HomeMy WebLinkAboutCMR 304-09 ATTCITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
July 27, 2009
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: July 27, 2009
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 304:09
SUBJECT: Initiation of: (1) a Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial (CN)
District to Planned Community (PC) District for a mixed use project having
61,960 square feet of floor area, including 8,000 square feet of grocery
(intended for JJ&F Market), 5,580 square feet of other retail, 14 affordable
one-bedroom residential units, 39,980 square feet of office use, and two
levels of below-grade parking facilities and surface parking facilities
providing 227 parking spaces located at 2180 EI Camino Real; and (2) a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign the Mixed Use land use
designation to a site currently designated as Neighborhood Conlmercial
BACKGROUND:
The item described above was heard by the City Council on July 13,2009. The Council did not
complete its review of the item and continued consideration to July 27, 2009.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff continues to recommend that the City Council initiate the Planned Community (PC)
process, but that the Council forward the proj ect to the Planning and Transportation Commission
(PTC) for review and recommendation, to be followed by Architectural Review Board (ARC)
review and recommendation, and then review and final action by the City Council. The standard
zoning process would require ARB review prior to PTC review, but in this case PTC review may
be preferred to allow for more input on the land use and intensity issues of concern in advance of
the ARB's design review. The Council may also provide direction to the PTC and ARB
regarding development parameters, such as those pertaining to the land use mix, maximum floor
area, and parking.
Staff responses have been provided to the questions posed by Council member Kishimoto prior
to the July 13,2009 City Council hearing (Attachment A).
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Interim Director of Planning and
Community Environment
ATTACHMENTS:
JAMES KEENE
City Manager
Attachment A: Staff responses to Council Member Kishimoto' s questions
Attachment B: CMR from July 13, 2009 and attachments
COURTESY COPIES
Linda Poncini, Carrasco Associates
Tony Carrasco, Carrasco Associates
Patrick Smailey, The Chilcote Trust
Andrew Gregg
Robin Kennedy
William D. Ross
Fred Balin
Greg Tanaka
Susan Rosenberg
..
Attachment A
Councilmember Kishimoto Questions (7/13/09):
1. What discussion was there over keeping College Terrace frontage as a
neighborhood commercial area?
Staff Response: There has been a great deal of discussion between staff and the applicant
and with the Planning and Transportation Commission over this issue. The site could be
redeveloped under the Neighborhood Commercial (CN) regulations but the applicant
asserts that if it is developed under the CN zoning the neighborhood grocery store would
not be able to afford the rental cost of any newly created retail space and would not be
able to return to the site. Many residents of the community have stated that the retention
of the neighborhood market is very important. The flexibility of the PC is proposed to
allow the higher amount of office as the financial driver to allow the property owner to
offer affordable rental rates to the neighborhood market so it could remain on site. The
larger amount of office floor area is not typical of the Neighborhood Commercial zoning
but with the PC, it is intended to be used to preserve the neighborhood serving grocery
store. If the question is more specific to the College Terrace frontage (Staunton Court),
the site is probably too narrow to just focus the neighborhood retail along that street and
the neighborhood prefers vehicle access from EI Camino. The storefronts would not have
good visibility from EI Camino, however, which would also be a detriment.
2. How has Milk Pail in Mountain View worked in terms of the rent they pay) the
low-cost structure that houses them) city purview of permits vs. any support from
that shopping center?
Staff Response: The property is owned by the Milk Pail store owner. They pay no rent.
The City of Mountain View has taken no action to discourage or encourage the
existence of the store. There is no City program that provides economic
assistance to the store. There are only 5 or 6 parking spaces on site and according
to the city of Mountain View they are grandfathered for a deficiency of
approximately 20 to 40 spaces. There is a private parking agreement between the
Milk Pail and the adjacent shopping center, but it is unknown if the Milk Pail
provides any financial compensation for the spaces it uses or how many spaces
they are allocated through the agreement. Mountain View has no involvement
with this agreement. Because the parking deficiency is grandfathered they did not
require it.
3. What is their square footage)' any contribution they pay if any towards the
common parking?
Staff Response: Staff was not able to obtain that information, but will endeavor to have it
available at the Council meeting.
4. Please share any other incentive system to recruit or keep groceries. I sent Steve
the NYC proposal for Fresh stores.
Staff Response: Staff is not aware of other localities that provide incentives for grocery
stores, other than financial incentives in redevelopment areas. There is not a reason why,
however, Palo Alto could not provide either FAR bonuses for grocery stores or limit
housing on CN sites unless a minimum size grocery is provided, or other possible
incentives. Most of these, however, would have the effect of intensifying a site, which
could be objectionable to area neighbors.
5. Please provide overall zoning map and strategy for that area of town isn't that
entire area CN zoned, intending to provide neighborhood services?
Staff Response: Please see the zone map image included as Attachment B of the Planning
and Transportation Commission staff report, attached to the July 13 CMR. The block
that comprises the project area is zoned CN, part of a 4-block stretch ofCN on the west
side frontage ofEI Camino Real. A Two Unit Multiple-Family Residential District with
a Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (RMD (NP)) is located just behind the
project to the northwest. There are CN and R-2 zones across the street on the east side of
EI Camino Real and Community Commercial (CC) just to the southeast across EI
Camino Real. Commercial Service (CS) zoning is also located in close proximity on EI
Camino Real.
6. El Camino guidelines also apply: what is the gist of these? Isn't the 12 foot
sidewalk setback required why would it count as rent for JJ&F?
Staff Response: The project is subject to meeting the EI Camino Guidelines. The intent
of the Guidelines is to assist in the transfonnation of the EI Camino Real from a regional
highway to a more attractive suburban arterial. The objectives of the guidelines are to:
• Support land uses that locate higher density development adjacent to transit nodes,
and provide a compatible mix of uses in aesthetically pleasing, well sited buildings.
• Create an identity that is specific to South Palo Alto.
• Encourage design that complements the streetscape concept and attracts additional
private investment.
• Ensure a healthy and vibrant market for new development projects, both large and
small.
The 12 foot setback is a guideline within the EI Camino Real Guidelines and is not a code
requirement. The 12 foot sidewalk is typically imposed as it is on this project. JJ&F or
any other grocery market would not be allowed to use any part of the 12 foot wide
sidewalk for sales and service and staff assumes would therefore not pay rent for any area
of the 12 foot wide sidewalk. The concept as presented at this point has the sidewalk
merging right into the open air portion of the proposed market. The market may be asked
to pay rent on the open area used for sales and service that is not encumbered by the 12
foot public sidewalk.
7 . Would site and design be part of the process under a mixed use proj ect (as
alternative to PC)?
Staff Response: No, the Site and Design Process would not be an alternative to the
Planned Community (PC) process. The Site and Design process does not allow for
changes to the zoning limitations. The project as proposed does not comply with the
limitations within the CN zone district, and thus a PC process is necessary.
8. Could there be a deed restriction that would require office workers need to pay
separately for parking and/or eco-pass or GO-Pass to be provided?
Staff Response: The Planned Community (PC) ordinance may require that Ecopasses or
GO-Passes be provided for workers and that such provisions be incorporated into lease
agreements and/or CC&Rs (if there are any). A deed restriction generally applies to the
land, not to the tenants. A parking cash-out or pay-for-parking requirement could be a
requirement of a transportation demand management (TDM) program, if the Council
determined to include such a requirement in the PC conditions.
9. Ground-floor retail ordinance -would the grandfathering of required retail go
away if this becomes a PC?
Staff Response: The CN zoning regulations do not currently "require retail" but rather
prevent certain uses, including retail, from being converted to office at the ground floor.
The section of the code (Section 18.16.050 Office Use Restrictions) that prevents the
conversion of ground floor retail to office would no longer apply since the zone district
would be a PC and not CN. As proposed, the PC is designed for a specific amount of
retail space within the project. The protection for retail space could be much stronger
with the PC than under the current zoning depending on what the Council decides they
wish to include in the PC ordinance.
10. CUP for medical or intensive night traffic (regional restaurant, bar) council
could keep control over these under all circumstances?
Staff Response: Medical office has a higher trip generation rate than office uses and is
not proposed in the projects. The PC ordinance will specify permitted and conditionally
permitted uses, and medical offices would not be an allowed use. Restaurant use would
require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the service of alcohol, but is otherwise a
permitted use in the CN zone and as proposed for the PC. The parameters or allowances
for any of these uses may be limited by the PC ordinance.
CITY OF PALO ALTO
Memorandum
ATTACHMENT B
July 13, 2009
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER
July 13,2009
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMlVIUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 304:09
Initiation of: (1) a Zone Change from Neighborhood
Commercial (CN) District to Planned Community (PC) District
for a mixed use project having 61,960 square feet of floor area,
including 8,000 square feet of grocery (intended for JJ &F
Market), 5,580 square feet of other retail, 14 affordable one-
bedroom residential units, 39,980 square feet of office use, and
two levels of below-grade parking facilities and surface parking
facilities providing 227 parking spaces located at 2180 EI
Camino Real; and (2) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
assign the Mixed Use land use designation to a site currently
designated as Neighborhood Commercial
Staff has received and reviewed the recent (July 8, 2009) submittal information fronl the
project applicant, and recommends that Council approve alternative #3 in the City
Manager's Report, to initiate the Planned Community zoning and Comprehensive Plan
amendments for the project and forward the proposal to the Architectural Review Board
with the following direction:
1. Delete six below-market rate units and set aside that area for parking, open
space, and/or future expansion of the JJ&F (or other) Market;
2. Provide for on-site parking in compliance with the zoning ordinance, with
adjustments only for the remaining affordable housing units and for proximity
to transit for the office square footage, and considering "landscape reserve"
parking if feasible; and
3. Emphasize the pedestrian nature of the ground floor, sidewalk, outdoor market
area, and plaza features along E1 Camino Real to create an exemplary retail
frontage on that major boulevard.
The applicant's materials address several of the concerns raised by the Planning and
Transportation Commission, and include a letter of intent that better insures that the
market space will be reserved for and used by JJ &F market, a willingness to
accommodate expansions of the market, and increased parking spaces with reduced
parking demand. Staff believes that these changes are adequate to move the project on to
the ARB, while noting that ARB and Planning and Transportation Commission review is
still required and that modifications to the site planning and land use mixes and intensity
may be recommended by those bodies prior to final Council consideration of the Planned
Community zoning.
Other alternatives remain available to the City Council, as noted in the CMR, to either:
1. Accept the Commission's recommendation and vote not to initiate the
proposed amendments, requiring the applicant to then submit a new and
different application; or
2. Provide direction regarding development parameters, such as those pertaining
to land uses and maximum floor area, and suggest that the applicant modify the
project and direct the Commission to conduct a second preliminary review of a
modified project prior to forwarding the project to the ARB.
COURTESY COPIES
Linda Poncini, Carrasco Associates
Tony Carrasco, Carrasco Associates
Patrick Smailey, The Chilcote Trust
Andrew Gregg
Robin Kennedy
William D. Ross
Fred Balin
Greg Tanaka
Susan Rosenberg
JAN.iE$KEENE
CiJ,)!;Manager
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
JULY 13,2009
DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 304:09
REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: Initiation of: (1) a Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial
(CN) District to Planned Community (PC) District for a mixed use
project having 61,960 square feet of floor area, including 8,000 square
feet of grocery (intended for JJ&F Market), 5,580 square feet of other
retail, 14 affordable one-bedroom residential units, 39,980 square feet
of office use, and two levels of below-grade parking facilities and
. surface parking facilities providing 227 parking spaces located at 2180
EI Camino Real; and (2) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign
the Mixed Use land use designation to a site currently designated as
Neigh borhood Commercial.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This project entails requests for the initiation of a Planned Community Zone Change from
Neighborhood Commercial (CN) to Planned Community (PC) and a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to modify the land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use
for a site located at 2180 EI Camino Real. The proposal includes the construction of a mixed use
development with three buildings built over two levels of below grade parking with retail, office
and residential uses above. The key issue for consideration is the adequacy of the retention of
the neighborhood grocery store as a public benefit to offset the proposed amount of office square
footage. The Planning and Transportation Commission recommended denial of both requests at
its April 29, 2009 meeting.
The City Council has three primary options regarding the action it may take on this item. The
Council may: 1) decline to initiate the PC rezone request and the Comprehensive Plan
Amendment; or 2) provide direction and return the item back to the Commission for further
consideration before moving the item forward to the Architectural Review Board (ARB); or 3)
initiate the rezone request and Comprehensive Plan Amendment and forward the application to
the ARB.
CMR: 304:09 Page 1 of7
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommends that the City Council
decline to initiate the requested PC Rezone and Conlprehensive Plan Amendment. Staff
recommends that the City Council either:
1) Accept the Commission's recommendation and vote not to initiate the proposed
amendments and the applicant could then submit a different application; or
. 2) Provide direction regarding development parameters, such, as_ t.hQse pertaininK t9 ..land
uses and maximum floor area, that the City Council deems app.ropriate, suggest that the
applicant modify the project and direct the Commission to conduct a second preliminary"
review of a modified project prior to forwarding the project to the ARB; or
3) Initiate both requested anlendments and forward the project to the ARB, with direction to
the ARB and applicant regarding suggested changes (if any).
COUNCIL REVIEW AUTHORITY
Rezoning to a Planned Community (PC) district follows a unique set of procedures and standards
described in Chapter 18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Commission first reviews a
development program statement, plan, and schedule. If the Commission acts favorably, the
development plan, plot plan, landscape plan and design plans are submitted for Architectural
Review Board (ARB) review in the same manner as any commercial or mixed-use project. The
development plan recommended for approval by the ARB is then returned to the Commission,
together with a draft zoning ordinance, for its final review and recommendation to the City
Council. The zoning ordinance identifies the permitted and conditionally permitted uses, and
site improvements, as well as a schedule for completion of the project. The City Council then
reviews the proposal along with recommendations from staff, the ARB and the Commission and
determines if it will approve the proposed PC ordinance.
In the instance where the Commission does not act favorably and does not initiate the PC rezone
request, the request is forwarded to the City Council for review. The Council must then
determine if it will approve or deny the request to initiate the PC rezone. If the Council decides
to approve the request and initiate the PC rezone, then the application is forwarded to the ARB.
The ARB then makes a recommendation to the Commission which makes a final
recommendation to the City Council. If the City Council denies the request to initiate the PC
rezone, then the process is over and the application does not move forward. The applicant would
have the option to redesign the project and submit a new application.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project includes the demolition of all of the existing buildings on the 1.15 acre site at 2180
EI Camino Real and construction of a mixed use project having 61,960 square feet of floor area,
including 8,000 square feet of grocery (intended for JJ&F Market), 5,580 square feet of other
retail, 14 affordable one-bedroom residential units, 39,980 square feet of office use, and two
levels of below-grade parking facilities and surface parking facilities providing a total of 227
parking spaces. The project includes a request for initiation of a Planned Community Zone, and
a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign the Mixed Use land use designation to the site
which is currently designated as Neighborhood CommerciaL The proposed total floor area ratio
(FAR) would be 1.23:1 inclusive of 1.06 non-residential FAR (0.79 FAR office and 0.27 FAR
retail). The project site now comprises four parcels with a total area of 50,277 square feet (1.15
304:09 Page 2 of7
acres) containing the 8,712 sq. ft. JJ&F Market, a 4,315 sq. ft. retail building, and a 5,001 sq. ft.
office building. Further detail and project analysis is included in the attached April, 29, 2009
staffreport to the Commission (Attachlnent A).
COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION
The Commission conducted preliminary reviews ("pre-screenings") of the proposal for a Planned
Community (PC) rezone and Comprehensive Plan amendment on February 13, 2008 and
October 1,2008.
On April 29, 2009, the Commission formally considered the request to initiate the PC rezone and
amend the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and voted 6-1 to deny the initiation
requests. Comments below from the April 29, 2009 meeting address several of the key issues of
concern to the Commission and the public.
Grocery
The Commission generally agreed that retention of the market is a public benefit. They were
concerned however, that 8,000 square feet is not enough retail floor area to ensure that a market
would be economically viable if JJ&F did not return. The Commission discussed ideas that
would enable the grocery store to expand ifneeded, such as placing additional retail floor area or
office space on the ground floor adjacent to the market such that a grocer could expand into that
space if and when such space is needed. One idea was to relocate the residential units to the
upper floor above the commercial floor area, to allow for additional ground floor retail/office
space adjacent to the proposed market to allow for possible future expansion of the market.
Housing
Most Commissioners expressed support for the inclusion of the Below Market Rate (BMR)
housing as part of the proposed public benefits. However, sonle of the Commissioners cited that
the proposal includes too much office floor area and does not provide enough housing to be
considered a balanced mixed use project. A couple of Commissioners also noted that the
residential units could be market rate units to provide greater income through rental or sale of
housing units, thereby offsetting loss of income from any reductions in office area.
Office Use and Square Footage
Most Commissioners agreed the proposal includes too much office space and noted that the
anlount of office increased since the previous proposal. Those Commissioners believed that the
extensive office space (0.8 FAR) would be well in excess of the allowances for Neighborhood
Commercial zoning. Others, however, noted that the office use in this location could benefit not
only the market but also the other retail businesses along El Camino Real and within the
California Avenue Business District by providing an enhanced custonler base. One of those
Commissioners commented that the amount of office is not a concern and that the proportions of
the development are reasonable considering the size of the property and its location on El
Camino Real.
