asking that the Commission create the new overlay zone for auto
dealerships for new ear sales in the Zoning Ordinance Chapter 18.65. Address the short-term
needs of the existing auto dealers by implementing these initial flexible development standards
identified in the chapter and initiating an overlay on the existing auto dealerships or amending
the PCs where appropriate. To provide for an auto dealership combining district in the Zoning
Ordinance Update process that could be used to implement long term strategies when they are
identified for existing and new auto dealerships and additional development standards or
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
performance standards. And finally to develop a long-term auto dealership retention and
recruitment plan working with the Manager’s Office, Economic Development, other
stakeholders, auto dealerships and the Chamber of Commerce to develop this long-term plan.
With that Staff is available for questions. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: If anyone would like to speak to the Commission when we get to the open
communications section you need to fill out a card and include your name, printed as well as in
writing, so we can read it. Are there any questions? Pat.
Commissioner Burr: I have several so I will give a couple and then pass and see if other
Commissioners address some of my other questions. One had to do with the interpretation of
this table that compared various cities. I was just having trouble following some of this. If you
take the second row, which for instance talked about FAR, and under Burlingame it says three to
one FAR for all uses in C2 District. Is that a typo?
Mr. Lusardi: I think that is a .3 FAR in all the commercial districts, yes.
Commissioner B’urt: Then the next column under Menlo Park it says for auto storage in
conjunction with auto dealership an additional 25% FAR for a total FAR of 100%. Does that
mean a one to one, 1.0 FAR? What does the 100% refer to?
Mr, Lusardi: That is our under.standing is that it is an additional 25% and it is a m .aximum of one
to one FAR is what they would get.
City of Palo Alto Page I0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Burr: Okay, it might be helpful to use standard nomenclature. Then under
Redwood City for instance, it talked about .7 to one FAR for dealerships and then in parentheses
.4 to one for non-auto dealership. What is a non-auto dealership referring to?
Mr. Lusardi: Again I think that reference other commercial uses. I don’t think it is non-auto
dealerships I think it is just all other commercial uses.
Commissioner Burt: Okay, so those are technical cleanups. Then Staffhad alluded to some
problems that at least one of the dealerships had had and we heard from that dealership at our last
meeting in trying to get some remodeling done and a comparison to how long it had taken for us
to get it through versus I think it was Redwood City. I don’t think we really got an explanation
of what were those problems that they encountered. The reason I ask this is because a lot of
what we are trying to accomplish here is to remove some barriers that have been real barriers in
the past as well as I assume to anticipate some other potential barriers that the dealerships may
b,e seeing toward having better success at their businesses here in Palo Alto. So what were those
problems that they had and in what ways are these proposals addressing the problems that they
have encountered?
Mr. Lusardi: I believe the dealership you are speaking of the issues they ran into were several.
Number one was the maximum FAR that they had on the site and their ability to add additional
services or uses. So the showroom if that would count towards being exempted from FAR
would give them an additional FAR to perhaps expand on their services and maintain their
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
showroom use as well. To my knowledge the other issues that that dealership had spoke more to
building permit issues being in the flood zone and the difficulty of trying to get two building
permits with respect to flood zone standards. That is my understanding of that problem.
Commissioner Burt: All they talked about was delays. They didn’t talk about a request that they
had made for any FAR relief as part of their problem. They just said it was a time delay. We are
doing a bunch of changes and we have had one specific example of a dealership that has had
significant problems that they have said have occurred. So out of the problems that they
identified are we addressing those problems in any way? It sounded to me like it was a process
streamlining issue that was a big part of it. Have we already addressed any of those issues
through our previous process streamlining efforts because I don’t see that here? So I want to
look at whether we have some sort of relationship between the problem that has been stated and
the solutions that we are proposing.
Mr. Lusardi.: We are addressing it through the Auditor’s Report and implementing the Auditor’s
recommendations as far as the permit process. The Commission has seen that and looked at that.
That is a separate track and that is in conjunction with what we are doing here. I think what we
are doing here that helps that proc.ess as I indicated is what we are trying to do is clarify what the
auto dealership’s needs are as far as development standards. Right now basically auto
dealerships are allowed in the CS and the GM zone and there is no standards specific to them.
So when they come in for a permit or they want to do a certain display or something like I said it
is not very clear that that is something that they can do which could add to the review process or
City of Palo AIto Page I2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
the time process. So I think in helping to clarify the development standards that apply to the auto
dealerships I think that will also help streamline the process and make the review process faster.
Commissioner Burr: One more at this time. We also heard fr6m the auto dealerships that there
are certain guidelines that are required, I don’t know if they are guidelines, but requirements
placed upon them by some of the manufacturers that they represent and that those are some of
the problems that they have in being able to stay in Palo Alto and continue to be dealers here in
the City. That they have difficulty being able to meet those requirements of the automotive
manufacturers but we didn’t hear much in the way of details of what those requirements are.
Once again if that is one of our objectives is to be able to give them the ability to meet those
standards, those commercial standards, we need to know more about what those are in order to
see whether the solutions that we have before us address them. So do we know much in the way
of details of those?
Mr. Lusardi: Well, there are auto dealers here in the audience and maybe they can address more
specifics. Staff’s understanding of what the flexible development standards or what we are
asking to implement today how that addresses that issue is number one visibility, the auto
dealership’s ability to ~ompete with other dealerships through visibility. Obviously that is hurt
here because they don’t have freeway visibility. So that ability to increase their visibility onsite
with respect to auto display pads, more visibility of the manufacturer’s logo or icon, those kinds
of things, a better showroom, those are all things that go back to the auto dealership to show that
they can be competitive with other dealerships in the area.
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
The second main element is the auto dealership’s ability to provide a service to their customers
that is the ability to provide a full service on the warranty of vehicles, a service of storing enough
vehicles that they sell so they can deliver those vehicles in a short fashion. That is why we are
addressing this on offsite storage as well as trying to help them with their parking requirements.
So that ability to deliver and store new cars is also a key element that they need to demonstrate to
their manufacturer. So those issues are being addressed in these development standards.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Karen, do you want to ask some questions?
Commissioner Holman: Yes, one is a request. I am trying to listen. We got a revised version of
the ordinance here and I would like to request five minutes so we could go through that to
compare. I know the changes were indicated but when I try to look at the text it is somewhat
reworked. So I would like five minutes if other Commissioners would be interested in that too
just so we could read through this. Since we are familiar with the material it should only take
about five minutes.
Mr. Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to City Attorneys: Maybe I should mention a couple of the
changes that were made. They are primarily technical in nature. The first one is we clarified the
definition of auto dealerships and we moved that definition over to another chapter of the Zoning
Ordinance that contains the definitions for the whole ordinance. So we just simply moved that
definition. We did the same thing with some of the parking requirements. We moved those to
the parking chapter of the Zoning Ordinance. Then we deleted the provisions in there relating to
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
I7
I8
19
20
21
22
temporary signage and those as mentioned in the Staff Report have been deferred. So we
removed those and the rest are technical.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Would anyone else like some time to look that through? Pat, are you okay?
Commissioner Burr: I think I am okay if Staff has any other clarifications besides what Dan had
to say or if Dan covered everything.
Mr. Lusardi: Just to reiterate that whatever development standards are not in the auto dealership
overlay the underlying district development standards for building height, building square
footage, site coverage, those issues apply.
Vice-Chair Cassel: You are going to get a little
Commissioner Lippert: Can I ask a question?
Vice-Chair Cassel: Robin is going to have to go up every time that happens, turn the system off
and then turn it back on again. They tried to fix it today and weren’t able to do so so we will
have to be patient with the system. Go ahead, Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: Thank you. In the Staff Report you have added the additional material
regarding the PC parcels. In there the underlying zoning is PC but the description or the
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
qualitative information is really not included in this document it is included in the drawings.
anyone taken a look at what the drawings are that embodies that information?
Has
Mr. Lusardi: We have started that research and we are looking at it. When we come back with
an ordinance amending those three PCs we will be able to delineate how the flexible
development standards fit into the existing development standards and the building requirements
in that PC district.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Recently the Architectural Review Board looked at I believe one
of those sites, I believe it is the Honda dealership, and had recommended some new landscaping
to supplant the landscaping that is embodied as part of the PC. In other words they were
basically updating that. Would that be attached to the underlying zoning of the PC or the
condition of the PC?
Mr. Lusardi: If the PC were amended to provide for that landscaping then yes that would apply
as well.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay, so if I understand it since the underlying zoning is PC in this case
and the PC describes certain landscape elements those landscape elementswould still have to
remain even though the overlay zone may relieve other parcels of those standards.
Mr. Lusardi: With respect to the PCs we are not applying an overlay. We have to amend the PC
itself. So how we amend the PC with these flexible standards has to be in concert with what the
Ci~, of Palo Alto Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
existing standards are. Now to be honest with you I don’t know the specifics of the landscaping
that recently went through but if it is in the front which I am assuming that’s what it is and they
want to put in an auto display pad then that auto display pad has to take that landscaping into
account and it has to address the landscaping requirements that were approved. So they do have
to work in conjunction, yes.
Commissioner LioDert: So that brings me to my second line of questioning which is if those
standards need to be sort of written into the PC or the zoning for those parcels would the zoning
for those change to another sort of zoning? Would it change to General Manufacturing or would
it be rezoned as LM?
Mr. Lusardi: They would remain PCs and the PC would be specific to that site. What Staff
would do is prepare an ordinance that amends that PC much like some of them have been
amended in the past adding the new flexible development standards and we can certainly look at
updating any of the other changes so it is all in one ordinance in one place that it happens such as
the landscaping. We eould do that. We could update it as well.
Commissioner Lipp...e.rt: Okay.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Bonnie, do you have a question?
Commissioner Packer: Just to make it very clear to me, let’s assume this overlay zone is put into
the code and we are talking for understanding about the five dealerships, not counting the PCs,
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
that are in GM and CS. TheoreticalIy if another site became available that an auto dealer wanted
to develop into an auto dealership on E1 Camino or Embarcadero or San Antonio this overlay
would apply. Is that correct?
Mr. Lusardi: It would apply but it would have to go through an approval proc.ess much like a
rezoning, Planning Commission and City Council.
Commissioner Packer: I understand. I just want to make it clear that this is not specific to
existing auto dealers but it could apply in the future.
Mr. Lusardi: That is correct. That is the short-term strategy. The long term strategy as I said of
retention and recruitment and providing for new dealerships or relocation of the existing
dealerships if they find a better site.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I have a question about timing. The Staff Report mentions on several
occasions performance standards that would have to be developed and that those performance
standards would come back to the Commission. So as I was reading this I was thinking that it
would be helpful to know what the performance standards were to some extent when considering
changing to this zoning or this overlay. So since, and correct me ifI am wrong here, since no
application could go forward no matter what we do tonight without the performance standards
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
being in place would it be just an advantageous for us to review and look at everything at once
and approve everything at once?
Mr. Lusardi: The recommendation by Staff to develop performance standards was mainly in
response to the Commission’s recommendation at the last meeting that instead of one overlay
6 district we create two, three, four overlay districts pursuant to E1 Camino, San Antonio, GM
7 district. Staff doesn’t see that as very efficient creating three or four overlay districts. To be
8 really honest with you I don’t know what performance standards would be applicable to the
9 individual sites at this time. Lighting and noise are typical performance standards that we would
10 be addressing much like we are in the industrial districts. So we would continue to develop that.
11 While we are developing that the existing performance standards or development standards with
12 respect to lighting and signage would apply. That is, nothing new would be allowed over and
13 above what is already allowed in the current Municipal Code as far as those things go. So we
14 don’t have the performance standards with you. I don’t think that would stop us from moving
15 forward and applying these four or five flexible development standards. Again, an important
16 part of this step is to create that combining district for auto dealerships. Staff has never intended
17 for this to be the complete package right now. It is a first step to get that in place and to continue
18 to develop that. We also want to develop in the context of a long term strategy, what might go in
19 there to help develop a long term strategy for recruitment and retaining auto dealerships. So
20 there is more information to be developed and go in there. I don’t think it encumbers the
21 dealership’s ability to come in with and apply these flexible development standards that we are
22 recommending right now.
23
City of Palo Alto Page 19
1 Commissioner Holman: At the last meeting I had raised the issue of and understanding the
2 constraints that are spelled out, I had raised the issue about finding permanent homes that much
3 better satisfy the dealership’s needs, i.e., freeway access, visibility from the freeway was a big
4 one. The question I had raised was if we give more FAR for instance and potentially other
5 relaxations of requirements then where does it become a point where the dealership becomes so
invested in their location that they aren’t going to be prone to move to a location that better suits
the needs and still end up leaving anyway?
6
7
8
9 Mr. Lusardi: We know a lot about why or what would make an auto dealership relocate and
10 some of the things that we have learned the number one factors is identity that is principally
11 freeway identity or access. That would be a prime factor for an auto dealer to relocate to. The
12 second major factor is their ability to obtain either a long-term lease or acquire the property. So
13 funding and resources is a second major issue with respect to how or why a dealer might want to
14 relocate to another site. The third factor that we are learning from the auto dealerships is their
15 ability to provide a full service, and they say full service onsite. That is everything from auto
16 sales to repair to auto storage and that. So those site constraints are also another factor, which
17 would work into an auto dealership’s decision to relocate. If all we can find is very small sites
18 that would support for instance a boutique dealership, is what we.identify it as, the sales portion
19 only and the services are done offsite that are not necessarily freeway access’ but close by. All
20 those factors come into play in developing a long-term relocation or retention or recruitment
21 program and we need to develop those. Those are the issues that Staff understands the dealers
22 have identified as prime issues for either relocating or expanding on their site.
23
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Holman: So just to be clear, you are not understanding from the current
dealerships that depreciation of improvements should they invest significantly in current sites
that isn’t going to be a factor in them relocating to more appropriate locations within Palo Alto?
Mr. Lusardi: No: I am not saying that. I don’t know the answer to that question. I would
imagine that is a factor in their investment and as they grow but I would think if an ideal
dealership site became available especially on 101 that would be a great opportunity for a dealer
to move. Again, I think the real limiting is their ability with respect to resources and funding to
acquire and build another site it in that regard. So there are a lot of factors that go into an
existing auto dealership relocating within the City to another site. There are factors going into a
new auto dealership locating within the City as wel!. So those are all factors tl~at we need to
develop in the long-term strategy, come back to the Commission and the Council and explain in
more detail.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Go ahead.
Commissio~aer Lippert:
architecture specifically work together.
located out in the flood zone fight now.
I have a question with regard to how planning and the mechanics of the
A lot of the sites here or a couple of the sites at least are
The overlay requirements here might in fact not come
into play very much in that those buildings that have certain limitations before other factors
begin to kick in. What I am specifically talking about is any time you take a building and you
improve the building over 50% of say the appraised value of the building it is subject to seismic
retrofitting. But a point of fact is if you are over 50% of the appraised value in a flood zone the
City of Palo Alto Page 21
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
building really can’t sustain those kinds of improvements. FEMA wants you to come in demo
the building, rebuild the building and elevate it out of the flood plane. Has anyone done any sort
of analysis with regard to looking at that?
Mr. Lusardi.: We have looked at it in a preliminary sense and Staff doesn’t believe that the
development standards that are being proposed now are going to trigger that kind of a value that
. would require an upgrade to new flood ,standards or seismic standards. The expansion of the
showroom could conceivably do that but I think the expectation is that the expansion of a
showroom or adding a few bays is not going to add to that value so much that it would trigger
those things. The small things like relief in parking and display pads certainly wouldn’t trigger
that kind of a value with respect to flood standards and such. So these standards that we are
proposing now I don’t anticipate would trigger that kind of a requirement to meet flood standards
or seismic standards.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Pat, did you have some more questions?
Commissioner Burt: Yes. Can you explain the differentiations that we are making and why
between new auto dealerships on the one hand, used car dealerships and then as we are looking
to accommodate the needs for the new auto dealerships to have full service meaning essentially
repair functions how that compares to the code requirements that we are placing on competitors
who are purely in the service function area? Are we creating one set of standards that most of all
favors new dealerships who also sell used cars and we are not proposing to allow comparable
liberalization of the standards for used car dealers that compete with these guys nor for the repair
City of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2
3
4
shops that compete with them? What thought has gone into how those competitive relationships
interplay and the fairness issues that might be involved there?
Mr. Lusardi: Well the major issue with respect to new car sales and auto dealerships obviously
5 within a city is their sales tax that they generate. So that it a major impetus for working with
6 them and trying to retain them. That is how that relates to used car dealers I don’t know. Susan
7 Arpan from the of-flee of Economic Development is here and maybe she can clarify that a little
8 more. The other big element with respect to new auto dealerships and used car sales and even
9 auto services that is auto repair shops is the service that an auto dealership provides to its
10 ’customers that is especially the warranty customers or customers who want to stay with an auto
11 dealer as far as their service area it is really that full service. Used cars typically don’t provide
12 auto repair or auto service. They typically aren’t involved in the warranty aspects of new cars
13 because they are selling used cars. So there is a difference in that regard as far as the customer
14 service that an auto dealership supplies to the community in relation to other auto services or
15 used ear services. It is not just as I said the sales. A customer living in Palo Alto who might buy
16 a car someplace else still has needs in an auto dealership within proximity to take their ear to get
17 it serviced under the warranty that is a big factor with respect to that kind of a full service that an
18 auto dealership provides for the community as well as car sales.
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Burt: So as regards to the liberalization of the FAR is that what you are saying
that in the ease of a new car dealership they have that need because their auto service
requirements create a necessity for an FAR greater than what a used car dealership would have
for an FAR. Is that basically what you are saying in first comparison?
City of Palo Alto Page 23
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
2 Mr. Lusardi: I think that is part of it but in that respect that is not the real reason for exempting
3 the FAR for the showroom. I think the real reason for exempting the FAR for the showroom as I
4 said is to provide an incentive for those auto dealerships to maintain that identity that they have
5 and also to demonstrate to the manufacturers or the certified manufacturer who is certifying their
cars that they have the ability to be competitive with other dealerships. That showroom as far as
new car sales in other communities that showroom is important. I think the manufacturers say
that is important with respect to the dealer. So it is really looked at as an incentive in that regard
less in regard as an incentive for the full service.
Commissioner Burt: Okay, I am still struggling though with why is it appropriate to provide
these sorts of liberalizations of zoning requirements for a new auto dealership and not provide
them for a competitor of theirs who is a used car dealer.
Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director: Let me just take a stab at this. We are dealing in a very
competitive environment. Auto sales are being consolidated in a big way in the nation and in the
Bay Area. The manufacturers are more and more restrictive as we have talked about in terms of
the criteria that they are giving to their franchisees and dealers. Palo Alto offers very few
incentives in fact we don’t provide any incentives for auto dealers. We are dealing in an
environment where cities are much more aggressive in offering incentives to relocate dealers to
sites that meet all of the manufacturers requirement for visibility, freeway signage, state-of-the-
art auto services. So we are trying to retrofit basically dealers that were established under 1950s,
’60s and °70s rules that have dramatically changed. This is one way that we can address not all
City of Palo Alto Page 24
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1 of the issues but many of them that are substantive to help retain our dealers and maintain their
2 competitive advantage in dealing with what is going on in other cities who are offering much
3 more than just land use incentives but financial packages that I guarantee you are very, very
4 attractive to both the dealers and their manufacturers.
5
Commissioner Burr: Steve, I understand. That’s a very good articulation of the reasons why we
would want to provide these kinds of incentives for new car dealerships but that is different from
the nature of my question. The nature of my question is if it is appropriate to provide those
incentives and that relief for new car dealerships who also are selling used cars what is the
rationale for n6t providing that to used car dealers at the same time?
Mr. Emslie: We think there is a difference between a new ear dealer that sells a percentage of
used cars and they all do it is prov!ded for in the ordinance and an exclusively used car sales.
Used car sales are not going to do the volumes that a new car dealer does. They are not going to
have the same standards imposed upon them~ They are a bit more seat of the pants if you will
and we believe there is a difference both an urban planning difference in terms of the appearance
of the dealership and as well as the contribution to sales tax. Tliey are not going to do the
volumes. They are not identified with a national or international brand. They don’t have the
marketing that goes along with a new car dealer that creates the kind of volumes that are
important in maintaining our sales tax base. We do think there is a difference between the two
and if we were going to intent one segment of the auto industry it would be at the new car level.
City of Palo Alto Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Vice-Chair Cassel: Unfortunately two of our public had to leave and we only have one person
on this card. Anyone who wants to sp.eak on this item please fill out a card, print your speakers
name so that I can read it and bring it forward to the secretary. Thank you. I will open the
public heating. Roxy Rapp was the first card I have, is he here? Steve Kirksey, is he here? That
leaves me with Audrey Jacob from the Chamber of Commerce.
Ms. Audrey Jacob, Chamber of Commerce: Good evening Commissioners. I am Audrey
Sullivan Jacob, Director of Government Relations for the Chamber of Commerce. I have already
spoken in favor of this auto dealership overlay zone. I think it is an important mechanism for
retaining auto dealerships in Palo Alto. I would also like to say that the Chamber of Commerce
is willing to work with the City to develop a long-term auto dealership retention and recruitment
plan. We would very much like to be a part of that. We do support the proposed zoning changes
for auto dealerships that are modest in nature and intended to provide auto dealerships with
¯ flexibility to enhance their economic viability. We would like to point out that the proposed
changes are limited to the flexible zoning standards listed in Attachment C of the Staff Report
and that the proposed zoning changes may only be used by an auto dealership operating on a
specific ~ite. The Chamber supports the Staff recommendations that only one overlay zone be
used and not multiple overlay districts because of the flexibility needed for auto dealerships that
could be achieved with one overlay zone. We thank you for your consideration.
¯Vice-Chair Cassel: Thank you.
five minutes to speak.
That will bring the discussion back here. Bud Mission you have
City of Palo Alto Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Mr. Bud Mission, Roche Palo Alto, 3431 Hillview Avenue, Palo Alto: Thank you members of
the Planning Commission. I am Director of Site Services with Roche Palo Alto. I am also here
representing the Chamber of Commerce as well. We would like to speak in support of this. I
would like to point out that while the Chamber supports the Staff recommendations for
performance standards for specific areas we caution that these standards not undo the intention of
the recommended zoning modifications which are designated to create business flexibility. The
Chamber supports exempting showroom use from FAR knowing that depending on the site ARB
and approval of site and design process would be required. The Chamber continues to support
the changes for parking for customers, employees, service bays, displays and vehicle storage as
recommended in the Staff Report and by Staffon June 16. We support Staff’s recommendations
of allowing dealerships to display pads to encroach into landscape area with an ARB permit.
Again we do support this. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Does anyone want to ask him any questions? Thank you. That will bring
the discussion back to the table. Were you finished with that question, Pat? You got the
questions answered as best as we can? I am not sure they are going to give us anymore direct
information on it.
Commissioner Burr: I was getting some helpfu! information from Staff and I wanted to make
sure I understand it. The nature of my question is from a different vantage point from the ones
that we used very clearly as to why this came before us. It is has been articulated by Staffthat it
is in the economic self interest of the City to try to do whatever we can to retain this important
revenue source for the City of the auto dealership. What I heard Director Emslie say is that
Ci~ of Palo Alto Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
really there are two things that cause us to want to differentiate between new ear dealerships
which also sell used cars and also do service and between that and used car dealers or between
that and companies that are auto service companies. One was that we get more bucks from the
new car companies and the second is that because of the nature of their business they tend to
have really more attractive facilities and grounds and in that sense from an aesthetic standpoint
they are more favorable than what we see as a used car lot basically. I think we need to lay these
things on the table because there is also maybe not as profound of an issue but an underlying
issue that I think we should be considering there is a fairness issue. These guys compete. So
that is what I want to make sure that not only the Commission but Staff has thought through this
ramification of are we setting up a level playing field or an unlevel playing field because it
serves us from an income standpoint in the City to have that set up more favorable standards for
new dealerships. ~
Vice-Chair Cassel: Before we discuss that amongst ourselves let me go on there are a couple of
more people that have some questions. Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a follow up question. I am not aware of any businesses in Palo
Alto that are solely devoted to the sale of used cars. Susan is saying yes we have. Maybe we
need some information.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Susan you want to join us at the table for this item?
Cit~ of Palo Alto Page 28
1 Ms. Susan Arpan: We actually have a couple of auto dealers that qualify. One went into the old
2 Stanford Nissan site and I believe it is called Hammer Auto or I can’t think of the name of it
3 right now but it is in the old Stanford Nissan site. Then we also have Enterprise Auto Sales that
4 is Corporate Motors and they actually generate quite bit of sales tax and it is only on used cars.
5 So there are two.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
i3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Commissioner Packer: Is it possible that with this overlay that these businesses might try and
work with the manufacturer and become new car dealers? Is this an incentive? You say one of
these used car businesses went into a site that used to be a new car place. So is it possible that
these changes could incite this business to also become a new car dealer?
Ms. Arpan: Actually the nature of the business is a little bit different they sell a variety of used "
cars at that site and they are not tied to any particular manufacturer which is sort of why we tied
ourselves to preowned autos as opposed to used autos. That was the differentiation that was
being made. New and preowned autos that were tied to a dealership as opposed to a used car
dealer that was only selling used cars.
Commissioner Packer: My question was could that particular business perhaps be as things
evolve and businesses come and go that site could be amenable to benefit from these changes.
Ms. Arpan: It absolutely could. It is actually associated with the Volkswagen dealership in
Hayward. But the cars that it is selling are not tied to that dealership in any way. So yes, for that
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
particular one it would. For the Enterprise Auto Sales the Corporate Auto Sales really what they
do is they bring Enterprise used cars and sell them on a big lot.
Vice-Chair CasseI: Is there anyone else that has a question on that? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Along the same line of thinking I was wondering when I read the Staff
Report about what the impacts would be on the local independent businesses that do repairs that
are struggling to survive now as it is. So it is along the same line as what Commissioner Burt is
talking about. Are we giving unfair, understanding the premise and the goal, but are we giving
unfair pJ:eferenee to these new ear dealerships to the detriment of other businesses that have been
here for some long time and provided sales tax dollars to the community?
Ms. Arpan: I can only give you my opinion. My opinion is that the more cars that are sold in
Palo Alto or purchased by Palo Alto residents and others that it has a positive impact on the
service businesses because they don’t necessarily have to go just to the dealer. So that is a piece
of the puzzie there. But it seems to me that it makes sense that the more cars that are purchased
in our area that they provide a service benefit as well.
Commissioner Holman: Is there any evidence that people who buy cars buy in their local
community? Is there any evidence of that?
Vice-Chair Casseh I think the answer was not that I am aware of, the mikes are a little hard. Do
Lee or Bonnie have any other questions at this time before we go back to Pat?
City of Palo Alto Page 30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2I
22
23
Commissioner Lippert: With regard to the site over by Park Boulevard across the street from
that new plan that is advertised to become residential, what sort of impacts will this overlay zone
have on the Park Boulevard site in relationship to an area that is going commercial right now that
is much more residential?
Mr. Lusardi: The affect that it has on an auto dealership is that it limits their building height to
35 feet and it requires as we discussed here screening and in some eases a landscape buffer when
you are adjacent or across the street from residential uses.
Commissioner Lippert:
high fence would have
In the report it talks about an eight foot high fence which an eight foot
back side not on the front side of the building.
Mr. Lusardi: That is correct. Not in the front because that obviously needs to be open.
Commissioner Lippert: Unless you are.trying to sell cars to people who are riding the bullet
train past.
Mr. Lusardi: That is true it is used to address the adjacency where the service areas are and those
kinds of areas.
Commissioner Lippert: Could there be potential impacts from the lighting standards? In other
words if in the standards as written they are allowed to have high intensity discharge lighting and
CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
you have a residential neighborhood across the street that is almost like having a gas station
across the street in some way.
Mr. Lusardi: Yes, that is why we want to explore the lighting. To be honest with you Staff
doesn’t anticipate a lot of changes in the lighting requirements with respect to the parking lots
and taller lights and stuff like that. What we really want to look at is the ability to uplight some
of their signage’s or signage’s on the walls or something like that or light their showroom a little
more or something like that. I don’t anticipate a whole lot of lighting going into the parking lot
areas at this point. Yes, that would be a sensitive area and that is why we want to defer that so
we can explore it more.
Commissioner Lippert: Just to illustrate what my concerns are to get them out on the table is
that, if you allow for this overlay zone in this area while it is commercial across the street and
then it becomes residential the commercial standards for the overlay zone may not in fact be
compatible with the residential neighborhood.
Mr. Lusardi: No, I don’t think that’s the case. I think it applies if it is a residential use and that
includes if it is zoned for a residential use even though it is not a residential use per se.
Commissioner Liooer~: So in other words the overlay standards that would apply to the Park
Boulevard site would be applied as though it was zoned residential next door.
CiO, of Palo Alto Page 32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Mr. Emslie: That is correct because it is zoned next door and it is not what the use is it is what
the zoning is that establishes it. So the. residential standards would apply to the overlay even
though the use remains commercial. It is the underlying zoning that determines that.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Actually I have a question. I have been concerned about this extra FAR and
the height and the mass of this. You have been telling me that this is ground floor but how high
is ground floor and what limits do you have on that?
Mr. Lusardi: Ground floor b~pieally means single story. Certainly if the Commission is
concerned that a showroom could be built 50 feet tall which Staff doesn’t anticipate happening to
be honest with you you could put a height limit on that showroom space. It is intended to be
ground floor in the front of the building so if Commission so desires we can be more specific as
far as where that showroom would be located, how tail that showroom could be and Staff would
suggest 35 feet which is the height limit in some of the sites already adjacent or near residential.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Single story is usually 16 or.17 feet not 35 feet that is usually two stories.
So if you had a building and they put in two stories, if they put in something that was 35 feet you
would have an FAR that was double but double of hothing is nothing.
Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: Actually the height limit varies or story limit varies
deperiding on type of use. Currently the bnly time we would count something more than once is
in a residential district and that is where you get into if it is over 26 feet you count it twice and if
it is over ’x’ number of feet you count it three times, that kind of thing. The only place we do
City of Palo Alto Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
that is in residential we don’t do it in commercial. So currently if you are in a commercial
district or an industrial district and you have a 35 foot height limit you can have one floor and 35
feet or you can two floors and 35 feet sometimes you might be able to get three floors in 35 feet
depending on the use within those floors.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Go ahead, Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Yes, follow up to that. Particularly in the Baylands but anywhere else
too if you have a single floor that is let’s say 35 feet or 50 feet, but say you had a 35 foot height
single showroom space it is likely that the vast majority of that space is going to be glass at least
on the front because it is a showroom. That raises all kinds of issues about lighting. So would
Staff hav~ a response to that?
Ms. Grote.: We currently have lighting standards in place and we would still implement those.
No lighting can spill over a property line. It is supposed to be low reflective glass and things like
that. So we have those standards in place they would remain in place. We are not
recommending changing those. Applications do go through the Architectural Review Board for
their review and we do require photometric plans and things like that. So we do look at lighting,
reflection and spillover.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I have two follow-ups to my right. Lee and then Bonnie.
City of Palo Alto Page 34
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1 Commissioner Lippert: Technically then any second story spaces could not be showroom
2 because they couldn’t get a car up there. So a second story on top of a showroom would count as
3 FAR, correct? Yet there are a number of sites that have finance offices that are in satellite
4 buildings on the site that would be desirable to have a second story space above the showroom
5 rather than have them as remote buildings on the site. Is there a way to address that?
Mr. Lusardi: If they can meet the height restrictions and the ARB review they could put the
second story in which is equivalent to whatever the showroom space is that they are getting relief
from. So they could turn that into a sales office as we indieated or service bays for additional
FAR but that space would count toward their maximum FAR.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: Lee asked my question.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Back to Pat and then we will go on into the discussion.
Commissioner Bin-t: Bonnie had asked Staff some questions about the existing FAR and I
appreciate her having done that because I had similar questions. As I had scanned these current
FARs it didn’t look like we had anybody who was butting up against their FAR limits presently
and yet we have a proposal here to have a complete exemption of showroom space from FARs.
So if at most one of the dealerships is approaching their current FAP~ limit and the others aren’t
City of Palo Alto Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
even close what is the real need there for this showroom exemption from FAR? It doesn’t look
like we have had dealerships coming forward and trying to get even close to the FAR.
Mr. Emslie: Let me try to answer that. What we are finding in infill communities that have
dealerships the model for the dealer in these locations is because of the high price of land is to be
as efficient as they can. What we are seeing is they will move toward offsite storage of cars.
Those ears used to be stored onsite so you had a big parking lotand you had a smaller
showroom. It is too expensive to use that land to park a lot of ears so they are finding remote
sites and then driving them to the buyers. What we are finding is that more of the land is needed
to provide the service and meeting the manufacturer’s requirements for showroom space and so
forth. So we do see a trend, this would be a little bit ahead of that trend but we think it is a good
idea to show that we are being a little bit forward thinking and monitoring what is happening to
our kind of dealerships.
Commissioner Burr: Okay, so then ifI understand that this is not in response to present
problems but we are anticipating that by providing this kind of incentive it will help encourage
these dealerships to stay in Palo Alto in the future.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I basically have a follow up on Pat’s line of questioning. Why not just
simply exempt floor area that is above showroom space rather than exempt floor area that is
ground floor showroom space? What I am thinking of is sales people have little offices or
City of Palo Alto Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
cubicles, there is the finance department that has their space, why can’t they be located on the
second floor thereby maximizing the space providing any necessary relief in FAR and still
dictating the building mass in some way that regulating the building mass to what would be
allowable on the site?
Mr. Lusardi: I think the response would be that how that extra FAR could be utilized. Some
auto dealerships, you are right, may have need for auto sales but some auto dealerships have a
need to expand their service bay so where that additional need goes is we really kind of want to
leave that Up to the auto dealerships to determine and not to fit it into the second floor over the
showroom space because that may not be the space they need.
Commissioner Lippert: Then I have a follow up question. The office space that the sales people
would use in the showroom, would that count as display space or would we even though it would
be in the same room would we count that as FAR?
Mr. Lusardi: Yes we would. The definition is quite clear that only showroom space devoted to
the display of new cars and that does not include sales office and we are explicit about that and it
doesn’t include any space that sells merchandise as well, does not count towards that showroom
space FAR.
Mr. Emslie: Let me just add in terms of predicting there is not a consistent standard. The
different manufacturers are going to have different requirements. Where as one might encourage
sales offices on the second floor others may discourage that for some market reason that they
City of Palo Alto Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
have decided. So it isn’t an exact science there is a bit of prediction in that so we want to
provide maximum flexibility.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Karen and then Pat.
’ Commissioner Holman: I want to go to the PCs. The only thing in front of us tonight is the
ordinance for the GM and CS districts. So the PC ordinance revisions Would come back to us
separately. Okay, so if we have furthei: concerns about Baylands eompatibilities with some of
these issues those can still be addressed at a future meeting.
Mr. Lusardi: What we are asking the Commission tonight to do is to initiate the recommended
approval’of the creation of the combining district and then initiate the overlay on the CS and GM
sites and to initiate amending the PC sites. With that Staff would then draft the two ordinances
or however many ordinances to apply the overlay and amend the PCs and they would come back
to the Commission. So you would get one more look at them. In order to meet the schedule, the
August schedule for Council they will be coming back quickly. We will do as much research as
we can and bring you that information but you will have that opportunity, yes.
Commissioner Holman: So if we have additional concerns or separate concems about the PCs
especially in the Baylands then you want to hear those tonight rather than when the PC ordinance
revisions come back to us.