CMR: 304:09 Page 3 of7
Traffic and Parking
The Commissioners agreed the location of the parking garage entrance on El Camino Real would
avoid additional vehicular traffic entering the College Terrace neighborhood, and would allow
for a car coming out of the garage to be level with good sight lines before crossing over the
sidewalk. The bus stop location, in relation to the driveway, was noted as a positive feature,
since the bus stop would become an effective turning lane for vehicles entering the garage, such
that they would not slow traffic on EI Camino Real.. Some were skeptical, however, about the
proposed parking reductions (254 spaces required, 227 spaces proposed) and agreed that either
additional parking or a strong Transportation Demand Management program (TDM) would be
needed. Some Commissioners commended the applicant for proposing two layers of below
grade parking in line with City policies.
Other Comments
Some Commissioners conlmented that they needed to see the applicant's private agreement with
JJ &F to feel more comfortable with the proposal. The Commissioners agreed that a deed
restriction would be useful to assure continued use for JJ&F or another market. Other
Commissioners were less concerned about the private arrangements since the City would have
control over the uses through the PC ordinance. One Commissioner noted a benefit to the
California Avenue Business District in that the project could provide an anchor for the California
Avenue retailers in the form of a customer base and that the project supports the neighborhood
by providing a neighborhood grocery store. In addition, the Commission noted that the project
land uses should be more integrated and that the project design needs to provide better transition
areas at the ground level. It was also noted that breaking the project into separate buildings such
that they are less monolithic was a positive revision to the prior plan. Minutes of the April 29th
Commission meeting are enclosed as Attachment B.
Public Comments
Fifteen public speakers appeared at the meeting.
Most speakers expressed a desire to retain the JJ&F neighborhood grocery store and to gain a
full-service neighborhood market and not a convenience store. Some expressed appreciation for
the convenience of the neighborhood market and liked the fact that it is locally owned and
provides high quality products. Many were also concerned that the 8,000 sq. ft. grocery space
may not be a large enough space to make it desirable for another tenant if JJ&F did not return.
Some felt that the grocery use could not be guaranteed and that a vacant tenant space could
result. Some recognized that the grocery and other retail uses would benefit the employees of
the proposed office space by providing a convenient location to shop and have lunch.
Some of the speakers had concerns regarding potential increased traffic into the neighborhood
and inadequate parking, while others appreciated the location of the garage driveway on El
Camino to help to avoid traffic impacts to the neighborhood.
One neighbor cited concerns about noise from the proposed grocery store loading dock area.
Another believed that the initiation could not be considered by the Commission without having
access to a completed environmental review document and without knowing whether the
proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
CMR: 304:09 Page 4 of7
Another resident noted that regional office space at this location along the EI Camino Real would
not be a problem and that it would bring people and vitality to the area, and be an improvement
upon what is there now. Another speaker noted that the proposed setback of the grocery store
would encourage pedestrian activity. Ultimately, most speakers agreed they wanted a center that
would serve the neighborhood.
STAFF RECOMENDATION
Staff did not make a specific recomnlendation for this project, but identified the key issues for
consideration. The fundamental issue for consideration is whether the guaranteed preservation
of a neighborhood market in this location is a compelling benefit to allow for the substantial
additional office square footage along EI Camino Real. The preservation of the neighborhood
market is the most significant element that the community requested be a part of any
redevelopment of the site.
If the Council determines that the retention of a market on the site justifies the Planned
Community Zoning, staff would recommend the PC ordinance specify requirements to assure
that the market be operational in advance of the occupancy of any of the other site uses.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may consider any of the following regarding the PC zoning and
Comprehensive Plan initiation requests:
1. Adopt the Planning and Transportation Commission's recommendation and decline to
initiate the requests for a PC rezone and Comprehensive Plan An1endment; or
2. Provide direction regarding development parameters that the Council deems appropriate
to allow a revised proposal to be submitted for Commission review, prior to forwarding
to the ARB for consideration; or
3. Initiate the PC rezone and Comprehensive Plan Amendment and forward to the ARB for
review, with direction to the ARB and the applicant regarding suggested changes (if any).
RESOURCE IMPACT
Should the City Council choose to initiate the requested amendments, an analysis of resource
impacts would be prepared for consideration by the Commission and City Council.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The April 29, 2009 Commission staff report includes key issues providing the basis for policy
discussion. With respect to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the proposed development is not
consistent with the current Neighborhood Commercial land use designation, since the extensive
office component and the proposed 1.23: 1 Floor Area Ratio would not be consistent with that
land use and prescribed development intensity_ The land use designation that would seem most
appropriate in relationship to the proposed development is the Mixed Use land use designation.
The definition of the Mixed Use land use designation is provided in the Commission staff report.
While the current proposal is not compliant with the current Conlprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation, the proposal is compliant with many of the Policies and goals of the
Comprehensive Plan. For instance, Policy B-25 says to "Strengthen the commercial viability of
businesses alongEI Canlino Real. Encourage development of pedestrian-oriented neighborhood
CMR: 304:09 Page 5 of7
retail and office centers along the EI Camino ReaL" This project would implement this policy in
many ways. It ensures pedestrian-oriented neighborhood serving retail by preserving the
neighborhood market and by providing other retail spaces. It increases the economic viability of
the other area businesses by providing an additional customer base with the new office and
residential uses. (See the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies in Attachment C of the April
29,2009 Commission staffreport Attachment A).
ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACTS
An environmental review has not been conducted for the project since the requested zone change
initiation is not considered a project under the CalifoD1ia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). At
this point in the Planned Community application process the project is not yet completely
determined as the plans are of a conceptual nature and details and documentation are to be
submitted only after the project has been initiated. Upon Councilor Commission initiation of the
requested amendments or amendments as may otherwise be initiated, a draft environmental
review document would be prepared for ARB and Commission review with final approval by
City Council.
PREPARED BY:
Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
ClTRTIS WILLIAMS
Interim Director of Planning and Community
Environn1ent
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
P&TC Staff Report, April 29, 2009 (with attachments except
attachment H)
P&TC Minutes of April 29, 2009
Public Correspondence
Neighborhood survey submitted by applicant (Council members only and
available at this link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/planning.asp)
Applicants project letter July 8, 2009 (Council members only and
available at this link: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/knowzone/agendas/planning.asp)
Project Plans (Council members only)
COURTESY COPIES
Linda Poncini, Carrasco Associates
CMR: 304:09 Page 6 of7
Tony Carrasco, Carrasco Associates
Patrick Smailey, The Chilcote Trust
Andrew Gregg
Robin Kennedy
William D. Ross
Fred Balin
Greg Tanaka .. ~ ... '
Susan Rosenberg
CMR: 304:09 Page 7 of7
TO:
FROM:
ATTACHMENT A
PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
Russ Reich, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Conununity Environment
AGENDA DATE: April 29, 2009
SUBJECT: 2180 EI Camino Real: Initiation of (1) a Zone Change from
Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District to Planned Community (PC)
District for a mixed use project having 61,960 square feet of floor area
including 8,000 square feet of grocery (intended for JJ&F Market), 5,580
square feet of other retail, 14 affordable one-bedroom residential units,
39,980 square feet of office use, for a total floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.23: 1
inclusive of 1.06 non-residential FAR, and two levels of below-grade
parking facilities and surface parking facilities providing 227 parking
spaces on the property, and (2) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to
assign the Mixed Use land use designation, allowing for a 1.15:1 non-
residential FAR, to a site currently designated as Neighborhood
Commercial. Environmental Assessment: A draft initial study is being
prepared.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) consider the
proposal to initiate the zone change application from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) to
Planned Community (PC) and amend the Comprehensive Plan land use designation from
Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use to determine whether to forward the conceptual plans
to the Architectural Review Board for their review.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES
The applicant's development proposal for the proposed PC District is provided in Attachment F.
Staff has identified the following topics for the Commission's specific consideration and
comment:
City of Palo Alto Page 1
• Zoning compliance and mix and intensity of land use;
• Appropriateness of the proposed Comprehensive Plan land use designation;
• Adequacy of the proposed public benefits;
• Adequacy of parking facilities;
• Conformance with the South EI Camino Real Design Guidelines; and
• Contextual relationship of the project to surrounding neighborhoods.
The staff report attachments include an aerial photo, a location map, Comprehensive Plan and
Zoning compliance tables, and the project review timeline.
Planned Community Zone Change
The requested PC zone district is for the specific development proposal as described above and
as shown on the proposed development plans. Rezoning to a PC district follows a unique set of
procedures and standards described in Chapter 18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The
Commission first reviews a development program statement, plan, and schedule. If the
Commission acts favorably, the development plan, plot plan, landscape plan and design plans are
submitted for Architectural Review Board (ARB) review in the same manner as any commercial
or mixed-use project. The development plan recommended for approval by the ARB is then
returned to the Commission, together with a draft zoning ordinance, for its final review and
recommendation to the City Council. The zoning ordinance identifies the permitted and
conditionally permitted uses, and site improvements, as well as a schedule for completion of the
project.
The Commission may recommend a PC zone change only if it finds that:
(a) The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics
that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient
flexibility to allow the proposed development.
(b) Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will
result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of
general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section,
the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, as appropriate, shall
specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community
district.
(c) The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the
district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be
compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general
vicinity.
BACKGROUND
Project Location
The project site is an entire block bounded by EI Camino Real to the east, Staunton Court to the
west, Oxford A venue to the north, and College A venue to the south. A project location map is
provided as Attachment A.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The project would encompass four parcels with a total area of 50,277 square feet (1.15 acres).
There are currently several buildings on the site including the 8,712 sq. ft. JJ&F Market, a 4,315
sq. ft. retail building, and a 5,001 sq. ft. office building. All of the existing buildings would be
removed.
Prior Review and Community Outreach
The City Council has not conducted a preliminary review of the project but directed tbe
Commission to conduct a preliminary review of the proposal. The applicant has held a series of
community meetings with the adjacent College Terrace neighborhood over the last few years.
The Commission conducted preliminary reviews of the proposal on February 13,2008 and on
October 1, 2008. The Commission had the following general comments:
• There was agreement that preservation of the neighborhood market (JJ&F) would be a public
benefit though there were concerns about how the applicant would assure its retention;
• There were concerns about traffic and parking;
• A greener, more sustainable building design was requested;
• There were concerns about building height relative to the others in the area;
• There were concerns about the amount of office floor area within the proposed development;
and
• There were concerns about the overall scale of the project relative to the CN zone district.
DISCUSSION
The design of the project has changed since the original preliminary review. The proposal now
includes 14 BMR units facing the residential portion of the College Terrace neighborhood. The
JJ&F market has been relocated to the north east comer of the site for better visibility on El
Camino Real. The buildings facing El Camino have been modified from a three story wall into a
mixture of two and three story buildings with the third floor being recessed in certain locations to
reduce the mass. The driveway entrance to the below grade parking structure was relocated from
Staunton Court to El Camino Real. The plans have maintained these changes and have been
further developed since the last preliminary review with some floor area changes for the various
uses proposed on site.
Overview of the Proposed Project
The project includes the following components:
• The replacement of 18,028 square feet of existing commercial space with 61,960 square feet
of new commercial and residential space. The commercial space would include 13,580
square feet of ground floor retail space, and 39,980 square feet of office space;
• Fourteen (14) residential below-market-rate (BMR) units, comprising 8,400 square feet;
• Underground parking garage containing 216 parking spaces on two levels;
• Surface parking lot accommodating 11 parking spaces;
• 24 on-street parking spaces around the site's perimeter;
• Automobile driveways and on-site circulation elements facilitating organized and efficient
ingress and egress of vehicles, pedestrians and deliveries. Access to the below grade parking
would be provided from El Camino Real.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Key Issues Discussion
Staff has identified the following issues for the Commission's specific consideration and
comment.
Zoning compliance and mix and intensity of use
The proposed development would exceed .the allowed dev.elQP,J11ent standards specified for the
CN (Neighborhood Commercial) zone in terms of floor area ratio (FAR). The applicant has
stated that, in order to gain an adequate subsidy to retain the neighborhood market, the office
floor area must exceed the maximum allowed within the CN zone district. The FAR of the
proposed development would exceed the CN zone FAR maximum by 11,683 square feet. The
office floor area would exceed the maximum office floor area allowed in the CN zone district by
27,411 square feet. The proposal is for 13,580 square feet of retail floor area with an additional
2,447 square feet of open air market space and 39,980 square feet of office floor area. The 14
below market rate units would add another 8,400 square feet to the floor area total.
Floor Area Comparison
CN requirements Proposed PC
Floor Area Ratio 0.5:1 commercial 1.06:1
(FAR) 0.5:1 residential 0.16:1
(For mixed use) 1 .0: 1 total combined 1.23:1
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation
The proposed development is not consistent with the parameters of the current Neighborhood
Commercial land use designation. The Neighborhood Commercial land use designation is
defined as follows:
Neighborhood Commercial: Includes shopping centers with off-street parking or a cluster
of street front stores that serve the immediate neighborhood. Examples include Alma
Plaza, Charleston Center, Edgewood Center, and Midtown. Typical uses include
supermarkets, bakeries, drugstores, variety stores, barber shops, restaurants, self-service
laundries, dry cleaners, and hardware stores. In some locations, residential and mixed use
projects may also locate in this category. 'Non-residential floor area ratios will range up
to 0.4.
The retail component of the project would be consistent with the typical use and commercial
FAR intended for this designation but the office component and the proposed 1.23: 1 FAR would
not be consistent. .
The land use designation that would seem most appropriate in relationship to the proposed
development is the Mixed Use land use designation. The Mixed Use land use designation is
defined as follows:
City of Palo Alto Page 4
This category includes LivelWork, Retail/Office, ResidentiallRetail and
Residential/Office development. Its purpose is to increase the types of spaces available
for living and working to encourage a mix of compatible uses in certain areas, and to
encourage the upgrading of certain areas with buildings designed to provide a high quality
pedestrian-oriented street environment. Mixed Use may include permitted activities
mixed within the same building or within separate buildings on the same site or on nearby
sites. LivelWork refers to one or more individuals living inJhe same building where they
earn their livelihood, usually in professional or light industrial activities. Retail/Office,
ResidentiallRetail and Residential/Office provide other variations to mixed use with retail
typically on the ground floor and residential on the upper floors. Design standards will be
developed to ensure that development is compatible and contributes to the character of
the street and neighborhood. Floor area ratios will range up to 1.15, although
ResidentiallRetail and Residential/Office development located along transit corridors or
near multi-modal centers will range up to 2.0 FAR with up to 3.0 FAR possible in areas
resistant to revitalization. The FAR above 1.15 will be used for residential purposes.
Adequacy of the proposed Public Benefits
The applicant has suggested the following public benefits associated with the proposed pc:
• Provision of a subsidized rental rate to ensure a neighborhood-serving grocery market will
remain at this location
• 10 Below Market Rate housing units
The Commission must determine if the proposed project's public benefits are adequate, as
required for the establishment of a PC district. The fundamental issue for consideration is
whether the guaranteed preservation of a neighborhood market in this location is a compelling
benefit to allow for the substantial additional office square footage along EI Camino Real. The
preservation of the neighborhood market is the most significant benefit that the community
requested be a part of any redevelopment of the site. The PC would require that a portion (8,000
sq. ft.) of the project would be specified for a neighborhood serving grocery use. This is one of
the benefits of using the PC process because it can be used to specify specific uses that typical
zone districts can not.
Traffic/Parking
The project would result in the construction of approximately 61,960 square feet of retail, office,
and residential space. A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) report, by Hexagon Transportation
Consultants, Inc. which covers operational level of service analysis and parking analysis, has
been prepared. The findings of the report indicate that the project would not result in significant
impacts. At this time the proposed entry/exit driveway on EI Camino Real has not been
approved by Cal Trans. Once the Environmental document is complete, Cal Trans will act on the
request to allow the entry/exit on EI Camino Real. The purpose of relocating the driveway to EI
Camino Real is to prevent any increase in traffic volume on the residential side streets and to
keep the College Terrace Centre traffic out of the neighborhood.
City of Palo Alto PageS
Parking Reduction
The proposed project includes 216 underground parking spaces and 11 grade level spaces for a
total of 227 on-site parking spaces. Chapter 18.52 of the Municipal Code requires 254 on-site
spaces for all of the proposed uses. The current proposal for on-site parking spaces is deficient
by approximately 27 spaces. The applicant identifies 24 on-street parking spaces around the
perimeterof the project. However, the code does not allow on-street parking spaces to be
counted towards the r.~quiredamountof parkiQg fOJ the proj~ct. The c9de}~<?$s m,!~e provisions
for parking requirement reductions in specific instances such as jojnt use (shared) parking >
facilities, affordable housing units, and housing near transit. Eligibility for parking requirement
reductions and potential impacts would be further studied by staff but the Commission's input on
the parking proposal is encouraged at this time.
Conformance with South EI Camino Real Design Guidelines
A sidewalk width of 12 feet is encouraged, as stated in the South EI Camino Real Design
Guidelines recommended for use by the Architectural Review Board in 2002. The guidelines
suggest a 12-foot effective sidewalk width, with the building brought up to the edge of the
sidewalk consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies for EI Camino Real and with context
based design requirements for commercial zones in the zoning ordinance. The proposal includes
sidewalks that are 12 feet wide along EI Camino Real. The retail/office building would be set
back four feet eleven inches to create a 12 foot wide sidewalk along EI Camino Real plus an
additional 10 inches. The grocery/office building would be setback 29 feet four inches to provide
for the 12 foot wide sidewalk as well as an open air market area at the front of the building.
Contextual Relationship to Surrounding Neighborhood
The project site is located at the eastern edge of the College Terrace neighborhood. The project
faces existing commercial uses to the north, south, and east, and faces residential uses along
Staunton Court to the west. The residential uses are comprised of single family dwellings at the
comer of Staunton Court and Oxford A venue, and multifamily dwellings along the rest of
Staunton Court.
The two-story residential units of the proposed project would face the existing single family
dwellings across Staunton Court; in effect, creating a transition between the existing residential
area and the commercial portions of the proposed project. While the project is located within the
College Terrace Neighborhood, it is at the commercial edge along EI Camino Real, which is a
significant commercial highway and transit arterial where development of greater intensity is
typically more appropriate. The tallest portion of the proposed project would be situated along EI
Camino Real, which is characterized by a variety of one-to four-story commercial buildings.
While the project is still in the schematic drawing phase, the proposal appears to be compliant
with the Context-Based Design Criteria of Section 18.16.090 of the Municipal Code relative to
the creation of pedestrian friendly environments, massing and setbacks, open space and parking
design, and green building design. The applicant has provided images of several buildings that
are located within close proximity to the proposed project to allow conlparison of the height and
scale of the proposed buildings to those of existing buildings within the immediate area.
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Building Height Relative To Residential Zone Districts
On page AO.5 of the project plans, the applicant has shown areas of the project site that are
limited to a height of 35 feet due to their proximity within 150 feet of residentially zoned
properties. The heights of the proposed buildings in these locations have been adjusted to
comply with this limit. A member of the public has noted that the plans do not indicate all of the
areas that would be subject to the 35 foot height limit. The Ananda Church across the EI Camino
Real is residentially zoned and is located only 125 feet away from the subject property. While
,-, .-''" the church property is zoned 'residential (R-2) it is not a residential use and is not likely to bete--',-".-
developed as a residential use under the R-2 zone district regulations. The intent of the height
limitation is to limit the height of new buildings in close proximity to lower density residential
buildings. There appears to be no conflict here with the proposed height of the building relative
to the existing Church structure. It is also not likely that the proposed three story builciing would
conflict with any future redevelopment of the Ananda church property across the EI Camino
Real. Staff can study this further if the Commission finds this to be an issue.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Staff has determined that an Initial Study is required for this project under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This first hearing is an initiation of the zone change request
so that, an environmental document is not required at this time. A Draft Initial Study would be
prepared prior to the formal ARB review and prior to the project's return to the Commission for
formal review and recommendation to the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS
Aerial Photo
Site Location Map
Comprehensive Plan Policies
Zoning Compliance Table
Project Timeline
Applicant's Development Proposal (Commissioners only)*
Public Correspondence
Attachment A.
Attachment B.
Attachment C.
Attachment D.
Attachment E.
Attachment F.
Attachment G.
Attachment H. Neighborhood Survey and Letter from Chamber of Commerce submitted by
Applicant * (Commissioners only and also available at this link:
http://'www .cityofpaloalto.orglknowzone/agendas/planning.asp)
Attachment I. Plans (Commissioners only)*
*Provided by applicant
COURTESY COPIES:
Linda Poncini, Carrasco Associates
Tony Carrasco, Carrasco Associates
Patrick Smailey, The Chilcote Trust
Robin Kennedy, Manatt, Phelps, Philips
William DRoss
Fred Balin
Greg Tanaka
Susan Rosenberg
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Prepared by: Russ Reich, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Amy French, Manager of Current Planning
D~~mm~~~oo&~~~v~: __ ~~~~··~~~~~~\~O~D~~~~~-~~ ______ _
Curtis Williams, Interim Director
City of Palo Alto Page 8
<
I-
Z w
:E
~
CJ < I-~
(D
The City of
Palo Alto
~ Q) CZl .s ~ o o ~ ,..t:: $:l ~ t:l-t "s ~05~ ~ ~"-"C uQ)~Q) .-~ <: ~~ \0 o 00
~
~
o o ~
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
®
0' 84'
Thb _la • graphic representation only or best available soun:es.
The City of Palo AJto assumes no responsibiUty for 8It'J enon;. ClI98910 2008 City of Palo Alto
Legend
:::11-:.11; 2180 EI Camino Real (Project Site)
/ Ii.' Stanford Lands
c:::::J Zone Districts
abc Zone District Labels
The City of
Palo Alto
rrivera, 2008-01-30 15:14:36
(llcc-mapslgls$\glsladmlnlPersonalVrivera.mdb)
ATTACHMENT B
2180 El Camino Real
Zoning Districts
Area Map
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
-. 0' 250'
This document I. a graphic represanlaUon only 01 best available sources.
The City 01 Palo Allo assumes no responsibility lor any erro", C1989 10 2008 City 01 Palo Alto
..
Attachment C
Planned Community District-College Terrace Centre
2180 EI Camino Real
07PLN-00000-00327
Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies
,..; ..J"'. .. .' '--.-.... ..... :_ .... }
Land Use and Community Design Element
Goal L-1: A well, designed, compact City, providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods,
work places, shopping centers, public facilities and open space.
Policy L-4: Maintain Palo Alto's varied r~sidential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial
areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto's desirable qualities.
Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and
unacceptable due to their size and scale.
Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-
residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To·promote compatibility and gradual
transitions between land uses, place zoning district boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets
wherever possible.
Policy L-9: Enhance desirable characteristics of mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to
create opportunities for new mixed use development.
Program L-10:
• Develop design standards for all mixed use designations for providing for buildings with one to three stories,
rear parking or underground parking, street-facing windows and entries, and zero setback along the street,
except that front gardens may be provided for ground-floor residential uses.
Policy L-11: Promote increased compatibility, interdependence, and support between commercial and mixed
use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures
to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures.
Goal L-4: Inviting, Pedestrian-scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and provide
focal points and community gathering places for the City's residential neighborhoods and employment districts.
Policy L-18: Encourage the upgrading and revitalization of selected Centers in a manner that is compatible with
the character of surrounding neighborhoods.
Policy L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners
with buildings that come up to the sidewalk or that form corner plazas.
Policy L-21: Provide all centers with centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and
encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms,
and public art.
Policy L-22: Enhance the appearance of streets and sidewalks within all Centers through an aggressive
maintenance, repair, and cleaning program; street improvements; and the use of a variety of paving materials and
landscaping.
Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance City streets and
public spaces.
Policy L-48: Promote high-quality creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding
development and public spaces.
Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of community and
personal safety. Provide an orderly variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public ways
where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid walls at street level; and include human
scale details and massing.
Comprehensive Plan Policy
Policy L-50: Encourage high-qualitysignage that is attractive, appropriate for the location, and balances
visibility needs with aesthetic needs.
Policy L-73: Consider public art and cultural facilities as a public benefit in conjunction with new development
projects. Consider incentives for including public art in large development projects.
Policy L-75: Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking behind buildings or
underground wherever possible.
.. -'Policy' L -78: Encourage development that creatively integrates parking ·into the project by providing for shared
use of parking areas.
Transportation Element
Goal T-1: Less reliance on single occupancy vehicles.
Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use.
Goal T-3: Facilities, services and programs that encourage and promote walking and bicycling.
Policy T-19: Improve and create additional, attractive, secure bicycle parking at both public and private facilities,
including multi-modal transit stations, on transit vehicles, in City parks, at public facilities, in new private
developments, and other community destinations.
Goal T-4: An efficient roadway network for all users.
Policy T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-site parking,
public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details.
0
Goal T-8: Attractive, convenient public and private parking facilities.
Natural Environment Element
Goal N-3: A thriving "Urban Forest" that provides ecological, economic, and aesthetic benefits for Palo Alto.
Policy N-15: Require new commercial, multi-unit, and single-family housing projects to provide street trees and
related irrigation systems.
Program N-16: Continue to require replacement of trees, including street trees lost to new development, and
establish a program to have replacement trees planted off-site when it is impractical to locate therll on site.
Policy N-17: Preserve and protect heritage trees, including native oaks and other significant trees, on public
and private property.
Policy N-18: Protect Palo Alto's groundwater from the adverse impacts of urban uses.
Policy N-20: Maximize the conservation and efficient use of water in new and existing residences, businesses
and industries.
Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial,
municipal, and transportation land uses and activities.
Policy N-22: Limit the amount of impervious surface in new development or public improvement projects to
reduce urban runoff into storm drains, creeks and San Francisco Bay.
Policy N-23: Reduce the discharge of toxic materials into the City's sanitary sewer collection system by
promoting the use of Best Management Practices.
Policy N-25: Reduce pollutant levels in City wastewater discharges.
April 29, 2009 Page 2
Comprehensive Plan Policy
Policy N-27: Reduce emission of particulates from wood burning stoves, construction activity, automobiles and
other sources.
Policy N-28: Encourage developers of new projects in Palo Alto, including City projects, to provide
improvements that reduce the necessity of driving alone.
Policy N-42: the City may require proposals to reduce noise impacts of development on adjacent properties
. through appropriate. means including, but not limited to the following: ~ ~, "", -~ """'-..
• Construct noise walls when compatible with aesthetic concerns.
• Screen and control noise sources such as parking, outdoor activities and mechanical equipment.
• Increase setbacks for noise sources from adjacent dwellings.
• Whenever, possible, retain fences, walls or landscaping that serve as noise buffers although design, safety
and other impacts must be addressed.
• Use soundproofing materials and double-glazing windows.
• Control hours of operation, including deliveries and trash pickup, to minimize noise levels.
Business and Economics
Goal 8-1: A thriving business environment that is compatible with Palo Alto's residential character and natural
environment.
Policy 8-2 Support a strong interdependence between existing commercial centers and the surrounding
neighborhoods as a way of encouraging economic vitality.
Goal 8-2: A diverse mix of Commercial, Retail, and Professional Service businesses.
Policy 8-4: Nurture and support established businesses as well as new businesses.
Policy 8-7: Encourage and support the operation of small, independent businesses
Goal 8-3: New businesses that provide needed local services and municipal revenues, contribute to economic
vitality, and enhance the city's physical environment.
Policy 8-9: Encourage new businesses that meet the city's business and economic goals to locate in Palo Alto.
Policy 8-17: Where redevelopment is desired, encourage owners to upgrade commercial properties through
incentives such as reduced parking requirements, credit for on-street parking, and increases in allowable floor
area. Use such incentives only where they are needed to stimulate redevelopment or contribute to housing or
community design goals.
Policy 8-25: Strengthen the commercial viability of businesses along EI Camino Real. Encourage the
development of pedestrian-oriented neighborhood retail and office centers along the EI Camino Real corridor.
April 29, 2009 Page 3
Attachment D
Planned Comnlunity District-College Terrace Centre
2180 EI Camino Real,
07PLN-00000-00327
Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.38 (PC DISTRICT)
Regulation Required Proposed Conformance*
Building Height 50 foot limit Up to 50 Conforms
Building Height (Within 35 feet 30 -33'-6" feet Conforms
150' of a residential
zone districtl Roof Top Gazebo 40' 5 feet too tall
Yard opposite an RM 10 feet 2' -4" Oxfo rd St. Exception may be
District (across Oxford required if plan is not
Ave and Staunton Ct.) 7' Staunton Ct. modified
Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading)
Parking Spaces Required Proposed Conformance
Office Spaces @ 1 :250 159.9
Market and Retail 67.9 spaces
Spaces @ 1 :200
Residential Units @ 25.6 spaces
1 .5 per unit plus 1
guest space equal to
33% of all units
Total 254 spaces 227 spaces (deficient 27 spaces)
11 % reduction
requested
Bicycles spaces conforms
38 38
*18.52.050 allows a reduction in the required number of parking spaces at the discretion of the Director of
Planning and Community Environment.
Table 3: COMPARISON OF PROPOSED PC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CN
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL for mixed use)
Regulation CN District Regulations Proposed PC
Minimum Site
specifications
Minimum'Sile""'Area None Required 50,277 square feet
Min. Site Width None Required 294 feet
Min. Site Depth None required 131 feet
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard 0-10' to create an 8' -12' 4'-11"
effective sidewalk width
(4'-2" setback is needed to The proposed setback of 4'-11" provides
achieve the reqLlired 12' room for the 12 foot wide sidewalk.
sidewalk on EI Camino real)
Rear Yard 10' for residential portion; no N/A the lot does not have a rear yard
requirement for commercial
portion.
Rear Yard abutting 10 feet NI A the lot does not have a rear yard
residential zone
district
Interior Side Yard if 10 feet N/A there are no interior side yards
abutting residential
zone district
Street Side Yard 5 feet Oxford setback: 2'-4"
Staunton Court setback: 7' res. 18' commer.
College Avenue setback 1'-10"
Bu ild-To-Lines 50% of frontage bu ilt to setback 30% EI Camino Real
33% of side street built to setback 59% Oxford
45% College
34% Staunton Court
Permitted Setback Balconies, awnings, porches, N/A
Encroachments stairways, and similar elements
may extend up to 6 feet into the
setback. Cornices, eaves,
fireplaces and similar
architectural features (excluding
flat or continuous walls or
enclosures of interior space) may
extend up to 4 feet into the front
and rear setbacks and up to 3
feet into interior side setbacks.
Maximum Site 50% 47% of the site is covered by buildings
Coverage
Landscape/Open 35% 18% podium level open space
Space Coverage 4% basement planter areas open to above
11 % vegetated roof areas
2% Balconies -----------------------------
Total 35%
Useable Open
Space
Maximum Height
Standard
200 sq ft per unit for 5 or fewer
units; 150 sq ft per unit for 6
units or more
40 feet
(due to EI Camino Real frontage)
Within 150 feet of a i 35 feet
;-r..esid_ential,~one '-'_ rr-
district (other than --"""",
an RM-40 or PC
zone) abutting or
located within 50
feet of the site.
Daylight Plane for
lot lines abutting
one or more
residential zoning
districts
Residential
Density
Maximum
Residential Flo'or
Area Ratio (FAR)
Maximum Non
Residential Floor
Area Ratio (FAR)
Total Mixed Use
Floor Area Ratio
Minimum Mixed
Use Ground Floor
Commercial FAR
Maximum office
square footage
without CUP (25%
of lot size
Maximum Office
square footage
with a CUP
Daylight Plane height and slope
shall be identical to those of the
most restrictive residential
zoning district abutting the lot
line
15 Dwelling Units Per Acre = 17
units
0.5:1
0.5:1
1:1
0.15:1
25% of the lot = 12,569 sq. ft.
Code allows Director Discretion
No numeric limit is set.
There is 13,027 sq ft of existing
ground floor retail. This area
may not be converted to ground
floor office. Applicant could
propose 12,569 sf. ground floor
retail and 12,569 sf. second floor
office. (This scenario would
reduce the ground floor retail but
is ok because it is not replaced
with ground floor office) This
would reach the 0.5:1 FAR cap
for Commercial sf. To go
beyond the 12,569 sf. of office
would require a variance to the
FAR limit in addition to the CUP
for additional office.
105 square feet per unit
HeIght varies up to 50 feet
Grocery loffice 30 feet
,.,'" (40, feet tQ tQP gazebo roof)
Residential units 33 feet six inches
N/A no residential zones directly abut any
project lot lines
14 Dwelling Units
0.16:1
1.06:1
1.23:1
0.47:1
38$5 sq. ft.
3l/ CJ80
38,~S sq. ft.
~B;O
Attachment E
Planned Community District-College Terrace Centre
2180 EI Camino Real
07PLN-00000-00327
Review Timeline
Application Received:
P&TC Pre screen Review Meeting:
Second P&TC Prescreen Review Meeting:
P&TC Initial Review Meeting
ARB Formal Hearing:
P&TC Formal Meeting:
Required Action by Council:
October 18, 2007
February 13,2008
October 1,2008
April 29, 2009
To Be Determined
To Be Determined
To Be Determined
ARCHITECTS
COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE
2100 EI Camino Real, Palo Alto, California
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ATTACHMENT F
Department of Planning &
Com'rr1'umihJ Enviromnent lUi '''D~J
January 14, 2009
College Terrace Centre is a two-and three-story mixed-use office, commercial/retail and residential
. develOpment to be located on the · site: bounded by EI Camino Real, Oxford Avenue, Staunton Court and
College Avenue. The proposed project is comprised of a neighborhood grocery store, open-air market
and retail shops along EI Camino Real, office space on College Avenue and at the 2nd and 3rd floors, and
two free-standing townhouse apartment buildings of two-story 1-bedroom units facing Staunton Court.
There are 2 basement levels of parking and a small on-grade parking lot to serve the development.
College Terrace Centre is designed to be a LEED Silver Building, and incorporates many sustainable
features. Included are: Vegetated roof at the 2nd floor; clearstory windows at the 3rd floor to introduce
natural light into the center of the building; photovoltaic panels on the sloping roofs of the clearstories;
recycled-content materials; highly-energy efficient mechanical, lighting and control systems; EnergyStar
roofing; a cistern system for collection and storage of rainwater from the vegetated and other roof areas,
in order to recycle the rainwater for landscape irrigation.
A PC Zone Amendment is required for this project, as the existing zoning of C, does not allow for the
density proposed. A significant public benefit for the PC Zone is providing subsidized ·rent for an 8,000
sq. ft. neighborhood-serving grocery store with an additional 2,447 sq. ft. of open-air market. This market
will serve the immediate College Terrace neighborhood, Stanford University residents, and the
surrounding areas of Palo Alto from Downtown to Barron Park. In· addition, 14 units of below-market-rate
housing are being provided in the 14 rental townhouses which front on Staunton Court.