City of Palo Alto Page 38
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. We would like to hear all of your concerns tonight so we can
continue to address them.
Commissioner Holman: So if the Staff could try to explain to me, I have struggled with this, one
thing in particular is bothering me about the Baylands, the two PCs on Embarcadero. I am not
understanding how in my minds eye how these platforms could be a compatible, respectful, no
matter how they are designed, feature on these sites. I am looking forward to any Staff input on
that. I am thinking also they are going to want to be lit at night at least for a certain number of
hours it gets dark early in the winter time. So I am really struggling with how in the world those
would be compatible.
Mr. Lusardi: I guess what the answer to that would be is we would look at those specifically in
relation to the Baylands Master Plan Guidelines. I am not saying they would be directly
compatible in the sense of preserving the Baylands. I can’t say that that would be guaranteed. I
can say that we will address them with greater sensitivity perhaps than on E1 Camino Real. We
will look at more landscaping around the platforms to enhance that aspect of it. When an
application for a platform is submitted it is not just the platform that you are looking at. You
look at that frontage and if that platform requires more landscaping to kind of enhance it and
improve that area that is an opportunity to get it. So looking at the rest of that frontage would be
part of looking at th~ platform. So to be honest with you to say that the.platform is going to
enhance the Baylands, I don’t think so, but it is an important element of the auto dealerships as
far as that goes. We are committed to treating that in that area with as much sensitivity as we
call.
City of Palo Alto Page 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
Commissioner Holman: I hear what you are saying and I respect that and at the same time what
the dealerships are looking for in regards to this one feature is visibility. So I am still seeing it as
landscaping around the pad perhaps but the car is going to be stuck up there because what they
want is visibility. Steve, did you have something to add to that?
Mr. Emslie: It is a tradeoff. We have a situation where we have auto dealers in an
environmentally sensitive area. Had we to do it over again would we put them there? No we
would put them on the freeway where we wouldn’t have this problem~ Again it is one of the
areas that has been communicated to us as necessary to provide the competitive advantage for
them to be located in this area. The Commission could decide that it’s not appropriate and we
think that wouldn’t be providing the full incentive to help maintain these in their current
locations but clearly that is a choice the Commission has and that’s part of its advice to the City
Council. If it is just unable to reach this compromise then it is okay it could be excluded from
this area.
Commissioner Holman: Just one more question.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I want to move us along.
discuss in the guidelines. Go ahead.
There are issues though that we can bring back and
City of Palo Alto Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Holman: There are a couple sites in Palo Alto that are up for redevelopment.
Have there been discussions with dealerships that are maybe not in optimal locations to relocate
to those subject sites?
Mr. Emslie: Yes.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Pat.
Commissioner Butt: I wanted to have one final cut at this line of questioning of what is good for
the goose is go.od for the gander on used cars versus new. First, this was initiated as result of an
outreach that we did to the dealerships. Did we include the used car folks in any of those?
Ms. Arpan: Ong used car dealer was included the one that in the Stanford Nissan site. We
shared some of the standards with him and explained he would have a beneficial impact to him
but that site is not included.
Mr. Emslie: That is correct. As currently configured that would not If you were
to include used cars it doesn’t diminish the package. Used cars generate sales tax as well so it is
sti’ll a revenue issue. So to be more inclusive and include them that’s certainly a reasonable
consideration on the part of the Commission.
Commissioner Burr: Do we have any revenue comparisons on used car dealers and what sort of
revenue they bring in?
City of Palo Alto Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Ms. Arpan: We do actually have those numbers but because there are so few of the used car
dealers it is confidential information that we really can’t share.
Commissioner Burt: I just want to get clarification. If I understood it correctly the two used car
dealers that we do have are at former new car sites.
Ms. Arpan: One is and the other one is Enterprise Rent A Car, it is Corporate Motors. What
they do is bring a lot of the rental ears out onto a lot maybe once a month and they will have a
tent sale or something like that.
Commissioner Burr: I see, so they are an intermittent sort. So either way if we were to include
used ear dealers we could have the same sort of ARB review requirements on them and not
necessarily sacrifice the visual impact that might occur like we see in some cities where you just
have lots 0fused car dealers and they are an eyesore.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Okay, I would like to bring the discussion back to the table for eornments.
Would anyone like to start? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I would like to start with the first area on floor area ratio, the exemption
of the ground floor display area. I want to say I am going to support the Staff recommendation
there. When I first read this when we had this before us two weeks ago I was initially really
against the concept but as I learned more about it and the facts and the explanation that we got
City of Palo Alto Page 42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
from Staff about why this is a useful thing to put in the ordinance my fears about creating excess
mass that 3[ thought would happen were really alleviated. I imagine that any dealership whether
it is used car or new car they are going to wa~at a certain amount of open space anyway for ears
to be out in the open for some of the storage even if they have offsite and they are going to want
a nice showroom because that could be in lieu of a real flashy sign. So I think it is going to be
okay. I can see the difficulties of trying to do a percentage of FAR. I can see why that wouldn’t
work. So I thought about all the ways that I could make it better and I came back to the Staff
recommendation. In this case I think it is going to be okay especially because all the underlying
documents such as the E1 Camino Plan, the Baylands Plan, the ARB Site and Design Review, is
going to alleviate the initial concerns I had about creating excess mass. So I hope most of the
other Commissioners will agree with me.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: In reading through the Staff Report at first I was really troubled by what
I was reading here increasing FAR, relaxing landscaping standards, building walls, in a sense
allowing for more parking of vehicles. It really was very troubling to begin with. In some ways
I started to feel like with this sales tax element I was being pressured into approving something
that would really be very difficult to support but after looking through this I really think the
report is supportable and for a number of reasons and has absolutely nothing to do with dollars. I
think that we are looking at a number of sites here and the majority of which are located along
the E1 Camino Real and the other intense urban areas. Those I have no-problem supporting right
off the bat. I think that intensification of land use along El Camino Real is very desirable.
City of Palo Alto Page 43
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
2 When it comes to the Baylands areas and particularly the PC sites that is where the rub was
3 beginning to happen for me in supporting the recommendations here. As I delve into the details I
4 begin to see that by the nature that they are in the Baylands and that they are PCs, there really
5 wouldn’t need to be significant improvements to those buildings that they would need to have
significant additional FAR and construction associated with those buildings, which would begin
to trigger other things. What I am talking about specifically is the fact that in the flood zone
once you go over 50% of the appraised value of the building those buildings basically become
unviable because they have to be raised up out of the flood plane. So those are somewhat self-
limiting sites by their nature.
There a~e a couple of things that I support in this report that I think need to be looked atl
Number one is lighting. Lighting standards are particularly important especially when it comes
to abutting natural and residential areas. The second thing is the storm water drainage. There is
an awful lot of paved area there and there is an awful lot of runoff so there needs to be a way of
dealing with that that is environmentally conscious. So those are my two main concerns with
regard to some of the things that need to be addressed in the future. Other than that I am in
support oft.his report ......
Vice-Chair Cassel: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I am going to suggest that we consider something a little bit different.
Which is that, in the commercial zones the FAR is one to one with a .4 for commercial and a .6
City of Palo Alto Page 44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
for housing. The reason for that as I am understanding it is because we want to keep the
proportion in that way so we want to encourage housing. So what I am going to suggest for
Commissioners to consider is that we change the zoning from .4 for the auto dealerships to a .6
that way there is some limitation on the FAR so you have a known result at the same time you
are giving them considerable advantage ovei what they have now. I would like to know what
other Commissioners think about that.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Pat.
Commissioner Burr: I think I would be interested in that concept provided that the additional
bonus above a .4 is in the auto showroom as the essentially exempt level.
Commissioner Holman: That is the intention.
Commissioner Burr: Great. As I look through these various comparison cities that is within the
range of what we have in other cities. Some are below that and some are above that. I am not
sure we have thought through the ramifications of having no limit on FAR for auto showrooms.
I think we are all comfortable with a relaxation from what I have heard. Then the questi6n is
should there be no limit on the amount of relaxation or should there be an attempt at a limit.
Frankly, the Commission had asked for an alternative and we really weren’t presented with one
so now we are having to try to come up with one on the fly here. I would have preferred that we
were presented with an alternative. In a way we got it from looking at these other city
comparisons but not one specifically for here. So I would be open to something like that..I
City of Palo Alto Page 45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
would also like to see whether the other Commissioners would be interested in allowing the
same standards to be provided to’ used ear dealers provided that they have to meet these same’
architectural standards as the new ear dealer.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Lee.
Commissioner Liooert: To understand what you are recommending here you are recommending
a 20% increase in the FAR but it has to go specifically 50% increase in FAR, but it has to go
specifically towards showroom.
Commissioner Holman: Correct.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Let me ask a question.
very large increase? Overly large?
Lee, you have more of a sense of space. Is that a
Commissioner Lippert: It is very large.. It is almost an obscene amount of increased FAR. I
cannot imagine an auto dealership using that much space for showroom but if they did then they
must be selling a lot of automobiles.
Commissioner Holman: Well, the purpose for that is so that there is some quantification to the
relaxation. Otherwise there is no quantification of what is being proposed by Staff. Any
showroom space is exempt from FAR. So it is true that it is a 50% benefit for showroom space
City of Palo Alto Page 46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
but the other proposal that has come to us in the Staff Repoi’t is that none of it counts.
not going to build more than they need.
They are
Commissioner Lippert: I just say that what you are recommending here is really an obscene
oneness.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Go ahead Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: What I am hearing I think is going to end up with the same result. Right
now you are at .4 FAR and you exempt the showroom. That means every other structure on the
property that isn’t a showroom can be built up to .4. In your proposal, Karen, that would also be
true except that you are saying that anything beyond .4 has to be put into the showroom. So it is
probably going to end up being six of one/half dozen 0fthe other because as Lee said there may
not even be room left on the site to have a showroom that is half as large as the square footage as
all the rest of the other uses.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Let me see. What you are rehlly trying to do is give some size limit to this
FAR rather than have a totally open number. Maybe there is some other way of working with
that.
Commissioner Holman: That is correct. That is what the intention is, I agree with Lee it is kind
of obscene but I don’t think it is as obscene because it has at least some limitation to it and there
is a basis in’the other commercial districts having a .4 and .6 for a one to one FAR limit.
City of Palo Alto Page 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Vice-Chair Cassel: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I am glad to hear that Lee feels that it is at least a very substantial bonus.
So it reassures me that we are not providing too little. At the same time I think it puts some
boundaries on it so that we aren’t in trying to respond to a foreseen need to give some incentives
we don’t go from no incentives to just going completely overboard and putting no limitations on.
Who knows what someone would come along with to take advantage of a limitless FAR. for
showrooms. So I think it is appropriate that we place some upper boundaries on it. So I am glad
to hear that he feels it is substantial. I can tell you as a business owner the two things I would
say is one, a 50% increase in your FAR is big and second the reasons that I have continued to
follow up with these questions on a used car dealership is because as a business owner
competitive fairness is an important issue that we should be considering not to mention that I
suspect that the used ear dealers that we have in Palo Alto are not going to be low end used car
dealers and they are probably pretty substantial revenue in themselves. And why notprovide
them if we think these are appropriate standards, why not give them the same opportunities with
the same sort of restrictions on architectural design which was one of the reasons that Steve said
that we might not want to allow used car dealers to have these same sort &rules is because they
can have sloppy architecture. If we place those limits on the architecture for
them too.
Vice-Chair Cassel: We have had comments on whether we should put a limit on the FAR. We
have had comments on whether we should include pre-used businesses. Are there any other
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
t5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
comments before we try to decide how to craft anything in there about other issues? Looking at
the list there is parking, signage and on the next page. Signage comes back but I wondered if
any of you had any other comments on any of those or are we pretty well in agreement with what
Staffhas proposed on those items? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I am going to look to our resident architect for some instruction here but
you had questions about this earlier and I still have concerns about it. It has to do with single
floor or ground floor showroom space. I can see in my mind’s eye how some dealerships maybe
none that we have now but maybe some in the future would want to have a 35 foot or 45 foot
high glass sheer wall as a showroom front and that is all lit. While there are lighting
requirements that the light can’t go offsite and the other restrictions about that it is still quite an
impact as you are going down the street. It is quite an impact to see that much glazing with an
interior lighting system. So again looking to our resident architect I am wanting to look for a
height limit on the ground floor, which it would be, showroom space whether that is 17 feet, 14
feet, I look to Commissioner Lippert to guide us in what that height should be. I am really
interested in a height limit.
Commissioner Lippert: Having served on the Design Review Board when it comes to two story
height spaces that we do allow those. Buildings are subject, only really to the height limitations
of area. I have seen them done well and I have seen them done poorly. I think that that’s why
we rely on the Architectural Review Board to look at each of these projects and make a
determination as to whether a double height space works or not. It is a question not, I think so
much of floor area; it is more an issue of massing and how that is presented which is really a
City of Palo Alto Page 49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
character issue. We don’t really get involved with character issues we get involved more with
the zoning issues.
Commissioner Holman: That is the other piece of it volume is the other piece. Lighting is one
thing and volume is the other. So I am going to propose a showroom height limit of 14 feet.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Are there any other issues that anyone wants to discuss at this time or would
someone like to make a motion? A motion? Someone? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I wiI1 make a motion.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Welcome Michael. Lee, would you turn off your mike?
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: I will make a motion that in general supports the Staffrecommendations
however that the FAR be limited to .6, the extra .2 or the amount that is above .4 to .6 can go to
the ground floor showroom. That we support the recommendations with regard to parking that is
in the Staff Report. That we support the recommendations with regard to display pads for the
overlay on the existing CS and GM zones with the understanding that we will be looking at these
more carefully with the PCs that are in the Baylands. We support the recommendations with
regard to landscaping and screening. And that we understand that performance standards will be
coming back to us with regard to lighting, hopefully they will be particularly sensitive to respect
City of Palo Alto Page 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
auto dealerships that are near residential zones and large windows in front of the display areas.
My motion does not include a height limit on the showrooms. Just one moment, Pat is trying to
tell me something.
Commissioner Burt: Just asking whether you would be receptive to including used ear lots?
Commissioner Packer: Yes. That this could apply to used cars so that there would need to be a
modification to the definition of auto dealerships that we would look to you to come up with to
p~cesent to Council. Did I cover everything, Commissioners?
SECOND
Commissioner Lippert: I will second that.
Vice-Chair Cassel: That includes then the basic five points then that come with the report with
those other modifications.
Commissioner Packer:
the Staff Report.
Yes, I don’t want to read all those, it is one, two, three, four and five of
Vice-Chair Cassel: Okay. And it has been seconded by Lee. Do you want to speak to that,
Bonnie?
City of Palo Alto Page 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Packer: I think I made some of the comments before when I was addressing the
FAR but I do appreciate the recommendation from Karen and Pat about putting the limit on the
FAR. I think it sets a better type of precedent so that we are not going around creating overlays
that have open-ended FARs for other kinds of uses in the future. So I thank them for that. The
other proposals that Staff has about being more flexible about the parking just makes a lot of
sense and landscaping and screening. I think all the rationales in the Staff Report speak for
themselves. I do understand the need for reaching out and keeping auto dealers used and new
here in Palo Alto to keep our economy diverse and vibrant. I believe the recommendations are
reasonable considering the limited locations that auto dealerships can find in the City. By
approving the Staff Report I don’t necessarily know where we are going to go on the long-term
strategy. My motion is not necessarily endorsing that strategy yet until we know more about it.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I also want to thank Karen for her comment witfi regard to the additional
FAR and how she characterized it. I think maybe using the word obscene was a little strong. I
meant to say that it was overly generous. I don’t think that anyone is ever going to be able to use
that much additional FAR but I have been wrong before.
I just have one other question with regard to the motion. You meant to say that the additional
FAR must go in the showroom. You made it’sound rather arbitrary.
Commissioner Packer: No, the additional FAR is only for the showroom space.
City of Palo Alto Page 52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1I
I2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Great. Thank you.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Clarification, I just want to make sure that in the performance standards
you mean to include everything that was listed in the Staff Report. You mentioned lighting but
you also intent to include lighting, signage, noise and other uses such as ear washing. Did you
intend to include all of those that are mentioned in the Staff Report?
Commissioner Packer: Yes I did I just wanted to highlight the lighting concerns because we
¯ discussed that and that when they come back to us that those concerns are addressed.
Commissioner Holman: Okay. I am going to give a try to a friendly amendment. I do want to
limit the height because it is a lighting and a volume issue. I want to limit the height if the maker
and seconder will accept it to a compromise figure of 17 feet.
Vice-Chai~ Cassel: Will you accept that?
Commissioner Packer: No, I think that the issues of height and how the whole building is
designed will get adequate review at the Architectural Review Board and if we see it for Site and
Design. I think it is going to get review and put in the context and I think at that level of review
the issues can be addressed that you are concerned with.
City of Palo Alto Page 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Holman: I really appreciate the other Commissioners accepting the point six and
it is really generous if not obscene but there is I think some basis for it. I appreciate
Commissioner Packer and Commissioner Lippert accepting that and making it part of their
motion.
I am for two reasons going to have to oppose the motion. One is because of the lack of height
limitation. The reason for that is because not only the impacts of the auto dealerships and its
showroom space, I don’t think it is a need, I don’t view it as a need for the dealerships to have
additional height. So yes it would have to go through ARB review except the PCs that are on
Embarcadero, which would come to us as Site and Design. What I hear stated so many times
both at ARB and in the community and on this body is that in reviewing other projects they go
but look at what is right across the way. So these projects are going to be a part of the
compatibility review as a basis for other project review in the Baylands and along E1 Camino and
wherever else they might be located. So I am concerned about their impact on and impression
,they will leave on future review.
The other reason I am going to have to oppose this is I can’t make the trade off. I honest to
goodness cannot make the trade off of platforms on Embarcadero in the Baylands. So for those
two reasons I will be opposing the motion as sympathetic as I am to the issues.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Pat.
City of Palo Alto Page 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Lippert: I would just like to respond to Karen. Karen, I understand your concern
with regard to the height limitation and I feel in some ways the same way as you do but I believe
the Architectural Review Board does a really incredible job in terms of dealing with height
limitations and massing in terms of what is permitted. Those buildings still would be restricted
by the height restrictions that are in specific areas. So I don’t really have the concern that you
do. The second thing is with regard to those platforms. Part of the reason why those platforms
are needed is when you don’t have platforms you don’t want them putting cars in landscaping
and other areas. You want cars on top of asphalt. This is an opportunity to actually create a
display, which can actually be tidying up
Vice-Chair Cassel: I would like to go into Pat’s comments.
Commissioner Burr: One clarifying question. Does this come back to us as a final ordinance or
is this the last time we would see this?
Mr. Lusardi: This is the last time you would see it before it goes to the Council.
Commissioner Burr: I still do have some concern on the height issue. It is similar to this FAR. I
think that we should put some boundary on it. Once again if with this FAR we put a pretty
liberal boundary, a 20 foot height limit just on the bonus or the showroom which is what we are
giving is a bonus I don’t want to put something out there that would allow a 35 foot tall
showroom. Why? Where is the need? This room here is about 20 feet high. Is there ever a
circumstance that we can envision that we would want to allow a showroom taller than this or
City of Palo Alto Page 55
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
1 that an auto dealer would need a showroom taller than this? So for those reasons I would like to
2 give a liberal height limit something that hopefully we won’t have as a minimum and the ARB
3 would still then judge projects within a liberal boundary just as we have done on the FAR. So I
4 would like to ask the Commissioners and the maker of the motion to reconsider a liberal limit of
5 a 20-loft height limit for the showroom.
Commissioner Packer: Let me respond again to why I think it really isn’t necessary. Nobody is
suggesting that we not allow a second story on top of the showroom for those finance offices,
etc. If there is a 35-foot height limit as a.lot of thb sites have because they are near residential
areas or 50-foot height limit. That is going to limit that showroom so that they have enough
room to put the offices on top. So what you are saying is you want to limit the height of the
ground floor in which the showroom is, I think it is going to end up being no more than 17 feet
whether it is 35 feet or not.
Commissioner Burr: Actually Bonnie I would argue it the other way that if right now we have
say a 35 foot height limit then that puts an effective limit right now on the ground floor .
showroom if they were to put a second story above it. But the problemis in those circumstances
where the dealership would choose not to put a second story above the showroom but then they
would be able to maximize that box so that the ground floor showroom might be 35 feet high. I
don’t think we want to allow that. I just can’t envision that when we look at a 20-foot tall room
here that we would actually want to allow under any circumstance a showroom to be 35 feet tall.
Now we may have in practical terms no one who would ever pursue that but why allow that in
City of Palo Alto Page 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
the code? Why not put a liberal boundary like we just chose to doon the FAR give something
that gives a lot of latitude for architectural design but put some limit on it.
Vice-Chair CasseI: Lee, you wanted to comment?
Commissioner Lippert: I think I have said enough.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I would be more comfortable if there was a height limit. Would 20 feet be
acceptable?
Commissioner Packer: Twenty is a good compromise.
Commissioner Lippert: I will accept that.
Vice-Chair Cassel: okay, we will have a height limit on this of 20 feet for the free space in the
showroom. Any other cleanups in the ordinance?
Commissioner Holman: Yes, there are a couple of cleanups. On page two of the ordinance.
Vice-Chair Cassel: This is the one we received this evening?
Commissioner Holman: Yes the one we received this evening.
Cit~ of Palo Alto Page 57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Vice-Chair Cassel: Just a second. Let us all get a chance to get that piece in front of us.
Commissioner Holman: On page two actually it is number three right above parking and
loading. This is a nit but I think it is exterior storage shall be screened so I think there is a word
missing.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I don’t think we really need to fill in every word unless it is going to change
the context.
Commissioner Holman: That was just one thing that was here in front of me but I did have a
couple of other points that are substantive. Which is under Outdoor Sales and Storage, number
one, second sentence if you are tracking with me. It is a single automobile.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I am still not with you.
Commissioner Holman: C-1 on page two under C is Outdoor Sales and Storage. The second
sentence starts, "A single automobile," and this is for clarification from my perspective. "A
single automobile display pad shall be no higher than eight feet including display pad," and I
would like to add top point of automobile for clarification if that is agreeable to maker and
seconder.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I think that is what the original one said.
City of Palo Alto Page 58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Commissioner Holman: That was the description that was given in the previous Staff Report but
it is not in this ordinance and I think it is clearer.
Commissioner Packer: It is okay to include that.
Commissioner Lippert: I will accept it also.
Commissioner Holman: Then on page three under Special Requirements, A-l, next to the last
sentence it talks about eight foot decorative wall is adequate to reduce noise to the satisfaction of
the Director. I would like to suggest that it would say mitigate noise impacts to the satisfaction
of the Director if that would be agreeable to the maker and seconder.
Commissioner Packer: It’s okay.
Commissioner Lippert: I will accept that.
Commissioner Holman: ’The same thing applies under A-2, last full line where it talks about
eight-foot decorative wall is adequate to mitigate noise impacts. Same laiaguage to be reused
again.
Commissioner Packer: Okay.
Ci& of Palo Alto Page 59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Lippert: I’ll accept that and I hope that where this is going is that you will be able
to support this ordinance by the time we are done.
Commissioner Holman: I am much bett~r with it but the platforms are still, I can’t go there.
Commissioner Packer: Karen, the platforms are not specifically part of the ordinance. They are
going to be looked at in the context of each of the PCs is what I understood. This ordinance that
we are looking at now is not revising the existing PCs. So when the PCs come back to us we
will have plenty of time to look at the pads in the context of those specific sites.
Commissioner Holman: I understand. My eoneem is most extreme on Embarcadero but the
display pads still are not something -- I can’t get behind them.
MOTION PASSED (4-1-0-2, Commissioner Holman voting against, Commissioner Griffin
abstaining and Commissioner Bialson absent)
Vice-Chair Cassel: Okay. I would like to call the motion. All those in favor please say aye.
(ayes) Tl~ose opposed? (nay) Then that motion passes with four for, one against and one
abstaining because he has not bren here for most of the meeting and Commissioner Bialson is
absent. So we have Commissioners Burt, Cassel, Packer and Lippert voting in favor,
Commissioner Holman voting against and Commissioner Griffin abstaining and Commissioner
Bialson absent.
City of Palo Alto Page 60
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
Thank you. At this point I am going to close this item and we need a break.
that motion? I called for it and didn’t repeat it. Okay.
Did I need to repeat
If anyone is here for item number two that item has been moved to July 28 and will be renoticed.
That item has to do with the underpass that is being constructed and the pedestrian bicycle flow
that will go through that underpass crossing Alma and out onto Homer Avenue.
We are going to take a break but I don’t really want to stay for the break. I am conflicted with
the next item that is on the agenda, item number three. I have a Stanford conflict because my
husband works for SLAC and I work for the blood bank.
Chair Griffin: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. We are going to reconvene our meeting and
deal with the New Business portion of our agenda. Perhaps it has already been announced that
agenda item number twb dealing with bicycle travel at Homer and Alma Street that entire item
will be continued to a date certain. Is that what happened? July 284.
NEW BUSINESS:
Public Hearings.
o Discussion of recommendations and alternatives for eastbound bicycle travel from the
new Bicycle and Pedestrian Undercrossing.
SR Weblink: htto://www.cityofpaloalto.or~eity__~enda!0ublish/plannin~-transportation-
meetings/3490.pdf
Chair Griffin: That takes us then tO agenda item number three. I will open the public hearing on
a topic in our continuing saga of Zoning Ordinance Updates Chapter 18.24. The Commission
City of Palo Alto Page 61
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
1 will review and make recommendations on the final draft for the Office, Research, Industrial and
2 Manufacturing Zoning Districts providing sites for office, light industrial, research and
3 development and limited commercial uses. The zoning ordinance update consolidates several
4 existing chapters into a single chapter, which will be 18.24. The review of this item also
5 includes added development standards for infrastructure/utilities necessary for Biotech and R&D
uses as well as office limitations in the Research Park District. Curtis would you please help us
with a presentation.
Zonin~ Ordinance Ul~date (ZOU); Chapter 18.24 Office~ Research~ and
Manufacturing Districts: Review and recommendation of the Final Draft Chapter
18.24 of the Zoning Ordinance Update. The office, research, industrial and
manufacturing zoning districts provide sites for office, light industrial, research and
development (R&D), and limited commercial uses. The zoning ordinance update
consolidates the existing chapters 18.55, 18.57, 18.60, and 18.63 into a single zoning
Chapter 18.24. The review of this item also includ6s added development standards for
infrastructure/utilities necessary for Biotech and R&D uses as well as office limitations in
the Research Park District.
SR Weblink: http://www.ci _t~ofpaloaIto.org/ci~agenda/publish/planning-tr.ansportatioa-
meetings/3491 .pdf
Mr. Curtis Williams, Consultant Planner: I would be glad to thank you. This is an item that the
Commission saw for much of 2002 and at the end of that year after four study sessions passed
along recommendations to the Council. The Council subsequently heard the item in January
2003, accepted a number of the recommendations and asked for a few revisions to be addressed
before finalizing.
The three areas that we have revised that we would like to focus on tonight with you are first
addressing the biotech and R&D needs for increased height or other accommodations for
equipment needs. Secondly to revise the provisions for specifically limited office use in the
City of Palo Alto Page 62
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
i7
18
19
20
21
22
1 Research Park District. Thirdly, provisions.that clarify the medical of-flee and medical research
2 definitions in what is today the Office Research Zone and would now be called the Medical
3 Office and Medical Research Zone and distinguishes medicaI office from medical research in
4 that.
5
What we would like to do is I will run real quickly through those three areas for you and then
probably have y6u either ask questions or go straight to the public comment and accept public
comments on these items and then come back and discuss them one by one and you can make
recommendations.
The first item is the biotech and R&D equipment needs as I think you heard us the last time this
item was before you, the extensive equipment needs of these facilities are such that in order to
accommodate them they need either to have interstitial space between floors and!or to enclose
extensive amounts of equipment on the roof or in basements or somewhere else.. We have
suggested a couple of recommendations in this regard. One is to allow in the RP. and ROLM
districts which are essentially today LM, Light Manufacturing zone, allow the height to increase
from 35 feet to 40 feet for the purpose of accommodating interstitial space although it would still
be a limit of two habitable floors not to exceed that with the interstitial space and to require
additional setbacks for that additional height where it is adjacent to residential. We can go
through the details of that if you would like to in the question period as far as the amount of
setback.
City of Palo Alto Page 63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
The second recommendation is to allow for floor area exemptions for rooftop equipment
enclosures and/or for basement storage enclosures for the equipment. This would be limited by
the fact that those totaI areas that would be exempted could not exceed more than one-third of
the building footprint that is related on the roof at least to a building code requirement for
equipment loads. The equipment in any event could not exceed 50 feet above the grade. Again,
additional setbacks and screening for the rooftop equipment when it is adjacent to residential
sites. So’those provisions we think are beneficial to the industry in terms of providing for that
kind of equipment. We worked very closely with a number of the R&D and biotech industry
reps from Palo Alto in developing these criteria.
The second area of modification is the of-flee limitations in the Research Park Zone. As you
recall we discussed previously a 25% limitation on office use in the Research zone. This
Research Park Zone is essentially coterminous with the Stanford Research Park. The discussion
previously .dealt primarily with how do we deal with administrative office" space that is ~erving
part of these research and development groups but it may become a very large part of them over
the Iifeeyele of the buildings. We have come kind of full circle to the standpoint where we do
not believe it is appropriate to try to limit that administrative office use which is those support
services within a firm but instead to focus as Stanford does in its limitations solely on the
standalone professional office types of uses. Those are defined as uses, which include services
for law, financial services, architecture and design, civil engineering and those types of things.
Then specifically excluding the administrative office space, which is a management and support
for the various firms, that is not a separate firm. In that way it also provides a benefit of being
much more enforceable because the other method one of the big problems we were having was
City of Palo Alto Page 64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18.
19
20
21
22
23
trying to figure out how you do this without getting into the space and looking around and seeing
what is there and how it changes over time. So this is a much more administratable and
enforceable approach.
The third revision is to provide a separate definition for Medical Research which previously was
iricluded as part of the Medical Office definition. It allowed for research but it wasn’t clear that
it allowed for trial and clinical type research. There were suggestions from the folks out there
that it would be helpful to create a separate definition of Medical Research and allow that as a
permitted use in the Medical Office and Medical Research zone. We have done that and listed it
as a permitted use in that district. The Medical Office definition was revised but we did make
sure that we still allow for the various laboratory type work that has to be done to support the
dentist office or doctor’s office or something like that on the site.
So those are the changes that we have and I would be glad to take questions. As was suggested
you might want to also go to the public comment before we have discussion on each one of the
items.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Curtis. Colleagues, Staffhas made the suggestion, which I would like
to implement and that is to facilitate public comment on this item before we ask our questions.
So if you would permit me to do that I would like to go to the public. We have five cards. Our
first speaker will be Audrey Jacob followed by John Igoe and Steve Dostart. If you folks would
come forward one at a time and introduce yourself to us and each speaker would have five
minutes. Audrey, I do recognize you. Good evening.
City of Palo Alto Page 65
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1
2 Ms. Jacob: Good evening Commissioners. I spoke to you earlier this evening. It is looking like
3 it is going to b.e a long night. I am here on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce. I wanted to let
4 you know that we have closely been following this ordinance but only recently received the final
5 language and were not able to get a Board consensus on support or opposition to the ordinance.
We do want you to be mindful of the importance of the Research Park as a major economic
engine of the City and that care should be taken in terms of regulations placed on uses in the
Park. Thank you for your consideration.
Chair Griffin: John Igoe.
Mr. John Igoe, 901 Marinas.Boulevard, San Mateo: Thank you very much. I am with [Cirrus
Regis] and tonight I am speaking on behalf of TIBCO Software to support the Staff Report and
to also commend Staff and Stanford management for the excellent work that they have done in
looking at what works and what doesn’t work and what allows flexibility for these companies
operating within the Park to be able to change with time. So we think that the way that things
have been outlined in the proposal work fine and we would highly recommend the support of the
Commission for it. Thank you very much.
Chair Griffin: John, we may have a question here for you.
Commissioner Burt: John, one of the things that we have been discussing as a City is how we
might be able to incentivize companies to have their business-to-business tax point of origin
City of Palo Alto Page 66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
within Palo Alto. First question, do you know whether TIBCO has Palo Alto as your point of
sale?
Mr. Igoe: As far as I know it does. The headquarters is located here but I will follow up on that
to confirm that.
Commissioner Burr: Great mad just maybe not to put you on the spot tonight but one of the
things we are going to be interested in is what sorts of incentives either might induce companies
to assure that they have Palo Alto as their point of sale initially or to retain Palo Alto as their
point of sale. I would be interested in your thoughts on that in the future unless you have any
comments on that at this time.
Mr. Igoe: I could give you some comments right now. I have spent 15 years in corporate real
estate so I feel some level of confidence there. It seems to me that the most important thing is
especially in the high tech area is the ability to be able to attract talent, to be able to work within
the environment. Palo Alto has a fantastic environment from the standpoint of the ability of
providing social services and a great place to live. I think that the downside would be that if it
became onerous relative to controls and I think Staffhas seen that that it is better to leave a
certain level of flexibility with regard to allowing the companies to be able to operate within
their own environment and again most importantly to be able to change as things evolve. We
have seen this over the past five years considerably and I think that would be very, very
important to corporations to be able to know that they can have if you will a long term residence
City of Palo Alto Page 67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
in a community and build upon that and be able to have a steady state of employees producing
great productive work.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, John.
W.elcome, Steve.
Our next speaker is Steve Dostart followed by Jean Snider.
Mr. Steve Dostart, 7_77 High Street, Palo Alto: Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity ~o
be able to speak tonight. I have three comments, which reflect my eoneems as a ground lessee
under two Stanford leases with remaining terms of about 26 and 50 years.
First I don’t believe that I and all the other ground lessees were noticed for either tonight or the
preceding study sessions. I just think it would probably be a good policy on the part of the City
to notice those other stakeholders given the length of term of the leases in Stanford. We are
more like owners than tenants in a sense.
Chair Griffin: Steve, could I get you to stand a little closer to the microphone? Thank you.
Mr. Dostart: I don’t think that currently ground lessees are automatically noticed for like this
session tonight or the study sessions previously. My instinct is given the long term of those
leases in Stanford it would probably be a good policy for the City to do that. I am sure a number
of people like myself didn’t get noticed and I just happen to hear because Stanford let me know.
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 68
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1 Second, the ground leases I have are office oriented. I have office buildings with Office tenants.
2 At an absolute minimum I think that the sites, which are currently entitled to be used as office
3.space, should be grandfathered in that right in order to protect the enormous investment people
4 like myself have made in.office buildings in Stanford. The way it is currently worded there are
5 some things that could happen and you could lose your entitlement and I don’t think that is
appropriate.
Third, I read the 75-plus pages of tonight’s Staff Report and attachments and it really wasn’t
dear to me what aspect of the Research Park is broken and why the City believes that additional
restrictions on use are necessary. It is my concern that added restrictions will only, hurt the Park
and my instinct is to oversimplify but if it ain’t’broke don’t fix it. I didn’t read a compelling
reason for these new regulations. It doesn’t strike me that there is something terribly wrong with
Stanford Research Park.. It seems to me it works pretty well and I really didn’t understand why
this is all occurring anyway. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Our next speaker is Jean Snider followed by James Freitas.