Construction methods to be used on this project include cast-in-place concrete structure below grade for
the underground parking (2 levels), and a concrete post-tensioned floor at the grade level which
separates the commercial spaces above from the parking garage below. Building construction above the
post-tensioned slab will be will be wood construction at the Apartment building and steel construction at
the commercial/retail building.
There are currently 7 existing buildings on the 50,277 sq. ft. site: JJ & F Market facing College Avenue,
some sheds used by the market for storage (facing Staunton Court), a furniture store facing EI Camino
(which previously housed a bank, then a bicycle shop), and a commercial building facing Staunton Court
which currently houses aneco-friendly tableware cornpany. A small parking lot for JJ & F and the small
commercial building is accessed off Staunton, and the furniture store on EI Camino has two parking lots
and a drive-through.
The proposed project will consist of three buildings over a two-level underground parking garage. The
main building is broken into several components, beginning with the 2-story form at the corner of EI
Camino and Oxford, which contains the grocery market at the ground floor and offices above. The deep
setback from EI Camino allows for the grocery store to have an open air market fronting on EI Camino,
bringing more activity and interest to this corner. Three-story elements of the main building are placed
beyond the driveway from EI Camino to the underground parking. These elements wrap the corner at EI
Camino and College, and are broken down to smaller masses punctuated with a clock tower and an entry'
plaza at the corner.
The portion of the project which faces Staunton Court includes two 2-story residential townhouse
buildings containing 14 below market rate rental units. These units reflect a more residential feeling to
reflect the one residential use directly across Staunton. By placing the 3-story mass along EI Camino, the
commercial building buffers the residential building from traffic noise. This design also will serve to buffer
the College Terrace neighborhood from the EI Camino traffic.
The architecture of the project combines elements and massing evocative of a European village, and like
man y ~i~@Jl~~a%1Rd ~Q~,SpI~Yd ~~b:'&~~6 a.n~~OJ?}~k~te ~a~}:t~065B~2~~d ~~o .0~~a~!sJ~g,qle2l~~~arrasco .com
A Professional Corporation
COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE -PC ZONE APPLICATION
2100 EI Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STATEMENT
1. Necessity of the application for a PC district
r -, l : ~ t ~--
t ~i ~~ " 1 '{-
Revised 1/14/2009
The project site is comprised of four legal parcels bounded by EI Camino Real, College Avenue, Staunton
Court, and Oxford Avenue, with a total area of 50,277 sq. ft. Existing zoning is CN. This proposal is for a
mixed-use commercial/retail and office complex, and 14 residential rental units, all over two levels of
underground parking. The site is · so situated and the uses proposed for the site are of such
characteristics that the application of the CN district will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the
proposed development.
One key element of the development is to provide an 8,000 sq.ft. neighborhood-serving grocery store as
well as a. 2,447 sq. ft. open-air market. This development would preserve and enhance an existing market
that serves the College Terrace neighborhood as well as other neighborhoods from Downtown to Barron
Park, and Stanford University residents. In addition, 14 Below Market Rate one-bedroom for-rent
townhouses will be constructed on the site.
The proposed project strives to provide not only a rent structure which would retain a small grocery
market, and allow it to remain in business, but also 14 units of affordable housing for the community. In
order to achieve these public benefit goals, the remainder of the site needs to be developed with new
retail and office uses whose higher rents will help to subsidize the lower rent chargeable to a grocery
market and BMR housing. In order to gain an adequate subsidy and assume a vacancy and rent risk, the
amount of square footage of the new retail and office uses needs to be higher than would normally be
permitted for a mixed commercial/residential project in the CN zone.
The allowable FAR for a mixed-use commercial/residential project in the CN zone on EI Camino Real
would be limited to 0.5 for commercial, limiting the area to 0.5 x 50,277, or 25,139 sq. ft., and 0.5 for
residential, also equaling 25,139 sq. ft., for a total of 50,277 sq. ft. and an FAR of 1.0. As proposed, the
project consists of 39,980 sq. ft. of office area, 13,580 sq. ft. of commercial/retail space including 8,000
sq. ft. of grocery store space, and an additional 8,400 sq. ft. of residential. The total floor area of the
proposed project = 61,960 sq. ft. and a total FAR of 1.232 -just slightly above that which is allowed under
eN zoning. This necessitates a PC district, to achieve the needed additional area and FAR.
Due to the location of the site along EI Camino Real, and keeping with the guidelines for new
development along EI Camino, the buildings would be placed near the property line, with 4 ft. setback for
wider sidewalk and street trees. This allows for pedestrian proximity to shop windows, and creates a
positive retail shopping experience. For mixed-commercial/residential projects, CN zoning requires a
front yard setback of 10ft. and a street side yard setback of 5 ft. These setbacks are too restrictive for
the commercial uses; thus, a PC Zone is required to allow for creating a better retail environment with
store entrances directly on the sidewalk.
2. Listing of all uses proposed or potentially to be included within the PC district
Commercial Retail uses, comprising 13,580 sq. ft. of enclosed space at the 1 st floor: Neighborhood-
serving grocery store consisting of 8,000 sq. ft. of indoor retail space and 2,447 sq. ft. of open-air market.
Delivery space is located off Oxford Avenue, and recycling areas are adjacent. Other retail spaces for
lease total .5,580 sq. ft. Potential retail uses could be a pharmacy, stationery store, shoe repair, hair
salon, bookstore, flower shop, toy store, or other neighborhood-serving retail.
2
Office uses, comprising 39,980 sq. ft: Tenant spaces for professional offices and general business
offices on the second and third floors totaling 34,661 sq. ft. The first floor also provides offices and
lobbies of 5,319 sq. ft.
Residential Use: 14 below market rate townhouse-type 1-bedroom rental housing units are located on
Staunton Court at the corner with Oxford Avenue. These 2-story, 600 sq. ft. units will be rented at below-
market rates to eligible tenants, as determined by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. Each unit has a
small entry garden for private open space, and the space between the two residential buildings will
provide additionalcornmon open space: -
Parking areas: There is a small on-grade parking lot adjacent to the residential buildings which can be
used by residential visitors or retail customers. The two-level underground parking garage is accessed by
a ramp from EI Camino Real, to minimize traffic onto Staunton Court. After business hours, the ramp will
be secured by a gate with card-reader, so only tenants can. access the garage. Parking exclusively for
employees of the office and retail areas will be located on the 2nd level of the garage, and will be secured
by card-reader operated grilles. Residents of the 14 living units can park on the 1 st level of the garage.
Retail and office clients can park on the 1 st and 2nd levels of the garage, while Grocery Store customers
can park on the 1 st level, where there will be grocery cart storage areas and a large elevator to service the
market only. Included in the parking garage will be an area for Car Share vehicles, which will be
accessible to the public during business hours.
Refuse and Recycling area: Refuse and recycling will be located adjacent to the Grocery delivery area
and also adjacent to the offices on the first floor for convenience of the office tenants. These areas will be
gated and screened from view. PASCO can access the bins directly for easy collection.
Bicycle Parking: There will be 23 bicycle parking spaces for the commercial/retail/office uses and 38
spaces for the residential use. Short-term (ST) commercial spaces will be located adjacent to the
Grocery Store and near the small on-grade parking lot off Staunton Ct. The remainder of the required
spaces for the retail and office uses will be long-term (L T) spaces located in the underground garage. L T
bike parking (enclosed, secure parking) for the residences will be placed facing Oxford Ave. adjacent to
the residences.
3. Nature of uses and need for differing regulations
See description of uses noted above, for general information. The particular needs of the uses on the
site, which in some circumstances require differing regulations than what would normally be allowed on
this site are as follows:
Neighborhood-serving retail/Market: As expressed in public hearings before the Planning Commission, it
is important to the community that a neighborhood-serving retail use such as a grocery market'remain in
this location. It helps to create a sense of community for the neighborhood. To be viable, however, a
small neighborhood market requires a rental rate considerably lower than typical for this type of retail
space, particularly given the high quality of the building being proposed. The strong desire to keep a
neighborhood retail/market use in business at this location has driven much of the chosen uses and the
design of the development proposal.
The site itself, even though zoned CN, is a key commercial site along EI Camino in the California Avenue
Shopping District. Development of retail uses fronting EI Camino is a desire of the City of Palo Alto.
Proximity to Stanford University and several neighborhoods, in addition to College Terrace, presents the
opportunity to develop retail shops which can serve the local residents. This is a location to which
residents can walk or bike.
Proximity of the site to public transit is key. Bus lines 22, 89, 522, and the Dumbarton Express and
Stanford Marguerite busses run on EI Camino. Bus line 22 has the highest ridership in Santa Clara
county. The California Avenue Cal Train station is a few blocks away. Automobile access is also very
convenient, as EI Camino Real (State Route 82) is a major thoroughfare.
3
By placing offices on the upper floors of the building, the opportunity for local residents to walk, take
transit, or bike to work is provided.
Small (600 s.f.) rental housing units are being proposed to transition from the commercial development to
the surrounding neighborhood, and also to provide housing units which are affordable to a wider range of
Palo Alto workers. The two residential buildings are located such that they are buffered from the traffic
and noise of EI Camino by the new commercial building and are also directly adjacent to the only
neighboring residences. These residential structures also provide a transition in-scale from the
commercial building and a soft texturE? 1.0 t~is corner of the neighborhood.
This project creates a small Village-type community within the site, which will be interactive, lively and a
focal point for the College Terrace neighborhood. While providing many public benefits, the areas of the
retail and office uses must be sufficient to support the lower rent structure of a neighborhood-serving
retail/Market tenant and of below-market rate housing.
In a CN Zone, parking requirement for the office users is calculated at 4 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. For the
market and retail spaces, the parking requirement is calculated at 5 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Parking for
the residential component is calculated at 1.5 spaces per unit plus 33% more spaces for visitors. This
results in a total parking requirement of 254 in the CN Zone. For this PC Zone proposal, due to the
proximity of public transit and the mixed-use nature of the development, it is felt that the 227 parking
spaces provided on-site will be adequate based upon the various uses being able to "share" parking at
various times of the day. There is ample on-street parking on EI Camino Real, and there are no other
adjacent users, other than Stanford students, which would vie for the on-street parking spaces. The
project applicants support the neighborhood's efforts to have the block signed for 2 hour parking.
4. Exemplary Design and Sustainable Features
College Terrace Centre will provide a green, sustainable building which will be designed and constructed
in conformance with the U. S. Green Building Council's LEED criteria. The project's goal is to achieve
LEED Certification, and express the sustainable features as part of the architectural character of the
structure and site.
A vegetated roof over the 2-story portion of the building will provide a pleasant visual feature for offices on
the 3rd floor, as well as serve to collect rainwater which can then be channeled to underground cisterns.
Rainwater will also be channeled from other roofs and decks to the cisterns, from which it will be recycled
for use in landscape irrigation.
Photovoltaic panels will be utilized to generate power. DeSign of the podium landscaping will incorporate
native grasses, flowers and plants which are drought tolerant. North-facing clearstory glass at the roof
level will bring natural light into the interior of the office spaces.
Provision for Car Share space in the parking garage will encourage employees to use alternative
transportation
This new building will have a smaller energy footprint and will incorporate sustainable, recycled and
renewable materials, which will make it a good neighbor and an environmentally-sensitive addition to the
City of Palo Alto.
4
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC BENEFITS OF THE PROJECT:
1. Providing a subsidized rental rate to allow a neighborhood-serving Market to remain at the
Centre, as a vital neighborhood and community asset. Such a neighborhood-seNing use has
proven to be important to the College Terrace neighborhood, and would be an important
centerpiece in the fabric of this part of Palo Alto.
2'. 14-unlls-·6f below-markefrate rental housing, located afHle corner of Oxford' Ave. and Staunton
Ct. The residential component provides more affordable housing for workers in Palo Alto as well
as making a transition from the College Terrace neighborhood to the commercial component
facing EI Camino. As the housing is more interior to the site, it is buffered from the traffic noise of
EI Camino by the commercial building.
3. Working and shopping space near Public Transportation and within walking distance from the
College Terrace neighborhood.
4. Wider sidewalks and more street trees along EI Camino Real.
5. Contribution to median trees along EI Camino.
6. Increased community-serving retail.
See attached Development Schedule for projected dates of Public review, Agency approvals,
construction permitting, construction duration and occupancy.
COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE ! ! 4/21/2009 I ! I
J !
,
PHOJi::CT SCt:tEDULi::~~~CC~ER~.1_ED~ __ J ___
2011--t----1 _h_2OOB 12009 2009 2010---2010 2011 12012 .------------FL-~-------JAN --DEC' TASK IDEC IJAN FEB MAR IAPR MAY Ju~~ AUG SEP IOCT NOV DEC JAN fEB--MAR APR I MAY JUNE IJULY AUG SEP IJAN FEB 'T
.
--~-----~--....... --Outreach ~.Neighbt:)E_ Meetings_. __ • • -~-~-----
Staff Outreach • • • • • Council ()iifrA:::ll'h
._,. ,~ 1 .. · ...... -_· -. - ---------_. ---.' --~--.-"--I',,;, -<, .• ---------_ .. --.. ". ----,,-
Planning Comm ,... DONE ... ---.. -_ ...... ,-
Ivwne .. ._--
Update Soils Report 'DONE 1
hase I Verify PI DONE i ---Update Traffic Imnad Analysis (TIA) !DRAFT DC
Submit Finfjl TIA ••• ••• ••• rciiY-to complete Initial Study (CEQA) , ----'.-••••• •• ...•. -..... -••••••• . .... ---..... ------ILEED ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• • •••• • •••• ••••• ••••• • •••• ••••• • •••• • ••••
In. for PC Zone
Staff Report initiates D. . .... ' ..... !
Prepare table ' square ••••• footages with PC and new CN
rSubmit table to City ••
IP C Zone ••••• ••••• • •••• . .... -.. _. f-••••• • •••• ~+-.. . . ... -. . .....
,--
••••• • •••• -.. Scale Model ••••• • •••• Submit to City , •• Det. of 11 •••••
Environ h11pact Rep_()!!. (if any) ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• Howed ,1BO days a
, . hired by City, paid by Owner)
...
PftOJECT ~I:~OM ON c.,.':"'::r In ':.' ... -~-
I
... _._n __ 7cr"v,",,'"
I -----
I 1
Prepare -•••• ••• • •• ._----
Submit to ARB ~ • --~.--r---I '-,-_ .. _ ... , .. -.... -. .----.~ Planning r.. (PTe) first. i .final
.~-~ ,--ARB .1 ;t .2nd
City Council .final .
.---------Design I (EARL Y risk start) • --r-.... ._--.-,. __ ... __ .-._-_. .---.. _--
Arch, Engr, LA ----1--"-.. _-----._--Arch, Engr, LA
Plan Check (Outside Plan Check -early if OK d by City) .. ,..
(and City Depts plan check) --
IGeneral . On the Team, with DIB MEPS - -
, .u 1·--'--~ L...~_. -.-.-~ I . _.
IBidding (sub bids) •••
with Subs -.. . r ' ... -_ .. .---.... --.-'-'-.---~--
••• f). . ...... -
• (to be obtained by Ownl!L or ,.. .. , -... ... , ... ~ ' .. -_._-,-,''-1--.. . .. ,-, -.
-_ .. 1-"-_ ... , _ ... -----, ..... '-_ .... ........ --~-~-----.---._'-.. _-r"'-'
.. -. . __ ... -----Start ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ! .. _-_. .. -~ .-----.--. _-_ ...... _-.. ~ .. --~. _ ..... r~ .. -:T--._-j----
(18 months duration) to February 20 ---.... ·1·_ .. ,,--.... -~ -1-----'1---,-----~-.... -.. -~-. ~ .. --'---'" ~-----
I-:-----.-~-.. -.... -.-... -... -_ ... --.--~
Occupy ••
Dick & Karen Da~ian
870 College Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Apri 1 3, 2009
Palo Alto City Council Members
Members j Planning & Transportation Commission
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
ATTACHMENT G
Received
APRO 6 2009
Department of Planning
& Community Environment
Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning &
Transportation Commissioners,
As folks who have been homeowners in College Terrace and
shoppers at JJ& F for 23 years, we are writing to support
the College Terrace Centre plans. It has been, as you know,
a long and involved process to get to this point. We are
pleased with this proposal and hope that you will pass the
project at the formal approval hearing on April 29, 2009.
Thank you all for the hard work you have done to create
a solution that works for everyone involved. We are
particularly pleased to read about the affordable housing
units as well as the plans for our beloved neighborhood
market.
~~
Richard (Dick) Damian
Karen S. Damian
PAHC Housing Services, LLC
725 Alma Street • Palo Alto, CA 94301 • (650) 321-9709 • Fax (650) 321-4341
April 20, 2009
Pl~nn,i.ng_,and Transpo$tion Commission
City of PalQ Alto
250 Hamilton A venue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: College Terrace Centre Project Letter of Recommendation
Dear Honorable Commission Members:
Received
APR 2 0 2009
Department of Planning
& Community Environment
The Palo Alto Housing Corporation, through its affiliate, P AHC Housing Services, LLC,
hereby submits this letter of recommendation in support of the proposed planned
community, College Terrace Centre, located at 2100 El Camino Real. This project is
being proposed by Carrasco and Associates on behalf of the Clara Chilcote Trust.
College Terrace proposes 14 Below Market Rate (BMR) one-bedroom rentals of
approximately 600 square feet. These spaciously-designed two-story lofts are unique to
the BMR Rental Program in that there are no other one-bedroom units with similar design
in the current housing inventory, and therefore, will be highly desirable to applicants.