Welcome, Jean.
Ms. Jean Snider, 2770 Sand Hill Road, Menlo Park: Commissioners, thank you for the
opportunity to speak tonight on this important issue. I am the Director of the Research Park. As
the steward of the Stanford Research Park we have taken a keen interest in the Zoning Ordinance
Update and have followed its progress over the last two years. We believe the City of Palo
Alto’s and Stanford’s interests are aligned in wanting.to maintain a successful Research Park
City of Palo ,41to Page 69
1 centered around innovative R&D companies. Any amendment to the current zoning ordinance
2 could significantly impact the way company decision-makers view doing business in Palo Alto
3 and thus ultimately affect our ability to recruit and retain world-class research and development
4 companies similar to those who cal! the Research Park home today.
5
6 Since the beginning of the ZOU the City has communicated its desire to codify some form of
7 office limitation in the Park. While traffic was cited as the original concern we believe all
8 involved now understand that the trip generation from today’s R&D or typical R&D businesses
9 is very similar to that of office users. The City’s interests then seem to take on a slightly
10 different focus and that is how to assure the Park maintains its research orientation and not
11 become an office park or as we have heard some people say a law office park. Maintaining a
12 balance of uses in the Research Park has always been part of Stanford’s vision. From the Park’s
I3 inception Stanford has imposed restdction~ on use through its ground lease provisions. That
14 ideal balance of uses has evolved over time to adapt to changing markets and the ever-changing
15 needs of businesses in general and our tenants in particular. In the past decade Stanford has been
16 cognizant of the need for professional office uses as an absolutely essential ingredient to a
17 successful Research Park but instituted a policy limiting such use to 25% of the park in order to
18 preserve its R&D concentration. Despite Stanford’s policy and our effective management of the
19 Park’s uses it has become clear that the City Council and the Planning and Transportation
20 Commission still believe that codified restrictions are needed for professional office uses. In
21 response to this we have actively worked with the City to develop language that addresses the
22 City’s concerns while s.till providing enough flexibility to continue to attract and maintain first
23 class R&D companies.
City of Palo Alto Page 70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21.
22
23
We do want to bring your attention however to note that we are not the only stakeholder in the
Park. As you heard Steve talk he is a stakeholder he is a ground lessee and ground lessees view
their ownership as fee ownership nearly identically to fee ownership and we now directly only
control 10% of the Park. Many leaseholders have expressed concern that codifying Stanford’s
policy jeopardizes the Park’s overall flexibility to consistently adapt in a rapidly changing
globally competitive business environment. We certainly share these concerns when we look
toward the future. We feel confident our 25% service office limitation works today and therefore
Staff’s suggested language could work today as well. But we would respectfully ask the City to
evaluate its ability to respond quickly to changes in market conditions. If after consideration of
this fundamental question the Planning Commission and City Council still want to mandate a
formal zoning restriction on professional office space Stanford will support the ordinance
language as proposed in tonight’s StaffReport. ,
We want to express our sincere appreciation and thanks to City Planning staff and contract
planners as well as Mr. Ken Kornberg of the Architectural Review Board for their collaborative
approach to this very important issue. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: We have a question for you.
Commissioner Burr: Jean, I am going to follow up on the same important subject and that is
looking for ways in w~ich we might be able to create an environment where we will have a
greater number of companies who will use Palo Alto and the Research Park as their point of sale
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
for tax purpose.~. Do you have any suggestions on how we might take some of these or other
modifications to the zoning code and turn them into incentives for business-to-business? One I
would be interested in your thoughts on is what if there were some exemption for office space
that was sales office only? Any thoughts on any of that?
Ms. Snider: No, what I would like to do is actually poll some of our companies in the Research
Park and find out if they don’t have sales tax, if this is not a point of sale why that is and what
motivates them. Otherwise I think I would just be guessing. I think having an exemption is fine.
If you are talking about a company that already has research in the Park anyway I think we are
saying we don’t really want to see any limitation on administrative office and we see that as an
administrative office component. I think the other thing I would say is if you just provide that
incentive but then. you have overly restricted regulations in the ordinance elsewhere then I think
you have a problem. But I would be happy to do some research on that for you.
Commissioner Burt: Great and when you do that follow up for instance we recommended that
we have this increase in height limit specifically to address emerging biomed applications and
one of the interesting things I would want to know is are those companies using Palo Alto as
their point of sale. Is this working on two levels not only to help the vitality of the Research
Park but help that sales tax base.
Ms. Snider: I absolutely agree and I will research that for you.
Commissioner Butt: Thanks a lot.
City of Palo Alto Page 72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Chair Griffin: Our next speaker is James Freitas followed by Joy Ogawa and Bud Mission.
Welcome James.
Mr. James Freitas, 1068 East Meadow Circle, Palo Alto: Thanks. I am with the Mosart
Development Company and we ground lease approximately 200,000 square feet of office space
in the Research Park. Because all these ground leases are in excess of 50 years we do feel like
land owners. We are very concerned that this potential change in the zoning could dramatically
affect the value of our property. We have invested a lot of money in these properties. The main
reason why we invested in these properties is because they were entitled for office use. So now
that it is potentially at risk we are very concerned about it and that is why we are here tonight,
Steve Dostart and I.
My other concern is I think the amount of stakeholder that we are, Mosart Development
Company and Dostart Development Company, we deserve to have some direct and proper notice
about this change because this would dramatically affect the value of our asset. Thanks.
Chair Griffin: Our next speaker is Joy Ogawa.
Ms. Joy Ogawa, Yale Street, Palo Alto: I am just so surprised to hear the previous speaker say
they need a notification when this has been going on for years. I have forgotten what went on at
the last meeting it was so long ago.
City of Palo Alto Page 73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
The Staff Report says that it is appropriate not to limit administrative office space along with
professional office space because it still addresses the primary concern of the City that the area
not turn into an office park of attorneys, accountants and realtors, etc. My recollection from the
focus group that I attended was that the neighboring residents’ concem was not about
professional office uses per se. I don’t have a problem with attorney’s or accountants per se.
Our concerns were about intensity of uses and the impact on neighbors. It really is about the
number of employees per square foot or per 1,000 square feet and the working and commute
hours of those employees, the habits of those employees. To me there really is no distinction
between administrative office uses and professional office uses when it comes to impacts on
neighbors. Therefore in my opinion the 25% restriction to professional office use but not
administrative office use really doesn’t address my concerns. I don’t really see that it serves a
great purpose.
Switching topics a bit about retail. You may recall on June 11 Mayor Beecham had a retail
forum and during that meeting a comment wa.s made by a woman who identified herself as
someone who worked on Page Mill Road near HP and she commutes from San Jose. She
expressed a desire to shop in Palo Alto but pointed out that she does not shop in Palo Alto for
two main reasons. One reason was that she doesn’t know where the kinds of stores she needed
were located and the other reason was that there were not any stores that she was aware of that
were conveniently located for her to shop at. It was interesting that when Staff wrote down her
comments they only wrote down the first part of her comment, which was that she didn’t know
where things were located. Staff didn’t record the part that they weren’t conveniently located
places for her to shop.
City of Palo Alto Page 74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
At one time in another life I worked on Sand Hill Road while I still lived in Palo Alto and I can
tell you that I used to shop at the Sharon Heights Shopping Center a lot. I shopped at the Long’s
Drugs, I ate my lunch at the deli, I used the dry cleaners, I used the bank there and I shopped at
the Safeway there. I don’t buy ShelI gas but a lot of my coworkers bought Shell gas at that gas
station. My point is that workers in the Research Park would shop in Palo Ako if it were
convenient for them to shop in Palo Alto, Having appropriate retail I believe located in the
Research Park would generate sales tax dollars, would serve the workers in the Research Park
and would help the neighbors in terms of traffic impacts. So this Zoning Ordinance Update it
seems to me would be the perfect opportunity to address this. I think it is a need for the workers
there and it is a need in terms of sales tax dollars and it is a need for the neighbors.
One final thing is medical research. I haven’t really looked at this that carefully it ju.st caught my
eye when it was being discussed. I thought that a few years back there was a big uproar about
Welch Road and the doctors and dentists and private offices being forced out there and that there
was a real desire to keep those medical office uses there. My concern is that if you permit
medical research that because of the way the dynamic with the Stanford University Hospital that
that’s going to eventually turn into all medical research and we are going to lose what
supposedly I thought we wanted to keep which was those doctors and medical offices that are on
Welch Road and the Welch l~oad area. Maybe I have it all wrong and that is not the purpose of
the zoning but I thought it was and I am concerned about medical research. I think that it can
easily envelop any space that becomes available for it. Thanks.
City of Palo Alto Page 75
2
3
4
5
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Joy. The last speaker card here is from Bud Mission. If there are any
of you out there in the audience that would care to chip in on this item now is the time. Good
evening.
Mr. Mission: Good evening Commissioners. I am Director of Site Services for Roche Palo
6 Alto. I am pleased tonight on behalf of Roche to express our support in urging your approval of
7 the Staff proposed ordinance modifications to recommend endorsement to the City Council
8 without further change. We also concur with Staff’s recommendation that TDM standards for
9 the Park should be dealt with outside of the ZOU performance standards at a later time. It is our
10 view that such standards should be reviewed in the context of proposed redevelopment on a
11 project-by-project basis. We also want to voice our sincere appreciation and thanks for the
12 efforts of the Planning Staff through this long and difficult process to remain open to the views
13 of all the community stakeholders and in particular John Lusardi, Curtis Williams and Lisa Grote
14 who have done a great job in our view in fairly reporting and keeping the business community
15 informed with clarifications and updates throughout the process. Finally, I also too want to
16 acknowledge the contributions of Mr. Ken Kornberg of the Arehitedtural Review Board with
17 respect to his insights as a practicing design professional servicing the biotech industry and
18 providing Staff with a more detailed understanding of the unique physical challenges that we
19 face in our facilities. In order for Roche and other life science companies to continue to innovate
20 we must have the flexibility to accommodate changes in our plant and facilities to create the
21 most supportive physical environment possible. We are deeply grateful that the Planning Staff
22 has listened. Thank you for your consideration.
23
City of Palo Alto Page 76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Chair Griffin: Thank you for your comments. We will bring this back to the desk. Colleagues if
you have questions of Staff. Lee.
Commissioner Liopert: I am a relative latecomer to this item. I didn’t get a chance to participate
earlier on on it. There is something that I noticed is missing from this and I am hoping Staff can
address it. Part of what makes what I like to think makes Pa!o Alto great is its ability to
"innovate." You see many cities like Mountain View and Sfinnyvale creating incubator districts.
Why hasn’t something like that been addressed with regard to the Research Park where that is
really the essence or germ or seed of many of these great corporations?
Ms. Grote: We actually have discussed incubation areas in town. The Research Park wasn’t
seen as one of those partially because of the size of the lots they axe frequently quite large. There
are other areas that are currently zoned LM which we have made some recommendations for
changing the name of the zoning and some of the requirements. But those were seen as more
probable locations or better locations for incubation purposes for smaller firms that are trying to
get started. Some of those areas are located offofSan Antonio Road. They have a little bit
different characteristics. They are smaller both in size of the lot and size of the building on the
site. So that is where we had really targeted that effort rather than the Research Park.
Commissioner Lippert: But there are smaller buildings and those buildings have the tendency of
leaning towards being more professional offices you might say. We put a limitation on what we
consider to be office space why not put an imposition or a requirement that a certain percentage
of the Research Park be dedicated to incubators?
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Mr. Williams: I think that there are a couple of things that are at play. One is that the Research
Park has been a source of new innovation throughout its lifetime. I am not sure that that would
be in our area where there was a need for and we haven’t heard any need for that there or frankly
elsewhere in Palo Alto. But it seems that that is one of the greatest sources of innovation in Palo
Alto is the Research Park so I don’t think would occur to us to go there. The other is and this
isn’t across the board I assume Mountain View would be different than this but a lot of times
incubator sites are part of sort of redevelopment and stimulation type of efforts. That wouldn’t
really apply within Palo Alto. We don’t have that kind of redevelopment area to deal with that
other communities I am aware of try tofocus on that. I think the real critical thing is that we
haven’t heard that need and that there seems to be an extensive amount of innovation without
creating that stimulus. If there is some Way you can guide us as to what would be appropriate
there and Mountain View’s standards or something and see if that seems to be relevant we can
look at it.
Chair Griffin: I will just make a comment for what it is worth. My wife is a management
consultant and she does work for an incubator in San Jose and it is as you say Curtis located in a
much more low cost square foot type facility as opposed to higher rent districts that exist at the
Stanford Research Park. I think your comment about a redevelopment agency probably is right
on. Colleagues, any othrr questions here at the moment? Pat.
Commissioner But-t: I would just like to see if Stanford might be able to share with us what are
the current trends on incubators orsmaller companies that begin at a smaller size and grow and
City of Palo Alto Page 78
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
stay in the Research Park as a result of having started there. I think we had an incubator of a
little garage down the street some time ago that turned into a pretty good size company at the
Park.
Ms. Snider: We have some ground lessees that focus on this very thing." You are not talking
about 1,000 square foot incubators. Generally they are starting at 3,000 to 5,000 and growing
pretty quickly. One of those ground lessees is Alexandria REIT they are a biotech REIT. They
basically coddled Nanosys, which is a nano technology company on Hanover who has now
grown to 30,000 feet and is looking for space. So you see a rapid growth. So we see some of
our lessees who are focused on a certain industry and have incubation within their own buildings.
We also have companies that incubate other companies. A lot of this happens in the biotech
industry because there is a lot of collaboration on drug discovery. So it comes from landlords
but it also comes from other companies, larger companies who set aside funding for incubator
companies and founded companies.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Nothing Bonnie? Karen? Pat.
Commissioner Burr: I would like to return to questioning Staff on this issue that I have been
raising on business-to-business taxes. We had a couple of situations recently where we were
dealing with transportation impact fee and permit streamlining which each had potential
opportunities to create a kind of a bag of incentives that Staff and the City may have to induce
companies to locate their point of sale in Palo Alto. I would really like us to look at how we can
fold that into the ZOU and address this extremely important part of the sales tax revenue
City of Palo Aho Page 79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
component. We talked about auto dealerships are very important and hotels and other retail but
business-to-business tax is where it’s at. You can have a very large company that can just decide
to up and move their point of sale as Sun did from Menlo Park to Mountain View and suddenly
Menlo Park lost millions of dollars in revenue and didn’t even know it was happening. It is
something that some cities have deliberate programs to help incentivize it and often it doesn’t
take a lot because the point-of-sale sometimes is where you locate your sales force and other
times it is where you put the point-of-sale on paper. It may not take a lot to tip the decision-
making in a way that is very favorable to the city. So I would like us to make sure that the ZOU
and this part of the ZOU really looks for opportunities to create those incentives. So far we
haven’t really looked at that comprehensively. I think it is the major missing component that we
have in this process right now.
Chair Griffin: Unless there are comments from Staff, would you like to respond to that?
Mr. Williams: I would just comment that the Council has asked us to talk to the economic
consultants about not specifically point-of-sale but about some of the economic implications
within a sort of limited budget and how to use them. We do expect them to give us some
indication of what they think would be ways to provide some &those incentives. We haven’t
really focused on discussing these issues with them. We have been focusing more on the mixed
use and transit oriented prototypes to date.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
City of Palo Alto Page 80
1
2
3
4
5
Commissioner Packer: I think one of the speakers mentioned or maybe Staff mentioned that the
sales office is considered an administrative office and that office space in this proposal before us
would not be included in the 25% limitation. So that is an indirect incentive. In other Words we
are saying it is okay to have your sales offices here this is one way we can be saying that to them.
6 Commissioner Burr: Right and them are two different approaches that we might have. One is to
7 not create barriers to locating point-of-sale in the City. This is one of them is that I think it is
8 very possible that limitations on the administrative offices would create a barrier to the sales.
9 The other is more of a clear incentive that might be linked that if a company does locate their
10 point-of-sale here they get a certain permit streamlining, they get a fee waiver in transportation
11 impact fee or in the ease of the non-administrative office the pure office here we might want to
12 consider that if a company - companies don’t necessarily locate their sales office at the same
13 location that they have their R&D or their manufacturing. We might say that companies that
14 locate their sales offices here that are separate sales offices from what would be included under
15 the administrative, the standalone sales office, if they have t.he point-of-sale here and locate the
16 sales office here then maybe that is exempt from the 25%. I am just tossing out what might be a
17 set of incentives that we’eould use. I think that Stanford might be a very valuable resource in
18 looking at their client base and helping us understand what would motivate them to make this
19 decision that is very favorable to the City. We just went through this whole last item on auto
20 dealerships and the awakening that the City has recently had on the importance of certain forms
21 of revenue to the City. There are certain forms that are gold mines and business-to-business
22 sales tax is a gold mine. It is a neglected one. We lucked out and over the decades certain
23 percentages of the companies that do business here have their sales office here and we don’t
City of Palo Alto Page 81
1
2
3
4
5
really know which ones they are. We don’t know why they do it and we don’t do anything to
induce them to do it. We are missing the boat and we have to get onboard on this one.
Chair Griffin: Well it sounds like Staff has heard these comments. Colleagues, do any of you
have any particular questions on the SR and the material in the Staff Report? Lee.
6
7 Commissioner Lipped: There is something in the report that I am a little troubled with. I guess
8 the way I can do it is illustrate it by way of an anecdote. This reaches back to what Pat was
9 talking about with regard to business-to-business sales. In Palo Alto there was a company that
10 was characterized as a product design firm. This product design firm what they did was sold
11 services to the large computer manufacturers in the way of designing computer eases. You
12 would actually look at this very small operation and in fact it looked as though it would take a 30
13 person product design firm doing some very innovative stuff. In fact they sold to Compaq, they
14 sold to Dell I think they made the design for the first Palm Pilot. What Palo Alto didn’t see is
15 that in fact this was the largest single manufacturer of computer cases in the world. This
16 company in fact had manufacturing in Taiwan and they had their sales offices located in Palo ’
17 Alto. This of course was a business that sold wholesale so they sold directly to manufacturers
18 that would then take these eases and assemble them and make their computers and then Compaq
19 would sell their computer with the case being part of it. A very profitable business.
20 Subsequently the small product design firm was bought out by a much larger company during
21 the dot.com bubble and went offto San Jose. This was the loss of a very valuable resource to
22 this community. As I think as Pat illustrated early on this is not something that is visible.
23
Ci& of Palo Alto Page 82
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1 In this report it characterizes product design firms along with architecture firms and other types
2 of firms as being really office sphce. When in fact this firm really represented the largest
3 manufacturer of computer cases. How do we make a distinction here anit allow a business like
4 that to thrive and grow and want to stay in Palo Alto?
Chair Griffin: Curtis.
Mr. Williams: First of all I guess I would have to understand a little bit more about it but my
initial thought is that a product design firm is a research development firm. The designing here
is really architecture design, the word product and design are both in the definition of Research
and Development so that is my initial thought. If we assume for a minute that it is under the
professional office heading my take is there is still lots 0froom in the Research Park for
professional office space too and there are other zones in the City that allow professional office
space. So I don’t think it is being precluded in any way by this. Again, I think that type of
considered a research and development firm not a professional office.
Chair Griffin: Curtis, there was a comment from the public about grandfathering existing
professional office in the Park. Can you expound on that a little bit?
Mr. Williams: Yes. There are a couple of issues related to that. One is first of all if an office
space exists out there today it may continue as long as it would like, especially since the
percentage is well under 25% right now. The concem that we understand the speaker was
making is that they have office space today that is leased out as such and maybe in a couple of
City of Palo Alto Page 83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
years that tenant leaves and they lease it out for research and development. The research and
development firm is there for five years and in that five year period the percentage of
professional office space it’s the 25% and then the R&D firm leaves and then they can’t then
have the option of going out and leasing it back for office space. I think to grandfather them
essentially that because of the use today for office space no matter how it changes back and forth
it is pretty much contrary to the intent of what is being done here. I think that the concern about
in the future there may be this extensive desire for office space that is going to exceed the 25%
cap I have to believe that if that happens if we approach that point that the City will look at that
and consider whether the cap is still justified or there is some reason to leave it. I understand
there is some anxiety about the uncertainty of knowing but right now there is a lot of room for
the professional office space to actually grow, not to just retain the existing but to grow within
the Research Park. So the provisions in here do allow if you hit 25% and then there is office
space that some research and development left and it went over 25% that those uses would still
be allowed to stay there. That is the kind of grandfathering that it would allow.
Chair Griffin: Steve.
Mr. Emslie: I would just like to tag on t6 what Curtis is saying. I think some of.the concern is
stemming from the more fluid nature of R&D and office and the difficulty in distinction. An
example of R&D use very common today is software development where people work in
~ubicles and workstations identical to what we would characterize as a professional office. So it
is difficult to start to characterize one over the other anymore and it is getting more difficult as
technology continues. That is one issue because you would have the infrastructurein place, all
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
the cubicles and everything could very easily be moved from one use to another and then all of a
sudden that is now jeopardized because of the name on the building.
The second issue is that a part of the concern is that as technology is changing at a more rapid
pace and that the need to be flexible in terms adapting to new needs and we are finding that out
in biotech. There are different kinds of structural needs. Being able to act quickly has been one
of the strengths of the Park. That has been because there has been responsibility in
that. I think from the leaseholders and from the landowner’s point of view that some degree of
flexibility is going to be absolutely essential as we move to the future and we need to continue to
adapt and undercutting edge of development of the next phase of technology.
To maybe throw out an idea perhaps rather than impose a cap now and then consider changing it
¯ later perhaps the Commission might want to consider a recommendation to monitor the
proportion and if it does approach a certain level then evaluate the conditions at that time. It
would be difficult to be able to predict what might happen five or ten years from now.
I think that perhaps maybe an approach that would monitor the
proportion of of.flee and then we will report of some sort every two years and consider the health
and the long term future of it at that point. It is just something to throw out for the Commission
to consider it its recommendation to Council.
Chair Griffin: It seems to me and I will just make one last comment that Jean Snider had said
something and I hope I am quoting her properly about Stanford’s generalized inclination to make
sure that the Research Park in fact does stay true to its roots in effect and not become a lawyer
City of Palo Alto Page 85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
park but rather to continue to be focused on being an R&D venue predominantly. That is one of
the reasons that this 25% cap was instituted. Did I say that right? Is the recollection?
Mr. Emslie: Yes, we believe those were the comments from the Stanford representative.
Chair Griffin: I see Karen and I see Lee. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: In response to that I look at this as kind of a comparison although it is
not the same of course, but I look at this as kind of a comparison to ground floor retail
protections. If you have the protection there for the ground floor as opposed to a monitoring
system then you don’t have a situation that exists where you already have intrusion into the
ground floor area. You are going to have that situation that may not be desirable for some period
of time until you can get something in place and lease’s run out and that sort of thing. So it
would seem to me that as a comparison that it is better to have a cap rather than monitoring. If
you monitor you are monitoring and you get to the point where it is an undesirable situation then
you have the situation. So it would seem to me that having a standard or a limit might be a more
desirable way of monitoring in a proactive way.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: Steve, I appreciate your admission that office space is hard to
distinguish from somebody who is working as programmer in a cubicle from somebody who is
working as a professional in a cubicle. Would it not be better to look at wholesale space in the
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
big picture and say that a manufacturing company or a company that is involved in selling
product that all of their office space is characterized as part of that R&D manufacturing element?
When you have a wholesale company like say a law finn that has an equally large building that it
is all dedicated to professional office space even though you might very well have that entire
building filled up with attorneys that are writing say patents.
Mr. Williams: That is exactly what this provision does. It essentially says what is the business
that is in that building. If it is an R&D business then it is classified as that even though 80% of it
may be support office services for that use. Whereas if it is professional office, what are they
writing contracts for..
Mr. Emslie: That works. Where it gets tricky is when you get close to the cap and then if a
wholesale use where to change from office to R&D it is not taken out of the cap and it can’t go
back in. That is the problem. The wholesale works as long as we don’t get close to the 25%
because then they can flip back and forth.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues this StaffReport is divided predominantly into three sections. We
have been working on item number two here for the last few minutes having to do with the 25%
cap. I am wondering in an attempt to get through this if we might go ahead and continue to
address this item number two and then move on to the other two items here. That being said do
we have any more comments on item number two and the limitations on office space? if we
don’t’ then perhaps we could revert back to number one which deals with the modifications to
the 35 foot height limit moving it to 40 feet in order to accommodate the biotech. Yes, Curtis.
City of Palo Alto Page 87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Mr. Williams:
number one.
Chair Griffin:
I suggest that you make a motion on number two, dispose of that and then discuss
Then I would entertain a motion on item number two. Bonnie, take a stab.
Commissioner Packer: I am intrigued with Steve’s suggestion about reviewing the situation on
an annual basis and then when it reaches 25% triggering what? I would like to know more about
how that would work as opposed to starting out with the 25%. What would be the difference?
Mr. Emslie: One the monitoring wouldn’t put it in the code. It would basically be something
that we would evaluate trends and demographics in the City for a number of land uses. So it is
part our responsibility in Advance Planning to anticipate needs. So Advance Planning would
review annual changes in the business park and if it appeared that more standalone offices were
starting to root then we could come back with recommendations for possible actions or no action.
Rather than have it codified now and have it be an issue that had to be dealt with in some
regulatory way it would be more part of our advance planning program and the commitment to
return to the Commission and the Council with recommendations should it appear that the
dynamic nature of the park being a research oriented park appeared to be overtaken by other
more professional office uses.
Commissioner Packer: Would it be necessary to codify that approach?
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 88
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Mr. Emslie: You could go that way but I wouldn’t think it would be necessary to codifyit.
Basically it could be a recommendation to the Council for direction to Staff as opposed to
codification.
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: I would like to make a motion that we recommend to Council that we
don’t put in the 25 % cap at this point but make sure the code emphasizes that the purpose of the
Research Park is to be a research park and that the Director will be monitoring the relative uses
between professional office and R&D to see if other caps may have to be put in in the future to
make sure that it stays a research park. That is my motion.
Chair Griffin: Let’s see if you can pick up a second. I am not hearing one. So that item fails.
Perhaps the reason it failed for me is that there is still a lot of ambiguity in this concept and while
I am attracted to the objective of what you are trying to get at which is to achieve flexibility and
yet at the same time keep the Research Park a research park. I guess I would like a little bit more
help with some text that would put some flesh on the bones and we don’t seem to have that right
now.
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: Before I heard Steve’s recommendations I was going to move the Staff
Report as it was written. It sounded like a good idea to me. The Staff Report is also a pretty
City of Palo Alto Page 89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
good idea because it does maintain the research and development; it excludes the administrative
office, which gives a lot more flexibility. The only thing I may want to suggest is that we clarify
the way the word ’design’ is used in the definition of professional office so it doesn’t create the
ambiguity that Lee pointed out because the word ’design’ is also used in research and
development. That standalone design word is confusing in the definition of professional office.
So my motion would be to support the Staff recommendation with a little bit more refinement on
the definition with regard to clarification of design.
SECOND
Commissioner Burt: Second.
Chair Griffin: Looks like we have picked up a second. So do you wish to speak any further to
the motion, Bonnie?
Commissioner Packer: No, it is kind of late.
Chair Griffin: Pat.
Commissioner Burt: No just to clarify that related to this aspect at the end I will be wanting to
make a separate motion regarding requesting Staff to pursue the aspects that would relate
incentivizing business-to-business taxes in the City.
City of Palo Alto Page 90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I am still somewhat suspect and questioning the language here. Part of
it is that what I hear is that removing wholesale businesses, manufacturing and R&D, and saying
we are not going to count your office space and then we are limiting other buildings to the 25%.
By the shear virtue of just looking at that we are actually increasing the amount of office space
allowing a relaxation of the amount of office space, which to me is okay, but I think that is like
the limit. Because after awhile you are going to begin to have traffic impacts, you are going to
have some impacts in terms of infrastructure, all these people going out at lunchtime. I have a
number of concerns that I am very troubled about. Even though at that point we go and look at
relaxing or increasing the limit beyond that I don’t feel comfortable going close to that.
Chair Griffin: All right. I see Pat and I see Karen.
Commissioner Burt: I was just going to make a comment. We are having to recall some things
we discussed a year ago, two? Part of what we had come to the recognition of was the even
though this has always been called an R&D park decades ago there was manufacturing that went
on there. Hewlett Packard had plating facilities and fabrication plants and assembly and there
was a lot more manufacturing as well as R&D. The. reality is this is premier R&D property and
we are not going to see a return to manufacturing even high-end there. The reality is that the
types of things that are defined today as code writing is a form of manufacturing software. That
is the trend that we have now. Steve was talking about capturing emerging technologies and I
don’t know if it means nano technologies is going to need little offices. In any event I think we
City of Palo Alto Page 91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
have an unavoidable trend that the best we can do are some of the things that we had elected to
do here which is to try to create environments where we will help the Park do things such as
attract biotech which is really the only true manufacturing other than nano technology that can be
done efficiently and requires the environment that is there. In biotech you have PhDs essentially
overseeing manufacturing and in nano technology you have very small devices where five
dollars a square foot for R&D space is not going to kill that company. Those are the trends that I
think we are seeing here and I think we have to recognize that we can’t reverse that direction.
We can try to incentivize some of the outcomes but I have come to accept that this principle that
there is very little differentiation in intensification of use between what is today’s use of R&D
there in software and the office. So I am less concerned about that than I was. It is an issue that
had concerned me in the past and I think there is just an economic and business reality that is
part of the evolution of; this is one of the centers of Silicon Valley.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I am sympathetic to Pat’s comments earlier about the business-to-
business sales tax generated here. I am wondering if a means that might help accommodate that
in the future and recognize the importance of that might be to add sales to the definitions under
professional office and under research and development. Does Staff understand where I am
going? Certainly the Commissioners don’t.
Under professional offices it says means of use providing professional consulting services in the
fields of law, architecture, design, accounting and similar professions. Then under research and
City of Palo Alto Page 92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
development it says means of use of engaging in the study, testing, engineering design, If we
could just add to those definitions a means to provide a location for or means of facilitating
business-to-business sales in the definitions as kind of a placeholder for the motion that is going
to be made separate from this. It is one of the things that we are going to be looking for. The
Research Park has how many hundreds of thousands of square feet so it is a significant piece to
consider.
Mr. Williams: First of all the research and development definition already includes sales as an
ancillary part of the company that’s already taken care of an issue that we could, explore is what
does it mean to have a sales office that is independent of business that otherwise might be
considered to be a professional office and whether that could be included. I don’t think we have
enough information yet to know what that means and to be able to add it. That would be part of
our analysis Right now sales within the context of office
HP has five buildings and one of them is all sales people. That is allowed in here
and it is still considered part of the R&D, so that is taken care of. There is another issue, a bigger
issue, about sales .
Chair Griffin: Karen, I am wondering would it be appropriate in your opinion if that concern
were folded into the eventual motion we are going to get from Pat on supporting business-to-
business transactions?
City of Palo Alto Page 93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Holman: Yes it would. I just wanted to make sure that Staff wasn’t then going to
be reluctant to go back and reopen these definitions again if that is what needed to happen in
order to facilitate that since we are just finishing up with this as it is.
Mr. Williams: Whatever comes out of that comes out of it if it is necessary to open up the
definitions then that’s what we’ll do.
Commissioner Holman: Okay. Then I am okay with that being a separate motion later.
MOTION PASSED (4-0-1-2 Commissioners Bialson and Cassel absent and Commissioner
Lippert abstaining)
Chair Griffin: I am going to support Bonnie’s motion even though it pains me a little to see civil
engineering being picked on here. That is an industry near and dear to my heart however for the
sake of moving this item along I will support your motion. I think that gave all of us an
opportunity to speak on it. So if we could then Vote for Bonnie’s motion on item number two.
All those in favor say aye. (ayes) Those opposed?
Commissioner Lippert: I will abstain and the reason for my abstention is that I was not part of
the original discussion that happened two years ago.
Chair Griffin: That is fine. So the item does carry with Commissioners Bialson and Cassel
absent and Commissioner Lippert abstaining.
City of Palo Alto Page 94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
If we could go to item number one to discuss the modifications to the 30-foot height limit and
incorporation of a 40 foot provision for interstitial. Do we have comments from colleagues
and/or questions on this item?
Commissioner Packer: I have a quick question. The screen on top of the roof would that be
included in the no more than 50 feet? It says the equipment should not be more than 50 feet is it
the equipment plus screens because sometimes screens go above in which to effectively screen.
Ms. Grote: Currently the regulation is that you can have 15 feet of additional height to screen
mechanical equipment that is on top of the roof. So if you have a 35-foot height limit you can
have 15 feet for screening. The way this is written if you have a 40 foot height limit and then the
mechanical equipment can’t go more than 50 feet that means you have a ten foot allowance on
top of the 40 feet for mechanical equipment and that means your screen can only be ten feet to
screen that ten feet of equipment.
Commissioner Packer: That was my question. The screen and the equipment are the same thing.
Ms..Grote: Correct.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
City of Palo Alto Page 95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Lippert: I just want to make a comment here for the sake of the Commission.
Biotechnology takes much larger equipment than say office where there are just air handling
units for ventilation. With biotechnology and medical there is a tremendous amount of air
handling so the equipment is significantly larger.
Chair Griffin: Just to clarify your clarification, does that mean that the equipment would for
example exceed this ten-foot limit and that there would be a constraint in terms of people
designing buildings to provide sufficient HVAC support for biotech?
Commissioner Lippert: There could be some problems where they come very, very close to the
height limitation that has been proposed here.
Chair Griffin: Does Staff wish to weigh in on that?
Mr. Williams: We discussed that some with Ken Kornberg of the ARB who you may know
designs these types of facilities. He felt comfortable with th,at 50-foot provision. There hasn’t
been an objection to that but we haven’t focused on it either so we certainly don’t want to put
something in there that in reality is going to be a hindrance.
Commissioner Lippert: Let me tell you where the rub is and I can illustrate it for you. Across
the street at Palo Alto Medical Foundation where you have buildings and then you have screens
above. They are not in proportion architecturally,approve, but I think
that the problem is that you can allow for an increase in the height of these buildings in order to
City of Palo Alto Page 96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1.3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
bring the screening in proportion to the building.
that equipment within that additional screen.
Where the difficulty is going to be is keeping
Chair Griffin: Curtis.
Mr. Williams: Could I suggest that if you would that you move this forward like this and that we
will talk to the biotech folks between now and this going to the Council and get a sense of
whether they feel like that is real critical then we will move forward and recommend they be
allowed to go up to the full 15 feet. But again it is not something that we really focused on
maybe it has gone under the radar and we need to revisit it.
Chair Griffin: Then if it went to the 15 feet then that would exceed our 50-foot limit.
Mr. Williams:
foot buildings.
The 50 foot limit is the building and we would have 15-foot allowances for 50-
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I was just going to suggest that respecting what Commissioner Lippert
has said and then also respecting the work that Staff has done already on this there is sometimes
something else we suggest which is reviewing something in a year after it has been put in place
because if there have been no complaints about this and you have done your outreach and
City of Palo Alto Page 97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
~17
18
19
20
21
22
23
worked with ARB and Ken Komberg who designs specifically this type of building then maybe
an easier way to do it might be just to review it in a year.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: As a solution to it what you might want to look at or what you might
want to consider is have increased height as screens step back. Therefore what happens is the
sight line is diminished the further it gets away from So you might say ten feet
when it is within ten feet of the edge of the building and 15 feet when it is back beyond that.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman:
sitting here though.
I understand the principle.I don’t know if it is something we can write
Commissioner Lippert: No, we couldn’t I am just giving an example.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie, did you have a motion?
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: I will move the Staff recommendations with regard to the allowances for
the interstitial space and with regard to the equipment on the roof I move that we support that
City of Palo Alto Page 98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
subject to Staff checking again with interested parties to see if an allowance for maybe going 15
feet in the middle of the building would be appropriate.
SECOND
Commissioner Burr: Second.
Chair Griffin: Let’s see if we have a second to that. Have you spoken sufficiently to your
motion?
Commissioner Packer: I think I have. I didn’t really say anything about why it is a good idea
but I think that all the reasons have all been said in the Staff Report and by the public.
Chair Griffin: Seconder?
Commissioner Holman: I just need one clarification. Maybe I just overlooked this but the 40-
foot height as opposed to 35-foot height and then there is an additional setback from residential
properties for the portion of the building that is above 35 feet. Is there a quantification of that
that I overlooked or is that only referring to the equipment itself or is that the building too?
Mr. Williams: That is the building too. It says increase the height from 35 feet to 40 feet and
then the Staff Report just says where additional setback is required. The specific ordinance
language says.
City of Palo Alto Page 99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Holman: I didn’t find it in the chart in the ordinance.
Mr. Williams: It says that the portion of the building over 35 feet in height is setback an
additional 20 feet from the building edge closest to the residential site when it is adjacent to a
residential site. If it is not adjacent to a residential site it would just be ARB review would
determine what is appropriate but if it is adjacent tog residential site then that additional height
would have to be setback and additional 20 feet or a minimum of a 100 feet off and there
wouldn’t be
MOTION PASSED (4-0-1-2 Commissioners Bialson and Cassel absent and Commissioner
Lippert abstaining)
Chair Griffin: I would like to vote this item. All those in favor of Bonnie’s motion, ! am not
going to repeat it but it substantially supports the Staff recommendation. All those in favor say
aye. (ayes) All those opposed? Do we have any abstentions?
Commissioner Lippert: I will abstain for the same reasons.
Chair Griffin: So again we have that item carrying with Commissioner Bialson and Cassel
absent and Commissioner Lippert abstaining.
That moves us now to item number three of the Staff Report.
City of Palo Alto Page 1 O0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2i
22
23
Mr. Williams: Actually there is 1-B also which was allowing the rooftop enclosures and the
storage exemptions for floor area for the enclosed equipment on the roof and the equipment in
the basement. I didn’t hear that as part of the motion if that was intended.
Commissioner Packer: I did intend to include the exemption I am sorry I didn’t express that.
The exemptions from floor area that additional storage space in the basement and on the roof.
Should we have another quick motion?
Chair Griffin: Does the City Attomey think that is required?
Commissioner Packer: Do another little vote?
Chair Griffin: I am sorry I can’t hear you. Unless there is an objection it is good to go with the
entire both item A and B. Colleagues, are we all right with that? It appears to be the case.
Moving to number three that has to do with revision of definitions providing for medical office
separated from medical research. Commissioners, do you have questions of Staff on this item?
Pat.
¯ Commissioner Burt: We had a member of the public who raised an issue that I realize is one that
we probably should be considering. In liberalizing the definition on medical research are we
potentially jeopardizing the viability of the independent doctors who are on Welch Road there?
City of Palo Alto Page 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Are they potentially going to get squeezed out by medical research in any way?
any comments that that might be an unintended consequence of this definition?
Does Staff have
Mr. Williams: We don’t think so primarily because we have tried to define medical research in a
way that it doesn’t turn into R&D in and of itself. We have limited the amount of hazardous
materials that are involved to a level that is in the code with a fairly minimal level. So I don’t
think we see it as being that extensive but it is hard to judge too. I would point out that the
speaker who brought this to your attention back a year and a half ago as far as separating the
medical research out from medical office is in the audience and is supportive of doing what we
have done here. She is part of that community and I don’t think she feels like it will jeopardize
the office use but I won’t speak for her if she wishes to speak to you.
Chair Griffin: Commissioners, would it be helpful to hear from a member of the public who is a
stakeholder in this item? We can do that if you are so inclined. Actually we would enjoy
hearing from you briefly and we do respect the hour.
:Ms. Sherri Sager, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, 725 Welch Road, Palo Alto: Thank you.
I am the Chief Government Relations Officer for Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital. Actually I
would like to thank the Commission and the Staff for all the hard work. What we were really
focusing on was to be able to do the clinical trials in the community physician’s office and in our
physician’s offices because that is considered research. So this definition allows for the clinical
trials to occur in the medical offices. We aren’t looking to build research labs there or really get
into as the comment was what we normally think of as research and development. We are really
City of Palo Alto Page 102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
focusing on medical trials and clinical trials so the patient gets care at the same time they are
participating in a research effort.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Pat, did you have a question?
Commissioner Burt: With that clarification it seems that maybe we should seek a definition that
captures what was just described there a little bit more than what we presently have. That seems
like a good objective and it sounds like we are close to that but we may need to tweak the
definition so that it is specifically referring to medical research within medical offices.
Mr. Williams: We can certainly add that.
Chair Griffin: Good. Bonnie did you have a motion?
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: I would like to move the recommendations of the Staff Report with
regard to the medical research definitions and to ask that Staff add to the medical research
definition the clarification that that research would take place within a medical office.
SECOND
Commissioner Burt: Second.
City of Palo Alto Page 103
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Chair Griffin: We have a second to that as well. Did you wish to speak to that motion at all or
have you said enough.
Commissioner Packer: I think the recommendations by Staff are good ideas and I thank them for
doing it.
MOTION PASSED (4-0-1-2 Commissioners Bialson and Cassel absent and Commissioner
Lippert abstaining)
Chair Griffin: Seconder? All those in favor of Bonnie’s motion on item number three say aye.
(ayes) Opposed? Do we have an abstention?
Commissioner Lippert: I will abstain for the same reasons.
Chair Griffin: All right so that item does pass with Commissioners Bialson and Cassel absent
and Commissioner Lippert’ abstaining.
Staff this now takes us to what appears to be the final two items, which have to do with other
minor modifications and the second one being related issues to be addressed. You folks,
colleagues, have already spent a lot of time this evening discussing offsite vehicle storage but I
am on thin ice here. Karen, maybe you could help me with this.
City of Palo Alto Page 104
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
i8
19
20
21
22
23
1 Commissioner Holman: I would like a clarification on the offsite new vehicle storage for auto
2 dealerships.that is now being allowed in RLM and GM zones. It requires a CUP and I am
3 wondering if one of the findings would be, I am presuming but I don’t like to assume, that it
4 would be for dealerships only which sales offices are located in Palo Alto. Would that be one of
5 the findings for the CUP I would hope and pray?
Mr. Williams: I don’t think we talked about having special findings for the use permit. I think
what we should do is have a footnote or something in the actual standard here that indicates that
it is only offsite storage for dealerships that are in Palo Alto that certainly is the intent.
Commissioner Holman: I think stating that explicitly would help protect from the consideration
that I brought up the last time we discussed this.
Chair Griffin: Colleagues, do you have further questions on this other minor modifications item?
Apparently we do have one more.
Commissioner Holman: Just one. In the other item it talked about vehicle storage and the
screening but those aren’t mentioned here so will those be carried over?
Mr. Lusardi: They would only be carried over I believe if they were adjacent to residential use.
I think as part of the use permit if there was for instance some relationship to the Baylands or
something we would look at that sensitivity as well.
City of Palo Alto ¯ Page 105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Commissioner Holman: Would it not be appropriate to also require landscape screens or
something of that nature no matter where they are located? It is vehicle storage it is not, this
isn’t something that does need visibility.
.Mr. Lusardi: Right but the objective here is to utilize existing parking lots in industrial areas. So
the parking lots are essentially already built and improved. I am not sure but all those parking
lots typically have landscape buffers around them so the landscaping is there. I am not sure what
additional screening you would need.
Commissioner Holman: I didn’t read this, maybe I misread it, and I did not read this to say that
it would only be for existing parking lots. I read this that theoretically an auto dealership could
scrape everything on a parcel and use the whole parcel subject to setbacks for auto storage. That
was how I read it.
Mr. Lusardi: Right but number one if they scrape the site or they had a vacant site and they did it
would need not just a CUP but they would require a site development permit through ARB,
which would have screening standards and landscape standards with it. Plus parking lots
themselves have landscape standards in them so they would have to meet the landscape standards
for the parking lots. This is not just a sea of asphalt.
Commissioner Holman: Okay, so that is explicit in here then, thank you.
City of Palo Alto Page 106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
-15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Chair Griffin: Do we need a motion to agree with these three bullet points under minor
modifications? ~Would that be helpful?
Mr. Williams: It would be helpful to have a motion that basically encompasses everything we
have done here and forwards the ordinance with the changes you have discussed tonight and I
think Pat had an additional motion to go in that or separate from that to the Council.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Hotman: If we could do number one unless you want me to make comments on
number two at the same time and then consider all three.
Chair Griffin: Please, go ahead.
Commissioner Holman: This has to do with certain equipment generators, air conditioning,
compressors, etc. as permitted outdoors subject to setback regulations and screening from view
from residential properties and meets noise ordinance standards. Over in the ordinance it doesn’t
mention noise ordinance standards but 0,f course that would be assumed and presumed too
because you have to satisfy the noise ordinance. What I would like to see and Stafftell me if this
is something that is going to come back as a part of something that is mentioned later here about
noise, what I would like to see is this equipment housed and insulated. What I have noticed in
the community in the last couple of years, especially is it has gotten noisier and noisier and
City of Palo Alto Page 107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
noisier. So just having it screened from view is one thing but having it insulated and noise
mitigated is something very different.
Mr. Williams: The answer is yes it is coming back to you later and is probably going to be a
separate section in the zoning ordinance or performance standards that include things like where
equipment on commercial and industrial property is set and particularly when it is near
residential and noise mitigations it may also include dust and odors and landscape screening
buffering, those kind of transitional concerns. But it is not only specific to industrial it also
applies to a number of other uses so we are bringing that back as a separate section.
Commissioner Holman:
noise impacts later.
Given that I am okay with this.We will get a crack at reducing the
Chair Griffin: Perhaps it is now appropriate to what I wanted to do was get to Pat’s concern.
Fine. Then Bonnie give us a motion to wrap up those three bullet points if you would.
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: I move that we recommend to adopt the minor modifications that are
referenced on three bullet points on page five of the Staff Report with the reminder that we
already mentioned something in my first motion I believe about professional office space that the
definitions of administrative uses be clarified with regard to design uses. And it be made clear
that the auto storage be allowed to store the autos of auto dealers who are located in Palo Alto.
City of Palo Alto Page 108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
SECOND
Commissioner Holman: Second.
Chair Griffin: We have a second. Bonnie, do you wish to speak further to the item?
Commissioner Packer: No I don’t. I think it is stated in the Staff Report.
Commissioner Holman: Ditto.
MOTION PASSED (4-0-1-2 Commissioners Bialson and Cassel absent and Commissioner
Lippert abstaining)
Chair Griffin: We will vote on this item. All those in favor of Bonnie’s motion say aye. (ayes)
Opposed? There are no votes opposed. Commissioner Lippert is abstaining and Commissioners
Cassel and Bialson are absent.
Now we will hear from Commissioner Burt.
Commissioner Butt: I would like to ask guidance from Director Emslie. Given the intent of my
motion would be to request Staff to return to the Commission with a set of recommendations on
how to utilize elements of the ZOU to incentivize business-to-business taxes to occur within the
City of Palo Alto Page 109
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
1 City and that I would like to include in that motion Staff evaluating other incentives including
2 possible fee waivers and permit streamlining incentives which are not specifically within the
3 ZOU but have some interrelationship to it. I want to ask-Steve what he thinks would be the best
4 way to proceed under that recommendation.
5
Mr. Emslie: I think what you want to do is include with your recommendation on the zoning
codes you just acted on a recommendation to Council to ask Staff to prepare that report. This is
an area that is going to cross several departments so it is going to be a multidisciplinary approach
so we always need Council direction to be able to do that. I think in this case it is especially
important because it is going to involve economic development and other fee levying
departments: I think we have a very clear idea of the program that was discussed this evening.
MOTION
Commissioner Burt: Okay then I would like to make a motion to that effect that the Commission
recommend that Council direct Staff to embark on a program to evaluate a variety of tools that
may be used to help facilitate and enhance business-to-business taxes within the City.
SECOND
Commissioner Holman: I will second.
Chair Griffin: Would the maker wish to speak further on his motion?
City of Palo Alto Page 110
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Butt: Well we had a pretty good discussion on it earlier and we actually had
begun discussions on this one or two years ago and I am glad that between the Mayor’s effort at
looking at sales tax revenue in retail that I think this is a valuable service that we can have as to
give a greater emphasis to what I think is the most under-appreciated and perhaps easiest to
obtain sales tax revenue form.
I would like to add one more anecdote. Commissioner Lippert had one earlier and.I don’t know
how many folks saw in the last few months the City of Los Gatos was faced with a need in their
case they had to allow for a FAR increase to retain NetFlix as a business in the City of Los Gatos
that had grown from a startup to one that if I recall the numbers correctly is projected to shortly
go to $1.0 billion a year in sales taxable revenue which I think ballparks at about $10 million a
year to the City of Los Gatos. So when I have been emphasizing the significance of this I just
can’t emphasize enough how under appreciated I think this issue can be and has been and we
need to go for it and come up with ways to provide Staff with tools that can really make this an
economic engine with minimal impact on the City.
Chair Griffin: Commissioners, I am thinking it is coming up to eleven o’clock and I want to
encourage everyone to be mindful of the hour. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I have a quick question for Staff and then maybe a friendly amendment
to add to the motion. How many square feet are in Stanford Research Park?
City of Palo Alto Page 111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Ms. Grote: I believe it is 10 million total.
Commissioner Holman: So I am going to ask Comfffissioner Burt if he would accept a friendly
amendment as a part of that request of Council in directing Staff to consider a minimum
requirement for business-to-business in the Stanford Research Park. If you consider that there
are 10 million square feet if the percentage was even small it could amount to quite a lot of sales
tax revenue to the City.
Commissioner Burt: Well, I would like to take any and all possibilities that Staff would consider
as what they would bring back to us as opposed at this point in time attempt to come up with
what those specific tools would be I don’t think we should exclude that consideration nor
necessarily include a number of ones that I have mentioned earlier that I think are well worth
pursuing. But I think it is too early for us to determine which ones there should be but I certainly
wouldn’t want to exclude that.
Commissioner Holman: I just wanted to ask it to be considered as part of the exploratory.
Commissioner Burt: Yes, basically I would like to request that everything is on the table
including that.
Commissioner Holman: Okay, I am done.
Chair Griffin: Commissioner Lippert.
City of Palo Alto Page 112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
Commissioner Lippert: I support what you said and just to augment or add to that my earlier line
of questioning with regard to incubators was along the same lines, which is that when you lo0k at
these companies when they come to Palo Alto to mature they don’t move into the Research Park,
they move somewhere else. A good example of that is Yahoo! I don’t know if they generated
any tangible sales tax from their business but they were a Palo Alto company at one point and
now they are located down in Sunnyvale. And in some ways we are saddled with some of the
older mature companies. I think that by virtue of limiting office space to 25% I think we have an
obligation to have the BMRs of technology included in the Research Park because innovation is
really the cutting edge of what is important here.
Chair Griffin: All those in favor of Pat’s motion say aye. (ayes) All those opposed and the item
does carry unanimously Commissioner Lippert being included with the majority and
Commissioners Bialson and Cassel absent.
Staff, are we good to go with this item now? Did we cover all of your topics?
Ms. Grote: Yes you did. Thank you very much.
Chair Griffin:
this stage.
That then brings us to the end of item number three and I will close that item at
We now come to Reports From Officials. We have a presentation on Sustainable Silver Bullet.
City of Palo Alto Page 113
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
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS:
Sustainable Silver Bullet: Stanford Research Park Multimodal Demand Analysis.
Presentation by Steve Raney of Cities 21.org of the results of the 3-year study exploring
the impact of advanced transportation technology on solo commuting and in-fill
development.
SR Weblink: http://www.ci _tyofpaloalto.org/ci _tyagenda/publish/planning-transportation-
meetings/3492.pdf
Mr. Emslie: Given the lateness of the hour we have asked the presenter of that to Come back
another time to present when we have more time on our agenda.
Chair Griffin: Somehow that resonates with most of us I am sure.
Commission Member Questions, Comments or Announcements. Karen.
COMMISSION MEMBER Q UES TIONS, COMMENTS, AND/OR ANNO UNCEMENTS.
Commissioner Holman: I have a couple of questions for Staff please. One of them is a couple of
times I have come in to get packet items either before they have been delivered and one time
actually this Monday night to get Commission packet items out of the rack. It seems that the
Commission things are not in the racks often. Is that typical? Actually somebody in the public
told me that they have difficulty finding them in the racks too.
Ms. Grote: By the racks you mean this bin down here on the right.
City of Palo Alto Page 114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Commissioner Holman: Yes.
Ms. Grote: We usually do put them there as soon as they are made available for the public and
the packets are sent out for the Commissioners and the Council. We put extra copies in this area
down here so they should be there. We will make sure that that happens in the future.
Commissioner Holman:
check.
So perhaps it has just been happenstance when I have happened to
Ms. Grote: Or there maybe some problem with the number of copies that we are having made
and we don’t have enough until the next day but we will make sure to rectify that.
Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Then the other one is a question I have about process. I
have not been reading everything that has been going on about the Lytton Plaza designs. I have
sort of caught enough of it to see that there are ideas being bandied about about what the design
should be for Lytton Plaza and Mr. Rapp was here earlier speaking to us about that. It didn’t
seem appropriate to have a discussion about that since it wasn’t agendized but I have a question
for Staff. Which is, what process is that following because what it sort of appears like and I am
not assuming this but it sort of appears like is there are different designs that are being concocted
if you will outside of public forum or are these things going to ARB. How exactly is this
happening? What is the process for this?
City of Palo Alto Page 115
1
2
3
4
6
-7
8
9
10
11
.12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Mr. Emslie: It goes to the ARB and you. It is a park improvement ordinance and it would have
to be approved by the Council and both the bodies have to review that. Parks and Recreation.
Commissioner Holman: So the different designs all of those designs would come to us?
Mr. Emslie: Yes. And then because it is a public-private partnership it would also have to follow
those rules and guidelines that the City has.
Commissioner Holman: Thank you for the clarification.
Chair Griffin: On behalf of Vice-Chair Cassel there were some comments about the templates
being used by the admin having to do with the agenda. I just wanted to confirm that the City
Attorney’s Office will have a chance to take a look at these in future to make sure that the
descriptive text does in fact correspond with the items that we are going to be discussing. Good.
All right.
That takes us now to approval of minutes.
APPROVAL OFMINUTES) Minutes for the Regular meeting of April 28, Special meeting of
June 2 and Regular meeting of June 9, 2004.
Chair Griffin: I have been snake bit on this so many times that I am reluctant to announce these.
H ere is what I am looking at, minutes for the Regular meeting of April 28. We are good with
that? All those in favor of approval of the minutes for April 28th:
City of Palo Alto Page 116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Packer: I can’t vote on that I wasn’t hear that night.
Chair Griffin: Okay, but we have four, anybody else exempted from that item or can we vote it?
Commissioner Lippert: I will move we approve.
Chair Griffin: Snake bit again.
Commissioner Lippert: I withdraw my motion.
Chair Griffin: June 2nd. Back to April 28: ,
MOTION
Commissioner Lippert: I move we approve.
SECOND
Commissioner Holman: Second.
MOTION PASSED (4-0-1-2 Commissioners Bialson and Cassel absentand Commissioner
Packer abstaining)
City of Palo Alto Page 117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Chair Griffin: All those in favor? (ayes) So did we get the three that we require?
Commissioner Lippert: Yes.
Chair Griffin: It looks like we are done on that. Are we on June 2nd now?
MOTION
Commissioner Lippert: I’ll move.
SECOND
Commissioner Packer: I will second.
MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2 Commissioners Bialson and Cassel absent)
Chair Griffin: All in favor? (ayes)
We have the meeting of June 9th. Do I have a motion?
MOTION
City of Palo Alto Page 118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Commissioner Packer: So moved.
SECOND
Commissioner Lippert: Second.
MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-2 Commissioners Bialson and Cassel absent)
Chair Griffin: All those in favor? (ayes)
That takes us to the next meeting, which on my agenda says June 30, so these agendas are out of
control in a nice sort of way.
NEXT MEETING: Regular Meeting of July 14, 2004.
Ms. Grote: July 14 is your next meeting.
Chair Griffin: That is great. Thank you.
I declare this meeting adjourned.
ADJOURNED: 11:15 p.m.
City of Palo Alto Page 119
ATI’ACHMENT G 2
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
John Lusardi, Planning Manager
July 28, 2004
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
SUBJECT:Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU) -Application of an Auto
Dealership Overlay on sites in Commercial and Industrial
Districts where existing Auto Dealerships are located to provide
for additional Site Development and Design Standards, and
Amendment of existing Planned Community Zoned sites that
allow the sale of new automobiles to provide for additional Site
Development and Design Standards.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend the
following:
That the City Council adopt an ordinance (Attachment A) applying the auto
dealership overlay zone to existing auto dealerships selling new and pre-owned
autos, located at: 4180 El Camino Real (Peninsula Ford), 4190 E1 Camino Real
(Carlsen Volvo), 3290 Park Blvd. (Park Avenue Motors), 762 San Antonio Road
(Hengehold Motors), and 3045 Park Blvd. (Stanford European).
That the City Council adopt ordinances (Attachment B) amending the three
Planned Community sites to allow additional site and design standards for existing
automobile dealerships selling new automobiles, located at 1730 Embarcadero
Road (Carlsen Motor Cars, PC 2554), 1766 Embarcadero Road (Anderson Honda,
PC 3350), and 690 San Antonio Road (Magnussen’s Dodge and Toyota, PC 2592).
City of Palo Alto Page 1
SUMMARY OF PRIOR COMMISSION ACTION
At the meeting of June 30, 2004, the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC)
voted (4-1-2, Holman no, Griffin and Bialson absent) to: 1) recommend that City Council
approve a zoning ordinance amendment for the new Chapter 18.65 establishing an auto
dealership overlay zone; 2) initiate the overlay zone on five existing auto dealerships in
the Commercial Service (CS) and General Manufacturing (GM (B)) zoning districts; 3)
initiate amendments to three existing auto dealership sites with Planned Community (PC)
zoning districts; 4) recommend that the City Council direct staff to develop a final Auto
Sales Dealership overlay zone through the ZOU; and 5) recommendthat the City Council
direct staff to develop along term retention and recruitment strategy for auto dealerships.
For the new Auto Dealership overlay zone, the P&TC also recommended revisions to the
staff recommendations to include minor text revisions and to: 1) revise the interior auto
showroom space to allow a maximum 0.2 additional FAR and a maximum height of
twenty (20) feet, and 2) include used auto sales dealers in the overlay zone as a permitted
use.
DISCUSSION
Based on the Commission’s recommendations at the June 30th meeting, staff has revised
the proposed Ordinance for Auto Dealerships to reflect the text revisions, to include used
auto sales in the overlay zone, and to revise development standards for showroom areas.
The flexible development standards also include parking, landscaping and screening, and
accessory uses for full service operations.
At the June 30th meeting, the Commission also voted to initiate the application of the
overlay zone with flexible development standards on five existing dealership sites in the
Commercial Service (CS) and General Manufacturing (GM (B)) zoning districtS, as
follows:
Varsity/Peninsula Ford, 4180 E1 Camino Real
Carlson Volvo, 4190 E1 Camino Real
Park Ave. Motors, 3290 Park Blvd,
Stanford European, 3045 Park Blvd.
Hengehold Motors, 762 San Antonio Rd.
CS 1.8 acres
CS 1.5 acres
CS 0.7 acres
GM (B)1.4 acres
CS 2.0 acres
Staff recommends that the Commission recommend that the City Council approve the
application of the new overlay Automobile Dealership (AD) Combining district to these
five sites. Attachment C shows the new flexible development standards for sites within
these districts and their respective underlying CS and GM (B) development standards.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
At the June 30th meeting, the Commission also voted to recommend that the City Council
approve applying the same overlay zone of flexible development standards to the three
existing dealerships with PC zoning, as follows:
Carlsen Audi, 1730 Embarcadero Rd.
Anderson Honda, 1766 Embarcadero Rd.
Magnussen’s Toyota, 690 San Antonio Rd.
PC 2.3 acres
PC 3.8 acres
PC 2.5 acres
Planned Community Zoning is site specific in defining required development standards.
While the three PC auto dealerships in the PC zones are very similar to the dealerships in
the CS and GM (B) zones, application of the flexible development standards requires
amending each PC rather than applying the overlay zone. Staff researched the records and
files (BODS, microfiche, and staff reports) to determine the most accurate site
information available. For each PC auto dealership, the key existing development
standards are as follows:
Carlsen Audi, 1730 Embarcadero Road. This auto dealership includes a 21,104 sf
building on an approximately 100,229 sf site, with an approximate FAR of 0.21. The
building height is 18 feet and the front setback is 80 feet. There is a raised landscape
berm that provides some screening from Embarcadero. There is parking for about 174
cars, with only 6 of them available for customers.
Anderson Honda, 1766 Embarcadero Road. This auto dealership includes a 23,904 sf
building on an approximately t66,067 sf site, with an approximate FAR of 0.14. The
building height is 24 feet and the front setback is 65 feet. There is a moderate landscape
strip along the front of the building, with some auto display on at grade asphalt pads.
There is parking for about 324 cars, with customer parking comprising 5 to 10 spaces.
Magnussen’s Toyota, 690 San Antonio Road. This auto dealership includes a 38,477 sf
building 0n an approximately 108,900 sf site, having an approximate FAR of .35. The
building height is 23 feet, the front setback is 200 feet, and the street side setback is 170
feet. The front and st~ceet setbacks have a landscape area in front of the outdoor auto
display parking. There is parking for about 175 cars, with customer parking and employee
parking comprising 65 spaces.
Application of the new flexible development standards cited in the auto dealership
overlay is reasonable given the existing site development standards for each PC auto
dealership. Insofar as they are all existing full service dealerships, additional services
such as more service bays would be a moderate expansion of use. On site parking exists
for fleet storage, employee and customers. Additional fleet storage would most likely
have to occur off-site. These three sites are ideally positioned to use the new auto fleet
storage allowed in the GM zone district.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
All three sites would have opportunities to add auto display pads if they desired. All new
improvements, especially auto display pads, would be subject to ARB review. The two
sites on Embarcadero Road would also require Site and Design Review.
For showroom space, there are opportunities for adding new or expanding showroom
space on each site. However, the two sites on Embarcadero Road could have limitations
given the proximity of existing buildings to the street. As an alternative, these dealers may
want to utilize the old showroom area that has been converted to sales office, and move
the office space with new improvements to the rear of the building. Insofar as the existing
building heights are close to the proposed twenty-foot height limitation, staff is not
proposing to change this standard for the PC zones. A 0.2 FAR increase for showroom
space on these sites would be significantly larger than is likely to be needed, and would
be subject to ARB review, with Site and Design Review also required for the sites on
Embarcadero Road.
Staff recommends that the Commission recommend that the City Council amend the PC
zones for the three existing auto dealerships to allow implementation of the flexible
development standards identified in the auto overlay zone.
NEXT STEPS
The City Council is scheduled to hear these items on August 9, 2004.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Recommendations of this staff report are consistent with the overall land use and economic
goals of the Comprehensive Plan and specifically Goals 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
Implementation of the new Auto Dealership Chapter 18.65 is exempt from the provisions of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per section 15301 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. These improvements would consist of
minor expansions to existing commercial buildings.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Ordinance Applying Overlay to (5) CS/GM Sites
Attachment B: Ordinance Amending PC Standards for (3) Sites
Attachment C: Flexible Development Standards Table
City of Palo Alto Page 4
COURTESY COPIES:
City Council
Anderson Honda
Varsity/Peninsula Ford
Carlsen Volvo
Park Ave. Motors
Stanford European
Magnussen’s Toyota
Hengehold Motors
Ms. Glenda Gavenman
Susan Arpan
Landee Lopez
Prepared by: John Lusardi, Planning Manager
Department/Division Head Approval:
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE
ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3045
PARK BOULEVARD FROM "GM(B)" TO "GM(B) (AD)" AND
TO CHANGE THE ZONE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 4190 EL CAMINO REAL, 3290 PARK
BOULEVARD, 762 SAN ANTONIO ROAD, AND 4180 EL
CAMINO REAL FROM "CS" TO "CS(AD)"
The Council of the City of Palo Alto~ does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION i. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map", is hereby amended by changing the zone
classification of property located at 3045 Park Boulevard from
"GM(B) General Manufacturing Combining District (B)" to
"GM(B) (AD) General Manufacturing Combining District (B) with
Automobile Dealership Overlay", as shown in Exhibit "A",
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map", is hereby amended by changing the zone
classification of property located at 3290 Park Boulevard from
"CS Service Commercial District" to "CS(AD) Service Commercial
District with Automobile Dealership Overlay", as shown in
Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTION 3. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map", is hereby amended by changing the zone
classification of property located at 4180 E1 Camino Real from
"CS Service Commercial District" to "CS(AD) Service Commercial
District with Automobile Dealership Overlay", as shown in
Exhibit "C", attached hereto and incorporated herein by
.reference.
SECTION 4. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map", is hereby amended by changing the zone
classification of property located at 4190 E1 Camino Real from
"CS Service Commercial District" to "CS(AD) Service Commercial
District width Automobile Dealership Overlay", as shown in
Exhibit "D", attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTION 5. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map", is hereby amended by changing the zone
classification of property located at 762 San Antonio Road from
040721 jea 6030043
1
"CS Service Commercial District" to "CS(AD) Service Commercial
District with Automobi~le Dealership Overlay", as shown in
Exhibit .E, attached hereta:, and incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTION 6.~i ~ The Councili"hereb~ ~ds.that this project
has no significant~ effect on the environment.
SECTION 7.~ This ordinance~shall become effective upon
the commencement of. the~thirtyi~first day after the day of its
adoption. . " -
INTRODUCED
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
~PPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Direct.tot bfPlanning and
~Community Environment
040721 jea 6030043
Zoning: GMB
Size in Acres (estimated):.
1.4 acres
Buildin~ Size.:
(2 stories)
Th~ City
Pato A]t-o
,~tanford ~urop ean
- 3045 Park Blvd
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto
V,5<~T]~T~P " A "
The City
Palo .Alto
Park Aw i\&otors.
3290 Park BNd
This map is a product of the
Cit5, of Palo Alto
/
i
/
/
EXHIBIT
City r,f
alo Alto
Varsib~ Ford
418 0 E! Can~no
This map is a product of the
CiW of Palo Alto Gig
EXHIBIT "D"
"[his map is a product of the
City. of Palo Alto GIS
72’
EXHIBIT "E"
I
L F---@H O F~I~: ":::":::":STREET: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
!Zoning: CS
"Size in Acted (esiimaled):I .
~i’i ~’-’ acres .(includes _9. parcels)
~-i Buitdin~ size: 5 161
.I
The City of
Palo £1to
Hengehol.d lvfotors
762 Sa~ ~mtonio !~d.
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Aim GIS
EXHIBIT "E"
Attachment B
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE ~OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO RENUMBERING AND AMENDING PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT PC-2554 (1730 EMBARCADERO ROAD)TO
PERMIT CERTAIN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP DESIGN
FEATURES
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION i. Findings and Declarations.
finds and declares~as follows:
The City Council
(a) On April 30, 1970, the City Council adopted
Ordinance 2554 establishing a PC District permitting an auto
dealership on the property located at 1730 Embarcadero Road.
(b) This ordinance is intended to renumber and amend
Planned Community (PC) district 2554 to permit certaln
automobile dealership design standards. The design standards
are substantially similar to those allowed under the City’s
Automobile Dealership overlay district.
SECTION 2. A’ new section 5 is hereby added to Planned
Community district ordinance 2554 to read as follows:
~Sect±on 5. The following changes to the development
plan may be made, subject to Architectural Review
approval~ ~as set forth in Title 18 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code:
(a) Automobile display pads may be added in the
required setback area adjacent to a public right-of-way,
including in landscaped areas. Provided no more than
two such pads shall be added, no automobile display pad
shall be higher than eight feet, as measured to the
highest Point of the automobile on the display pad, and
the surface area of each display pad shall be no more
than 175 square feet.
(b) .Parking area modifications may be made, provided
such modifications shall comply with the following
provisions:
(i) the number of parking spaces provided must
be at least 1 per 400 square feet of sales and
040"/22 jea 6030044
1
office administration area, and 1 per 500 square
feet of exterior sales or display area, excluding
automobile storage; and
(2) Areas for customer parking shall be
designated; and
(3) Areas for outdoor sales and display of motor
vehicles, other than automobile display pads, shall
meet the minimum design standards applicable to
off,street parking facilities under Title 18 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code with respect to paving,
grading, drainage, safety and protective features,
lighting, and screening. Auto storage and display
areas ~are not required to be striped for parking
stall and aisle width; and
(4) Exterior .storage shall Screened by a~soiid
wall or fence of between five (5) and eight (8)
feet in height.
(c) Automobile showroom space may be increased,
provided the total automobile showroom space on the site
may not exceed a floor area ratio of 0.2:1. "Automobile
showroom space" is that area for the display of-new
automobiles, located only on the first floor and
excluding all other uses associated with the automobile
dealership including sales office and sale of related
merchandise. The Director of Planning and Community
Environment is authorized to determine whether floor
area is automobile showroom space, as described above."
SECTION 3.’ section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map", is hereby amended by changing the zone
classification of property located at 1730 Embarcadero Road from
"Planned Community District PC-2554" to ~Planned Community
District PC- ", as shown in Exhibit ~A", attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 4. Except as amended
remains in full force and effect.
above, Ordinance 2554
SECTION 5. 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
040722 iea 6030044
there is no possibility that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days
after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
Director of Planning &
Community Environment
040722 jea 6030044
EXHIBIT "A"
~-h~ Ci~,
Palo Alto
Carlson Motor Cars
(Audi),
73 0 Embarcadero R~oad
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
~ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO RENUMBERING ~AND AMENDING PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT PC-3350 (1766 EMBARCADERO ROAD) TO
PERMIT CERTAIN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP DESIGN
FEATURES
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION i. Findings and Declarations.
finds and declares as follows:
The City Council
(a) On July 24, 1967, the City Council adopted Ordinance
2365 establishing a PC District permitting an auto dealership on
the property located at 1766 Embarcadero Road. That ordinance
was amended by Ordinance 3550 on May 3, 1982 to change certain
conditions of approval.
(b) This ordinance shall renumber and amend Planned
Community (PC)~ district 3550 to permit certain automobile
dealership design standards. The design standards are
substantially similar to those allowed under the City’s
Automobile Dealership overlay district.
SECTION 2. A new section 6 is hereby added to Planned
Community district ordinance 2365 to read as follows:
"Section 6. The following changes to the development
plan may be made, subject to Architectural Review
approval, as set forth in Title 18 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code:
(a) Automobile display pads may be added in the
required setback area adjacent to a public right-of-way,
including .in landscaped areas. Provided no more than
two such pads shall be added, no automobile display pad
shall be higher than eight feet, as measured to the
highest point of the automobile on the display pad, and
the surface area of each display pad shall be no more
than 175 square feet.