Additionally, the amenities, including but not limited to, an individual yard, reserved
parking, retail and office spaces, and an onsite neighborhood grocery store make the
project ideal for any single person or working professional.
There is a current and constant demand for affordable housing in Palo Alto as evidenced
by the lengthy BMR rental waiting lists maintained by the property managers. This
project will provide some much needed affordable housing to the community.
We are most pleased to lend our support to the College Terrace Centre project. Thank
you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
PAHC HOUSING SERVICES, LLC.
An Affiliate of Palo Alto Housing Corporation
O='~fC..
Jaejeal:g a
BMR fIousing Administrator
~nnUez
Executive Director
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
ATTACHMENT B
EXCERPT FROM PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION MINUTES
AGENDIZED ITEM:
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Special Meeting at 6:00 PM
Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor,
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
2. 2180 EI Camino Real (The New College Terrace Centre)*: Initiation of (l) a Zone
Change from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District to Planned Community (PC)
District for a mixed use project having 61,960 square feet of floor area including 8,000
square feet of grocery (intended for JJ&F Market), 5,580 square feet of other retail, 14
affordable one-bedroom residential units, 39,980 square feet of office use, for a total floor
area ratio (FAR) of 1.23: 1, and two levels of below-grade parking facilities and surface
parking facilities providing 227 parking spaces on the property, and (2) a Comprehensive
Plan Amendment to assign the Mixed Use land use designation, allowing for a 1.15: 1
non-residential FAR, to a site currently designated as Neighborhood Commercial.
Environn1ental Assessn1ent: A draft initial study is being prepared.
Mr. Russ Reich, Senior Planner: Good evening. Thank you Chair Garber and Commissioners.
The application before you this evening is for the initiation of a Planned Community rezone to
go from Neighborhood Commercial to Planned Community. The application also includes a
request for Comprehensive Plan Amendment to amend the land use designation from
Neighborhood Commercial to Mixed Use.
The proposal includes the construction of a mixed use development containing 14 residential
units, roughly 40,000 square feet of office, 5, 580 square feet of retail, and an 8,000 square foot
grocery store. This is proposed above a two-story below grade parking structure providing 216
spaces. There are an additional 11 at grade spaces proposed for a total of227 parking spaces.
The development is proposed to fit within the context of the surrounding neighborhood. To this
end the access to the below grade parking structure has been located on EI Camino Real to
remove cars fron1 the residential side streets. Multiple buildings are proposed with varying
heights to reduce the overall mass and improve the architectural interest of the buildings. The
three-story retail/office building, which is the tallest of the three, is moved up to EI Camino and
College A venue adjacent to commercial uses such that it is away from the existing residential
uses. The two-story grocery/office building has been placed along EI Camino and Oxford for
increased visibility and to improve the viability of the retail grocery store. The two-story
residential building has been sited between the proposed commercial building and the existing
residential units across the street on Staunton Court to provide an appropriate transition in land
uses from the new project to the existing neighborhood. Most of the parking is below grade to
1 reduce vast amounts of paved surfaces. Wide sidewalks, a plaza, and open-air market space are
2 provided to enhance pedestrian activity.
3
4 As part of the PC process the Commission must find that the proposed development will result in
5 public benefits not otherwise attained under the existing regulations of the zone district. The
6 applicant has proposed the two following items for the Commission's consideration: the
7 retention of the neighborhood market and tell below market rate housing units. The applicant is
8 proposing to provide 14 of the units, all of the units, as BMR but s'ince four-of them will be used
9 as the payment for the commerCial housing fee the resulting number is ten. The fundamental
10 issue for consideration is whether the guaranteed preservation of the neighborhood market in this
11 location is a compelling benefit to allow for the additional office square footage.
12
13 Staff has received a multitude of emails and faxes from the public providing comment on the
14 project proposal that expresses opinions of both support and do not support the proposaL From
15 those that do support the project it is clear that the preservation of the market is the most
16 important aspect. From those that do not support the proposal the large amount of proposed
17 office and the associated traffic and scale of the project appear to be of most concern. Being that
18 most of these were received beyond the packet deadline they have been provided to you at
19 places.
20
21 Based on some of the comments there seems to be some confusion about a key aspect of the
22 proposal. If the PC were to be approved it would guarantee the preservation of a neighborhood
23 market. Based on some of the comments it did not seem to be understood by some that this
24 would be the case. One of the benefits of the PC process is that specific land uses can be
25 specified and required as part of the PC Ordinance that is ultinlately approved by CounciL
26
27 Staffhas recommended that the Planning and Transportation Commission consider the proposal
28 to initiate the zone change application from Neighborhood Commercial to Planned Community
29 and amend the Comprehensive Plan land use designation from Neighborhood Commercial to
30 Mixed Use to determine whether to forward conceptual plans to the Architectural Review Board
3 1 for review. The applicant is here to make a brief presentation. Thank you.
32
33 Chair Garber: Thank you. Planning Director?
34
35 Mr. Williams: Chair Garber if I could just add a couple of comments.
36
37 Chair Garber: Please.
38
39 Mr. Williams: Thank you Commissioners. I would just like to emphasize some of Russ' last
40 points there that Staff does not have a specific recommendation before you because we do
41 believe that the key issue here is really the retention or the assurance of a grocery store, a
42 neighborhood commercial type of use. A compelling offset for the extent of the office use in
43 particular that is being proposed. The office use is at a scale and intensity that really is more
44 consistent with a community commercial or regional commercial type of level of office. This is
45 an area that is zoned and designated in the Comprehensive Plan for Neighborhood Conlmercial.
46 On the other hand you have very strong neighborhood conlmercial use as the one component
1 here in the market, and specifically as you have seen in the letters a particular affinity for a JJ&F
2 Market that is there now, which of course we, the City, can't guarantee would be the market to
3 be there. We certainly can assure as Russ said that a market of some kind and some size be part
4 of the project. So again, I just want to emphasize we really see that as being a key issue in terms
5 of whether you are comfortable with proceeding or not. That is really in many ways a
6 community judgment that the PC allows you to make. Thank you.
7
8 . Chair Garber: Would the applicant like to make a presentation? You will have 15 minutes.
9
10 Mr. Patrick Smailey, Applicant: Good evening. I represent the propel1y owner of the College
11 Terrace Centre proposal at 2180 EI Camino Real. I first want to thank this Commission, the
12 College Terrace residents, and other community members who have taken an ongoing and
13 heartfelt interest in our development plans. We are truly grateful for that input and our project is
14 better for it.
15
16 Our vision is to create a village style mixed use development that embraces the College Terrace
17 neighborhood, enables JJ&F to prosper in the future, and also does justice to this portion of Palo
18 Alto's EI Camino Real corridor. College Terrace Centre offers an economically healthy and
19 balanced combination of housing, retail, and office space. We have worked diligently to make
20 certain that our project works well on our EI Camino site and that it also blends seamlessly with
21 our neighbors. I am convinced we have accomplished this objective.
22
23 I also want to be very clear with everyone here tonight. The Garcia Family, John, Dennis, and
24 Lloyd have been and continue to be our partners in this venture. This project is truly built
25 around them and JJ&F Market. I also want to address head on the fiscal realities of this
26 undertaking. Office rents are approximately three to four times that of retail rents. In order to
27 even further discount the retail rents to JJ&F that is paid by the Garcia's and allow them to
28 continue to serve this great neighborhood for another 60 years we need to build this project as it
29 is proposed. .
30
31 In these challenging economic times we are working hard to preserve a valuable community
32 asset and also provide further public benefit in the form of affordable housing. Over one quarter
33 of the total squarefootage of our proposal is dedicated to community space that is 26.5 percent
34 of the total square footage of the project. This is a big number in this and any economic time.
35
36 Lastly and most importantly, we have created a project that works. It works for College Terrace
37 and its residents. It works environmentally. It works from a transit, traffic, and parking
38 perspective. It works for pedestrians and bicyclists. It works for the Garcia's and the JJ&F
39 family. It works for Palo Alto by providing it with an estimated $700,000 in annual tax revenue.
40 It also works, as you will see and I think you all got a copy of this, because we have tremendous
41 community support for the project as designed.
42
43 Our fu'll project team is here this evening to answer any questions and explain the details of the
44 proposal for you. I would like to thank you once again for you tinle. At this moment I would
45 like pass the floor over to Linda Poncini of the Carrasco & Associates, our architect on the
46 project.
1
2 Ms. Linda Poncini, Carrasco & Associates: Chair Garber and Commissioners, our planning staff
3 has presented a thorough report on the major project elements and the issues at hand. So I would
4 like to illustrate how Carrasco & Associates has taken great care to ensure that this project fits
5 seamlessly at it site on EI Camino and adjacent College Terrace.
6
7 As you know" we are requesting rezoning of the site to PC. However 1 will demonstrate how
8 College Ternlce Centre has been carefully and specifically designed to meet the context based
9 design criteria of the existing CN zone. The images on the followi1).g slides are taken directly
10 from the City's Zoning Ordinance Section 18.16.090 and illustrate the concepts used in
11 designing College Terrace Centre.
12
13 First, the pedestrian and bicycle environment is created by providing walkability, bicycle
14 friendly circulation plan, and connectivity from transit to shopping, work, and residences.
15 Ground floor retail, outdoor seating and gathering areas, wide sidewalks, awnings at storefront
16 windows, and ample bicycle parking are featured. Also, primary vehicle access to the project
17 from EI Camino means easy access for pedestrians and bicyclists from the College Terrace
18 neighborhood.
19
20 Two, street fac;ades are detailed to provide a strong relationship with each street frontage. That
21 relationship varies as one moves from the commercial fac;ade on EI Camino to the residential
22 units along Staunton Court. The residential units present a further texture and scale, a finer
23 texture and scale, to reflect the adjacent homes and apartments. Projecting eaves and overhangs,
24 balconies, decks, and other architectural elements provide human scale and interest, and enliven
25 the buildings. The exterior of each building is designed with great care and integrity so that the
26 College Terrace Centre does not have a backside.
27
28 Three, massing and setbacks, and four, low density residential transitions have been complied
29 with by carefully modulating the scale of the buildings. The project includes articulation,
30 setbacks, and visual interest on forms that step down fronl the corner of EI Camino and College
31 to lower heights and massing facing the neighborhood. The corner building for the new JJ&F
32 has a unique architectural character, which makes it a feature of College Terrace Centre. It will
33 be easily identified as a very special market and a destination. In keeping with the design criteria
34 the sidewalk is 12 feet on EI Camino Real at the retail spaces and at least eight feet on Oxford,
35 Staunton, and College. A generous setback of29 feet at JJ&F provides additional space for the
36 open-air market.
37
38 Five, project open space consists of private and public open space designed for use by the
39 residents, visitors, and employees at this site. Gathering spaces activate the street fac;ade and
40 provide eyes on the street at Staunton for safety. Both private and common open space areas are
41 buffered from traffic noise by the larger building mass along the EI Camino frontage.
42 Aesthetically open space includes planters, vegetated roofs, mature trees, and textured and
43 colored paved surfaces.
44
45 Six, parking design criteria for the CN zone state that parking should not overwhelm the
46 character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. As a result 95 percent of the
1 parking is located below grade. A . large central opening in that parking allows light to flood into
2 both levels, and a landscape courtyard at the lowest level provides the softening effect of
3 bamboo, which is visible at all levels. Notably the one CN zone criteria that we have
4 intentionally not complied with is having primary parking access from side streets. In response
5 to community and Commission input we relocated the garage entrance to EI Camino.
6
7 Seven, this is considered a large site in the CN zone, because of that we had the opportunity to
8 provide physical and visual connectivity throughout the site using a hierarchy of public and
9 private spaces. Within College Terrace Centre there is a diversity of building types, which.
10 reflects the mixed use nature of the Centre. Each building type on the site has been designed to
11 respond to its immediate context. The commercial structures facing EI Camino have a character
12 appropriate to this major thoroughfare. The residential buildings are sited opposite existing
13 single and multifamily residential uses on Oxford and Staunton Court. Commercial use at the
14 corner of College A venue and Staunton Court reflects the commercial uses immediately across
15 these streets. The JJ&F Market forms the corner magnet at Oxford and EI Camino and will be
16 the hub of social interaction.
17
18 Eight, pursuant to sustainability and green building design College Terrace Centre is designed to
19 achieve a minimum ofLEED Silver certification. These sustainably designed buildings are
20 energy efficient, water conserving, durable, and nontoxic with healthy interior environments.
21 Orientation for winter heat gain, summer shading, day lighting, and natural ventilation is key. A
22 large installation of photovoltaic panels is on the roofs of the clearstories, which bring natural
23 light into the center of the building. Onsite storm water management directs rainwater to
24 cisterns, which allows for controlled release and irrigation use. Perhaps our favorite feature of
25 this green project is the vegetated roof. Not only will it manage storm water, provide a cooling
26 effect, and view from the offices, it will also provide an herb garden for JJ&F. The attributes of
27 a LEED certified building are numerous. If you have questions on that I will be glad to answer
28 any of those later in the meeting.
29
30 In summary, I have highlighted the CN zone context based design criteria to illustrate that even
31 though we are requesting a PC zone design of College Terrace Centre closely emulates a CN
32 zone development. We were able to accomplish this because the size and scale of the project
33 coupled with our village style allows the project proposal to work beautifully on the site. I will
34 now turn the presentation over to Tony Carrasco.
35
36 Mr. Tony Carrasco, Carrasco & Associates: Good evening Commissioners, thank you again for
37 reviewing this the third time. As Patrick has mentioned many outreach meetings and your
38 comments have contributed to a walkable, village scale place that fits EI Camino as well as this
39 neighborhood. Since October 2008 when we met for the second time little has changed with the
40 building forms and placement of these bUildings. We have added a small plaza at the College
41 and Staunton corner on the sunny side of this development. We have re-categorized the
42 community room as you suggested as offices, as a result the office space increased by 941 square
43 feet and retail·increased by 55 square feet.
44
45 Nelson Nygaard and Hexagon are here to answer questions about traffic and parking demand.
46 On parking counts, as you know, EI Camino is a transit corridor. It is served by five bus lines
1 and bus rapid transit line, number 22. We have provided 40 cars more than the proposed uses
2 demand. That is by ULI, IT, and our traffic engineer's estimates. We could use the code, which
3 allows landscape reserve, and provide another 16 spaces on the lowest floor. We can add
4 another 50 bicycle spaces, which most people are going to bicycle to this space substituting for
5 six cars or adding six cars more. Our mixed use criteria will allow us more than five, which we
6 morethan exceed at 27-foot space deficit.
7
8 A lot has changed since ourlast meeting.· Palo Alto has decidedto incorporate policies relating
9 to reducing our carbon 'footprint, which will move us more towards this kind of development.
10 Comparisons with buildings I can come back to. As you can see the pinkish areas are the
11 commercial zones and our building fits in very well with the existing buildings already there.
12 Sustainability moves us to build buildings that will last 100 years. So we ask when you consider
13 this development that you imagine the city and a neighborhood as it will exist 100 years from
14 now. Thank you.
15
16 Mr. John Garcia, JJ&F Market: Honorable Commissioners, we have been a Palo Alto
17 neighborhood family market for 60 years. We have operated out of the same facility for every
18 one of those years. When we were first approached about having a new store in the proposed
19 College Terrace Centre we actually considered trying to expand significantly to 15,000 to 20,000
20 square feet. However, after careful reviewing local consumer demands, with consideration given
21 to our local competitors, and the trend in the grocery business for smaller more practical stores
22 we have come to the conclusion that the proposed store size and design is ideal. We are very
23 excited about relocating to a store that is larger, more efficient, and in a new visible and
24 attractive location. The Garcia Family and JJ&F are full partners in the College Terrace Centre
25 development.
26
27 We desperately need a new store and this proposal will provide it. Our current building is
28 obsolete and dilapidated. We believe that it has a useful life of only about two or three more
29 years. This project is our opportunity to survive and compete with chain stores. We have
30 worked out a strong and fair agreement with the property owners that enables us to stay afloat
31 during the construction period and then come back better than ever with an ongoing deeply
32 subsidized rent structure.
33
34 We also care a great deal about our friends and customers. A new store will allow us to stay in
35 the neighborhood that we love for another six decades. Commissioners, I respectfully ask that
36 you initiate the PC rezoning for us, please. Thank you.
37
38 Chair Garber: Commissioners.
39
40 Commissioner Holman: Chair Garber, the last speaker needs to identify himself for the record,
41 please.
42
43 Chair Garber: If you would identify who you are so the Secretary can record it correctly.
44
45 Mr. Garcia: John Garcia.
46
1 Chair Garber: Thanks. Commissioners, let's do a round of questions before we go to the public.
2 Let's limit ourselves to two questions and see if we can get through in one piece. We have 13
3 members of public to speak. Is there a Commissioner that would like to go first? Vice-Chair
4 Tun1a followed by Commissioners Holman and Fineberg.
5
6 Vice-Chair Tuma: A question for Staff and I did give you guys a heads up albeit a little bit late
7 today because of when I received it. We received from the CTRA a memo that has towards the
8 end, and this is towards the back of the packet that was left at places tonight, there is a one-page
9 ·comparison chart and then another entire page of footnotes. My question for Staff is, are there
10 any significant issues within that chart that you. would take issue with, that you disagree with?
11
12 Mr. Reich: Because of the timing of Staff receiving this chart as well we have not had the
13 opportunity to give it incredibly detailed analysis but it doesn't appear that there is anything in
14 here that we would take issue with.