(b) Parking area modifications may be made, provided
such modifications shall comply with the following
provisions:
040722 jea 6030045
(i) The number of parking spaces provided must
be at least .i per 400 square feet of sales and
~office administration area, and 1 per 500 square
feet o.f exterior sales or display area, excluding
automObile~storage; and
(2) Areas for. customer parking shall be
designated; and
(3~)~i!Areas for outdoor sales and display of motor
vehicles, Other than automobile display pads, shall
meet the minimum design standards applicable to
off-street~ parking facilities Under Title 18 of the
Palo A~ito Municipal Code with respect to paving,
grading, drainage, safety and protective features,
lighting~, and screening. Auto storage and display
areas are-not required to be striped for parking
stall.~and aisle width; and
(4) Exterior storage shall be screened by a
solid wall or fence of between five (5) and eight
(8) feetiin~height.
(c) Automobile showroom space may be increased,
provided the ~total.automobile showroom space on the site
may not exceed~a_:.floor’area ratio of 0.2:1. "Automobile
showroom space" is that area for ~he display of new
automobiles, located only on the first floor and
.~:~:excludingall other uses associated with the automobile
dealership including sales office and sale of related
merchandise. .The ~Directo~ o~.i~.~planning and Community
Environment[:.,:is~authorized to ~determine whether floor
area is au’tomobile showroom space, as described above."
SECTION 3. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map", is hereby amended by changing the zone
classific&tion of:.property located at 1766 Embarcadero Road from
"Planned Community~ District PC-3550" to "Planned Community
District PC- ", <.~s shown in Exhibit ~A",~ attached hereto and
inc.orporated her~ein~by reference, ~.~ ~ ~ .~ , ¯
SECTION 4. Except as amended above and by Ordinance
3350, Ordinance 2365.~remagns in full force and effect.
SECTION5.1. The CityCouncil 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.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days
after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:~
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
Director of Planning &~
Community Environment
Ol2104jea 6030045 3
EXHIBIT "A"
The City of
Palo Alto
Anderson Honda
1756 Embarcadero Road
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
142’
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO RENUMBERING AND AMENDING PLANNED COMMUNITY
DISTRICT PC-2592 (690 SAN ANTONIO ROAD)TO
PERMIT CERTAIN AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP DESIGN
FEATURES
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION i. Findings and Declarations.
finds and declares as follows:
The City Council
(a) On January 5, 1971, the City Council adopted
Ordinance 2592 establishing a PC District permitting an auto
dealership on the property located at 690 San Antonio Road. On
November 19, 1973, a resolution was adopted permitting a change
to the development plan. The ordinance was also amended by
Ordinance 3551 on May 3, 1982 to permit expansion of the
facility.
(b) This ordinance shall renumber and amend Planned
Community (PC) district 2592 to permit certain automobile
dealership design standards.The design standards are
substantially similar to those allowed under the City’s
Automobile Dealership overlay district.
SECTION 2. A new section 4 is hereby added to Planned
Community district ordinance 2592 to read as follows:
~Section 4. The following changes to the development
plan may be made, subject to Architectural Review
approval, as set forth in Title 18 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code:
(a) Automobile display pads may be added in the
required setback area adjacent to a public right-of-way,
including in landscaped areas. Provided no more than
two such pads shall be added, no automobile display pad
shall be higher than eight feet, as measured to the
highest point of the automobile on the display pad, and
the surface area of each display pad shall be no more
than 175 square feet.
(b) Parking area modifications may be made, provided
such modifications shall comply with the following
provisions:
1
0~722j~6030046
(i) The number of parking spaces provided must
be at least 1 per 400 square feet of sales and
office administration area, and 1 per 500 square
feet of exterior sales or display area, excluding
automobile storage; and
(2) Areas for customer parking shall be
designated; and
(3) Areas for outdoor sales and display of motor
vehicles, other than automobile display pads, shall
meet the minimum design standards applicable to
off-street parking facilities under Title 18 of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code with respect to paving,
grading, drainage, safety and protective features,
lighting, and screening. Auto storage and display
areas are not required to be striped for parking
¯ stall and aisle width; and
(4) Exterior storage shall screened by a solid
wall or fence of between five (5) and eight (8)
feet in height.
(c) Automobile showroom space may be increased,
provided, the total automobile showroom space on the
site may not exceed a floor area ratio of 0.2:1o
~Automobile showroom space" is that area for the display
of new automobiles, located only on the first floor and
excluding all other uses associated with the automobile
dealership including sales office and sale of related
merchandise. The Director of Planning and Community
Environment is authorized to determine whether floor
area is automobile showroom space, as described above."
SECTION 3. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map", is hereby amended by changing the zone
classification of property located at 690 San Antonio Road from
"Planned Community District PC-2592i" to ~Planned Community
District PC-~", as shown in Exhibit ~A", attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 4. Except as amended above, by Ordinance 3351,
and by Resolution 4841, Ordinance 2592 remains in full force and
effect.
2
SECTION 5. 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.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days
after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
NOT PARTICIPATING:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED .AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
Director of Planning &
Community Environment
040722 jea 6030046
EXHIBIT ~"A"
/
I
Zoning: PC-2592
4.4 acres t.incmdes 5 parce!s"
Building Size: ] 1,258 sqk
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
EXHIBIT "A"
ATTACHMENT C
Standards to Provide Flexibility with Car Sales for Auto Dealerships
Flexible Zoning Standard Existing PA Municipal Code Auto Dealership Overlay
GM, GM (B) - CS District
Standard
FAR- Limitation on maximum Floor .¯
Area Ratio
Parking - Reduction in required
parking spaces for customers and
employees
Signage-Dealerships want additional
square footage and often times
additional monuments signs, wall
signs, and pole signs. May violate
sign codes with temporary signs such
as balloons, banners, flags, etc.
Outdoor Sales and Storage (Display
pads or Platforms) - Allow limited
number of cars or trucks to be
displayed on elevated platforms
Landscaping - Reduction in required
landscape area with screening
Accessory uses - Clarify and update
uses that support dealerships
®
®
CS .4 to 1 for non-residential
uses :
GM .5 to 1
1 space per 350 sq. ft. of
enclosed area
1 space per 500 sq. ft, of
exterior sales or storage
Off-site ~advertising not
allowed
Total allowed signage is 200
sq. ft. maximum
Internally illuminates signs
are not allowed
30 day temporary signs with
15 day extension
Pole signs only allowed on
San Antonio and El Camino
Not allowed in setback or
landscape area
Permitted Use
Additional 0.2 FAR for exclusive
showroom space and a maximum
height of 20 feet
1 space per 400 sq. ft. of sales, office
admin area
Remove parking requirement for auto
storage
Dealer is not required to stripe
display and storage areas
Screening required from public view,
pedestrian pathways, and adjacent
parcels
Storm water run off and retention
standards
Review Chapter 16.20, sign code for
pole signs, illuminated and corporate
logos
Up to 2 display pads may encroach in
landscape area, may not be over 8’ in
height (to the top of the vehicle)
Solid wall screening with 10
feet landscaped buffer next
to residential districts
Contained in definitions
under "Auto Services"
New auto storage- Industrial areas *Prohibited
GM, LM
10% of the site area must be
landscaped
Parking lot trees not required for
display vehicles and fleet storage
8’ high solid decorative wall adjacent
to residential with landscape buffer
subject to Director’s review
Allow service bays, body shop,
storage, car rentals, car washing,
accessory to new automobile
dealerships
Permitted with Temporary Use Permit
UnderlyingZone Development Standards
CS, GM, GM (B)
.Zoning Standard
Site Area
Site Width
Site Depth
Front Yard
Rear Yard
Side Yard
Site Coverage
Height
Special Setbacks
Special Requirements - Sites abutting
or within 150 feet of residential
Height,.
Daylight Plane
Adjacent Property Line to
Residential
18.45.070(2)(d) for all non-
residential uses
New improvements
Existing CS, GM, GM (B)
No requirement is
established
No requirement is
established
No requirement is
established
No requirement is
established
No requirement is
established
~ No requirement is
established
No requirement is
established except as
required under special
provision 18.55.070 and
18.45.070
50 feet
Arastradero Road - 8 feet
San ~Antonio Road - 24 feet
Leghorn Street- 15 feet
35 feet
Required when sharing a lot
line with residential
5 - 8 foot fence or wall; 10
foot landscape buffer
All uses shall preclude
nuisance and hazardous
conditions
ARB permit
Auto Overlay
¯ No change
No change
¯ No change
No change
~ No change
¯No change
¯No change
. No change
(Carlsen Volvo)
No change
(Hengehold Motors)
No change
(Hengehold Motors)
Carlsen Volvo, Peninsula Ford, Park Ave
Motors, Stanford European
No.change
No change
8 foot wall with flexible 10 foot
landscape buffer
No change
No change
Nochange
-DRAFT
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
Wednesday, July 28, 2004
SPECIAL MEETING @ 6:00 PM
REGULAR MEETING @ 7:00 pm
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners: Staff:
Michael Griffin - Chair
Phyllis Cassel- Vice-Chair
Karen Holman
Patrick Burt - Absent
Bonnie Packer
Annette Bialson
Lee I. Lippert
Steve Emslie, Planning Director
Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to City Attorneys
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Joseph Kott, Chief Transportation Official
John Lusardi, Planning Manager, SpeCial Projects
David Stillman, Transportation Engineer
Curtis Williams, Consultant
Susan Ondik, Planner
Robin Ellner, Staff Secretary
AGENDIZED ITEMS:
1.Zoning Ordinance Update: Form Based Code
2.Zoning Ordinance Update: Auto Dealership Overlay Zone
3.Retention of Existing Lane Configurations Along Alma Street, Homer Avenue and High
Street for Egress from New Bicycle/Pedestrian UnderCrossing of Caltrain at Homer and
Alma.
SPECIAL MEETING: 6:00 PM
STUD Y SESSION: Roll Call - 6:03 p.m.
Chair Griffin: I would like to call this Special Meeting of the Planning and Transportation
Commission to order. Will the Secretary please call the roll? Thank you.
35
36
37
38
We will begin our Special Meeting with a Study Session. We have just one item on the agenda
for our Study Session relating to the Zoning Ordinance Update where the Commission will hear
a presentation and discuss the proposed format for the so-called Form Based ~Code component of
the ZOU. Would Staff please make a presentation?
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
DRAFT
1.Zoning Ordinance Update. Planning and Transportation Commission Study Session on
the proposed format for the Form Based Code component of the zoning ordinance update.
The Comprehensive Plan (Policy G-17) directs that the zoning ordinance "use
illustrations and "form code" methods for simplifying the Zoning Ordinance". A form
code is intended to better indicate types (form) of development desired by the City.
SR Weblink: http://www.~ity~fpa|~alt~.~r~ityagenda~publisldplanning-transp~rtati~n-meetings/358~.pdf
8
9 Mr. John Lusardi, Planning Manager Special Projects: Yes, thank you members of the
10 Commission. We are really excited to be here at this point in the juncture of the Zoning
11 Ordinance Update and introducing to the Commission the Zoning Ordinance Form Code format.
12 I want to reiterate tonight that what we really want to present to the Commission is the fbrmat for
¯ 13 the Form Code not the Content necessarily as such as you would see on the labels on some of the
14 pages but the format, the sequence of thinking, how we got to where we got to, what we are
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
showing and what kind of thought process we expect an applicant, a developer, an architect or
the community to take away with the Form Code. So that is the first point. The consultants will
be presenting that format to you tonight.
The second important point I want to reiterate is what we are dealing with here is an enormous
amount of information. If you take all the information that we are just illustrating on these pages
and you think about how much more information, the Comp Plan policies, other ordinances,
municipal code regulations, ARB standards if you try and think about how much of that can go
on an individual page you are talking about an awful lot of information. So one of the challenges
we really have after tonight is to start to formulate that information and edit it and put it in a form
that works. It is limited. You can’t get all the information you want on every page. Secondly is
a big step in this process and it is a step to come and it is a critical step and we don’t want to do
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
that tonight with the Commission is crossing all the T’s and dotting all the I’s. So if you see a
statement in there and you say this doesn’t make sense I wouldn’t worry about that tonight. I
would worry about looking at the big picture because the big step that is yet to come with all the
individual land uses that we are applying the Form Code to is that step of crossing all the T’s and
dotting the I’s and that is an important but that is not the step that we are presenting to the
Commission tonight. As I said, we are presenting the format.
Lastly, what I want to do is acknowledge the Design and Environment Committee that worked so
hard on developing this Form Code format with the consultants and Staff. With us tonight is
Susan Haviland from the Historic Resources Board who is a member of our Design and
Environment Committee. Also Susan Eschweiler from the Architectural Review Board is a
member of the Design and Environment Committee as well as Commissioner Cassel and
Commissioner Lippert. I really want to acknowledge all the hard work and the hours that they
put into this to get us to this point.
With that, I am going to this over to Marcy McInelly from Urbsworks to present the Form Code
and then I am going to ask. Susan Haviland to present a couple of comments of her own. Thank
you.
Ms. Marcy McInell¥, Urbsworks: Good evening. It is nice to see you all again. I am going to
walk you through the sample code format, which as John already explained is really a framework
that you will see in the future accommodating all of the land uses that we are bringing into the
code.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Just to reintroduce the team again that has been working on this all these months, Rick Williams
and Kevin Gardener who are here from Van MeterWilliams Pollack and me and my partner
Joseph Reedy from Urbsworks.
The part that you have in front of you today is the context based design subchapter for multi
family zoning and the pages within it are RM-15. We have used RM-15 as a subject for this
sample code. As John. emphasized earlier please try to look at the big picture and not concentrate
on some of the content. If an arrow for instance is not pointing to the right thing those are things
that we will fix as we go through. What we really want you to understand is how the framework
has been created. We think it works very well after quite a lot of feedback from the different
user groups.
So I just want to remind you that this subchapter is preceded by other chapters of the code, parts
that you are all familiar with for instance the land use and development standards tables, these
will be in pages that precede this subchapter. These will have a much more conventional look
but are still being developed in an easier to read page layout and type format. This is also where
things like all the other ordinances that relate to this particular land use exist. Then those pages
are followed by the chapter that you have in your. hand.
I am just going to walk you through this this evening emphasizing again this is the sample format
so the emphasis is on the format really. The document after some hashing through we decided
on a double page format like this because we think there is more information that can be
City of Palo Alto Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
conveyed when you have the double page layout because you can actually refer from one page to
the other. This was after some debate on really making it using a larger format or using a poster
format we came back again to a typical 8.5" by 11" page but we are taking advantage of the
double page layout to get some of this cross-referencing in there more easily.
The first part of the Introduction is the definition of a form-based code. I just want to read that
you. This has been our working definition for some months. "It is a code based primarily on
’form’ -urban form, including the relationship of buildings to each other, to streets and to open
/
spaces - rather than based primarily on land use." The next part of the Introduction I think after
much thoughtful .writing and discussion Curtis Williams wrote this Introduction. I think the
Context statement really sums up the issue well. I am going to read one particular sentence here.
"The word ’context’ should not be construed as a desire to replicate the existing surroundings but
rather to provide appropriate transitions to those surrounds. ’Context’ is also not specific to
architectural style or design, though in some instances relationships may be reinforced by an
architectural response." This writing occurred after months of discussing what these terms
mean.
The next section then describes the organization of the following pages and how the steps work
and what each step is intended to convey. Finally on the Introduction we have the Purpose
Statements of this particular land use. Here again in response to feedback that we received we
have joined some of the common elements of the multi family zones together in an introductory
paragraph and then in bullets below described their distinctions from each other. The last thing I
wanted to point out about this is that this introductory chapter will be used to introduced all three
City of Palo Alto Page 5
1
2
3
4
DRAFT
multi family uses so that is what the tabs are intended to suggest. Whether we actually have real
tabs in the end or not this is kind of more of a graphic tool for you right now to suggest that this
will be referring to future sections ofRM-15, RM-30 and RM-40.
5 When we go in and we see steps one and two on facing pages this ifi really the section that
6 explains what is allowed on the left hand side so we illustrate the development standards and
7 what is important about context. That is on the right facing page. So on the left facing page
8 through a series of diagrams we kind of stack up the different development standards much as a
9 designer would either in his head or on paper what is possible on any given site. So it first goes
10 through the minimum lot size showing minimum width and depth and the setbacks. The second
11 diagram shows the building envelope and then site coverage is the gray shaded area in the third
12 diagram. Then we show FAR. All of that fitting into one possible configuration within the
13 building envelope. On the right facing page we are really attempting to show the designer, the
14 applicant, and the neighborhood why it is important to look at the context and why contextual
15 relationships are important. This example which is just One of many possible contexts we have
16 shown something that is multi family and commercial across the street and abutting to the rear
17 and to the side a single dwelling because this is one of the more difficult contexts to deal with in
18 multi family. There is a diagram at the bottom of the page that shows that it will be important
19 for the applicant to address the total streetscape.
20
21
22
When we have these labels we have listed at the upper left comer where that requirement comes
from or in the case of a more broad aspirational goal like the Comprehensive Plan goals we put
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1
.2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
DRAFT
that kind of label into a box that has a dotted border just to suggest that it is not absolutely
prescriptive but it is required to be considered.
On the next page then we go into the site itself. I call this the why page because this where we
are looking very closely at improving the case for considering context-on each side of the site.
So the labels here are a little bit more about required landscape or Building Department
requirements, ARB review requirements show up more on the labels on this page. I want to skip
ahead for a second just on that left facing page we tried some earlier versions of graphics to
depict the ideas here..On the left you will see one that actually proposed kind of the architectural
design for the whole building and people thought that that was inappropriate. Several different
groups that we met with over the course of a couple of months thought that that was
inappropriate that we shouldn’t be suggesting something that was so stylistically specific. So we
went to the version that you see on the right, which was the massing diagram straight from the
previous drawing about context. It was brought forward and we put these kind of magnifying
glasses on it to help explain how one of many possible architectural stylistic responses could,be
created to deal with the comer or the rear. Where we came back to in the end was a much
simpler massing diagram..We are using the labels, really to explain what is worth considering in
these certain areas.
Then what we have on the right facing page is pretty much your conventional site plan. We
wanted to have this be at the end of the sequence of steps because this is really what people come
in with generally.and yet as you know this is not enough to explain all of the considerations of a
City of Palo Alto Page 7
1
2
3
4
DRAFT
design. So while this is still an import_ant and critical piece of the application we want to de-
emphasize its importance. There is also a section below.
Then Step Five, which is a little bit harder to describe at this point because it is less developed at
5 least specifically but it is quite well developed conceptually. This is what we call the toolbox.
6 These are the illustrations that will really explain how you are to consider or deal with the
7 different transitions, the different contextual responses, on each side. So for instance there will
8 be a series of diagrams that will depict frontage that is allowed for these particular zones and that
9 would be followed by side setbacks and rear setbacks. These pages go on as long as we need
10 them to explain all the different possibilities. This section was also a response to that idea about
11 not being too prescriptive about architectural style. The idea was that this section could suggest
12 the range of architectural responses and ways of dealing with context and still also convey that
13 there are many possibilities. So a lot of the designers that we talked to were very sensitive about
14 having people think that a particular style was required and institutionalizing that through the
15 code. So I think we have reached a good balance here. This is also where in this section we
16 would show different fagade treatments or different ways of dealing with parking and they would
17 be organized similarly so there would be a subheading and all of the things that help illustrate
18 that point fall below.
19
20
21
22
23
At the end of this whole section is a page that then links one to other code requirements,
references other code requirements, so that an applicant has a clear picture after reading this code
of all the things they have to consider in addition to context also site requirements. In our future
hyperlinked document these may be hyperlinks directly to some of those documents.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
That is the end of my presentation.
Mr. Lusardi: Thank you. Before Susan Haviland makes her comments I want to make a couple
of more points. I have spoken to the Commission about the enormity of the information that can
go on these pages and I think you comprehend that. I have spoken about the issue of crossing the
T’s and dotting the I’s. There is another major issue withrespect to the Form Code and that is
maintenance and how we maintain a document like this. In just looking at this tonight, Marcy if
you could go back to step four I believe it is, if you 10ok at this on the slide presentation and you
look at it even in your Staff Report you will see the background is not there but if you look at the
posters on the wall you will see the contrast of the background with respect to the site itself. I
think it is really important how we develop this that it can be maintained by Staff and managed
by Staff and improved or increased upon by Staff. That is a real important point for the
Commission to also understand with respect to the format. With that I will ask Susan to make
her comments, thank you.
Ms. Susan Haviland, Design and Environment Committee: Thank you very much. Good
evening. It has actually been a great honor and a lot of fun to be a part of this group. I think this
is a fabulous effort and as an architect and practitioner I really appreciate the kind of clarity that
can come with this kind of code. I just wanted to reiterate what John said earlier, you will find in
these comments on the various steps various elements from the Comprehensive Plan goals, ARB
review, etc. and currently there is nothing there that relates to historic preservation. That is
something that we hope to see incorporated in the future in appropriate places, encouraging
City of Palo Alto Page 9
DRAFT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
.9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
adaptive reuse where appropriate, encouraging incorporation of historic buildings where
appropriate and there is a real danger of getting too many of these particular little bullet items so
we want to very, very selective about where these things appear and how they are going to be
most effective. I am sure if Susan were here she would talk about the particular items that relate
to the ARB review, what those particular items are since there are so many things that the ARB
considers, what those particular item are will be a matter that is much thought about and much
debated and I am sure brought back to you for your review.
Chair Griffin: Thank you for the presentation.. Commissioners, do you have questions? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I have a comment and a question. I am really excited about this. I think
when people are up here trying to look at projects and we are working from a form based code it
will make it so much easier for us to be able to analyze it. I was just thinking to myself had we
had a tool like this when we were reviewing the R-1 Zoning Ordinance the last few weeks it
might have been helpful. So for the future and I know we can’t do that now and I understand the
reasons why but something to put on the horizon is if this works well for this type of district I
could see it also helping us in the Individual Review process mad the design of R-1. It is a really
exciting way to visualize what can be built on different kinds of lots when we were struggling
with setbacks and compatibility planes. So congratulations to all of you who worked on this
wonderful approach.
Chair Griffin: John, you made a comment about maintenance and I thought.that was a good
comment because in fact looking at the, I don’t know whether I want to call it the complexity of
City of Palo Alto Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
,19
20
21
22
DRAFT
these graphics but to a degree they are, there is a lot going on in each one of these graphics.
Does the software allow Staff to go in and change these comments as the Comprehensive Plan
morphs into further iterations and other reasons that you might have to change the text?
Mr. Lusardi: Yes, the software is going to have to allow us to do that. That is just a simple fact
of the success of this document. You can see here this is a reproduction of a PDF file that you
have in front of you so you can imagine a copy of a copy of a copy as this gets more successful
and gets handed around, that is one thing. Number two, this is not a standalone document. You
cannot take this document by itself and apply it to an individual district. You still have to have
the Zoning Ordinance regulations with it that is an important point. But maintenance as far as
that goes Commissioner is yes, we have to have the software that allows us number one to be
able to revise it or amend it or fix it and number two to be able to produce it in the content
whether it is hardcopy or a software copy that is easily readable and accessible.
Chair Griffin: Finally, I will just say that I really agree with Bonnie’s comment. We could have
absolutely benefited from some graphics in the last couple of months going through the R-1
process. I envy our successors here who are going to have a nice handle on doing a better job of
review. I saw Karen next.
Commissioner Holman: I would certainly reinforce what Bonnie and Michael have said about
this being a terrific toot and again it would have been helpful with the R- 1 as well. I am real
excited that this is coming into being. I have one question, which is, as I understood it the Comp
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
-10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
-DRAFT
Plan goals and policies were put into dash-line boxes because those don’t have to be adhered to
but they are to be referenced or suggested. Could you clarify that?
Ms. McInell¥: I think we considered them more aspirational in nature. They don’t often
specifically say what you have to do with the part of the site for instance. They are more broad.
So we wanted to make a distinction between the things that were absolutely required like by the
Utility Department or the Public Works Department and even things that are required for ARB
review.
Commissioner Holman: I appreciate that at the same time I like an emphasis on what is in the
Comp Plan that is the guiding principle. So what I would prefer to see is maybe, and this is all
about graphics, so maybe a heavier box or some kind of emphasis on the Comp Plan policies and
goals. Then at the ARB and hopefully HRB review will come out of that. Otherwise I think the
scale sometimes gets tipped the other way so then we have our code, which becomes the horse
instead of the cart. So I really prefer the other emphasis.
In addition to that, and I won’t go into wordsmithing that is not what we are doing here tonight,
but I do have some questions about a little bit of the language where it talks about context. I like
much of the language I see. There is some clarification I think that could happen though where it
talks about relationships to the adjacent street types. I think that is a little bit vague as opposed
to compatible with other development on adjacent sites or nearby sites. I think that also happens
there are transitional areas or properties sometimes between not just RM-15 and R-1 but
sometimes RM-40 and other uses that are much less intense and that doesn’t seem to be
City of Palo Alto Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
addressed here. I know you can’t cover every single situation that exists out there but I thinkifit
is stated in general terms that the purpose of context is to address adjacencies and streetscape and
that compatibility that that would be really helpful and clarifying for the community I think as it
implements this.
I would like to support what Susan Haviland said, I believe there should be an adaptive reuse
section in here. I notice in the Staff Report portion of this also that there is mention of
sustainability and green design and adaptive reuse is one of the most sustainable practices that a
community can support and so I would like to see that included here as a sustainable practice.
There was one more too and this is not a rhetorical question. I understand that there is concern
about anything being directed about architectural style or design. That is neither our job, the
City’s job, the ARB’s job nor within the context of the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards the
HRB’s job. I have a question whether since there aren’t examples of other styles and everything
here is block form can it be stated somewhere for clarifying that this is block form or give a
variety of examples? Is there any concern that we will end up with just flat top buildings
because there are any number of ways to deal with context whether it is parapets, pitched roofs,
flat top, any number of things. So if you could respond to that one I would appreciate it.
Ms. Mclnelly: Sure. I think in Step Five, that’s why I pulled this back up on the screen so you
can understand that what you said about you know we can’t deal with every situation and it is
true that we really can’t deal with every situation in these broader introductory graphics and
chapters but Step Five is intended to be the place .where we attempt to deal with all the most
City of Palo Alto Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
likely situations in a simple diagrammatic way. For instance when you said there are certain
situations when you are abutting RM-40 or certain streets where you are going to want to
promote a certain type of response or a range of types of responses this is where we intend to do
that. So these frontages for instance are classified by different types of street frontages and they
are intended to illustrate a range of ways of dealing with those ranges of street types. So I think
we are kind of relying on this Step Five as a way of dealing with the diversity of responses
without confusing the earlier sections with that overwhelming range. Does that make sense?
Commissioner Holman: It does, and if I could get a comment back from Curtis.
Mr. Curtis Williams, Consultant: I did want to add that there is some language that we added
and we can look at maybe adding more to it under Step Three that says that the development
diagrams provide scenarios of potential development based on zoning requirements but are not
intended to represent a single or preferreddesign solution. It may be that we can broaden that
language a little bit to try to address more what you are talking about that specifically this isn’t
what we are looking for that design is up to you kind of approach.
Commissioner Holman: I would appreciate that for clarification,
Mr. Williams: If I could just make a couple of other comments on thoughts that came to mind.
On the dashed policies and goals and such we thought it was very important obviously to include
the Comprehensive .Plan goals and same thing with the ARB review guidelines and criteria. But
it is still a zoning ordinance and we have to be real careful and in working with the attorney’s
City of Palo Alto Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
office be cognizant of the fact that some of these things have the force of law in terms of their
meaning and some of them are guidance albeit overriding, overarching guidance they are still
guidance and they are not codified and that putting them into some of these diagrammatic ways
doesn’t necessarily codify them either. So I think that iswhy we liave tried to distinguish them.
If we can distinguish them another way just so they are not the same as the zoning code criteria
that’s fine but we do want to be sure that we are being real clear about which ones are part of the
zoning code that you can probably go somewhere else in these section and find specific numbers
for that you have to comply with but that the others are guidance that we expect to be considered
and will be the basis for the discretionary decisions that are made on these projects. We will
work on that.
Commissioner Holman: So just in response to that, and I will be completed here, I appreciate
what you are saying and it is like non-profits have mission statements, the City has a Comp Plan,
most residents and even developers aren’t that familiar with the Comp Plan so I think having the
Comp Plan included in this document these policies and goals as guiding principles for reference
I think help keep us from getting lost as we try to implement so I agree with differentiating them.
Mr. Lusardi: Mr. Chair, let me recognize Susan Eschweiler from the Architectural Review
Board who has joined us. Maybe you could reserve a minute or two at the end for her comments
on the form code format.
Chair Griffin: Thanks. Annette.
City of Palo Alto Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Commissioner Bialson: I absolutely agree that this is a great way to go. Before I forget let me
add my thoughts with regard to bringing forward the Comp Plan policies and such. I think the
way you have presented it and the few that you use are perfectly appropriate. When we were
drafting the Comp Plan both the advisory committee and the Planning Commission we didn’t
think that these were going to be part of the enforceable code but rather were statements of
policy. So picking and choosing those which are appropriate and overarching is very necessary I
think and I think just having some of them in the format that we are talking about will alert
people, developers, architects, etc. to refer to the entire Comprehensive Plan. So that is all I have
to say about that.
I have been sort of a little frustrated in our constant use of the term "form code." I would like to
suggest if possible that we start using "context based design," for two reasons. I think.that is
wliat it seems to be referred to in the industry and number two it is seems prone to
misunderstanding if we use form code especially if you use some of the diagrams that you are
talking about. I recall that when we talked about this at one other time one of the members of the
audience in my chatting with them said it will show what the forms of buildings are supposed to
be. I said, no that is not what we mean by form code. I think that if we continue to use the
words form code we are going to educate present and future Planning and Transportation
Commissioners and City Council people to use that term and I would rather start at this point
using the right term and the one that we want to live with for a very, very long time. I for one,
and I don’t know how the rest of the Commission feels, want to use the term "context based
design" because we want the emphasis to be context. I think that would help us, help those in
the public who are going to be looking at it and I think it will also help design professionals
City of Palo Alto Page 16
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
1 whenthey talk to their clients, to point out that this is a very important part of what Palo Alto
2 thinks is important. I see using this type of format is going to be helpful to design professionals
3 but part of what is going to be helpful about it from hopefully my view being the correct one
4 they are going to be able to show this to their clients and say this is what is in the sort of context
which is so important to Palo Alto to have and maybe shorten the conversation the design
professional has to have with the client to convince them that we are serious. I think that’s about
it.
Chair Griffin: Interesting comment. I am just wondering if Staffhas any quick response to it. It
is not necessary but I think Annette brings up a worthwhile point. It is a just a matter of
emphasis and form versus context you have to decide whether or not one term or the other is
more meaningful to nonacademics or people not in the profession. Curtis.
Mr. Williams: Marcy can respond as well because she has a more diverse background in terms
of how this is used in other communities I think but the initial drafts of this document use form
code throughout, in many places use the terms "contextual prototypes" in many places and as we
work through our discussions with Planning Staff who was trying to think how the public would
deal with this, how would architects deal with this and then with the architects that we have met
with that thought has come out that the term "form code" is nebulous and why we have gone
back in this section is called context based design we still have a brief discussion of connecting it
to form code because form code is in the Comp Plan and that is a specific policy in there. Other
than that you don’t see the term form code here or prototypes or some of those words that we
thought were not very user-friendly, not very easily understood and have tried to relate
City of Palo Alto Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
everything as much as possible to context based. So we will go back through it again and make
sure that it continues to do that but we think that is a very important point to try to achieve.
Chair Griffin: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: The fact that you suggest that after an explanation reminding us why
you are using the term context based design format and going before the Council if you could
make sure that the body of your Staff Reports and other terms that you are using sort of eliminate
form code, you can’t have two things used to describe one format. I really would like to sort of
change, to the extent we can, given the Comp Plan use of that term.
Mr. Lusardi: Again, we think that is a very good point and a very strong point. Again, it is part
of the review process that we flush these things out. It is just like when we started talking about
transit oriented design and transit oriented development and now we are talking pedestrian transit
oriented development. It is that same kind of review process that helps us to flush that out. So
that is very helpful.
Chair Griffin: Great. Lee, I saw you next.
Commissioner Lippert: When I drive up and down the peninsula and I look at Palo Alto and its
neighboring communities, Menlo Park, Los Altos, Mountain View I think to myself what is it
about Palo Alto that is so unique? What makes it so distinct? In a way as a layperson it almost
eludes people. It is something that they can’t really put their hands on. It is ethereal. What
City of Palo Alto Page 18
DRAFT
1 these basically the development standards in the form code here does is begin to describe in a
2 way what those things are that make Palo Alto unique in terms of the built environment here. It
3 actually lays them out in a way that is very simple~ very .easy to understand. When I think of my
4 time on the Architectural Review Board we have been accused of coming forward and having
5 our own language, "achispeak" which is very frustrating for the common layperson, sometimes
. 6 for other architects and also for developers. I have heard the same comments when these people
7 go into the Planning Department and they speak with Planners, when they speak with people at
8 Public Works and particularly speaking with people in Building Inspection. They have their own
9 language that is based on the state building code. What this begins to do is actually creates a
10 dictionary, a document by which people can come in and begin to understand the language in
11 which a variety of professionals use in terms of laying out what the development requirements
12 are, what a setback is, what heights are. I think that this is really and excellent, excellent tool in
13 terms of beginning to develop this document that will be able to be used by the layperson as well
14 as architects that are unfamiliar with what our regulations are and why Palo Alto is so unique. I
15 think that it will help particularly for people who are doing a project and they feel frustrated.
16 They will not feel as frustrated by having this document and being able to get a handle on those
17 regulations. I just want to say it has been a pleasure working on this withthis committee. I think
18 you and your staff have done a really great job here. I would also like to recognize and
19 commend my colleagues who have worked with me on this.
20
21
22
23
Chair Griffin: Susan Eschweiler, we would enjoy hearing your comments if you would care to
share them.
City of Palo Alto Page 19
DRAFT
1 Ms. Susan Eschweiler, Design and Environment Committee: Thank you. I have been working
2 as part of the committee for the past year and a half now. We have been delighted to see the
3 progress of the consultants and working through the illustrations that we now have on the wall up
4 there and that you saw in the PowerPoint earlier. It is a complex equation that we are trying to
5 solve and illustrate because we are trying to solve a lot of problems for properties that haven’t
6 been designed yet and we want to communicate better than what we have in the past. The
7 zoning code as you all know and everyone in this room knows really well you look t.hrough that
8 document and you can’t see the forest for the trees. It is just words and numbers and it is all over
9 the place and.it is not well coordinated as it has kind of grown over time. I think that as part of
10 representing the Architectural Review Board we are delighted to be able to see these very clear
11 diagrams and descriptions of the intent of the code. I think that goes a long way to setting the
12 stage for people’s development within the City so that you are reading the intent it is not just the
13 actual law, the ordinance, but what is the intent behind it and have the illustrations that we have
14 worked very carefully on to make sure that they don’t portray a particular style. We want the
15 styles to be designed by the architects for the projects and we want them to look at the context
16 around them and to take the inspiration from the neighborhood and bring that to the project. I
17 think that these diagrams and the way that it has been portrayed in the five-step process is really
18 a good way to approach that. So I think we are very pleased with how things are progressing and
19 look forward to your comments tonight.