15
16 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, great, very helpful. It is from the neighborhood organization CTRA.
17 It is the last two pages of the group that was left at places. That's it for now.
18
19 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Holman followed by Fineberg.
20
21 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. Is it okay to ask questions of the applicant or just of Staff at
22 this point?
23
24 Chair Garber: Either is fine.
25
26 Commissioner Holman: This is perhaps for either or both. Could there be a restatement of why
27 the market moved from College to Oxford corner and why the office space increased? The FAR
28 now has also increased.
29
30 Mr. Reich: I can speak to the relocation of the market. The other one I would defer to the
31 applicant to talk about. It is my understanding that the market has been relocated such that it has
32 greater visibility on EI Camino, and so it is more economically viable to have that retail use
33 facing EI Camino rather than being hidden away back on College.
34
35 Mr. Carrasco: Commissioner Holman, in discussions with JJ&F it became pretty apparent to us
36 that we needed to change the location of the market from a hidden away location to a very
37 prominent location to capture market share. This grocery store will not only survive on the
38 neighborhood but must attract people who are driving down EI Camino and that is the reason
39 why it creates this outdoor market to attract people as they pass by that market and drive into the
40 parking garage.
41
42 The re-categorization of space and the configuration of the building in order to get the columns
43 lined up and square footages worked out allowed us a plaza on the corner of Oxford and
44 Staunton. It is a sunny corner and we envision uses that spillover into the sidewalks and are used
45 both by the neighborhood and the businesses who locate there. I think that answers the question
46 but I don't know ifit does.
1
2 Commissioner Holman: Kind of a follow up to that, I am well familiar with the businesses on
3 College across from where the market is now. I am afraid to admit that I neglected to get by
4 there to remind myself what the businesses are across the street on Oxford, in other words, across
5 from where the market in the future would be relocated.
6
7 Mr. Smailey: Right now it is a Sleep Train and then behind that is the back of the Stanford
8 Terrace Hotel. So the comer of Oxford and EI Camino is Sleep Train and behind that is the hotel
9 bUilding. Then behind that is a small apartment as well I think there is a little doctor's office or
10 something there.
11
12 Commissioner Holman: Thank you very much.
13
14 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg.
15
16 Commissioner Fineberg: Question for the applicant. In Attachment H as well as your
17 presentation earlier you mentioned that there is approximately $700,000 in annual local tax
18 revenue. What components of the project contribute to the generation of that revenue?
19
20 Mr. Smailey: That would be sales tax revenue generated from the retail tenants projected for the
21 site.
22
23 Commissioner Fineberg: So groceries are not taxable. Would it be the nonfood component of
24 JJ&F? The retail is it services or how did you calculate that if you don't know what the retail
25 uses are?
26
27 Mr. Smailey: We have estimated with JJ&F their increase in sales, which I think if I remember
28 correctly John, was basically a doubling. In addition to that we have an expression of interest in
29 the retail location from other perspective tenants and we asked them for their projections on sales
30 revenues and backed into a sales tax that would flow through to the City.
31
32 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, thank you. For Staff, is it typical to initiate a zone change
33 before the Draft initial study of the Environmental Impact Report is prepared? Specifically, we
34 have issues where Caltrans has not reviewed or acted upon the EI Camino driveway. Then we
35 have a comment from Mr. William Ross regarding a recent decision of the California Supreme
36 Court. In his letter he nlentions that saying that the analysis should come first. Could Staff,
37 Planning and legal, comment on that please?
38
39 Mr. Williams: Yes, Commissioner Fineberg, we generally do not do the environmental analysis
40 until the item comes back to the Commission. It goes to the ARB and then comes back to the
41 formal process. The intent of the preliminary review is to not incur an extensive, detailed level
42 of cost before getting some direction as to whether the project appears to be feasible at least to
43 move through that review process. So this is the standard.
44
1 The one you saw recently for 801 Alma was a different situation, it was an unusual situation, in
2 that we did have that particularly given the multitude of issues on that project. Typically we do
3 not include that. I don't know from the legal court case what that issue is.
4
5 Ms. Tronquet: Our preliminary review process does make it distinguishable from the case
6 mentioned. This part of the process is preliminary. The environmental review will come when
7 the project is formally considered both by the ARB and the Planning Conlmission again. So it
8 will be considered with the actual decision-making process not just preliminary consideration.
9
10 Chair Garber: Commissioners Keller, Lippert, and then myself.
11
12 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. First a quick clarification about slide six for the applicant.
13 Where it says parking design there are two little sort of looks like brownish or yellowish boxes
14 labeled residential. Is that an error? I am confused by that diagram.
15
16 Ms. Poncini: These are illustrati9ns from the City's Municipal Code. We were just using these
17 to illustrate that the underground parking is our condition and that we are meeting the criteria in
18 the City's ordinance. In this particular instance there wasn't an illustration in the City's Zoning
19 Ordinance that had the residential separate. So that is just the image that we had from the City
20 ordinance.
21
22 Commissioner Keller: Right, so this is not representative of your project. Thank you.
23
24 I am sorry for throwing this out at Staff without having alerted you beforehand, which I try to do.
25 I realize that this project is on the other side ofEI Camino from what would be a PTOD district
26 and somewhat away from it but in some sense this kind of proposed project has some of the feel
27 if you will of a PTOD kind of project. I am wondering if, without giving you advance notice so
28 that you could prepare, if you could sort of compare the general scope of this project with what
29 PTOD would allow. Not that this site is within the PTOD boundary but it gives us another
30 context for comparison.
31
32 Mr. Williams: Yes, Commissioner Keller, the total intensity of the project, the total floor area
33 ratio basically, is roughly consistent with what the PTOD total floor area would allow. However,
34 the PTOD zone requires most of that to be residential. So it really has a residential focus to it.
35 As you recall, we saw a project recently in the PTOD that a little bit more nonresidential than
36 would generally be permitted but even that was more than 50 percent of the floor area ratio was
37 residential, about 65 or 75 percent of it was.
38
39 In this case you have approximately 1.06 of this FAR is commercial and just a .16 or .1 7 FAR is
40 residential. In the PTOD in order to do a project of this intensity you would probably have to
41 almost reverse that' and it would be more like a 1.0 residential and .20 nonresidential. So the mix
42 of uses doesn't really match but the idea of a mixed use project at this approximate intensity and
43 what is the height on this? About 40 feet? So it is approximately in the ballpark also in terms of
44 the height of a PTOD.
45
1 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Could you address how in an eventual PC Ordinance you
2 would address the guarantee that there would be a grocery store here? Would that be something
3 that we would want in an eventual PC Ordinanc'e? How would we go about guaranteeing that
4 would be the case?
5
6 Mr. Williams: You would probably need to do something similar to what was done with Alma
7 Plaza, which is specify that a grocery store be one of the allowable uses, and what the minimum
8 size isofthat. What we did in that case was we had to have a signed lease in place before any
9 construction of any other of the facilities on the site went forward, and that the grocery store had
10 to be up and occupied before the other uses were occupied. So it put priority on getting the
11 grocery store in place and up and running, and the lease in place, and that kind of thing.
12
13 Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
14
15 Chair Garber: Commissioner Lippert and then myself.
16
17 Commissioner Lippert: I have two questions for the applicant. Can you just briefly explain the
18 orientation of the BMR units and their relationship to the surrounding neighborhood?
19 Specifically how they work with the neighbors across Staunton Court and Oxford Avenue.
20
21 Mr. Carrasco: If you look up at that graphic there the lower building on the top right hand comer
22 of the site faces the residential units across from Staunton and across from Oxford. That is the
23 reason why we placed those residential units in that place, the two stories with a roof that mimics
24 a residential kind of roof.
25
26 Commissioner Lippert: Why not integrate it more with the other building?
27
28 Mr. Carrasco: Which other building?
29
30 Commissioner Lippert: The market and the office building, in other words, I guess on the
31 backside make it more oriented so that it all works together as one piece rather than separated
32 from?
33
34 Mr. Carrasco: We could certainly look at that. I think if you look at the more detailed plans it
35 separates and has windows on both sides of the project. If you orient it the other way it may not
36 have that but it is a good question and we will look at that.
37
38 Commissioner Lippert: Then also with regard to the gazebo and the stairs that you have going to
39 the gazebo, why not have them going to the right so that you go through the residential court
40 between the BMRs and then up the stairs to the gazebo so it is more internal to the development
41 and there is more of a relationship?
42
43 Mr. Carrasco: Another good idea. We oriented it the way we did because we thought people
44 coming out of the grocery store would bring their lunches and so on and walk up those stairs to
45 the gazebo rather than go around the comer to Staunton Court and go up.
46
I Commissioner Lippert: So it could be bi-directional.
2
3 Mr. Carrasco: It could be bi-directional.
4
5 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma wanted to ask his second question.
6
7 Vice-Chair Tuma: This is a question for either the applicant or the Garcia family. This is a
8 question I raised last time we were together. Without delving into the details of whatever
9 arrangements and financial details and that sort of thing, given that I agree with the
10 characterization made earlier by our Planning Director that a lot of this turns on the issue of
11 counterbalancing office versus retention of the market and specifically JJ&F, are you willing to
12 share with the public and with the Commission whether an agreement exists that obligates JJ&F
13 to take over the space once it is complete, and also that obligates the owner to allow JJ&F to do
14 that without getting into the details of that?
15
16 Ms. Robin Kennedy, Land Use Attorney: Commissioner Tunla, we have a Letter of Intent and
1 7 we created this memorandum of it so that the Commission could see that it is signed. It is a very
18 brief summary ofa longer agreement. JJ&F is not obligated but it has all of the rights to exercise
19 essentially a one-dollar option to go into this space. So we, as the developer, gave JJ&F the right
20 to choose if it wished to, and you have heard John Garcia tonight express the continuing
21 enthusiasm of the Garcia Family to come into this site. We don't want to force them to do that
22 so if it turned out that by the time we were ready to offer them a full lease they had all won the
23 lottery and gone off to Tahiti they could do that. So that is the answer to that question.
24
25 I would like to take advantage of the fact that I am up here to respond to Commissioner Lippert's
26 question. We are willing to do a deed restriction in addition to whatever the City would impose
27 as a condition of approval to ensure that for the life of the improvements this would be a grocery
28 store. So the City can impose it as a condition but there would also be on the public records, and
29 filed in the Recorder's Office with Santa Clara County, essentially a deed restriction ensuring
30 that so long as that building lasted that there would be a grocery store there. So I hope that
31 responds to that question as well.
32
33 Chair Garber: A couple of questions from me and then Commissioner Rosati, and then we will
34 go to the public. For the applicant, you have proposed pushing back the grocery store and office
35 from El Camino. The EI Camino Guidelines, which are guid.elines not a requirement,
36 recommend a building closer to EI Camino. How would you like the Commission to think about
37 that move relative to that guideline?
38
39 Mr. Carrasco: I think John Garcia will also additionally answer that question. As an architect
40 from the architect side talking to John he needed outdoor kind of exuberant, kind of attractive
41 groceries out there that get people into that space. Additionally there will be a few tables to sit
42 there and eat your lunch at the edge of the grocery store.
43
44 Chair Garber: Actually, as nluch as I am interested in John's description I think the question
45 might be more appropriately answered by you as to what the proposal is that you are asking us to
46 consider here is to tradeoff what the EI Camino Guidelines suggest for something that doesn't do
1 that. So in an urban way and a planning way how is it that you want us to understand the space
2 relative to what the Guidelines suggest should be done there?
3
4 Mr. Carrasco: Yes, I got it now. The intent of these Guidelines as we read them is that you need
5 something active and alive and vibrant at that location. It suggests doors and awnings and so on.
6 These carts and so on replace that activity in the same location, 12 feet away from the curb, to
7 perform the same way as the intention of the building wall.
8
9 Chair Garber: If I am understanding you you are suggesting that the carts of produce, etc. would
lObe perceived by the passerby and someone in a car the same way that a fac;ade would of a
11 bUilding.
12
13 Mr. Carrasco: Yes, thank you that is better said.
14
15 Chair Garber: Okay. My next question and actually you may find yourself being the one to
16 answer this one as well. Staff has recognized in their study here that the land use designation
17 that would seem most appropriate in relationship to the proposed development is the mixed use
18 land use designation. Maybe you could walk us through why that isn't appropriate for your
19 proposal.
20
21 Mr. Carrasco: Chairman Garber, I am not familiar enough with the mixed use designation.
22
23 Chair Garber: Okay, fair enough. Would the Planner like to walk us through?
24
25 Mr. Reich: Being that we believe that it is consistent with the mixed use land use designation it
26 would be difficult to say why it isn't.
27
28 Chair Garber: Let me explain myself. What I thought I was understanding here maybe I am not.
29 What you are suggesting is that that land use could be used in lieu of the PC?
30
31 Mr. Reich: No, the current land use designation is Neighborhood Commercial and the proposed
32 project does not fit the parameters in the land use designation within Comprehensive Plan. So
33 the land use designation has to be amended if the project was to be moved forward and approved
34 to a land use designation that does fit the project. In this case mixed use is a land use designation
35 within the Comprehensive Plan that fits what is being proposed here.
36
37 Chair Garber: The underlying. Okay, I got you, thank you. Commissioner Rosati.
38
39 Commissioner Rosati: I have two questions for Mr. Garcia if you would come up. The first
40 question has to do with the relationship between the office space and your business. How do you
41 see that as that is a concern a lot of the people who have responded to the project have? I think
42 that from a business perspective you may see that a benefit and I would like to hear from you
43 how you interpret having that retail location right next to offices impacts your businesses.
44
1 Mr. Garcia: I am very excited to have potential customers just a walk away. I feel we do a great
2 catering business, we do a great lunch business, and whatever offices that are up there are
3 potential business. It sounds like a very great opportunity for us to have those up there.
4
5 Commissioner Rosati: You see that as a good thing.
6
7 Mr. Garcia: Yes, definitely.
8
9 Commissioner 'Rosati: How may your business strategy change after this move? What else
10 would be different from what you have today? How are you planning to be successful and
11 therefore viable after this happens?
12
13 Mr. Garcia: For 60 years we have been doing business of pretty much getting people what they
14 want. They get good quality.
15
16 Commissioner Rosati: I am sorry, let me clarify. There has been a lot of concern about the size
17 of the space that you would be getting in the new development. How is that not going to be an
18 issue and how are you planning to ,be successful and viable?
19
20 Mr. Garcia: Right now our sales space inside the store is about 6,300 square feet and the rest of
21 the area is very jumbled up. It is a lot of boxes and warehouse space that is underutilized and we
22 can't turn it into sales space. With this building we will have a building that is built as a grocery
23 store. We have hundreds of square feet in the store that is walls that don't do us any good
24 because the building that we are in right now is actually three buildings. So with that we are·
25 going to have a very efficient building where right now our building is very inefficient. I think it
26 will be much easier for us to run the business that way.
27
28 Chair Garber: All right. Let's go to the public. We have now 15 cards. Each member will have
29 three minutes a piece. I will call out three names, the first one will speak, the second one will be
30 on deck, and if the third one would approach in anticipation of speaking. We now have 16 cards.
31 We will accept cards until 8:30 or so.
32
33 The first person speaking is Malcolm Slaney, followed William Hurt, and if Pat Robinson would
.34 get themselves ready.
35
36 Mr. Malcolm Slaney, Palo Alto: Hi I live about 220 feet from the proposed development. As a
37 neighbor I would like to see a viable development. The proposed development is requesting an
38 increase in office space by a factor of three, a large increase in traffic for the neighborhood, and
39 insufficient parking. In exchange the developer is offering BMR housing and neighborhood
40 grocery.
41
42 My family is a big fan and supporter of the JJ&F Market. My sons, wife, and I walk to JJ's
43 almost every day and we spend almost $1,000 a nl0nth there. I anl looking forward to
44 continuing to shop there. But, my fondness and love for JJ&F does not translate into a blank
45 check for the developer. I am primarily concerned by the nature of the market guarantee. We
46 are not privy to the private agreement between the landowner and the JJ&F family. Therefore, it
1 is incunlbent on you, the Planning Commission, to make sure our neighborhood doesn't suffer.
2 Our neighborhood does not benefit from a mini-market we want to walk to a full-service market.
3 I hope you can do that in the agreement.
4
5 Palo Alto does not have a perfect record when it comes to guaranteeing a long-term public
6 benefit. I am referring of course to the Cafe Riaci and the public space that is no longer public.
7 hope that that happened before you wise folks started to serve on this Commission.
8
9 I worried the developer is not promising enough space for a viable grocery store. Previous
10 discussions here in Palo Alto suggest more space is needed to be viable in the grocery business.
11 I hope John is correct. I want to see a viable business.
12
13 Finally, I am worried about the impact of traffic and parking. I am glad that the primary entrance
14 will be on EI Camino Real but substandard amount of underground parking will drive traffic and
15 parking into the neighborhood. I know I would prefer to park on the street instead of in a dark,
16 narrow garage. Forcing people to park offsite in order to get LEED points is not a win for
17 College Terrace. So I hope you consider the parking issues very carefully. I hope the Planning
18 Commission will consider the needs of our neighborhood and I really appreciate all your time on
19 this proj ect. Thank you.
20
21 Chair Garber: Thank you. William Hurt followed by Pat Robinson, and if Carol Chatfield will
22 approach.