20
21
22
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Phyllis, would you like to wind us up here?
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Vice-Chair Cassel: Well, I have been doing a lot of listening and watching as this has been
developing. I am amazed at how complex it is to do something that looks simple. This has taken
quite a bit of time to develop to get a sense of how each piece will fall into it. I thought you just
take this "form code" and plug in some numbers but no. The test of course is going to be in the
pudding as to how it actually works and how it feels and we have a long ways to go to get all
these final details in the form code but it is interesting to watch it and I think it will help in the
understanding. There is still more work to be done.
Commissioner Bialson: Please stop using "form code."
Vice-Chair Cassel: I did it on purpose in that case.
Chair Griffin: So now we will go to Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: A couple of things. I just want to say that I agree with Annette about
moving our terminology from "form code" to "context-based design." This whole format also
gives us another opportunity which you probably thought of but in Step Five we could also be
imposing in these tools things like E1 Camino Design Standards or Baylands Design Standards so
you can actually identify a neighborhood where people have already setup some design
guidelines and that could be imposed here.
I have one other question that relates to the issue of maintenance of this tool or these five steps
and the fact that it is in the zoning code. When there are changes will we have to be going
City of Palo Alto Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
DRAFT
through full blown zoning code hearings, or will there be a simpler mechanism to have it be more
fluid? How much thought has been given to how nimble we can be vis-a-vie the maintenance of
this kind of a document?
Mr. Williams: That is a very good point. I don’t think we have broached that subject yet with
the attorney’s office but we need to do that. Certainly anything that is of substance in there in
terms of an actual regulation the changes would have to go through the whole process. I think
what we need to understand is if some of these Comp Plan policies or other things that are more
in the form of guidance and part of illustrations if they need to go through that process as well. It
may be that there is some kind of-statement that these are illustrations. I have seen that in other
documents, that these are diagrams intended for illustrative purposes and they .do not replace the
text in the code kind of thing. So it may be that we need that kind of linkage and that would
allow us to make some tweaks in some of the diagrams and here and there without going through
that whole process.
Mr. Dan Sodergren, Special Counsel to City Attorney’s Office: One way to do that may be as
amendments come up just ~imply include as an attachment or an appendix what the form code
would look like as an attachment to the amendment. That is one way we could do it but we can
work through that.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
City of Palo Alto Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2.2
23
DRAFT
Commissioner Holman: I just want to support Annette and her comments about the context
based design. I also want to express appreciation to Susan and Susan because I don’tthink it is
likely this was something you signed up. for when you signed on to the ARB and HRB and a lot
of people including members of the Commission have participated in this. I think we anticipate
participating in subcommittees more and so I just wanted to especially express appreciation to
you two for expending your time on this for I think a year and a half. Also Susan Eschweiler’ s
comments when you were talking about how this would be used and how an applicant would use
this, your statements were so eloquent I would like to see them actually considered for some kind
of a preamble to the introduction here. They were quite eloquent and a good direction to
applicants. I really appreciate your comments.
Chair Griffin: I think that takes us to the end.
Mr. Lusardi: Mr. Chair, if I could I just want to make two last comments and these keep coming
up. Number one, Commissioner Lippert made a very good point as far as along with
maintenance and magnitude of this document there is a broad audience for this document and we
have to Write it for that audience. We have been dealing mainly with the architectural and design
community to get us this far but we really do have to write it for that broader audience and keep
that audience in mind because it does have to go through and approval process as well with the
Council.
Number two, with this step that we have here today in presenting to you the format what we are
going to do is we are going to start to take this format and plug it into the new land uses and the
City of Palo Alto Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
DRAFT
new development standards with the land uses. That is mixed use, pedestrian transit oriented,
village residential and RM-15, 30 and 40. So that is what you are going to start to see coming
back to you is not a new format or any changes to the format but how this actually looks in those
new land uses. With that, we really appreciate your comments tonight they were very valuable.
Chair Griffin: Are there any more comments? Then that takes us to the end of Item Number
One in our Study Session and we are now going to close our Special Meeting. We will
reconvene at seven o’clock for the Regular Meeting scheduled for tonight.
Adjourned: 6:53p.m.
REGULAR MEETING:
Roll Call- 7:02p.m.
7:00 pm
Chair Griffin: Good evening ladies and gentlemen I am going to reconvene our meeting this
evening. We will start the Regular Meeting of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation
Commission. If the Secretary could please call the role? Thank you.
That takes us to Oral Communications.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the agenda
with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a
speaker request card available from the secretary of the Commission. The Planning and
Transportation Cofnmission reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15
minutes.
City of Palo Alto " Page 24
DRAFT
1
2
Chair Griffin: Do we have any cards? We don’t so we will move to the next item, which is
Unfinished Business.
3
5
6
7
8
9
CONSENT CALENDAR. Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the
calendar by a Commission Member.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
10
11
12
13
14
Chair Griffin: I will open the hearing on a discussion on the Commission where we will deal
with the approval of the auto dealership overlay zone where existing auto dealerships selling new
and pre-owned automobiles currently exist in the various zoning districts. Would the Staff
please make a presentation?
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
Public Hearings.
2.ZOU: Commission recommend that the City Council approve the auto dealership
overlay zone where existing auto dealerships selling new and pre-owned autos currently
exist in the City in the Service Commercial (CS) and General Manufacturing (GM(B))
zoning districts, located at: 4180 El Camino Real (Peninsula Ford), 4190 E1 Camino Real
(Carlson Volvo), 3290 Park Blvd. (Park Avenue Motors); 762 San Antonio Road
(Hengehold Motors), and 3045 Park Blvd. (Stanford European); and
That Commission recommend that the City Council approve amendments to three
Planned Community sites to allow additional site and design standards for existing
automobile dealerships selling new automobiles located at 1730 EmbarCadero Road
(Carlsen Motor Cars, PC 2554), 1766 Embarcadero Road (Anderson Honda PC 3350),
and 690 San Antonio Road (Magnussen’s Dodge and Toyota, PC 2592).
SR Weblink: http://www~ity~fpa~a~t~.~r~cityagendajpub~ish~p~anning-transp~rtati~n-meetings/3576.pdf
32 Mr. Lusardi: Yes, Mr. Chair. Let me first recognize Susan Arpan from the City Manager’s
33 Office who is here and has been working with Staffon this particular item. This item before you
34 tonight is the implementation of the auto dealership overlay Zone. At the June 30 meeting the
City of Palo Alto Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Commission voted to recommend approval of the new auto dealership overlay zone as a
combining district in the Zoning Ordinance Update as well as initiate that overlay zone and PC
amendments that are before you tonight. The Commission recommended revisions to the draft
ordinance and those revisions have been provided to the Commission prior to the meeting. The
Staff Report also outlines those changes.
Tonight Staff is recommending that the Commission implement the flexible development
standards in the overlay zone for all of the existing auto dealerships in the City. Five of the
existing auto dealerships would require the overlay zone application because three of the
dealerships have PC zoning those would have to be amended specific to their sites. The same
flexible development standards that are in the overlay zone are being applied to the PCs.
At this time I would like to clarify one item on page three with respect to the PCs and that is on
the Anderson Honda site, 1766 Embarcadero Road, the Staff Report references a 23,900 square
foot building. That is the main structure and there are two additional buildings on that site for a
total of 33,984 square feet and an FAR of.19 not .14. Staff would also like to point out a couple
of other clarifications. What is not before the Commission tonight is any revision to the signage
or the sign ordinance. Staff has indicated in prior Staff Reports that we were deferring that item
for further discussion and review with the auto dealerships and for further discussion with Staff
and the attorney’s office. A couple of other clarifications. On Attachment C of the Staff Report
it references two things, it references the new auto storage in the industrial zones in GM and LM
as permitted with a temporary use permit. That also needs to reference the fact that that would
only be allowed to auto dealerships that have point of sales within the City. That that auto
City of Palo Alto Page 26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
storage can only allowed for auto dealerships within the City of Palo Alto. I don’t know if there
are other clarifications but Staff is here to answer any questions. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Commissioners, before we start making comments the Secretary has reminded me
that the audio in the room sometimes can be somewhat deficient and while male members Of the
Commission can be heard most readily frequently the female members cannot be heard readily.
Consequently I am encouraging you to speak directly into the microphones to assist with our
commtmication. I thank you for that. Lee.
Mr. Lusardi: Mr. Chair, I’m sorry but the attorney’s office would also like to make a comment.
Mr. Sodergren: I just want to also clarify that under the.City’s Zoning Ordinance the zone
change has to be formally initiated by either the Planning Commission or the City Council. As
you will recall you did that last time. It is because of that formality that it is just simply
implementing that otherwise we would have brought this to you concurrently with your actions
of last time. So this is simply implementing your action of last time.
I also wanted to point out that before a property owner could take advantage of any of these
regulations they would have to come back and make formal application for an ARB approval.
Chair Griffin: So in fact what we are doing this evening then is to continue the process that has
been started at our previous meeting and we are going to recommend to Staff that this be
approved as it is presented to us?
City of Palo Alto Page 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Mr. Sodergren: Right. This would be a recommendation to initiate these amendments and these
amendments would be brought concurrently with your other recommendations to the City
Council I believe on August 9 as a package.
Chair Griffin: Thanks for the clarification. Lee, I saw you next.
Commissioner Lippert: I have a question for Staff. On page four of the report, the top
paragraph, all three sites would have the opportunity to add auto display pads if they desire, etc.
Those display pads can’t be moving, rotating or something like that, because that would violate
design and review guidelines, which prohibit attention getting devices, correct?
Mr. Lusardi: I think that is correct. Staff would not support any kind of moving pad or a
rotating pad in that regard. There may be some minimal up lighting for nighttime display but
moving pads I don’t think would be supported at all or allowed.
Commissioner Lippert: Those would all have to meet the appropriate design standards for ARB
review.
Mr. Lusardi: That is correct.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
City of Palo Alto Page 28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
i7
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Commissioner Packer: My question has to do with the PC properties. Two things, the overlay
zone does not apply to them. These three ordinances would automatically make these
development standard changes for those properties. Is that correct?
Mr. Lusardi: It would allow an applicant or the property owner in the PC to apply for those
changes. They would still require an ARB approval on San Antonio and in the case of
Embarcadero Road it would require ARB and Site and Design approval. So it still has to go
through a design review process and a permit process.
Commissioner Packer: Okay. Each of these is way under the .4 FAR that is allowed in the
districts now. So why did we feel it necessary to give them the extra .2 for the showroom? I
understand it makes it compatible with the overlay zone for the other properties. Is there a risk
that they would go up to that .6 FAR from their very low FARs now?
Mr. Lusardi: As the Commission recalls the Staff didn’t have a limit on the showroom space at
the last meeting. It was the Commission that came up with the .2 FAR increase for showroom
space because of your concern about it being limitless under the Staff’s recommendation. Quite
honestly, showroom space is self-limiting. No applicant or no auto dealership is going to build.
more showroom space than they need particularly if they can’t convert it to something else. So
they are only going to invest enough financial resources to build enough showroom space to
make it work for them. I don’t think .2 FAR would ever be achieved as far as additional
showroom space in any of these circumstances.
City of Palo Alto Page 29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Packer: Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
DRAFT
Commissioner Holman: I have a question about the AD overlay that is being applied to the other
properties. If there are those properties that get this overlay now where dealerships exist and
then they relocate to another location hopefully within Palo Alto but these are not sites that we
think are appropriate for AD overlay will there be a process in place that automatically would
come forward for us to remove the overlay on those sites? Is that too convoluted a question?
Mr. Sodergren: You could initiate a removal of the overlay from any site and if there weren’t an
AD use on that site it would be an existing nonconforming facility. So if the use changed andit
was no longer an auto use it would be a nonconforming facility and you could at any time
remove the overlay zone.
Commissioner Holman: Then the other question related to that whether it is on Embarcadero
Road or if it is in one of these other AD overlays if, and I understand what Mr. Lusardi was
saying about the likelihood of the .2 being built out, but in the likelihood that the .2 or some
portion of that would get built and the auto dealership relocates within Palo Alto then you have
this space that exists. So can we limit what that space can be used for? Obviously an auto
dealership can’t use it for anything but showroom space. Can we limit what it could be used for
in the future? Can we require its removal? The reason I am bringing this up is because I don’t
think we want the excess of FAR to be used for a really high intensity use like office.
City of Palo Alto Page 30
1
2
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
DRAFT’
Mr. Lusardi: Currently as the code is written with respect to the AD overlay no it is not limited
to that it. It would only be limited if it was an auto dealership as far as showroom space. As the
attorney’s office pointed out this would become a legal nonconforming space with respect to
another use. I guess we could come up with language that would limit to it would have to be
retained as display area or it couldn’t be any area that is more intensive than an auto showroom
space. We could look at adding that kind of language to it but quite honestly this is an incentive
for auto dealerships and I think Staffrecognized that it is a risk we are taking to allow them to
add that showroom space. We are taking that risk that they are going to add some nominal
showroom space that conceivably if they find a better site within the City and they move then I
don’t think we are in a really difficult position in that regard.
Chair Griffin: Does the City Attorney wish to amplify on that at all?
Mr. Sodergren: No, I was just looking up the provisions on non-complying facilities. Basically
they just say that you can’t enlarge, repair or replace a nonconforming facility but you can
maintain it and continue to use it. That is what those provisions call for.
Chair Griffin: Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I am going to move the Staff Report. Oh, we need a public heating.
Ci~ of Palo Alto Page 31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Chair Griffin: So let’s do that then. Do we have any speaker cards for this item? We don’t so I
wiI1 dose the public hearing. Annette, you have a question?
Commissioner Bialson: Just one question. Staff, I realize that this report went out to the dealers
you listed here. Have you gotten any response from them?
Mr. Lusardi: We have met with the dealerships on a regular basis. A lot of the flexible
development standards are a result of discussions with them. At one of the Planning
Commission meetings there was testimony by a dealership I favor of this. Given that this is
probably the prime time of their business they are constrained to come down here but we have
been working with the dealerships on a regular basis to identify these needs.
Chair Griffin: Steve.
Mr. Steve Emslie, Planning Director: I just would like to point out that Susan Arpan and myself
have visited each of the dealers listed in the report in the last week and a half to solicit their
input. Many of the changes are viewed as very positive for the way they conduct their business.
As in any business, each dealer has kind of specific needs given their location and site
constraints and a variety of other factors so some help more than others.
Chair Griffin: So it is going to be a one size fits all but in fact it won’t positively impact each of
these businesses in the same fashion.
City of Palo Alto Page 32
Mr. Emslie: That is correct, yes.
DRAFT
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner Bialson: I did have a little bit more. Did anyone speak to the Porsche dealership
that left us and get from them any information?
Mr. Emslie: Yes, they remain one of our dealers, the Audi dealership is owned by the same
group and we did discuss with them the needs and visibility and the site constraints were cited as
issues for them not being able to meet the manufacturer’s standards and forced to relocate.
Commissioner Bialson: Did you get the sense that he would have stayed had we had these?
Mr. Emslie: He was probably one of the more positive dealers in the response to the auto
overlay. Susan, would you care to amplify that?
Ms. Susan Arpan, City Manager’s Office:’ Basically when we talked with Carlsen it.was really
clear that his choice would have been to probably stay in Palo Alto but that it was really
impossible for him to do that with the Porsche dealer. It also was pretty clear to us that some
action on our part would really help them to stay in the future and he appreciated that.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: Two clarifications. One is on page three of the draft ordinance so it is
the last page, under Special Requirements one and two at the last meeting I had suggest that the
City of Palo Alto Page 33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
noise impacts be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Director. I didn’t intend that the visual
impacts would just go away. So right now the way the last line of both one and two read there is
sort ofa discormeet between visual impacts and then it just all of a sudden goes to noise impacts.
So my intention was that it would mitigate visual and noise impacts in bo’th those situations.
Would that be something that Commission members would agree to?
Commissioner Lippert: Where are you talking about?
Mr. Lusardi: Members of the Commission we are talking about the ordinance that was given to
you before the meeting not attached to the Staff Report. It is at your places, there should be an
ordinance there. So it would page three of the Exhibit of that ordinance that Commissioner
Holman is talking about.
With respect to the recommendation by Commissioner Holman my apologies because we did
discuss this before the Commission and I promised to bring this up and we’ have no problems
with changing that language to include both visual and noise impacts with respect to the
decorative wall.
¯ Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Do any Commissioners have questions or objections to
that? Then the other thing was just to ask other Commissioners if they were interested in putting ¯
some kind of constraint if the City Attorney’s Office thinks that we can on the extra square
footage should it get built.
City of Palo Alto Page 34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Mr. Sodergren: I think there may be some practical difficulties doing that and I am not sure
exactly how we can go about implementing that type of provision.
Chair Griffin: While you are considering that, Staff, I will recogn.ize Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I would very much hesitate to do so. I think the comments made by
Staffwith regard to the viability of that sort of concern and regulation of it were well taken. I
don’t want to have this ordinance such that we are taking away with one hand what we are giving
in the other. That sort of additional language does not enhance the general environment that we
are trying to create for businesses in this community and I don’t think it is something I could
agree to.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I have a similar feeling as Commissioner Bialson. I think it would be a
tremendous waste of resources to ask somebody to invest money in a building and then once
abandoned then demolish that portion of the building that doesn’t necessarily comply. I think
managing that through use or allowing something of a similar density would accommodate or
meet the provisions of what we are looking at here. Plus, we are only looking at a handful of
sites here. It seems as though we are almost splitting hairs by doing that.
Chair Griffin: Any further comments among Commissioners? I am not seeing any hands so I
would go back and entertain the motion from the Vice Chair.
City of Palo Alto Page 35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
MOTION
Vice-Chair Cassel: I will move Staff recommendation that the Planning and Transportation
Commission recommend items number one and two and I think we should be including those
comments that Karen made about visual and noise impacts farther on in the ordinance.
Chair Griffin: Do we have a second for that?
Vice-Chair Cassel: That would have been on Two in a parentheses on page three of the
ordinance that was before us at the table.
SECOND
Commissioner Bialson: Second.
Chair Griffin: I picked up a second from Commissioner Bialson. WouId the maker like to
support the motion?
Vice-Chair Cassel: This is an awkward situation. We need to support the businesses that we
have here and make some accommodations. We are.not actually making that many changes to
our current ordinance. When I actually look at it we are looking at some parking changes,
clarifications, we are looking at some pads in the setback. I presume we are going to do
City of Palo Alto Page 36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
DRAFT
something with signage eventually. I went around and looked at some of these places and they
do need some help with signage. None of them will be allowed to put a sign up that will be seen
from 101 as far as I can see. I can’t imagine us adapting our signs to that degree. I only wish we
would do all this good stuff for food stores.
Chair Griffin: Seconder?
Commissioner Bialson: I agree with everything that has been said by Commissioner Cassel and
I think it is very important that we indicate that we support these businesses and want them to
stay. I hope that is conveyed to the businesses. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Commissioner Lippert, comments?
Commissioner Lippert: I support the motion.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: I will support the motion for the reasons already stated.
Chair Griffin: Karen.
City of Palo Alto Page 37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
DRAFT
Commissioner Holman: As I stated at the last meeting. I am very supportive ot~these businesses
and supportive of the actions that have been taken previously except I really cannot support the
display pads and because of that one thing I will not be able to support the motion.
Chair Griffin: I will support the motion. I do have concerns about the signage issues-and I look
forward to having the opportunity for all of us on the desk to discuss that in a good deal more
detail in the future.
MOTION PASSED (5-1-0-1 with Commissioner Holman opposing and Commissioner Burt
absent)
All those in favor of Phyllis’s motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nay) The item does carry with
Commissioner Holman objecting.
That takes us to the end of agenda item number two and we will now open agenda item number
three under New Business. I will open the public hearing on an item that involves the retention
of existing lane configurations along Alma Street, Homer Avenue and High Street for egress
from the new tunnel at the Caltrain line,
Chair Griffin: Commissioner Holman.
City of Palo Alto Page 38
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
DRAFT
Commissioner Holman: I own property at 725 Homer and even though I don’t have a direct
interest in the immediate vicinity the project may alter the character of traffic in a larger area and
because of that and with an abundance of caution I am declaring a conflict of interest.
Mr. Emslie:
present.
I think we would recommend that we take a three-minute break to allow Staffto be
Chair Griffin: Sounds like a reasonable suggestion. We are taking a five-minute break.
NEW B USINESS:
Public Hearings.
o Retention of Existing Lane Configurations Along Alma Street, Homer Avenue and
High Street for Egress from New Bicycle/Pedestrian UnderCrossing of Caltrain at
Homer and Alma.
http://www.ei _tyofpaloalto.org/citvagenda/publish/planning-transportation-meetings/3575.pdf
Chair Griffin: We can now reconvene. StaffI already announced the item so Joe, if we could
hear the item we are ready.
Mr. Joseph Kott, Chief Planning Official: Thank you very much Chair Griffin and members of
the Commission’ I have with me here this evening David Stillman, StaffEngineer in the
Transportation Division. David has come here from home where he has been with his wife who
delivered a baby Sunday morning. So David is going above and beyond the call of duty here by
coming to the Commission he is so committed to these bike facilities.
City of Palo ,41to Page 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
The item before you is a question of egress from the Homer bike and pedestrian tunnel, which is
expected to open September 2004. There is no ideal solution to the egress problem, as you will
find out this evening. We have analyzed several options and as the Commission knows we
recommend what we consider workable but a minimally feasible option. David will discuss that
as well as two alternatives this evening. David.
Mr. David Stillman, Transportation Engineer: Staff’s recommendation this evening is that the
Planning and Transportation Commission endorse Staff’ recommendation to retain the existing
lane configurations along Alma Street, Homer Avenue and High Street following the opening of
the Homer Undercrossing. The map you see on the overheadshows the existing lane
configurations along Homer, Alma and High Street. I will go through it briefly with you.
Currently Homer is a one-way street in the westbound direction all the way to Alma Street where
it terminates and directly across the street from the end of Homer is the new construction of the
Homer tunnel. High Street is a one-way street southbound all the way to Channing. South of
Channing it is a two-way street. Once the Homer tunnel opens bicyclists will easily be able to
access the runnel from the east heading in a westbound direction. They can just proceed directly
westbound along Homer Avenue until they get to the tunnel. Once the undercrossing opens
bicycling toward the east will be a little bit more problematie because they cannot go directly
along Homer eastbound they will be going against the flow of traffic. So Staff has been looking
at ways to accommodate this eastbound flow of bicyclists from the tunnel once it opens. I will
add while I have this on there as far as existing conditions two conditions that are not existing
now but will exist once the undercrossing opens involve a traffic signal change that will be
City of Palo Alto Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
occurring at the intersection of Homer and Alma. That will consist of an exclusive
bicycle/pedestrian signal phase that will be incorporated into the traffic signal. The purpose of
this phase is to allow bicyclists and pedestrians to safely cross Alma Street without any vehicle.
conflicts. So during the time that phase is operational all vehicles will be required to stop at the
intersection and there will be no right turns on red allowed for any vehicles during that phase.
The other change that will occur will be a short bicycle lane if you will, a westbound bicycle lane
right at the intersection along Homer. It will be about 20 or 30 feet long at the most. Basically it
is jflst a bicycle pocket that is a storage area for bicyclists waiting to cross Alma Street to access
the tunnel. Another purpose of this bike lane is to keep vehicles that are on Homer that wish to
turn right on to Alma from tripping the bicycle loop detector that will be against the right curb
line. Should a vehicle do that it would activate the pedestrian/bicycle phase and that would
cause further delays for vehicles because cars aren’t allowed to turn right on that phase so it
would cause serious degradation in the operation of the traffic signal. So both of those will be
existing conditions once the tunnel opens regardless of which recommendation we have tonight
on the lane configurations along Homer and High Street.
So as I mentioned, Staff studied ways to accommodate this eastbound flow of bicyclists and we
looked at three general methods of accommodating the bicyclist. There might be fine-tuning for
each of these small changes and permutationspossible but the three general ways are first to turn
Homer Avenue between Alma and High Street and High Street between Forest and Channing
from a one-way street to a two-way street. So basically you would have a one block long section
of Homer Avenue that would get bicyclists. This section of Homer here, this one block long
section would be turned into a two-way street and these two blocks of High Street would also be
City of Palo Alto Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
turned into a two-way street. So in that way bicyclists coming from the tunnel would be able to
proceed directly eastbound along Homer and if they wish to access the Downtown area they
could make a left turn, travel along High Street towards Downtown. They couldn’t go any
further along High because this would still be one-way but they could make a right turn and
continue into Downtown in this section. Bicyclists wishing to travel southbound would be able
to turn right on High Street and travel southbound to their destination.
I will describe in more detail each of these once I give you a general overview of the three.
Second we looked at an installation of a contraflow bike lane, which is a bike lane that
accommodates bicyclists traveling opposite the direction of the traffic on the street. For this
option we would provide a contraflow bike lane along this one section of Homer but Homer
would remain one-way for vehicles in the westbound direction. So there would still be two lanes
for vehicles westbound, there would be a single bicycle lane in the eastbound direction. High
Street would be converted to two-way operation similar to the one I just showed you so that
when bicyclists reached the intersection they could either turn left to go towards Downtown or
turn right to go towards the South of Forest area.
The third alternative we looked at is to retain the existing lane configurations. In other words,
we would keep Homer and High one-way streets where they are currently but we would modify
the signal timing at this intersection in order to accommodate bicyclists using Alma Street to go
to Forest and then on to their destinations., This third alternative is Staff’s recommendation
tonight. So what I will do now is describe in further detail this recommendation as well as the
other two alternatives.
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 42
DRAFT
1
¯ 2 Let me describe how we will modify the signal phasing to accommodate the bicyclists. As I
3 mentioned earlier the phasing at this signal will be changed to include a phase exclusive to
4 bicycles and pedestrians. All vehicles will come to a complete stop at the intersection during
5 that phase. The length of that phase is not certain at this time but it will be on the order of 20
6 seconds which is the amount of time it would take a pedestrian to safely cross Alma Street. So
7 during those 20 seconds there will be no cars traveling northbound on Alma Street within this
8 block save for an occasional car that might be pulling out of a parking space along here. Other
9 than that vehicles won’t be allowed to proceed northbound through on Alma past Homer and
10 they won’t be allowed to turn right from Homer onto Alma. So during that 20 seconds a
11 bicyclist could come out of the tunnel turn left and proceed along Alma Street with minimal
12 conflicts from vehicles behind them. It would take a bicyclists about 30 second to travel from
13 Homer to Forest along Alma Street and that figures about ten miles an hour which is an average
14 pace for bicyclists. School children might be a little slower, probably not much, seasoned
15 cyclists maybe 15 miles an hour, they could probably do it in about 20 seconds but ten miles an
16 hour and 30 seconds is a good typical time that it will take a bicyclists to travel this block. So
17 during this 20 seconds of this exclusive pedestrian/bicycle phase a typical bicycle could travel
18 say halfway up this block towards Forest. If they were waiting when the phase turned green they
19 would be able to travel a little further up the street because they would have the full 20 seconds.
20 If they.got there a little late maybe not quite so far but about halfway up the block. What we
21 could do to the signal operation to make it easier for the bicyclists to proceed all the way to
22 Forest is to follow that exclusive phase with the westboufid Homer phase. So what that would do
23 is the vehicles that are queued up at northbound Alma would still have to wait there during that
City of Palo Alto Page 43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
lO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
phase. The vehicles on Homer could proceed left out of the intersection or right out of the
intersection. Most of the traffic that is on Homer westbound is left turning vehicles. There are
about 30% or so that are right turning vehicles so there will be a few cars that will make this
right turn but they would be a single line of vehicles not a solid platoon as you would get coming
straight up Alma Street so there would be minimal conflicts. That would allow the bicyclists to
travel to Forest before this traffic that is waiting on Alma Street is released to proceed
northbound. We could design the signal phasing so that even in the absence of a vehicle call on
Homer that Homer phase is serviced following the exclusive pedestrian/bicycle phase so we
would always allow that time for the bicyclists to proceed to Forest regardless of if there is a
vehicle on Homer to trip the traffic signal.
Our recommendation has some disadvantages o~ potential disadvantages. Probably the most
significant is that there may be bicyclists that would still choose to use Homer to access the
Downtown and South of Forest areas because it is shorter and they don’t want to take this longer
route. For example is they are going southbound they would need to do this as opposed to that.
So they may choose to take the shorter route in order to go this way. Also some bicyclists might
be predisposed to avoiding Alma Street regardless of any traffic signal timing changes that we do
because they may perceive it as being a less safe alternative. Also bicyclists may not know that
we incorporated these traffic signal timing changes to ease their route up Alma Street so out of
this lack of knowledge they may not realize it has been made safer and they would continue
down Homer Street. Now we could do some things to bring that knowledge out to the bicycle
community, some outreach working with PABAC, fliers, posting at the bicycle tunnel, postings
at the Palo Alto bicycle shop. There are ways to get that word out." We feel that most bicyclists
City of Palo Alto Page 44
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
1 would get that word and they would use Alma Street to Forest and then proceed on to their
2 destination and there would be very few bicyclists that would choose to ride in the wrong
3 direction along Homer. This is something that we could observe if were to implement this
4 recommendation. If it appears that there is a problem that could not be easily mitigated we can
move to a next step, which would be one of the alternatives that I will explain to you now.
The alternative number one would be the two-way conversion of Homer Avenue on this first
block and these two blocks of High Street. The obvious advantage of this alternative is that it
provides a relatively safe direct route to the Downtown or to the South of Forest areas from the
Homer tunnel. It also retains all parking along Homer Avenue and along High Street, which the
next alternative won’t, which I will explain a little bit later.
A disadvantage is the amount of vehicle congestion that will happen as a result of this
alternative. Currently we have two vehicle lanes in the westbound direction. If we were to
implement this alternative there would only be a single vehiete lane. As’you all know there is
quite a bit of vehicles that use this street especially during the PM peak hour, people that are
leaving the Downtown a~ea to head home typically use Homer because it is relatively un-
congested. Hamilton tends to get a little bit more congested. Forest doesn’t have a traffic signal.
Channing is one way the other direction.
obvious way out of the Downtown area.
Addison doesn’t have a traffic signal. Homer is the
Currently the queues on Homer Avenue during the PM
peak are about five vehicles long, which brings you back tb about mid block. This is confirmed
by both computer analysis and visual observations out in the field. It varies but that is an
¯ average. If we were to implement this alternative we would be looking at queues along Homer,
Cit7 of Palo Alto Page 45
DRAFT
1 which may say ten percent of the time extend all way back to Emerson. We are looking at fifty
2 percentile queue lengths of about 15 vehicles which means half the time during the PM peak
3 hour the queue would be at least 15 vehieles long, half the time it would be more and half the
4 time it would be less. The 90th percentile we are looking at between 20 and 25 vehicles long
5 would be the queue which means ten percent of the time during the PM peak it would actually be
6 longer than those 20 to 25 vehicles. That takes you all the way back to Emerson. What would
7 likely happen as a result of that is vehicles would either start to divert, no one wants to.wait in a
8 two block long queue so they would be tempted to either use Forest or to come down here and
9 use Addison at the uncontrolled intersections along Alma to make their left tunas which is not a
10 safe alternative because of the traffic along Alma Street. We would likely be inducing accidents
11 at those locations if there were a significant traffic shift to those intersections. Another problem
12 would most likely occur at the Homer/High intersection. Under this alternative this lane here,
13 the one along the Whole Foods parking lot side would be required to be a right turn only lane
14 because it could not proceed across the intersection due to this oncoming lane here. So these
15 folks would be required to turn right. That would be a very underutiliz~d lane. There are only
16 about 25 vehicles that make this right turn currently during the PM peak hour. So this lane
17 would be empty most of the time once you got past the Whole Foods parking lot.
18
19
20
21
22
23
Chair Griffin: That is a left turn, right?
Mr. Stillman: It is a left turn. Did I say right turn? Yes, they would be required to make this left
turn. What would likely happen is because of the long queues you would see cars using this lane
to come as close to the intersection as they could and then either cutting over here in the
City of Palo Alto Page 46
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
1 intersection or cutting in at the head of the queue right here which would create additional
2 friction and delay and be a potential safety problem if they are aggressive about cutting in. The
3 final disadvantage with this option is the left turn that northbound bicyclists would make from
4 Homer onto High street. They would be facing two lanes of oncoming traffic, which would be
an intimidating maneuver for some bicyclists. Making this left turn may be intimidating for
some bicyclists. It could be a potential safety issue. That is our alternative number one.
The alternative number two is the contraflow bike lane. As mentioned before the eontraflow
bike lane would extend for this single block. These two blocks of High would be two-way
traffic. The advantage is the same as the previous alternative in that the bicyclists would have a
direct, relatively safe un-congested route from the tunnel to the Downtown and South of Forest
areas.
The first disadvantage would be loss of parking along the curb for this block. Currently there are
eight parking spaces on this side of Homer Avenue, which are used by the general public, most
often by Ole’s car dealership, which is right here, BMW dealersh!p here and in the future the 800
High project which is right here. These eight parking spaces would need to be eliminated under
this option. The second disadvantage is driver expectation or lack thereof of contraflow bike
lanes. We have an alley, which is not shown on this map but there is an alley, which extends for
the length of this block and continues here. It is a northbound alley that intersects Homer. A
typical problem that occurs, existing contraflow bike lanes around the county is that minor street
approaches such as this where a vehicle that is traveling northbound along the alley, stops here
waiting to turn left onto Homer, looks right for oncoming traffic, doesn’t think to look left for an
City of Palo Alto Page 47
DRAFT
1 oncoming bicyclist and there is a conflict at that point. This could be mitigated somewhat
2 through signs, striping in order to bring awareness to both the driver and to the bicyclist tl~at
3 there is this potential conflict point here. I have a few slides I can show you of treatments around
4 the country at contraflow bike lanes to mitigate these potential safety issues. This is Eugene,
5 Oregon. This is the contraflow bike lane it travels from left to right and in the distance is the
6 vehicle lane, which travels from right to left. Typical separations double yellow center line
7 because we have two opposing directions of traffic and also an eight or twelve inch line brings
8 awareness to drivers traveling along the main street as well as drivers approaching on the minor
9 street that this is a bicycle lane and there is something different going here and they need to pay a
10 little bit more attention. Also this is also Eugene, we are looking down the contraflow bike lane
11 here you will notice this stenciling say ’watch for cars.’ This is a note for bicyclists who are
12 approaching a minor street to keep an eye out for vehicles that may not be keeping an eye out for
13 them. Of course it is the driver’s responsibility to keep looking for the bikes, the bicyclists have
14 the right-of-way but the reality is the bicyclists often times need to be vigilant in making sure
15 that a car is not going to pull out in front of them. They have had some success with this type of
16 stenciling for the bicyclists. Here is just another photo of Eugene. A contraflow bike lane here
17 with a double yellow centerline and the white stripe and vehicles traveling in the other direction.