23
24 Mr. William Hurt, Palo Alto: I am 55 years in the neighborhood. I remember when JJ's was
25 little. What John said about it not being an efficient building he is absolutely correct. When they
26 took over the hobby shop that used to be next door they just sort of opened it up partially. If you
27 walk through there we got some roller coasters going on and it doesn't make any sense. It is not
28 an efficient building. I think the consideration for the smaller square footage to what everybody
29 seems to think a grocery store needs is certainly going to be made up, and I have to take his word
30 for it he is in the business. Ifhe thinks he can make the business work he can make the business
31 work. They certainly have done a pretty good job for 60 years.
32
33 I am also the Vice President of the College Terrace Residents Association. I have nothing to say
34 on behalf of the Association. There have been some things apparently distributed that are not
35 authorized by the Association. I think everybody is clear on what those are the significance of
36 those editorials.
37
38 I think that the developer's guarantee or the developer's willingness to put in a deed restriction
39 for a grocery store there is huge. I am also a real estate developer. I think that is extremely
40 generous and I am frankly surprised to hear that they are willing to do that. Anything that the
41 City does can be undone but a deed restriction cannot be undone to the best of my knowledge.
42 think that makes a significant difference and that will solve a lot of problems. Palo Alto chased
43 the All American Market out of Barron Park and I would hate to see that happen to College
44 Terrace.
45
1 I spend a lot more than $1,000 a month at JJ's. I don't know if Mollie Stone's would every let
2 me sign for my lunch. JJ's does. I have never been called by my name in Mollie Stone's. I am
3 repeatedly every time I show up at JJ's. They know the names of my children. Mollie Stone's
4 doesn't know that I have children.
5
6 As far as the public benefit goes I think that JJ's or a grocery store standalone is enough public
7 benefit to merit the zone change. I think the BMRs are a politically correct joke. I think that if
8 the developer can subsidize JJ's a little more by getting full market rent for those apartments that
9 would be a better idea. Thank you very. much.
10
11 Chair Garber: Thank you. So noted, we are passing on Pat Robinson. Before we go to the next
12 person let me just caution the audience as well as the Comn1issioners that we should keep
13 ourselves from applauding or the opposite expression so that we can maintain a fair and unbiased
14 environment here regardless of our feelings one way or the other. The next person to speak is
15 Carol Chatfield followed by Scott Lonergan, and if Ken Kato can approach.
16
17 Ms. Carol Chatfield, Palo Alto: Hi I live in Palo Alto and I work nearby at Stanford University.
18 I want to speak in favor of being able to continue to have a locally owned high quality grocery
19 store in this area. I think if it continues to exist it will add greatly to the pleasure of living and
20 working in this community. I would hate to see it go. Thank you.
21
22 Chair Garber: Thank you. Scott Lonergan followed by Ken Kato, and if Daniel Coffran can
23 approach.
24
25 Mr. Scott Lonergan, Palo Alto: Good evening I have lived in the neighborhood about ten years.
26 My interest is not just this project but kind of looking at that stretch of El Camino more broadly.
27 I think it needs some help. Some decisions may be bad ones in the past but this to me looks like
28 a nice project to kind of help make some improvements on El Camino. I know there is some
29 concern about the density and all the additional office space but when I kind of look at that in the
30 bigger picture there is a lot of it on Stanford Avenue with the Stanford buildings. So I don't see
31 a problem with having "regional" offices in the area that kind of bring some more vitality and
32 people into the area to help kind of make the ecosystem of the retail, which I think is critical, and
33 it has that the grocery store and the other retail that has to be there. I wouldn't want to ever see
34 that leave. So ifhas a couple of layers of offices on top I am okay with that.
35
36 The other key issue I see is driving cars into the neighborhood but because the entrance is on El
37 Camino that is another critical thing to me this works. If those cars were coming into the
38 neighborhood I would have a problem with that. So the driveway on El Can1ino and just kind of
39 some of the things they put into the design of this project I think it works and helps get us going
40 in the right direction on that stretch of El Camino. Thank you.
41
42 Chair Garber: Thank you. Ken Kato followed by Daniel Coffran, and if Ranney Thayer could
43 approach.
44
45 Mr. Ken Kato, Palo Alto: Good evening Con1missioners. I have had a dental office in Palo Alto
46 for over 35 years and I think Palo Alto is very fortunate to have JJ&F wishing to expand and
1 remain in their present location. In today's economy I believe that we must encourage JJ&F to
2 remain a viable part of our community. Therefore I support this project and I hope we can come
3 to a positive action tonight. I would hate to lose the best market in Palo Alto. Thank you.
4
5 Chair Garber: Thank you. Daniel Coffran followed by Ranney Thayer, and if Robbin Lonergan
6 could approach. It looks like we do not have Daniel so we will pass on that. We will go directly
7 to Ranney Thayer followed by Robbin Lonergan, and with Rita Taylor on deck.
8
9 Mr. Ranney Thayer, Palo Alto: Hello I have been in the neighborhood since 1994. I hadn't
10 planned to speak tonight but I just want to go for the record that I am for this project. Anything
11 that can keep JJ&F in business and viable is desirable. I do not have any objection to office
12 space in that area. As long as there is enough parking in this underground garage I think that we
13 have a winner here. I would like to urge the Board to approve the zoning change.
14
15 Chair Garber: Thank you. Robbin Lonergan followed by Rita Taylor, with Lynn Power coming
16 third. I am not seeing Robbin Lonergan so we will go directly to Rita Taylor followed by Lynn
17 Power, and Robert Moss third. No Rita Taylor. We will go to Lynn Power followed by Robert
18 Moss and then Joanne Garcia.
19
20 Ms. Lynn Power, Palo Alto: I have lived in the neighborhood since 1950 and I remember riding
21 down to JJ&F and getting my popsicles and signing for them even though my mother didn't tell
22 me I could. I am in favor of Garcia's.
23
24 As to the Commissioner's question about the setback off ofEI Camino it would seem to me that
25 that is definitely a benefit. Go in front of the mattress store, which is right there on the sidewalk,
26 which actually slopes out to the street. It is really unpleasant as far as walking or riding a bicycle
27 goes. So I think the setback is definitely an improvement over whatever standard you have for
28 EI Camino.
29
30 Chair Garber: Thank you. Robert Moss followed by Joanne Garcia, and then Greg Tanaka~
31
32 Mr. Robert Moss, Palo Alto: Thank you Chairman Garber and Commissioners. Most of the talk
33 you have heard tonight and previously has been for a specific occupant, JJ&F. You cannot zone
34 for a particular occupant. That is both illegal and stupid. You can zone for a requirement that
35 there be a grocery store but if JJ&F goes out of business or walks away what you will have is a
36 vacant spot with 8,000 square feet that almost no grocery store will ever want to move into.
37 However, you will have 40,000 square feet of office space and the 14 BMR units. So you cannot
38 guarantee that there will be grocery store if you don't have an occupant.
39
40 The PC that you are being offered is a classic PC where the City gets a very sick rabbit and the
41 developer gets a racehorse. Let me give you an example of what happens when you zone for an
42 occupant. Many years ago there was a young couple that bought a very small rundown house in
43 Crescent Park. The woman was pregnant. They wanted to tear it down and build a house that
44 was much, much larger than anybody else in the neighborhood and it violated the zoning and
45 required a number of variances. So they went around and knocked on all the doors of their
46 neighbors and said, we are moving into the neighborhood, we need a bigger house for our
1 family, we are growing so please approve the variances. So the neighbors kindly approved the
2 variance. They got the building permit. They sold the lot for a third more than they paid for it
3 and moved a couple of miles away. That is what happens when you zone for an occupant.
4
5 Now you were told there is was going to be $700,000 in sales tax revenue. The City gets a little
6 over one percent of the nine and one-quarter percent. In order to get $700,000 in sales tax
7 revenue from a grocery store where most of the sales are nontaxable the taxable sales would have
8 to approximately $70 million a year. That works out to about, with an 8,000 square foot
9 building, about $725 per square foot per month. Stanford Shopping Center n1anages to get about
10 $450 per square foot per month. Let me assure you you are not going to get that kind of revenue
11 from a grocery store.
12
13 Finally, speaking as one of the originators of the CN zone the intention of that zone was for the
14 local property that served retail for the neighbors. We intentionally limited the amount of office
15 space because we did not want to make it into a regional draw. Also, you heard about how we
16 are going to have .16 FAR of housing. In the CN zone you would have .5. They are giving you
17 one-third of what would be allowed in the CN zone and the change exchange you are getting
18 more office space. This is a lousy deal. This is not a true PC. It is not appropriate. Kill it.
19
20 Chair Garber: Thank you. Joanne Garcia followed by Greg Tanaka, and then Joan Meyn. We
21 will go to Greg Tanaka followed by Joan Meyn.
22
23 Mr. Greg Tanaka, Palo Alto: Thank you Commissioners. I am the elected President of the
24 College Terrace Residents Association. This evening I am going to read to you what has been
25 approved by the Board and it is a result of countless hours of time that we spent on the Board
26 with the task force, the 2180 Task Force, to come up with the statement. As you can imagine
27 getting consensus among a large number of people is extremely difficult. So we do not have a
28 yes, we do not have no, of do we support or do we not support this project. Rather, we have
29 some things that we would like you to consider as you consider the PC zoning for this project.
30 You have the statement but I will still read it to you.
31
32 The Board of the College Terrace Association adopted the following statement regarding the
33 proposed College Terrace Centre at 2180 EI Camino Real on April 22, 2009. This statement is
34 informed by a CTRA Task Force that has carefully studied the proposed design, debated its
35 merits, and conducted a neighborhood survey to find where alignment exists and does not exist.
36 The detailed survey and its results have been submitted to the Commission.
37
38 This statement is made in terms of neighborhood preferences and values, and not in terms of
39 planning metrics, zoning options, or statistics. We believe the Planning and Transportation
40 Commission is in a better position to translate these preferences into a structure framework for
41 moving forward.
42
43 Here are the seven items that we would support. Nurnber one, a center that will anchor the
44 neighborhood, mirror the neighborhood, and serve the neighborhood. Number two, an
45 enforceable requirement that the center include an honest-to-goodness grocery store, not a
46 convenience store, with sufficient conditions to be economically viable. Third, giving JJ&F first
1 priority in a grocery store lease arrangement and every encouragement to return to our
2 neighborhood service after construction is completed, because of the Garcia Family's roots, ties,
3 and loyalty to the neighborhood. Next, including a strong, verifiable transportation demand
4 management program as part of any proposed reduction in onsite parking requirements, to
5 prevent spillover parking problems. The next one is ingress/egress to underground parking from
6 EJ Camino to help minimize traffic cutting through the neighborhood, followed by retail space
7 and office space designed to attract a diversity of businesses, stores, and restaurants geared to
8 serving the neighborhood. Lastly, a beautiful, walkable, bikeable magnet for commu'nity
9 interaction.
10
11 We are neutral about the BMR units and the prior space for community room.
12
13 We would not support the following three: transfonnation of a neighborhood center into a
14 regional business district; the preponderance of office space to the diminishment of other
15 possible uses; and the level of traffic and parking turnover associated with medical offices.
16
17 In conclusion, we ask you to ensure that any development at the 2180 EI Camino Real location
18 will anchor the neighborhood, mirror the neighborhood, and serve the neighborhood of College
19 Terrace. Thank you.
20
21 Chair Garber: Thank you. Joan Meyn followed by William Ross, and then Annette Ross. Joan?
22 No Joan. William Ross followed by Annette Ross, and then Doria Summa.
23
24 Mr. William D. Ross, Palo Alto: Good evening Mr. Chainnan, Commissioners, members of the
25 pUblic. I am a resident, a business owner, a taxpayer, and on the College Terrace Task Force.
26 The views that I am going express are mine not of the Task Force but I would respectfully
27 suggest that the infonnation assembled by the Task Force results from extensive analysis of the
28 project and that technically it accurately reflects the intensity of what is proposed.
29
30 I have four points I would like to make. First, I believe there has been a change in the type of
31 environmental review and when it is accomplished since the last time this has been before your
32 Commission. The Save the Tara case articulates that when a project has such definition that it is
33 known and it will go forward, and there it was a Menl0randum of Understanding only, it has to
34 be assessed under CEQA. A mere promise or a condition that it is going to be accomplished as
35 is set forth in the Staff Report here today is insufficient.
36
37 Second, you have two quasi-legislative actions, and as a prior speaker noted they are not
38 personal, they run with the land. That relates to the fourth point I am going to make. There
39 really isn't a guarantee here. Let me finish out the second one. These entitlements in this project
40 must be consistent with the general plan. There is no general plan consistency analysis that is
41 consistent with applicable law here. It is on four and four and it is barely a page. It has to be
42 related to both the Housing Element, the Land Use Element, and it must be internally consistent
43 with the entire plan. That is not present. Until that is present I would respectfully suggest that
44 an analysis of public benefits is premature because it is not known whether it is consistent with
45 the general plan.
46
1 The fourth point is assurance as to the continuing grocery store. More than ten n10nths ago I
2 raised the issue saying a private agreement cannot serve as a basis for a land use decision. That
3 case is still good law, save Trancos. There is no development agreement here. There is no
4 owner participation agreement here. There is no development and disposition agreement here.
5 There is an unknown agreement. This is Palo Alto for God's sake. If there is an agreement that
6 obligates and is personal to that point it should be in the record. A Letter of Intent doesn't cut it.
7 There is no assurance.
8
9 I would hope that you would exercise your trustee capacity with respect to the Comprehensive
10 Plan so that in two years I don't have to be here with an intensity of a development with no
11 grocery store and a vacant space. The planning metrics is to be complied with. This PC zone
12 goes beyond it. Thank you.
13
14 Chair Garber: Thank you. Annette Ross followed by Doria Summa, and then Fred Balin. We
15 will stop taking cards at this time.
16
17 Ms. Annette Ross, Palo Alto: I live in the Terrace since 1983. I would like to say tonight that I
18 think it is unfortunate that the discussion around the 2180 project has been characterized as for or
19 against JJ&F. Those of us with concerns about certain aspects of the project are not against
20 JJ&F. In fact, I think it is safe to say that we hope that JJ&F will return.
21
22 I wrote a letter regarding my concerns and I would like to make additional points tonight. The
23 City has a Comprehensive Plan that is designed to protect the City's neighborhoods. Even
24 though there are some enticing features in this project we rely on you to make decisions that are
25 consistent with our Comprehensive Plan. I ask why we even have one if we don't follow it.
26
27 Also, parking is a huge problem in Palo Alto. We have a neighbor that gobbles parking spaces.
28 This project is under-parked. I think at the very least that if you approve this you should require
29 that the new housing units have dedicated 24/7 parking so that at least those people are assured
30 of a parking space.
31
32 Thirdly, I would like to say that the entrance on EI Camino is not approved. Many of the
33 supportive comments that you are hearing tonight hinge on that but that is still something that is
34 an unknown. If you have anything that you can do to promote that that is where. the entrance is I
35 would say that I think many people would appreciate your promoting that.
36
37 F"inally, many of those who are unfortunately characterized as not supportive of the project do
38 support the retention of JJ&F. I am certainly one of those people. We also understand that a
39 market can be a requirement of a PC should it be approved, however the square footage of that
40 market is a concern. If JJ&F cannot return the space available for a market must be big enough
41 to attract an alternative grocer. Thank you. .
42
43 Chair Garber: Thank you. Doria Summa followed by Fred Balin, and then Joy Ogawa.
44
45 Ms. Doria Summa, Palo Alto: Thanks for letting me speak tonight. I live quite close to the
46 proposal. I am on the CTRA Board and also on the 2180 Task Force. I am not in favor of this
1 project as proposed but if you are going to initiate a PC process I would like you to consider the
2 following among or put this in your considerations.
3
4 The overall intensity and size of the development has not changed and it is still way too much.
5 The 39,000 square feet of office space is also just too much. I believe this would cause cut-
6 through traffic in College Terrace and exacerbate the already existing parking and traffic
7 problems that we have, especially if the applicant is not held to a strict standard of parking
8 requirement.
9
10 A grocery store limited to 8,000 square feet with no contiguous retail space in which it could
11 expand may not be large enough to attract other grocers in the event the Garcia Family does not
12 find it desirable or economically feasible to return after a long hiatus. I feel we have no
13 assurance of that.
14
15 I am concerned that this would set a precedent for PC zones in the neighborhood along the
16 eastern boundary and El Camino Real.
17
18 The addition of BMR housing is a good thing for the City in general but lower College Terrace is
19 already very dense and has many small rental units. I think that this addition has only made the
20 overall project more built up, massive, and dense.
21
22 In short, I do not feel that sufficient public benefits as yet have been shown to warrant a change
23 to PC. I think many compromises still need to be made to this proposal to soften its impact on
24 the neighborhood, ensure the usability of both retail and office by the neighborhood, and
25 compromises made to ensure that this development fits in with the historic aspect of the
26 surrounding area. Thank you.
27
28 Chair Garber: Thank you. Fred Balin followed by Joy Ogawa, and our final speaker Colleen
29 King Ney. '
30
31 Mr. Fred Balin, Palo Alto: Thank you Commissioners.' I am a resident of College Terrace, a
32 member of our Residents Association Task Force that has been evaluating this project as a group
33 for over a year. Individual perspectives vary but we have been dedicated to thoroughly
34 researching the key elements, providing objective materials on the project specifications to our
35 residents, monitoring the process, and gathering neighborhood feedback. One example is our
36 neighborhood survey that was distributed to every household. The material was submitted to
37 you last week in hardcopy with the packet's release.