18 Just another view here of a bike lane. Here they have a bike lane along the curb, some parking
19 along here and the vehicle lane is in this direction. This is an example of a sign that is used to
20 warn drivers that are approaching on a minor street that they need to look both ways, one
21 direction for the vehicles as they are used to and the opposite direction for the bicyclists in the
22 contrafiow bike lane. The sign here is a bicycle symbol, these are arrows pointing two different
23 directions which says ’two-way bike traffic.’ Finally this is Madison, Wisconsin. This is a
City of Palo Alto Page 48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
different type of separation treatment for contraflow bike lanes. This is the contraflow bike lane
here. These are the vehicle lanes. What they have done is provided a physical separation. This
is a raised curb between the contraflow bike lane and the vehicle lanes. At the mirror street
approaches to that what they have done is made this curb mountable so they have continued this
median, this island if you will, past the driveways, the minor street approaches but they have
made it such that the ear pulling out can mount it, qross it, to get into the primary vehicle lane.
- This is also a good way of bringing further awareness to the drivers on the minor street
approaches that there is a contraflow bike lane there and they need to look the other direction for
the bicyclists. The final disadvantage of this option is similar to alternative number one in that
bicyclists that are traveling toward the Downtown area would need to make this left turn from
Homer onto High Street across two lanes of oncoming vehicletraffie. This one is a little more
extreme than the previous alternative because the bicyclists are further over, they are actually
very near the curb in this situation and they are crossing two complete through oncoming vehicle
lanes. There would also be less driver expectation from the point of view of the drivers here for
bicyclists making this maneuver because they can continue straight down Homer as they have
always done it remains a one-way street all the way through so they are less likely to be looking
for different conditions which this left turning would be.
So that concludes my description of the Staff recommendation and the alternatives. Again, we
recommend maintaining existing lane configurations. We will monitor the condition once the
undercrossing opens in order to assess conditions, make changes if necessary to accommodate
conditions. If we move forward with the Staff recommendation we will look at the possibility of
installing a traffic signal in the future at either Forest and Alma or Addison and Alma so that one
City of Palo Alto Page 49
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
1 day we may be able to go to two-way configurations here without causing the congestion I
2 described. The vehicles would be able to use Forest or Addison as the case may be to also make
3 left turns onto Alma. There are advantage and disadvantages and there would be studying
4 required but it is something that Staff would look at. Thank you.
5
Chair Griffin: Does that eonclud~ Staff comments?
Mr. Kott: It does, Chair Griffin.
Chair Griffin: As colleagues can see we have a number of members of the public here who will
be talking to us this evening and I would like to encourage any of the rest of you who have yet to
fill out a speaker c~rd now would be a good opportunity to do that. Meanwhile if
Commissioners would care to pose a few questions here to Staff before we open to the public
that would be appropriate. Lee.
Commissioner Liooert: I :would like to open the public hearing as soon as possible and the
reason being that they have been kind enough to accommodate us in terms of changing our
¯ hearing and I think it is important that they all be heard this evening..
Chair Griffin: That is a point of view although I think there is another argument to that which is
it does give members of the public an opportunity to hear a little bit about what is on our minds
so that they might wish to respond in their comments and make sure that we get an alternate
viewpoint. Annette.
City of Palo Alto Page 50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
I9
20
2I
22
DRAFT
Commissioner Bialson: Can I ask a question?
Chair Griffin: Would you please?
Commissioner Bialson: With regard to the last alternative that you were discussing, the
contraflow bike lane, how much room is there to provide some sort of physical barrier?
Mr. Stillman: Them would be about two or three feet to provide a physical barrier. Currently
the street is 36 feet wide, the lane line runs right down the middle of the street so we have 18 feet
between the lane line and the curb. We would need about ten or 11 feet for vehicles which
would leave about eight or so feet for the contraflow bike lane and whatever separation that we
put there. The bike lane would be five or six feet wide and the balance would be for the
separation.
Commissioner Bialson: Can I ask a follow up? There are a lot of truck deliveries at Whole
Foods. Would that physical separation perhaps impact trucks especially as they are making that
turn on Alma because they have to use Alma to get in and out due to our restrictions with regard
to commercial trucks. I have seen some of those trucks making rather strange turns as they go
out of Homer. Could you just give me a little more explanation on this physical separation and
the impact?
City of Palo Alto Page 51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Mr. Stillman: You are referring to this left turn here from Homer onto Alma Street? The
separation should not affect that left turning movement for trucks. The existing lanes will not be
moved from where they are currently so the location from which the trucks are turning now will
be the location from which they would turn under this alternative. The separation would end or
begin here and continue this way so the trucks would be driving past the separation before they
make their left turn or more likely would actually make their left turn from this lane because it
gives them a wider turning radius. If it turns out there was a conflict between turning vehicles
and the separation we could start the median or whatever we have there a few feet back to
accommodate that.
Chair Griffin: I will ask a question having to do with experience other cities have accumulated
with this contraflow technique specifically I am thinking of the safety aspects of it. Were you in
your investigations able to determine the safety record that Madison, Wisconsin and some of
these other communities have experienced?
Mr. Stillman: Yes we have. We contacted four or five cities Madison, Cambridge, Eugene,
Seattle, unfortunately none of them have a situation which is exactly similar to the one we have
here but some conclusions that can be drawn are generally there has been some conflict at minor
street approaches. Eugene had a little bit of conflict, which is why they felt the need to
incorporate that extra striping within the contraflow bike lane that says ’watch for cars.’ That
seemed to improve things. They had a few conflicts there. Generally this left turn movement
that I have described for both of the alternatives at all of the cities that I talked to none of them
had a four-way stop situation but this intersection for example would be controlled by a traffic
City of Palo Alto Page 52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
signal and this leR turn would be a permitted left turn across oncoming vehicle traffic. So in
other words, the oncoming vehicle traffic and these bikes would have the green at the same time
and the bikes would have yield to the .vehicles. No conflicts generally with that configuration
that left turn was safely made at the signalized intersections. All the cities I spoke to have
learned a little bit from their experiences but did say that they would install another contraflow
bike lane generally if given the chance so they were able to manage whatever safety issues they
had come up.
Chair Griffin: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: The response to your question gave me pause. You said that you would
be putting a traffic signal up at the intersection of High and Homer?
Mr. Stillman: No, no, what I was describing was the cities that I spoke to on their typical road
segments where they had contraflow bike lanes they had traffic signals at the major intersections
not a four-way stop as We do so their experiences all had to do with traffic signal operations and
not all the way stop operations but we would not be installing a traffic signal at that intersection.
Commissioner Bialson: We have no plans to but if we had some conflicts we might end up
having to. It just sounds like a possibility.
Mr. Stillman: It is something we would need to study.
City of Palo A!to P.age 53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Commissioner,Bialson:Thank you.
DRAFT
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: You said at the end of your presentation that one of the possibilities was
putting traffic signals at Forest and Alma and Channing and Alma. Did you do any preliminary
counts as to how that would impact the queuing problem that you described on Homer? If
people could make those turns safely at Forest rather than going to Homer there would be fewer
ears there so did you do any analysis of that?
Mr. Stillman: We didn’t. It is very difficult to assess those kinds of impacts especially on local
streets for example. It is difficult to determine the traffic shift. It would most likely shift to the
point where Homer and say Forest would have about equal levels of delay for the vehicles
waiting at the intersection so you would take the queue that I described on Homer generally
maybe divide it by two and you would have the resultant impact on Forest. It is difficult to really
do detailed analysis on an impact such as that.
Mr. Kott: IfI may, one consideration on a signal at Forest is that we would add delay to
motorists proceeding on Alma and that would be something we would have to look at. We try to
keep Alma as efficient as possible. Adding a bike/pedestrian phaffe will add some delay to
motorists on Alma for a good cause certainly but additional signal delay need to be traded off
against benefits like safety.
City of Palo Alto Page 54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Chair Griffin: Go ahead.
DRAFT
Commissioner Packer: When we first looked at the plans for the Homer tunnel back in 2002 the
Staff Report referred to the Comp Plan suggestion that conversion of Channing and Forest from
one-way to two-way traffic be evaluated. Can you explain why that issue was not in the Staff
Report and why you didn’t look at that as another one of the options? This is one-way to two-
way throughout the length of those two streets.
Mr. Kott: Well that is certainly a much more ambitious project because of the number of users
of Channing and Homer that wouid be affected and need to be consulted and have input. There
are some very difficult problems further up stream from the High intersection including that at
Whole Foods and at Channing House that we haven’t yet really resolved. We have had some
conversations with the stakeholder groups but our view is that it will take some time to resolve
some really important issues about truck off-loading and vehicle turns out of Channing House
against opposing traffic and other issues have been raised. We have a need to create safe egress
as soon as we can before we can resolve all the other issues on Homer and Channing, We do
ha~’e Homer and Channing conversion on our plate. In fact we have funding in the CIP to do
design work on Homer and Channing conversion but we are not ready to present a plan to do that
yet.
Chair Griffin: Commissioners, if there are no further questions at this time I will in fact open the
public hearing. We have enough cards to have a good input from the public. I have ten cards at
this stage I will give each of you five minutes. If you don’t need all of those five minutes that
City of Palo Alto Page 55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
would be apprediated to keep our proceedings moving. So I will open the public hearing and our
first three speakers will be Bruce Cancilla, Ed Holland and Matthew Ingco. So if we could hear
from Bruce. Pease come down and introduce yourself.
Mr. Bruce Cancilla, 774 Emerson Street, Palo Alto: I am the General Manager &the Whole
Foods on Homer Street. We have been a proud member of the Palo Alto community for 15 years
now and we have evaluated this situation carefully. We feel that any change of the street
direction would have a very detrimental effect on our ability to do business. The parking lot is
our lifeblood and as explained by the engineers the traffic backup by a directional ’change would
cause a stoppage of traffic back to Emerson, which would cutoff access to our parking lot. So
we support the recommendation and for safety reasons we also have concerns about the contra
bike lane. Any backup along Homer toward Emerson would impact a lot of pedestrian traffic
coming in and out of the store and the parking lot. It is already touch and go with traffic coming
up there. We are concerned about drivers who are aggravated by trying tt~ get past a crowded
intersection and may put a lot of our pedestrians in that area at further risk. That is all I have to
say. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Bruce, we have a question for you:
Commissioner Lippert: Why is it that during the day the majority of trucks that do offloading
there are double-parked on the street? Why aren’t they accommodated in the alleyway where
they are supposed to be or on your own private parking lot?
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I8
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Mr. Caneilla: They are accommodated in the alleyway if they choose to use that. My
understanding is they have the option to double park and I believe that’s the reason they take
advantage of that. It is not because we are preventing them from using the alleyway. We try to
keep that clear to encourage the use of that alleyway. We have respect for our neighbors who
have a driveway that access their parking lot, that would be Pete’s Coffee, so we struggle to
make sure that delivery trucks are into the alle~ far enough to keep that parking lot clear. So our
goal is to have them not cause any more congestion than is absolutely necessary.
Commissioner Lippert: My understanding, Staff might correct me ifI am wrong, is that in fact
commercial vehicles are allowed to double park up to a certain hour and then they have to give
way to other vehieles.
Mr. Kott: Yes, that is correct. I think the manager could correct me on this one. Occasionally
there is a convergence of delivery vehicles and they all can’t be accommodated in the alley. I
understand that to be the problem that occasions the legal offloading on the street.
Commissioner Lipp..ert: Why not encourage your commercial vehicles to use the Whole Foods
parking lot during the times of low customer usage?
Mr. Cancilla: Many do use the lot as typically the delivery vehicles that are van size those are
the ones that do use the parking lot and we don’t prevent them until such point when it may
prevent customers from finding a parking spot. The only problem would be if the alley is being
used to the extent that more trucks in the alley would cutoff access to the parking lot of the
City of Palo Alto Page 57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Pete’s building at that point there may be overflow onto the street and then they use double
parking but it is not because we are asking them or encouraging them to do that.
Commissioner Lippert: Thank you.
Chair Griffin: We have another question for you.
Commissioner Packer: Your parking lot that is across the street from Homer is the access into
that parking lot also from Emerson?
Mr. Cancilla: It is typically used as an exit but it can be accessed over there also.
Commissioner Packer:
parking lot.
So the only access is not from Homer? There are two ways to access the
Mr. Caneilla: There are two driveways on Homer, one in and one out. On Emerson there is only
one driveway so it is much more limited access on Emerson.
Commissioner Packer: Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I just want to say also there is access from High Street.
City of Palo Alto Page 58
1
2
3-
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Chair Griffin: Our next speaker is Ed Holland.
Mr. Ed R. Holland, 1111 parkinson Avenue, Palo Alto: Two years ago there was a bicycle study
for Palo Alto and an outside organization did this study and this is result. One of the things on
there is turning Homer into a bicycle boulevard in both directions going through this underpass
that we have just built and continuing on into Stanford which would be a fantastic way to get
people in and out of Stanford. It is something we want to do encourage them not to drive their
ears. There is nothing wrong with this. It has none of the dangers that we have talked about on
these other three sorts of kluge ways of getting around it. It certainly will cost more money. It
would involve turning both Homer and probably Channing back into two-way streets, which
would probably increase the safety for people in the City of Palo Alto because you tend to drive
a little more cautiously on a two-way street than you do on a one-way street. At one time I am
sure it made sense to have one-way streets when the Palo Alto clinic was right there in the
middle of a residential area and there was lots and lots of traffic. It of course is gone now, it is
being turned back into a residential area and as far as I can see there is absolutely nothing wrong
with implementing this plan and the only thing is the cost. It probably would not cost any more
than the cost of ahuman life when we kill the first bicyclist. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Our next speaker is Matthew Ingco.
Mr. Matthew Ingco, 571 Scale Avenue, Pato Alto: I have been fortunate to live and commute to
my job in Palo Alto for 20 years. I think part of that is that a lot of times I try to avoid bad traffic
City of Palo Alto Page 59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
situations. I will actually ride my bike a little bit out of the way to avoid some traffic. I would
like to support the Commission’s recommendation to not make any changes. I think the two
other changes proposed are very dangerous and will put bicyclists in uncomfortable situations.
I have a couple of questions. First to the Staff, in your report is a vehicle delay the same as the
pedestrian/bike delay when we are talking about the delays at the intersection?
Mr. Stillman: No.
Mr. Ingco: How can it be different?
Mr. Stillman: Well, the analysis does not figure in the pedestrian!bicyclist delay at the
intersection.
Mr. Ingco: What I was trying to allude to was how long could a bicyclist or pedestrian expect
the maximum delay to cross to be if they push the button to get across at Alma? What would
that delay be at a peak hour?
Mr. Stillman: You could probably look at the vehicle delay to give you kind of an order of
magnitude.
Mr. Ingco: Which is 23 seconds on average. So what would the max be?
CRy of Palo Alto Page 60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Mr. Stillman:
DRAFT
It is hard to say. The maximum would be the length of the signal cycle.
Mr. In,co.: But certainly to come up with an average you must have known what the minimum
and the maximum were.
Mr. Stillman: The wa3~ the average is figured is you look at the total delay at the intersection
divided by the number of vehicles which use the intersection and you get an average delay per
vehicle.
~: So anyway, my point was I am a 20 year old commuter, been commuting for 20
years and I am not as fast as I used to be. I can ride from the undercrossing at University to the
new undercrossing in 35 seconds on a mountain bike with fat tires with my bike bag with my
clothes and lunch in it. That is riding fast. If I want to tool along it is 50 seconds. So I am kind
of’wondering bicycle commuters are also very much like drivers that they are always looking for
the fastest way through an intersection.
Another question I have for both the Staff and the Commission, has anybody ridden that very
nice new bike path we have on the west side of the railroad tracks?
Chair Griffin: Matthew, would you just continue your presentation, please?
Mr. Ingco: I kind of think it is important because this is the path to this undercrossing and if the
Commission has not looked at actually using this as the commuters are going to use it well, the
City of Palo Alto Page 61
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
1 point is that ifa bicyclist doesn’t like riding along Alma Street he can use the next northern
2 undercrossing in only 35 to 50 additional seconds. He also doesn’t have to wait for a light up
3 there to get to Downtown and he is closer to.Downtown University Avenue. So that is the point
4 I am trying to bring up. I do think if you are our Transportation Commission it would be very
nice to see these nice features that we have in town and that you should be riding through these
intersections and if you are making decisions about what the bicyclists are going to do put
yourself in the bicyclists place and ride as a bicyclist through there.
Anyway, I support your decision to make no changes because I think the easiest thing for
bicyclists to do is to continue on to the next northern most crossing which is uncontrolled and
they won’t be waiting your average 23 seconds to make a crossing. It is essentially an
uncontrolled crossing underneath Alma and onto University Avenue where the first time you will
come to a light is at High Street. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you, Matthew. Our next speaker is Joyce Yamagiwa followed by Winnie
Lewis followed by Richard Swent. Welcome, Joyce.
Ms. Joyee Yamagiwa~ 700 Emerson Street, Palo Alto: Th~you. I am here to support the
recommendation by Staff. I believe it is the least invasive solution. I had a shoulder problem
recently and the solution was to take ibuprofen and see if the problem goes away and then move
on to something more serious such as cortisone. The ibuprofen worked. Life is fine and I kind
of see the signalization as a similar kind of a treatment.
City of Palo Alto Page 62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
I am also very opposed to option number one, which is to convert to the two-way. I am a
commuter to Downtown and I believe that that change will make my commute untenable. So
what I would do then is seek alternate routes and it wouldn’t be to travel south from Forest or
from Channing because you cannot get onto Alma. So I am going to then seek out residential
streets to make my travel down to Churchill. So as a resident of that area I am opposed to that
because I think we will inherit the rerouted traffic.
Then last as a property owner I think it is important to retain the vibrancy of Downtown and to
support businesses that are doing business in Downtown. Without that business people aren’t
going to want to ride their bicycles into Downtown and we won’t have to worry about it. So I
think it is important to keep that in mind. That we need to be sensitive to maintaining that
balance so that businesses can conduct their business but maintain the safety of the bicyclists,
pedestrians and commuters. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Winnie Lewis.
Ms. Winnie Lewis, 436 Webster Street, Palo Alto: Hi, I am a resident of Downtown Palo Alto. I
also work in Palo Alto and I represent the owner of the building at 151 Homer, which houses
Pete’s Coffee. They are right next to Whole Foods. We suppo.rt the Staffreeommendation
because that is the one that actually also takes into consideration pedestrians that are walking
across to have a drink at Pete’s Coffee, say across High Street. Secondly, our building is also
home to a four story self storage unit that is used mainly by Downtown residents. The entry bay
to our building is on the one-way High Street. If you turn it into a two-way street it would be
City of Palo Alto Page 63
DRAFT
1 quite impossible for our people to get in and out safely at the bay. Also for Pete’s Coffee we
2 worked out with Bruce, Pete’s Coffee has their deliveries on High Street so that they can double
3 park for a moment on the two lane High Street going one way safely. If you change High Street
4 to a two-way system then right at the corner where you can see Homer and High so if you
5 change High Street to a two-way street from a one-way street that is going to have a big impact
6 on our tenants who want to make deliveries. They will end up fighting for room with Whole
Foods. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Richard Swent.
7
8
9
10
11 Mr. Richard Swent, 2950 Clara Drive, Palo Alto: Good evening. I am a Palo Alto resident, I am
12 a bicycle educator and I am a member of so many bicycle organizations and committees I am not
13 going to waste your time listing them all. I have a tremendous amount of respect for David and
14 Joe but I have to disagree with them in this case. I think that full two-way conversion is the good
15 solution in the l~ng term but we have to do something now so we have to come up with some
16 kind of a hack. I think the alternative three is a very clever engineering solution. It is very
17 efficient in terms of its resources and I can appreciate it from the technical point of view but I
18 don’t think it will work. I don’t think most people will understand it. My experience is that
19 most people don’t know what makes lights turn green and they are not going to take the time to
20 read a sign or a brochure to understand how they are supposed to behave at this intersection. I
21 don’t think that any public outreach is going to be very effective. Relying on PABAC to do the
22 outreach is a little bit ironic because they oppose alternative three. So I don’t think that people
23 are going to understand that they are being protected by the signal timing there. I also think that
City of Palo Alto Page 64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
even though some people may understand it they are not going to want to ride on Alma period.
There is a very strong negative emotional bias against riding on Alma Street. As an example of
that when the bicycle plan came before this Commission a year or two ago one of the
Commissioners proposed banning bicyclists from Alma Street entirely. She felt that strongly
about it. So now is she going to support a plan that would recommend bicyclists tide on Alma?
The numbers that are proposed here are something like 600 bicyclists a day. Many of those are
going to be Paly High students. They don’t drive, some of them are of age where they can drive,
they are not that familiar with traffic flow and how it works and when you start putting them in
situations like that they and their parents will probably not feel comfortable with them tiding on
Alma. So what is going to happen if you choose alternative three is people will sit there and they
will be faced with three choices, I can bicycle on Alma, I can bicycle the wrong way on Homer
or I can bicycle on the Homer sidewalk. Which one do you think most people will choose? Staff
seems to think that people will learn to ride Alma. I think they are going to ride on the sidewalk
on Homer. That is not a safe solution, it is not something we want to encourage, it is not
something we recommend but I think that is what is going to happen.
Alternative two seems to’ sort of have the worst of both alternatives one and three. It is like
tiding on the sidewalk except you are out on the street, maybe some of these technical means can
mitigate the fact that you are riding against traffic and none of the drivers will be looking for you
but you are relying on drivers’ understanding of a very nonstandard situation that they are
supposed to look for bicyclists where they don’t expect them and I don’t feel comfortable relying
on drivers to do that.
Ci!y of Palo Alto Page 65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Alternative one seems to me to be very simple and straightforward. Everybody will understand
it without having to read the manual and that is why it will be safe because it is just a normal
intersection. The main drawback to that is the increased congestion. If you look at
Comprehensive Plan policy T-39 it says prioritize pedestrian, bicycle and automobile safety over
vehicle level of service at intersections. So you do not tradeoff level of service for safety, safety
wins. So all the level of service arguments against alternative one really have lower priority.
You need to consider safety first and altemative one is a step towards full two-way conversion
and that is the safe alternative. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you. Our next speaker is Ellen Fletcher followed by Paul Goldstein
followed by John Ciecarelli. Ellen, are you here?
Ms. Ellen Fletcher, 7775 San Antonio Road, Pal.0. Alto: Hi. I can’t remember having a problem
with Staff’s recommendations. They have done so much and they are still doing so much to
make Palo Alto bicycle friendly, winning a national award. In this case I must disagree. It really
isn’t realistic or a good solution to expect bicyclists to go on Alma Street. As to the timing I was
just thinking about Staff’s contention that people ride ten miles an hour. You may know I ride a
three-speed and I ride ten to 12 miles an hour. I think I pass as many bicyclists as pass me if not
more, which indicates that maybe half the population would ride less than ten miles per hour. I
realize that none of the solutions are easy they all have some problems. I am thinking back that
Homer and Channing used to be two-way, of course we didn’t have Whole Foods then, but
ultimately I think the problems should be worked on to see if we can’t ~et rid of that and go back
to the two-way street which would make it more compatible with the residences along the way.
City of Palo Alto Page 66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
As to that same solution to expect bicyclists to go down Alma Street as Mr. Swent pointed out it
is not realistic. I know there are some bicyclists who would do it, most of them wouldn’t. And
most of them would ride against the traffic.on Homer, which makes a point for having it a
designated contraflow lane so that the conflict would be reduced considerably if it is a marked
lane for the bicyclists. It would need more than the normal signage because of the driveways and
at the intersection of High to warn everybody that bicyclists are going to go this way and that
way. So I don’t know whether the two-way on that one block is, preferable to the contraflow but
I wouldn’t rule out the eontraflow. What I would rule out is Alma Street. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you.
Alonis. Welcome, Paul.
Paul Goldstein, John Cicearelli and our last speaker will be Audrey
Mr. Paul Goldstein,. 1,.024 Emerson Street, Palo Alto: Hi. I am the current Cl~air of PABAC, the
Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee and you should have a letter from me. We met
extensively with Staff over this and then we had a subsequent discussion and as you know from
my letter we are unanimously opposed to the Staff recommendation and feel that it is an
unacceptable alternative in terms of safety. Our primary issue with it is that we feel that it is
unsafe because bicycles will in fact not go on Alma Street but will in fact just proceed directly on
Homer either on the sidewalk or we haveall seen bicycles ride against traffic. It is one of the
most dangerous things you can do but I believe that is what many of the people will do.
The contraflow bike lane at least provides a designated place, it provides some warning, it gives
some engineering solutions and as David mentioned in the other cities in which it has been
Cit~ of Palo Alto Page 67
DRAFT’
attempted granted there is not a situation that is directly comparable they said they would install
another one. PABAC feels that we could work with Staff and mitigate some of the safety
problems that are clear.
1
2
3
4
5 I do want to say also what Ellen said. We have worked with StMfit is extremely unusual for
6 PABAC to be in opposition to a Staff recommendation. The Staff has done great things for
7 bicycling including producing the bicycle plan and it feel unusual but in this case I am in fact
8 very disappointed. One of the reasons I am disappointed is I feel like it is clear from all of the
9 speakers that you have heard already that there is no good alternative at this point. I don’t think
10 we had to be at this situation. I think we had enough time to look at some of the alternatives.
11 Living just off the map to the right, I live just off Addison Street, Alma Street doesn’t do any
I2 good at all unless I make a right turn on Alma and then all of the timed signaling that is proposed
13 here doesn’t do me any good because I am going to have hang out making a left turn on Alma
14 Street onto Addison in order to get home. So there has been absolutely no attempt to solve the
15 problem for people who want to head south from that intersection. I have spoken to the folks at
16 Stanford they are fully committed it is on their plan to create a link from the traffic light at the
17 medical clinic across onto campus. It would make it a very low qolume safe route to get from
18 the Downtown area across Alma Street, across the clinic, across E1 Camino at a fairly simple
19 interchange onto campus on basic bike paths or what we call class one paths. So I feel that we
20 have a potentially very good route here and it works great heading onto campus or onto the clinic
21 but basically as you exit that tunnel and you come to Alma Street if you adopt Staff
22 recommendation you have a big do not enter sign in front of you. In spite of everything it is just
23 so unwelcoming and so much against the kind of plans, the kind of environment that we want to
City of Palo Alto Page 68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
create for bicycIing in Palo Alto.
incredibly unwelcoming.
I sort of hate to get it to that level but I just think it is
I want to acknowledge I shop at Whole Foods, I am extremely happy that Whole Foods is there.
I drink coffee at Pete’s. I have had a locker at the storage place. All of those businesses have
become accustomed to the one-way situation there as is natural. You have situations in
Downtown, San Francisco where there is loading and unloading and high volume traffic on two-
way streets. I am sure I have confidence in our merchants and our businesses and in our
Planning and Transportation Division Staffthat those problems could be solved. There are one-
way streets there now, people have adapted to the one-way streets but in general two-way streets
are safer, they have lower traffic volumes, they have lower speeds and they are safer for
pedestrians. So we have adapted to a situation but I think all of you know who have been in
front of Whole Foods at five o’clock when there are pedestrians and traffic and everything like
that it doesn’t feel particularly safe. My guess is it would be safer with two-way although there
would be changes involved.
Those are I think my major points. I want to say one other thing. When I leave my house by car,
which I sometimes do, if I leave around five o’clock I will go to Homer to make a left turn
because it is the only signalized light. I think we r~eed to get more signals there. That’s why
there is so much volume there at the present time. Thank you very much.
Chair Griffin: Our penultimate speaker is John Ciccarelli. Welcome, John.
City of Palo Alto Page 69
DRAFT
1 Mr. John Ciccarelli, 2065 Yale Street, Palo Alto: I wanted to second the comments ofseveral of
2 my predecessors that I urge the Planning and Transportation Commission not to allow the Staff
3 recommendation to go forward for concerns already expressed. I wanted to offer a different
4 perspective though. I likewise am not accustomed at all to speaking eontra to Staff
5 recommendation but I am going to do so tonight: I want to wear a couple of hats here. First is
6 my former hat as Stanford University’s Bicycle Program Manager from 1995 to 1998. IfI
7 learned one thing at Stanford it is that attempts to markedly go against user psychology, bicycle
8 - driver psychology, despite your best intentions are bound to fail. We had a lot of landscape
9 designers before Stanford had a bicycle position that were trying to put lines on maps and say
10 cyclists thou shall go there. It just didn’t work. Once we started to honor the psychology of the
11 user, at least acknowledge the psychology of the user, and design routes that supported the
12 natural line of flow we were better off. The natural line of flow coming out of the Homer
13 Undercrossing is to go where you need to go, largely straight up Homer. As Paul acknowledged
14 if you have anywhere to go upHomer or to the south of Homer the natural movement is not to
15 detour one block around Forest. All considerations about bicycling on Alma aside and I second
16 those considerations it is natural to go where you need to go. The contraflow bike lane solution
17 although unconventional and the first in Palo Alto if it were implemented is the simplest
18 compromise between a long term desire to study and perhaps implement a two-way network on
19 Homer and Channing which has a lot more study before you want to consider that and the Staff
20 recommendation which I think is fundamentally flawed. I believe like others do that if the Staff
21 recommendation is implemented cyclists will ride directly into Homer. So for the first block you
22 are going to get a similar situation to the contraflow with none of the engineering safety
23 advantages, none of the ability under engineering to put heavy stripes down, put signs, islands,
City of Palo Alto Page 70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
whatever you need to separate the two directions of travel. It gets worse. Because nothing wii1
differentiate the first block from the second block they will both be two ways, what is to stop a
cyclist who has already made a wrong-way decision from continuing wrong-way as does not
happen now up past Whole Foods? So I think once the ball is set rolling they are going to go.
The contraflow solution puts signs on the alley warning people not to ignore cyclists coming
from the back of Ole’s car shop. We can do all sorts of engineering treatments at the next
intersection.
Some of the commentators expressed fears that even a change to the first block with a
corresponding change to two-way on High would cause irreparable harm to businesses. I don’t
think I support that. That sort of thing happens all over Downtown on two-way streets and it is
solved with loading zones not with clinging tightly to a one-way street. I love Whole Foods and
I strongly support the viability of Whole Foods and I think subsequent to whatever you decide
for this first block a detailed analysis of what goes on at Whole Foods and the way people cross
the street and the way loading is done could come up with some solutions that haven’t been shed
light on yet. I for one think that it is possible if that block went two-way and the rest of the
traffic issues could be solved to your satisfaction that a median refuge could be put between the
two directions so you could stop halfway across’the street with your grocery cart or your kids.
So I don’t think fundamentally changing from one-way to two-way need impact Whole Foods
negatively but that is for another day.
Another speaker made a medical analogy something along the lines of cause no harm. But that is
a flawed analogy with regard to what’s going to happen on opening day of this undercrossing.
City of Palo Alto Page 71
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Opening day will cause harm unless you have an engineering solution that matches the user’s
psychology. On day one you are going to have chaos if the signal approach is taken. I hate to
sotmd like a Pollyanna but my feeling is that most of the people that I educate in my bike classes
and there are other educators here, Rich is an educator, it is amazing to watch their eyes light up
when we tell them how signals work, how you trip a signal, how does it’really work? Even if
you know how signals really work and I knowhow signals work and Rich knows how signals
work and a lot of sawy cyclists do we also know signals can change their behavior during the
day based on programming. So I don’t get a good feeling thinking that I have to depend on the
signal behaving for me to turn left on Alma and thinking it might do that differently some other
time of day. So even if you believe in signals can you believe in them 100%?
So what am I asking you to do? I am asking you to please strongly consider the contraflow lane
situation and to realize that several other states have it in their state design manuals. There is
also one in San Francisco if you would like to look at it.
Chair Griffin: Thank youl Our ultimate speaker is Audrey Alonis.
Ms. Audrey Alonis, 2870 South Court, Palo Alto: Hi. Iama Midtown resident and I am
speaking tonight as the incoming Chair of the Paly Traffic Safety Committee for this coming
school year. I have to admit I don’t support the Staffrecommendation either and I am sorry to
have to say that. My concerns about the Staff recommendation pertain to the bicyclists who are
expected to use this undercrossing primarily in the eastbound direction. I am confident that the
pedestrians will be fine and those going westbound coming from Homer to the tunnel will be
City of Palo Alto Page 72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
fine. Those going eastbound crossing Alma from the tunnel to the Downtown streets I don’t
think they will be safe with this plan. To quote the Staff Report the traffic signal timing will be
used to provide a relatively vehicle free period of time for bicyclists to travel northbound along
Alma from Homer to Forest. I don’t quite understand from the Staff recommendation how this
will take place. How are the pedestrians and the cyclists who are existing the tunnel going in the
eastbound direction going to be staged for the, signal phase? You have an exclusive
pedestrian/bicycle phase that is proposed, you have all the pedestrians going straight across, you
have the westbound cyclists who will be going straight across and then you have eastbound
cyclists that you want to have make a left turn. How is this going to work? If you have a
conflict of them flowing through each other, against each other, those eastbound cyclists are
going to lose the benefit of the time that they had with that signal phase. It is going to be a mess,
it is going to be unsafe, there is going to be more conflict on Alma between vehicles and
bicyclists.
Furthermore most of the high school students who are expected to use this bicycle route have not
yet driven an automobile. They do not anticipate the nature of or the risk of the movements that
c~s make when there is a street that is crowded with moving vehicles, parked vehicles and
bicyclists and without the benefit of a bicycle lane for these cyclist I just do not believe that they
can be safe. Furthermore, if you get to Frrest safely Forest is not so wide that you can safely
accommodate vehicles parked on both sides, vehicles traveling in two directions and bicyclists.
It is just not that wide to provide that safety there. When the PTA Council Traffic Safety Chair
originally supported this tunnel it was with the understanding that Homer and High Streets would
be converted to two-way traffic and to allow for these bicyclists to get beyond Alma, not onto
City of Palo Alto Page 73
I
2
3
4
DRAFT
Alma but beyond Alma, That the egress would be provided for in a safe manner and that is not
provided by this recommendation. So I don’t consider this recommendation to be safe and
therefore I can’t support it,
5 There have to be better engineering solutions than that which is proposed here, Whether you are
6 working with two-way streets, whether you are allowing for bicycles on a sidewalk for a block,
7 come up with something different but I can’t support this. I also would like to observe that none
8 of these alternatives were discussed at the City School Traffic Safety Committee prior to school
9 ending in June. As the Paly Traffic Safety Chair who advised kids on ways to get to school
10 safety using altemate means than cars I would not be able to recommend bicycling on Alma for a
11 block. I just can’t see these kids being safe doing that if they had to interact with any kind of a
12 vehicle. It says in the report that the Staffbelieves that the majority of cyclists will learn to use
13 Alma. Do you really believe that? If not, where are they going to go? Other speakers have
14 addressed that point. They will undoubtedly do unsafe things or things that we don’t want them
15 to do. So I encourage you to go back and find a different solution than this one that is proposed.
16 I cannot support this one. I would not be able to encourage it and the burden would be upon the
17 City to promote the use of this undercrossing and to educate people on how to use it because I
18 couldn’t do that as the Paly Traffic Safety Chair. To me the only safe way to move the bicycles
19 from the tunnel to Downtown is with bike lanes or some way of specifically accommodating the
20 bicycles, I think it is far better to lose forever ten highly prized parking spaces than to lose one
21 teenager. Thank you.
22
City of Palo Alto Page 74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Chair Griffin: Thank you. I am closing the public hearing now and bringing the discussion back
to the Commission. Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Can we ask a few questions of Staff at this time?
Chair Griffin: Please.
Vice-Chair Cassel: My understanding is that there are eight parking spaces along Homer at the
south side of that street. Are the~e alternative ways to park those cars?
Mr. Kott: There is a public parking facility, which will be available in about a year as part of the
800 High project. It is possible to consider those spaces as being alternatives to the spaee~ that
would be lost on eurbside since they would be available for public use. But there will be a time
lag between any removal of parking and the availability of the new public parking in the
structure at 800 High.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Related to that, is you used a contraflow lane how would you keep people
from parking in that lane?
Mr. Kott: Well, we would have a legend and we would have signs. We would very likely want
to color or tint the lane particularly with the view to making the lane highly visible to the exiting
drivers from the alleyway between 800 High and Ole’s garage. It is not to say that there may not
be scoff laws but it is unlikely we would experience very much of that.
CiO) of Palo Alto Page 75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Mr. Sfillman: I can follow up on that. One of the cities I spoke with, I think it was Eugene but I
am 100% sure, they did have a problem with (,ehicles using the contraflow bike lane for parking
at a six foot wide contraflow bike lane. When they narrowed it to five feet the problem went
away.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lip.pe~: First I should state for the record that I was contacted by a member of
the public, Paul Goldstein, and I did listen to his comments and concerns. I have a couple of
questions for you. I withheld my questions until the public had a chance to speak. In doing your
analysis here did you take into account the new Summerhill projects that would be coming
online and the added traffic from those new housing units?
Mr. Stillman: The traffic that was used in the evaluation, the analysis used the existing traffic
levels in the evaluation. So if you include Summerhill affects there may be some additional
delay, degradation from what I had shown in my analysis.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Did you take a look at 800 High Street and what additional loads
there would be with regard to traffic from the 800 High Street project?
Mr. Stillman: No, again it was existing traffic conditions:
City of Palo Alto Page 76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Commissioner Lippert: Okay. With the number of people that live in SROs they are more
prevalent to actually, use bicycles than they are to use automobiles did you take a look at the
added load of people that would be living in the Opportunity Center that might be bicycling to
the Downtown?
Mr. Kott: We stand by our estimate about 600 bicyclists each weekday, bicycle trips and that is
considering the nature of the Downtown area.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay.
Chair Griffin: I see Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Following up on asking what you considered and what you didn’t
consider you may not be able to answer me on this but how long will it take you to do a thorough
study of the impacts of changing Homer and Channing to a two-way street given the fact that we
have senior citizens to deal with and the outreach to go to them with this additional traffic of the
Summerhill property users and all those various things?
Mr. Kott: I will start and David please feel free to add on. Dave’s analysis really suggests to me
that we really can’t do a partial conversion of Homer to two-way there is just that one block. If
we do a conversion it needs to be both Homer and Channing and it needs to be an extensive
section of each street. That also suggests to me and we need to do further analysis of that that we
will likely have to signalize Channing to accommodate those left turn movements onto .Channing
City of Palo Alto Page 77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
DRAFT
which wouId possibly be created if we made it a two-way street. My guess is we would need
another at least nine months of consultation, process, analysis and so forth before coming up
with a workable recommendation that is not only feasible but has adequate buy-in to implement.
Commissioner Bialson: One more follow up. How many units are going in between the 800
High and the Summerhill multiple family housing that is going in there now? I have a sense it is
going to be quite large but I don’t have a firm or approximate figure. Do you happen to have
that figure?
Mr. Kott: I am sure that my boss here, Stev.e Emslie, has one right at the tip of his tongue.
Mr. Emslie: If you count the units that are not yet occupied the second multi family phase is not
yet finished, Oak Court is not yet finished, 800 High is under construction. I would say probably
close to 200 units if not a little more.
Mr. Kott: Commissioner:Bialson, ifI may add on about this Homer/Channing conversion the
concerns about all the queuing and delay on Homer would really go away if we converted both
streets to two-way because we will have this queuing and delay bedause we will have only one
lane going in one direction and we will have three going in the westbound direction. So if we
have two and two it will balance and the traffic will just redistribute. There will be traffic that
will be going one lane eastbound on each street and one lane westbound on each street.
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Chair Griffin: Joe, I take it that at the moment we don’t have any plans to have signalized
intersections at Forest and Alma or at Addison ’and Alma and that is not even in long range
planning down the road or anything that is just not being looked at.
Mr. Kott: No it is not being looked at although we have considered it in the past and we will
consider again signalizing Channing particular in conjunction with this two-way conversion.
Chair Griffin: It seems to me building on some of the comments that other Commissioners have
made about the volume of new housing coming on stream and the additional passenger loads that
those streets will be expected to carry egress and ingress off of Alma Street has got to be a big
item for us.
Mr. Kott: One consideration on these one-way couplets is that they are convenient to getting out
of town so to speak but they are not very convenient to accessing properties. So as you have
more properties developing and redeveloping and more trips internal to the neighborhood then
you really are better off having two-way streets because it means you can access properties from
both directions.
Chair Griffin: I am agreeing to that and I am saying likewise that signalizing additional
intersections along the Alma corridor would facilitate people being able to make safe turns out of
the Downtown area.
Mr. Kott: Absolutely, yes. The left turns out and left turns in, yes.
City of Palo Alto Page 79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
!5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Chair Griffin: I did see Lee first and then Bonnie.
Commissioner Lippert: With regards to Whole Foods Market have you given any thought to
allow for truck loading and unloading along the curb during restricted hours?
Mr. Kott: Yes, we have given that some thought. We did some analysis quite awhile ago on
alternative loading zones for Whole Foods. Our understanding in conversing with Whole Foods
is that the alley itself is not adequate as a loading area there needs to be some curbside loading.
So we looked at the possibility of creating some curbside dedicated loading zones on Emerson as
well as on Homer. There are some issues about how convenient that might be. For example if it
is on Emerson it is really kind of opposite where they want to do their loading into that is why
we need to have a lot more dialogue with them so we can come up with a solution that is a
win/win solution.
Commissioner Lippert: With that curbside loading there would un-obstruet that main
thoroughfare on Homer, is that correct?
Mr. Kott: Yes, absolutely.
Commissioner Lippert: We wouldn’t see a doubling up of trucks that are parked along the curb
and then double parked in the street would we?
City of Palo Alto Page 80
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Mr. Kott: No. We are not that comfortable with double-parking when you have a lot of
pedestrians around for obvious reasons. We would like to eliminate the double-parking if
possible.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: This just raises a question about whether we do engineering of traffic
patterns based on the convenience of retail establishments and weigh that against the safety of
pedestrians and bicyclists. You don’t have to answer that I just want to point that out that we are
talking about the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists not the convenience of loading stuff into
stores. My question is about of the alternatives one and two which of those would be the segue
into before a full two-conversion of Homer and Channing?
Mr. Kott: We would not wish to do a partial conversion because of our concerns of it being
untenable just untenable in terms of traffic loadings. The contraflow lane would seem to be the
reasonable alternative to our recommendation. We would likely convert the contraflow lane into
a regular bike lane later if we have a two-way conversion or eliminate the contraflow lane later if
we have a two-way of Homer and a two-way of Channing.
Chair Griffin: I am going to start making comments here. I am persuaded that the Staff
recommendation might be further complicated by the fact that the northbound Alma Street
routing that you are talking about is also in addition to being complicated and non-intuitive at
least as far as I am concerned and apparently from what some of the people here are saying is
City of Palo Alto Page 81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
also an uphill grade. I am wondering if any Staff members actually bicycled that section. I
presume you did. You did do that. All right.
Mr. Kott: David and I have, yes.
Chair Griffin: And you fellows are not the occasional bikers to be sure. Nevertheless I am
having a hard time imagining what it would be like coming out of that tunnel and being faced
with what I am going to call a trick signal gyration. I am just wondering how many people are
really going to click on what it is that they are supposed to do. I am wondering can you speak in
defense of your recommendation in terms of signage or is there going to be.something that is
pretty easily assimilated to allow people to know what to do?
Mr. Kott: First we would like to’ say that the people who spoke against the recommendation are
among the most enlightened people we deal with and we are very glad that they recognize that
we usually don’t disagree with them. Visualize this intersection as being what it wilibe, it will
be an all walk. All vehicles will stop. It will be a dead zone for vehicles and it will be a clear
zone for bicycles and pedestrians. With really quite a bit of time to clear that intersection and to
make substantial progress along Alma to make a right turn if you are going in that direction on
Forest.
There are a lot of good reasons to disagree with us and you have heard all of them tonight, I
think. The fact is bicyclists who are considering going straight, that is eastbound, are facing
oncoming traffic or will soon face oncoming traffic. We just don’t think bicyclists will do that
Ci~ of Palo Alto Page 82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I7
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
and both David and I are bicyclists and not only David and I but also others on our staff are quite
active bicyclists but it is a matter of a difference of opinion. It is a genuinely valid difference
that people have with us on this. We do have some concerns about this contraflow bike lane
although it is a very intriguing idea and we are well ~ware that it is used in other communities
around the country and in Europe. Although it is not common as we all know as drivers and as
bicyclists. We are concerned about the first implementation. Bicyclists and drivers will really
have to be quite a bit aware that there is something counterintuitive happening. Bicyclists
making that left tuna from Homer from the curbside contraflow bike lane at Homer onto High
will have to face this opposing traffic. Drivers may not be cognizant of them necessarily as they
look straight ahead toward Alma. So we have some concerns about that. We don’t think that
that’s a showstopper and we are really intrigued by the contraflow idea. We had a vigorous
debate on Staff, Commissioner Griffin, as you know our Staffis not united on this one we have
had a very passionate dissent on our Staff but we think the minimum feasible action is prudent
and then we will definitely evaluate the situation and then come up with an alternative as we
need to. A likely alternative would be a contraflow bike lane in the shorter term. In the longer
term it would be a conversion of both streets to two-way operation.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie has a follow up.
Commissioner Packer: Had you considered having the contraflow bike lane for that one block
and keeping High Street one-way which would encoiarage bicyclists, it may take a little bit
longer, but to just go that one block to Channing and make a left to Channing and then another
left up on Emerson to go up north? That way they don’t have to make a left turn where all that
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
DRAFT
stuff is happening at Homer and there is less traffic and it is less congested down near Channing.
That might be one way and if you kept High Street going southbound then the bicyclists couldn’t
turn left there and it would be a little bit circuitous but it would be a little safer. I might even do
it.
Mr. Kott: Commissioner Packer that is a good point. We did as David said there are some
permutations on these three alternatives that we considered and that was one of them. I think we
were concerned about violating some driver expectations. You would have a couple of
transitions that drivers would have to make not just one from a two-way street to a one-way
street but there would be a two.-way street and then as I understand it to a ....
Commissioner Packer: I wasn’t recommending changing any of the, if you have the contra not
changing the direction on High Street, you are not changing any of the auto traffic.
Mr. Kott: I tmderstand, y~s.
Commissioner Packer: All you are doing is putting in this protected contra bike lane and the
only thing that cyclists could do when they reach High Street is to turn right and then depending
on where they want to go, go south or they can go down Channing and up Emerson or wherever
to get wherever they want to go Downtown.
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Mr. Kott: Forgive me I was turned around. Yes, we did consider that and it is feasible. It would
mean that cyclists would go the extra block, a block up and a block back, and that is just a time
cost to cyclists.
Chair Griffin: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: In looking at scheme number three, the contraflow bike lane, did you
consider reversing direction of the one-way alley as a safety measure?
Mr. Kott: I may have to ask David to jump in but we did not consider that. I am trying to reach
now about why we recommended the one-way alley to begin with going northbound. It has to be
one-way because it is not adequate width for a two-way operation.
Chair Griffin: As I recall it had to do with the hardware store and access to their alleyway
loading docks.
Mr. Stillman: Yes, it is the hardware store as well as Ole, everybody in that block had a
preference for a one-way northbound and there was no reason at the time to do otherwise.
Commissioner Lippert: I have one other follow up question on that. With regard to the
automobile services in that area they currently take up all the parking spaces when they are
working on servicing automobiles and they also take up the sidewalk as well. Is there a way to
have them relocate those to other spaces?
City of Palo Alto Page 85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Mr. Kott: As David said, one driveway at the BMW, the one nearest to Alma would have to be
closed. So that will enforce a little bit more discipline on the sidewalk encroachment problem.
They use up all their surface space. It is kind of hard to see how to shrink down their need.
Hopefully they would use some of the public parking spaces at 800 High.
Chair Griffin: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: The substation, which is on Alma between Channing and Homer we
have plans to move that do we not?
Mr. Emslie: Yes.
Commissioner Bialson: When is that scheduled for?
Mr. Emslie: The engineering is proceeding. The CouneiI included the initial relocation cost in
this year’s CIP. It is viewed to be an 18 month period from now is the soonest it could be
relocated,
Commissioner Bialson: When it is relocated is that property going to be a possible alternative
for these businesses to use as access to their loading or as parking? Would it be something that
we could use to accommodate the businesses which are going to be harmed especially Palo Alto
Hardware? I am grabbing here because there is no good solution to this.
City of Palo Alto Page 86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Mr. Emslie: We didn’t see it as a permanent solution. If anything it might be a temporary
between the time that the substation is relocated and such time as an affordable housing project
may be initiated on that site which we do hope would be fairly closely following the relocation
of the substation.
Commissioner Bialson: I hear your comments and what I am looking at here is we have a period
of time until we can fully vet this issue of a full two-lane for both Channing and Homer and have
the outreach, the education, etc., get people at Channing House to understand, get seniors to
understand that we are ehanging things and understand the fulI impact of these 200 units that are
going in. There is a time lag here and if we can give with one hand which is the possible use of
that site for the period of time that it would take to do the full study and prepare people for the
change to a two-way on those two streets, which I think is ultimately going to be what happens,
it makes it far more appealing for the business owners near there. So Steve, can you see how
that might work during this sort of period of upheaval where we deal with the tunnel being there,
it is going to be there no matter what we do, and finally getting to an ultimate solution?
Mr. Emslie: I think that there is a possibility for some interim use of that but I do think that the
parking will be more convenient in the new structure adjacent to these sites and we do have full
use of the top level of parking, over 60 spaces, and certainly that offers some alternatives as well
as a way to program those parking spaces that might address retail and auto service needs as
well. Those are probably more deliverable than the substation site.
Ci(y of Palo Alto Page 87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Commissioner Bialson: I am not concerned about parking I am concerned about delivery trucks
and businesses having to deal with how they get deliveries during a period of time when w( are
going through this process.
Chair Griffin: My own thought is I am leaning toward the eontraflow alternative. I am
wondering if other Commissioners want to get out on the limb and offer different opinions. It
looks like that produced some. Phyllis.
Vice-Chair Cassel: I wasn’t going to offer a different opinion. My sense is to go with the
eontraflow. I think the first thing we have to face is the plan for this street and Channing was to
be two-way. We did hold public hearings at the Planning Commission level on this subject some
time back. I can’t now remember which project it was we were working on, SOFA, yes, we did
have very strong objections from Channing House and from Whole Foods, Pete’s and from the
owners of those properties. But it still needs to be worked on. There is nothing in my view that
indicates another solution is better it just means we are going to have to work on solutions for
those properties. That is going to take some time in the meantime we have to find a short-term
solution to this issue and soon, not in 18 months. So I guess my sense is that I prefer going with
the eontraflow with these suggestions that you have been making that include signage, coloring
the road, special lines, possibly marking a berm on it, whether that is safe or not I don’t know
and making some accommodations for those eight parking spaces that would be special and
interim while we have to do this. That is the direction I think I would like to move.
Chair Griffin: Lee, I saw you next.
City of Palo Alto Page 88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Commissioner Lippert: I think that the plan here, the Staff Report, is somewhat flawed. I think
that has come out in my line of questioning. What it does is it really looks at it in a very, very
small area and really doesn’t take into account much larger problems or impacts on this
intersection. I can see this potentially being a real traffic jam and a mess going with the Staff
recommendations. You are going to have bicyclists, you are going to have automobiles, you are
going to have more automobiles, you are going to have trucks, you are going to have pedestrians
and they are all going to be coming together at different times of the day, at different rates and
different flows. This is going to go from something that is a very quiet and benign sort of
intersection into something that is going to have a tremendous amount of activity along it, we
hope, because that is going to become a main connection from PAMF to Whole Foods. The
peopie who used to work at PAMF when it was located in the SOFA area are used to going to
Whole Foods. They like Whole Foods Market, they like Pete’s, they like going Downtown.
They are going to be looking forward to ways of being able to do that.
In addition to that we are going to be having a number of housing developments that are coming
online very quickly which the residents are going to want to be able to not only go to Whole
Foods but get out of the area pretty quickly to get to work. So I see large traffic impacts on
peopl~ wanting to get out to Alma Street and go either n~rth to Menlo Park or south to
Sunnyvale to get to work.
What I think has to happen here is a couple of things. Number one, we need to find the safest
solution that accommodates the bicyclists for the time being and I am leaning towards the
City of Palo Alto Page 89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
’19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
contraflow solution, however, I don’t think that’s the final solution. I think what the final
solution is is to do an anaIysis of what the overall impacts are going to be and look at whether we
change the flow of Homer, what it means to impact Whole Foods with regard to their loading
and unloading as well as Pete’s and the storage area as well as what it means to the automobile
business there. As you said yoursdfthis is a nine-month endeavor to be abIe to do that. Tonight
I think we find the best solution that will work and make a recommendation that it be put into
place for a year but within nine months we need to have a solution that is going to work for this
CO1TlrnlLllity.
Chair Griffin: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate everything that my fellow Commissioners have said but I
am going to respectfully disagree with them. I have great regard for Staff and the fact that so
many members of the public pointed out this is the only time they have had a disagreement
points to how difficult this situation is. I appreciate we got a grant, needed to deal with it
quickly, put in that tunnel quickly and that is what created this situation and I think we should all
be aware of that. What Staff is recommending is essentially a situation that while not the best
and which could be picked apart is what we can possibly do at this point in time so that we
accomplish moving forward on this pending a thorough study.
Mr. Emslie: I just want to offer a perspective. I think maybe we are looking at this as the two
choices that I think the Commission is grappling with right now. The Staff recommendation and
the contraflow are not exclusive and perhaps in a situation where we don’t have a clear choice in
City of Palo Alto Page 90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
terms of the safest alternative perhaps looking at the two as a blended, that you can have both,
you can change the signal timing and offer maybe a subtle choice perhaps bicyclists like Joe and
David who feel more comfortable using Alma would receive the maximum protection of the all-
way stop but you would also provide the choice for what we are hearing from the bicycle
community is the intuitive choice is to travel directly across Homer having that well marked and
having the safety improvements incorporated there. So perhaps that is another way ofloo .king at
it is that if we provide the maximum degree of safety that we know we can and not exclude one
or the other choice then perhaps we can appeal to the psychological behavior of individual
cyclists and making the safest choice for them. I think it is about expanding choice and that may
be one way to look at this.
Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate your comments and I will go on with where I was headed.
Part of what I was hearing was the fact that this would not be that attractive a route for bicyclists
with the eontraflow, with the signalization, etc. and my reaction to that is good. I think that at
the time we get our act together and have a full two-way or some better solution I don’t want to
necessarily attract a lot of bicyclists to this. I don’t think it is a safe solution. What we are
suggesting here or the co ,ntraflow I think what we have to do is recognize that we are going to be
having a lot of bicyclists here whether they come from the new units or they come from Stanford
finally getting a full connection, Paly students can continue taking Embarcadero for awhile. We
got this gift so to speak of the Homer tunnel and we got it a little earlier than what our Staff
resources were able to fully study this issue. So I have no problem and I see it as an advantage
that we are not attracting bicyclists at this time. If we do a contraflow I would like to see a
barrier there. I think that would be necessary. I would not like to impact the businesses but
City of Palo Alto Page 91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
maybe before 800 High is completed it won’t be that bad. I don’t know what the cost is for .
having the physical barrier but I do think that that is important. Not attracting bicyclists for a
matter of nine months or a year is fine. We might not have been able to get this ttmnel and we
would still be searching for a grant but having it not used very heavily for a period of time until
we get what I think is probably going to be the final solution, a two-way on Homer and
Channing and signalization, again fully studied is the route I would like to take. I am going to
vote for the Staff Report and if we do have some Commissioner desire for a contraflow I am
going to hold out to make sure that there is a physical barrier.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie.
MOTION
Commissioner Packer: Having listened to what people are saying I think I am going to take a
stab at a motion. I will do it in two parts. I am going to say the second half of the motion first
because I think it is very important. I wouldlike this Commission to recommend to City Council
to direct Staff with all due speed to study the conversion of Homer and Channing from one-way
to two-way for the full length and to make that a priority because it needs to be done now that we
have a tunnel. The second part of my motion is to recommend this temporary solution to the
eastbound bicycle traffic from the Homer tunnel. One, have the signal phasing as proposed
which allows an all-walk situation. I know there are some like that at the school sites, I know
there is one like that at Waverley in front of JLS where everything stops and everybody just
walks around. That would give the brave bicyclists the option if they want to go north on Alma
City of Palo Alto Page 92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
to do that but not to encourage that. Have a contraflow lane with a barrier for the first block with
all the signage and neon flashing lights, everything to warn people of this change and to really
consider not encouraging bicyclists to make a left turn on High but to keep High one-way for
now and I think that would make it a little bit safer so that bicyclists can get a little bit extra
exercise by going around these short blocks. If they want to go north they can go down over to
Emerson via Channing and this way they can also go south. I believe that is my motion.
Chair Griffin: Let’s see if you pick up a second.
SECOND
Commissioner Bialson: I will second.
Chair Griffin: Does the maker wish to discuss her motion further?
Commissioner Packer: Yes, I will. I would like to say in 2002 the option of studying the one-
way conversion to two-way was there but for whatever reason we didn’t take advantage of
pursuing that and I feel that was a lost opportunity. So we have lost another nine months to a
year before that can happen. But it seems to me that for some of the reasons that Joe said two-
way traffic on all the streets that make up the grid of Downtown is the only way to go, it is the
safe way to go. The two-way traffic is really a form of traffic calming. Channing is crazy when
people are speeding down there. I think if the senior at Channing House had a two-way street to
deal with they wouldn’t be as concerned because the traffic would be calmer. We need to plan
City of Palo Alto Page 93
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
our traffic pattems with regard to the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists and a sub
issue is the convenience of the businesses. They can adapt. I don’t think that should be a factor
in our consideration.
As to the eontraflow proposal I guess that is the only thing on the table that we can deal with
right now. You have to have something for those bicyclists to go into when they come out of
that tunnel. They are going to be raring to go and it is the best thing we can do right now. In my
mind it is clearly a temporary solution before we have the full two-way conversion.
Chair Griffin: Seconder.
Commissioner Bialson: Thank you. There is no good solution here and a lot of people are going
to be unhappy and maybe if we make everybody unhappy it means we got a good solution here.
I agree with most of what Bonnie said. I disagree with regard to the businesses will
accommodate to this. I think it is up to the City to assure that the businesses will get all the
consideration, suggestions, bending over backwards use of City property, whatever is necessary
to assure that delivery vehicles and parking, of secondary importance, are maintained and
honored. It is not merely a convenience to these businesses that they have use of whether it be
the street or whatever the alley for their deliveries. We can’t after approving 800 High say to the
hardw~e store and to others we got you once and we are going to get you again. It has been a
year so maybe they will have forgotten. We are trying to keep businesses in this town and I
think they can see that death by a thousand cuts may be occurring here. I am concerned that we
recognize that the reason we did not study the two-way is because there were a lot of other items
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
I0
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
that were City Council directed to have a hirer priority such as Charleston and various other
things. It is not up to us to determine what the workload of Staff is and that may come up again.
All we can do is say that we think it is important this be fully studied and I don’t think a nine
month period, Joe, as well as most of your approximations are is enough time on this one. I
think what we are looking at is more like a one year to 18 month for purposes of gauging what
the full effect of the development of those 200 units is going to be, in making sure that we
accommodate the needs of the businesses and recognize that things happen and your workloads
are going to be tinkered with. So don’t give people a false expectation of a nine-month period of
time that is unrealistic. I think I have gone on long enough.
Chair Griffin: I would like to ask for a clarification of the motion. Bonnie, as I understand it the
first part is to encourage a examination for make Homer and Channing two-way, the second part
was to approve the Staff Recommendation for an all-point stop signal phase as per the Staff
recommendation and the third part had to do with High Street traffic direction. Did you say that
you wanted to have High Street be a two-way street as the Staff has recommended in their
contraflow scheme or did you say something else?
Commissioner Packer: What I said was I support having a contraflow lane, a designated lane
with a physical barrier like a little raised curb to make it really clear and protect the bicyclists
and keep the cars out of it and unlike the Staffrecommendation that would change those two
streets of High Street to two-way to keep it one-way for now so that bicyclists when they come
to the comer of Homer and High are not encourage to turn left, to go north, because of all that
vehicle congestion that is going to be at that intersection.
City of Palo Alto Page 95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18.
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Chair Griffin: I would like to pose a friendly amendment, which is that in fact I would support
the main body of your motion except for keeping High Street one-way, i would like to support
the Staff idea of allowing the bicycle traffic as it comes to High Street to either go left or right.
Commissioner Packer: Maybe that is something that could be fiarther studied. I really don’t
know. I am not a traffic engineer. I don’t know really which would be best. Maybe the
bicyclists would make the choice depending on the situation and that would work too. The
bicyclist would make his or her own safety choice.
Chair Griffin: But if the traffic only can turn to the right they can’t make that choice.
Commissioner Packer: What I could do is I could amend my motion to have Staff consider the
possibility of keeping it one-way and I am okay with your recommendation that we do two-way
but if the Staff decides on further consideration the one-way is okay too after maybe talking
more with PABAC about what would work. I just thought it might be a little safer but if we can
give more opportunities to bicyclists, it is not a strong issue with me’is what I am saying.
Chair Griffin: Seconder?
Commissioner Bialson: I have a real problem with it and my problem is that I see this as an
interim solution. The more you change around streets the more you are going to confuse drivers.
To change it to a two-way and then want to change it back to a one-way I think all changes
Cit~ of Palo Alto Page 96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14’
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
should be made at one time.. I see this as an interim solution and I think that adding this
language that you are suggesting would sort of go against the thrust of this being a temporary
measure. So I would not accept the addition of that language because I think it is dangerous both
for the pedestrians, the bicyclists and you are going to have a lot more collisions there.
Chair Griffin: All right. I saw Phyllis next.
SUBSTITUTE MOTION
Vice-Chair Cassel: Okay, let me try a substitute motion in which we will include all of what
Bonnie wanted except that we make High two-way as per the Staff recommendation.
SECOND
Chair Griffin: I would second that.
Vice-Chair Cassel: Do you want me to talk to that?
Chair Griffin: Yes.
Vice-Chair CasseI: I support the contraflow as a temporary measure with the phasing that allows
people to go north as Steve has suggested. It needs all Of the protections that it has and it needs
some lining. As a kid I was taught to take my bike and my walking opposite the traffic. So it
City of Palo Alto Page 97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
DRAFT
isn’t for me so contra-intuitive. I did this because out of safety on roads that had no sidewalks
and were naturally narrower than most of our city streets it was the way you found out if there
was a ear coming at you so you could get out of the way. So it isn’t contra-intuitive for me.
What is eontra-intuitive is it is on the left side instead of the fight so I was really walking down
where the bicycles are going the other direction. We talked about having special bike’lanes on
Charleston that are colored. We have plans in place for how that can be done. When we get to
the intersection what we can do is mark that intersection the same way we would make a turn
lane or down on Charleston as we have been talking about how to handle some of those roads.
So we may be able to mark fight across the intersection that there is a bicycle tum lane there.
People, if they are going to be forced to go south on High are not going to go down to Channing
they are going to go through the Whole Foods parking lot in order to go north and that is not
going to be a good solution either for the bicyclists or for Whole Foods. That is not fair to them.
So I think it will be better to go north. Now there are some other people who have discussed the
fact that they think it will negatively impact their business if the traffic goes two ways. This way
when people come in they can come in Channing and go north on High to get to the businesses
along High and north of High. So people have more than one way to get to them instead of
having to go all the way up to Forest and then back down south. There are other alternatives for
people to reach the road on High, which is typical of all over town where we have two-way
streets. The plan anyway was to make High Street two-way from Homer to Channing and I do
not remember what the decision was as to where we would start that one-way but there was in
the plan conversion of at least part of that and it doesn’t necessarily have to change back.
City of Palo Alto Page 98
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Chair Griffin: I support this motion as’seconder because I think that it does allow bicyclists to
have a choice. When they exit the tunnel they have a choice of either taking the contraflow lane
and going up to High Street and then making a decision as to how to deal with that intersection
or if they are more experienced bicyclists like Joe and other members of the Staff turn left and
stay on Alma Street. That wouldn’t appeal to me but I am not a very experienced bicyclist. So
the eontraflow lane looks like the safe and sane way for me to go but I can certainly appreciate
that other people would rather be risky-frisky and use Alma Street. The next part of it is once
you get to the end of the contraflow lane you then need to be able to make a choice of going
either north or south and to me the Staffrecommendation here of two-waying High Street makes
sense to me. The third aspect would be to as soon as practicable for Staff to start getting into a
study of reconfiguration for this one-way couplet that we have facing us at’Channing and Homer.
I think at that stage I will stop and move to the next person in line, Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: Thank you. Your amendment with regard to High Street isn’t going to
keep me from voting in support of this motion. I think what the real concern that I have is
similar to Commissioner Bialson which is that this is an interim solution and so we are very
quickly moving in a direction where we are making such recommendations that are going to
become institutionalize, everybody is going to feel very comfortable with this and it is still going
to be ignoring the elephant in the room. These two streets, Channing and Homer, have been
studied and studied and over studied. It was part of the SOFA II working group, which
convened and met for over a year and a half and looked at this. It was part of 800 High Street,
which has been looked at even longer. It has been part of the Summerhill study and the final
recommendations with regard to their rezoning and their apartments. It has been in just about
City of Palo Alto Page 99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
every singIe discussion, every single project that has happened in the SOFA area over the last six
years. It is finally time that Staffmake the time in an expeditious manner to finally study both
Homer and Channing and make the final recommendations as to what is going to happen there. I
think it was very short sighted that over a year ago the ARB as well as several other Boards
made their recommendations on the Homer tunnel and at that point it was vocalized that it was to
be a bieyele tunnel as well as pedestrian and that it wasn’t dealt with at that time either. So I will
support the recommendation but I think that there really needs to be some serious time and effort
put into completing the Homer and Channing Street plans.
Chair Griffin: Commissioner Bialson.
Commissioner Bialson: I support everything that Commissioner Lippert said and I thought it
was very well put, however I want to add something naturally. I think that we have to make a
study of this area as a whole and making sort of spot solutions, sort of hints of spot zoning, I just
don’t think it is a good idea to sit there and to talk about the impact on businesses, on drivers,
etc. we sound like traffic engineers and I don’t think we are there yet. I don’t think we have the
b.ackground to make those sorts of assumptions and analyses. So I want to leave this to Staff to
do, recognizing this is an interim solution. I think once you start tinkering just as Lee indicated it
starts looking a little more institutionalized and that is not going to encourage Council to make
this a high priority and allow Staffto spend the time necessary to study this area as a whole. So I
am going to continue to support Bonni’e’s original motion.
Chair Griffin: Bonnie, your comments on the substitute motion.
City of Palo Alto Page 100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
DRAFT
Commissioner Packer: Well, I agree with everything that Lee and Annette said about the status
of Homer and Channing and what needs to be done and that we should have been looking at this
in a broader perspective. We have to do something tonight to deal with those bicycles that are
going to come pouring out of the tunnel. So we have to do something. Even though I did
recommend keeping High Street one-way after listening to the other comments on that I think I
will support the substitute motion for this additional reason. I really would like us to get rid of
these one-way streets including High. If we change High to two-way and we find that for those
two blocks the businesses that are used to one-way learn to get used to two-way again it may set
a good example for hopefully the future conversion of Homer and Channing. So I will now
support the substitute motion, which in essence changes my original idea for those reasons.
MOTION PASSED (4-1-0-2, Commissioner Bialson opposed, Commissioners Holman and Burr
absent.)
Chair Griffin: We will vote on this item then. All those in favor of Phyllis’s substitute motion
say aye. (ayes) Opposed? (nay) That item does carry with Commissioner Bialson opposed.
And Commissioner Bialson has a comment.
Commissioner Bialson: For the record since we have been asked by Council when we have this
type of split vote to explain the minority position. Again, I want this to go to Staff to make the
decisions with regard to how certain streets should be. I do see this as an interim solution. I
City of Palo Alto Page 101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
DRAFT
think we are creating a trap for bicyclists who use this tunnel until we figure out what the heck
we do with regard to finalizing this and if it appears to bicyclists that we are changing streets,
etc. we are going to be representing that this is a safer route than I think it is. So I think it is
dangerous and I wouldn’t want Paly’s Traffi~ Coordinator encourage students to use this until we
get this right. Whenever that occurs that would be great with me. I appreciate all the effort that
Staffhas put into this and I realize it has been very difficult for you. Thank you.
Chair Griffin: Thank you colleagues for your hard work tonight. This has been a darn difficult
decision to make and I hope we made the right decision and it has indeed been a good
discussion. So that takes us to the end of item number three and to the remaining part of our
agenda.
I have a question of the City Attorney. Normally, our agendas provide an item called
Commissioner Comments and I notice that on this agenda tonight we don’t have that item. Does
that mean that we are forbidden to make Commissioner Comments if it is not on the agenda?
Mr. Sodergren: No. Under the Brown Act you can still make those types of comments even
though it is not listed on the agenda.
Chair Griffin: I will start offwith the first comment, which is to reiterate what I have said the
last few meetings. These agendas are still not calming down. They seem to be inconsistent to
me and have errors in them and I am just pointing out that here is another opportunity for
City of Palo Alto Page 102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
DRAFT
tightening it up and if supervision is needed to bring that about then I encourage supervision to
devote the time and effort to get it done. That is number one.
I have another Commissioner that wanted to make a comment and I .will recognize
Commissioner Bialson.
Commissioner Bialson: I hope there isn’t a meter rurtning on this microphone because this is
more than I usually speak. I just wanted to say that I had been contacted by a representative of
the developer with regard to a project I think is scheduled for August 11. What I told that person
was that it was now the policy of the Planning and Transportation Commissioners not to speak
separately or meet separately with a proponent or a member of the public who is a proponent. I
just wanted to make sure tha( that still is our policy as we expressed it at our retreat I think twice.
Is that correct? I just wanted fellow Commissioners to let me kn6w ifI am wrong in that.
Chair Griffin: That is my recollection that we are to discourage developers and others from
providing input outside of this room.
The final comment I have has to do with the sound system which I again am having a hard time
with and would encourage management to talk with the IT people and see if in particular that
public microphone can be adjusted so as to avoid the booming type of background reverb that at
least I am hearing.
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 103
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
DRAFT
Mr. Emslie: Maybe we could get a time where we could set the room up and have you and the
IT staffhere and we can get it adjusted to the right level. So maybe we could set that up if we set
up a time next week to do that I think that would be good.
Chair Griffin: That is a great suggestion and I do appreciate you making it.
There is no approval of minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: None.
Chair Griffin: Our next meeting will be a regular meeting on August 11.
Vice-Chair Cassel: No.
Chair Griffin:
agenda.
So we have a special meeting on August 4 not August 11 as it is written on the
NEXT MEETING: Special Meeting of August 4, 2004.
Commissioner Lippert: It is posted on the door as well.
Chair Griffin: That is fine, I would like it in the agenda as well. I declare this meeting
adjourned.
ADJOURNED: 9:50p.m.
CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 104