38
39 The overwhelming topic of conversation related to this project is heartfelt support for JJ&F
40 Market and a desire that it return after any redevelopment, a preference for 88 percent in our
41 survey. But the essence of the matter before you this evening is something different. It is a
42 question. How much need be given away by the Commission and the City Council from the
43 Comprehensive Plan's Neighborhood Conlmercial Land Use Designation and the zoning district
44 of the same name to keep a viable grocery store on this site? The Comprehensive Plan is a
45 thoroughly considered document, the result of a four-year effort. Neither it nor the zoning code,
46 both ordinances, should be regarded lightly. So what is the best process to evaluate this
1 proposal? Two preliminary reviews and tonight's materials have clarified zoning regulations,
2 community benefits that can or cannot be considered, and other technical details. On the core
3 issue of grocery store retention this Commission in two hearings initiated a zone change and an
4 inquiry on this very n1atter as a citywide issue. Then for whatever reasons you paused. But what
5 was deferred then is before you tonight. What was deferred then is before you tonight. And it
6 requires the same thinking that took along the path of last year. Your decision now is not with
7 regard to a general rule but rather to a specific proposal with concrete factual elements that has
8 the added benefit of enabling you to make a more solid decision.
9.
10 This zoning chart, verified against the Staff Report and which you have at places, was part of our
11 neighborhood distribution this week. The shaded column at the right shows the differential
12 between the proposed PC and CN mixed use. Look at the chart and decide what is best for the
13 full community and what should go on this site. The chart, the survey, and the statement of the
14 CTRA Board are a few elements of the careful work undertaken by residents within the
15 neighborhood, and as with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning code should be afforded
16 considerable weight. Thank you.
17
18 Chair Garber: Thank you. Joy Ogawa followed by Colleen King Ney.
19
20 Ms. Joy Ogawa, Palo Alto: Hi. First I want to say that this property is the heart of College
21 Terrace's neighborhood commercial district and it is vitally important to keeping College
22 Terrace a more livable, walkable neighborhood. We value our neighborhood commercial and to
23 change the Con1prehensive Plan designation of this property would severely hann our
24 neighborhood and please don't do that.
25
26 Next I want to address the amount of office. The project proposes 39,980 square feet of office,
27 which is an increase of 941 square feet from October, which is an increase of 544 square feet
28 from February. Now my reaction has always been that this is way too much office but I do
29 recognize that having a guaranteed grocer store would be a benefit to the neighborhood and the
30 community. This is a benefit that may warrant some concession in tenns of increased office
31 space beyond CN zoning limits. But the real tough question is how much more office space?
32 That is a tough question. What I am thinking is that the number we should be focusing on for
33 office is 12,569 square feet because that is the absolute maximum even with a Conditional Use
34 Pennit that is allowed in the CN zone district for this size property. This project exceeds that
35 maximum of 12,569 by 27,411 square feet.
36
37 So the question again is how much more office space is a reasonable tradeoff for an 8,000 square
38 foot grocery store? Well, I guess that depends on what the amount of the subsidy is, which is a
39 difference in rent between the grocery and the other retail, because that is what I understand is
40 what the subsidy is. Somehow I really doubt that the subsidy justifies even a one to one tradeoff,
41 which would be a one square foot of additional office for each square foot of guaranteed grocery.
42
43 We also need to recognize that the retail in this project enhances the value of the office for the
44 property owner. By including a grocery store and other retail the location becomes much more
45 attractive for offices as workers have convenient access to the retail. So including JJ&F in the
1 project is not only a benefit to the neighborhood and the public it is also a benefit to the property
2 owners, although they might not want to admit that.
3
4 So again, what is a reasonable tradeoff? I would say less than one square foot of additional
5 office space for each square foot of grocery. Start with that 12,569 square foot of office.
6
7 Finally, I just urge you to do your best to save College Terrace's neighborhood commercial.
8 Thanks.
9
10 Chair Garber: Thank you. Colleen King Ney, you will be our last speaker.
11
12 Ms. Colleen King Ney, Palo Alto: I have a small private practice business in College Terrace. I
13 want to start off by saying I am a huge supporter of JJ&F. I am definitely for the project.
14 However I do have some considerations that I would like you to take up. JJ&F is a one of a kind
15 store as you know. It has definitely been a major part of my life and fabric of my life for the last
16 ten years. Even though they are not my family I feel like they are. I am really excited about the
17 project, however one of the things that I am concerned about is the noise issues. I notice that
18 there will be an entrance for receiving and also trash across from my office. I am wondering if
19 there are any other options for that in future planning and also wondering if there is any
20 possibility of assistance with soundproofing my office due to the nature of my practice. Thank
21 you.
22
23 Chair Garber: Thank you. That concludes our public speakers. We will keep the public hearing
24 open until after we have completed our work here. Before we start with questions and discussion
25 if I could ask the Planning Staff to outline what the possible outcomes could be in terms of our
26 actions this evening.
27
28 Mr. Reich: Well you could recommend to initiate the PC rezone, in which case the application
29 would be moved forward to the Architectural Review Board. You could recommend to initiate
30 the PC rezone with specific additional conditions, or you could recommend not to initiate the PC
31 rezone.
32
33 Chair Garber: You have split the description of the item into two pieces. Could we move one
34 forward and not the other, meaning move some action on the Comprehensive Plan and not take
35 action on the PC, for instance or the other way around?
36
37 Mr. Williams: Well, first of all the action on the Comprehensive Plan doesn't have to go to the
38 ARB so that would be a recommendation directly the Council to an1end the Comprehensive Plan.
39 If you wanted to split it out that way you could although I would think that what is on the agenda
40 tonight is not to make a recommendation on that but just to initiate it. So it would have to come
41 back for your specific recommendation' on the Comprehensive Plan designation to the Council
42 with the environmental analysis, at that point we would have to have the environmental analysis
43 with that as well because you would be recommending to the Council then.
44
45 As far as the other piece of it, moving the PC forward, you could move the PC to the ARB and
46 have us come back on the Comprehensive Plan either at the time when you see the PC make its
1 way back to you or ahead of them. Ifwe come ahead of that then we would have to have
2 environmental review all prepared for you at that point. They are pretty closely linked. If you
3 move the PC forward the Comprehensive Plan Amendment, this project can't really be done
4 without the Comprehensive Plan Amendment too. So while the Comprehensive Plan
5 Amendment doesn't go to ARB we kind of consider it to be part of the package.
6
7 Chair Garber: So you could move the Comprehensive Plan but you can't move the PC without
8 the Comprehensive Plan.
9
10 Mr. Williams: Right.
11
12 Chair Garber: Commissioner Rosati.
13
14 Commissioner Rosati: I have a question about the transferability of the subsidized rent, if you
15 like. What happens if JJ&F decides not to exercise their option? It is very clear that even in the
16 illustrations that the proposal is to have this rent somewhat very attractive so that they would stay
17 but if they change their mind for whatever reason is that transferable? Do they have the right to
18 transfer it or what else?
19
20 Ms. Kennedy: The way we envision this Commissioner Rosati is that the deed restriction that
21 would include the subsidy would run to whoever the grocery tenant was. So the deed restriction
22 would essentially have two parts. One would be that it would be a grocery store and the second
23 would be that it would be a subsidized grocery store according to a formula that we have not
24 completely worked out yet, and we obviously want to work out with the City to make sure. It
25 could be a percentage of what office rents are from time to time or a certain percentage discount
26 off retail rents but that the subsidy and the grocery would both be part of the deed restriction.
27
28 Chair Garber: Just a caution Commissioner Rosati, and Staff can correct me here, but those sorts
29 of agreements are between the applicant and the owner of the land and have limited purview and
30 opportunity for the City actually to take action on them. Is that fair?
31
32 Ms. Kennedy: Ifwe wanted to do it that way we could do it that way but that is not our
33 intention. Our intention is to provide a deed restriction that satisfies the City's interest and the
34 community's interest in preserving a subsidized grocery store and having language that the City
35 Attorney doesn't bless but reviews and discusses with us until there is language that we are in
36 agreement on. Then it gets recorded in the County Recorder's Office.
37
38 Chair Garber: But the recording is with the landowner the City does not participate in that.
39
40 Ms. Tronquet: That is correct. The portion of it though would come back to the Commission as
41 the PC Ordinance and what we would include in the PC Ordinance is the restriction for grocery.
42 How the property owners decide to execute it would be up to them but they have offered to do
43 the deed restriction though.
44
45 Chair Garber: I am not discounting the offer to work with the City and hence the neighborhood
46 to come to something that makes sense for all but ultimately the legal bind excludes the City.
1
2 Ms. Tronguet: In tenns of the precise rent but the grocery restriction would be part of the PC
3 Ordinance.
4
5 Chair Garber: Understood, but that restriction does not 'link directly to the occupant just to the
6 use of property.
7
8 Ms. Tronquet: Right.
9
10 Chair Garber: First let me ask if Rosati has completed his questions.
11
12 Commissioner Rosati: This is a question to the City and that has to do with is it possible to
13 define or exclude some of the office use as part of this process. I am just asking the question
14 because there have been some concerns about the nature of the office use. Some office use has
15 more traffic than others and I am just curious if that is possible.
16
17 Mr. Reich: That can be defined in the ordinance and the applicant has specified in this particular
18 project that there will be no medical office. Medical 'office has a higher trip generation rate than
19 other office types. Their trip generation analysis did not include medical office as one of the
20 options. So that is off the table as an option so that would be written into the PC Ordinance that
21 it not be medical office.
22
23 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then Tuma.
24
25 Commissioner Keller: To follow up on what Commissioner Rosati asked. I guess this is to
26 Attorney Kennedy. In the event that there is a deed restriction who is the enforcer of the deed
27 restriction? In other words, for whose benefit is the deed restriction and who would be eligible
28 to remove that deed restriction? Do you understand my question?
29
30 Ms. Kennedy: I do understand your question. I think I understand it. The deed restrictions are
31 essentially enforceable by the Attorney General of the state in the sense that once there is a deed
32 restriction in place any citizen can go to the Attorney General and say this is being violated. It is
33 binding on the landowner and so anybody in the City could challenge us if25 years from now we
34 decided to put in a toy store instead of a grocery store. It is also of course binding on any lender,
35 anybody that is junior to the landowner in tenns of what gets recorded. We can also record a
36 memorandum of lease but that would only go for the tenn of the lease. This would be binding
37 just the same way your BMR restrictions are binding such that you can't sell a BMR unit for
38 market rate. So deed restriction is the mechanism by which we enforce long-tenn arrangements
39 for land. Melissa, did you want to say anything more about that? No, okay.
40
41 Commissioner Keller: What I am wondering is if you impose a deed restriction, if the landowner
42 imposed a deed restriction on themselves, can the landowner decide that it no longer wants to
43 abide by that deed restriction and remove it? In other words, what is the good and valuable thing
44 that was received by the landowner in order to get the deed restriction on there? In a sense this is
45 a contract to have the deed restriction so how does the deed restriction get enforced? In other
46 words, can the landowner later on decide I don't want this take it away?
1
2 Chair Garber: Actually,] am going to interrupt just briefly. ] think the question of deeds in
3 general is interesting because it demonstrates the commitment that the applicant has to finding a
4 way to satisfy the interests of the City and the neighborhood. But] think in terms of what this
5 Commission needs to consider the deed is peripheral to the action that we need to take. So as
6 m~ch as ] am interested in the answers here] think we need to get off the question of deeds and
7 get onto how we want to utilize the property.
8
9 Ms. Kennedy: Exactly. So as sort of a companion piece to your ordinance, which is really the
10 enforcement mechanism, but for example if we sold the property it would be subject to that deed
11 restriction. So if the owners of that property sold to a third party it would be burdened by that
12 deed restriction. It runs with the land essentially but the enforcement piece really lies with your
13 ordinance and a violation of the ordinance.
14
15 Commissioner Keller: Well, I am not a lawyer but what] understand is when party A sells a
16 property to party B and applies a deed restriction to it that essentially that it is party A that the
17 deed restriction is in favor of party A and party A is the enforcer. So to the extent that the
18 enforcement can be given powers to the City that the deed restriction is in favor of the City
19 perhaps that is a way of doing it and I would welcome the attorney's comments on that.
20
21 Ms. Tronquet: Well,] think what we are saying here is the important piece is the PC Ordinance
22 because that is what is going to restrict the use. If they have a deed or not they are still going to
23 be required to have that grocery store use there. They are only going to be able to have a grocery
24 tenant there so they are going to have to do whatever they need to do to get the grocery tenant
25 regardless of what their deed restriction says. So the PC Ordinance is what will really address
26 that use issue and that is really what we are talking about tonight.
27
28 . Commissioner Keller: I appreciate that. There are members of the public who pointed out that
29 the open space in a property and further away is now that space, which was a public benefit, is
30 occupied by Riaci restaurant. So there is concern of whether or the extent to which this would be
31 enforced in perpetuity. So understanding the extent to which the deed restriction would actually
32 be enforced is interesting.
33
34 Perhaps this is a question of the architect. I notice that there is a loading dock for the grocery
35 store off of Oxford that is between the grocery store and the BMR units. That loading dock
36 essentially prevents any in other words, on one side of the grocery store you have the driveway
37 from EI Camino and on the other side of the grocery store you have the loading dock so that
38 constraints the size of the grocery store. To what extent does that loading dock present a
39 problem with respect to adjacency for the BMR units?
40
41 Mr. Carrasco: The loading dock firstly is enclosed and the noise issue is contained inside of the
42 loading dock from the noise point of view. From the location point of view there is a walkway
43 that accesses units. So the loading dock dimensions go right up to that wall. Does that answer
44 your question?
45
1 Commissioner Keller: Yes, and also I will take this opportunity to ask do you want to address
2 the comment of the member of the public who talked about noise across the street?
3
4 Mr. Carrasco: Yes. Ms. Ney has expressed this opinion before and we have taken good care not
5 to let the noise come out, the loading dock enclosed a truck with sound doors that shut the
6 loading dock from the street.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: So the sound doors are on the street?
9
10 Mr. Carrasco: Yes.
11
12 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. A question for Staff. At what point in this approval process
13 do rights vest with respect to the applicants or the landowner with respect to this application?
14 You have indicated Attachment E here, at what point does the PC Ordinance get adopted? At
15 what point in time does that vest? Are there further approvals behind this third approval which is
16 to be determined, which is the required action by Council?
17
18 Ms. Tronquet: I am not sure if I entirely understand your question but generally the right to
19 develop vests after building permits are issued.
20
21 Commissioner Keller: Well, what I understood is that there is a process in Alma Plaza for
22 example, just to illustrate. There was an initiation of the PC and then it came back and then
23 Council somehow in the PC Ordinance created some sort of very locked-down kinds of things of
24 what would be in the PC, and then when it came back again too many things were locked-down
25 in that process. I am trying to understand how this process is going to have sufficient number of
26 restrictions in it but on the other hand don't tie your hands so that when something comes down
27 and we realize that this is not quite what we wanted, we learn more about it, we don't have a
28 problem. So I am trying to compare the approval process for this with the approval process for
29 Alma Plaza and understand what the issues are.
30
31 Mr. Williams: Yes, thank you Commissioner Keller, that is a very good question. The Alma
32 Plaza process was different than this process and the standard PC process. That is because in
33 that case they basically appealed the Commission's initiation to the Council. What happened
34 there, rather than going from the Commission to the ARB and through the process, in which case
35 the Commission had laid out some parameters but you would have seen it again, and the whole
36 package would have been before the Commission. In the Alma Plaza case they appealed to the
37 Council and the Council rightly or wrongly adopted the PC Ordinance basically. They didn't
38 adopt the site plan that goes with it and typically in our code there is a site development plan that
39 goes with the PC Ordinance so it is all part of one package that is seen by ARB, the Commission,
40 and the Council. So in that case having gone to the Council the Council adopted a PC Ordinance
41 that did not adopt the site plan but it specified in enough detail all these other criteria in the PC
42 Ordinance itself that it tied the hands to some degree of both the ARB and the Planning and
43 Transportation Commission when that site plan came back through, as well as tying the hands in
44 terms of number of units and all the other criteria.
45
1 So in this case theoretically it could to the Council too in that same way, but we would certainly
2 recommend if that happened that the Council not be specific that they just determine whether to
3 forward it to ARB and start that process. So it is a very different process. This should come
4 back to the Commission after going to ARB with your still full discretion as far as the uses, the
5 intensities, the site layout, all those criteria, plus you would have the environmental document at
6 that time.
7
8 Commis·sioner Keller: Thank you that clarifies things. So to summarize the discussion,
9 essentially if a PTC initiation restrictions are appealed to the Council then the process in some
10 sense needs to be fixed so that the Council does not overly restrict the process in the future. That
11 is something we might want to visit when we look at the PC Ordinance. Thank you.
12
13 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Tuma and then Fineberg.
14
15 Vice-Chair Tuma: The first question has to do with parking and the possibility for parking
16 reduction under different formulas. As I understand it, there isn't a formal proposal here to
17 reduce parking based on a specific code provision or anything like that it is just general reference
18 to the fact that there isn't enough parking here but there would presumably some entitlements to
19 reductions. Is that sort of a fair characterization of where we are on the parking reduction
20 question?
21
22 Mr. Reich: The applicant has actually provided something today that explains and gives more
23 rationale for their request for the parking reduction. In their traffic analysis they actually
24 provided information as well that leads to looking at that as terms of being rational in terms of
25 the number of spaces they are asking for a reduction for. They are asking for reductions based
26 on shared parking and they reference the Urban Land Institute published methodology in terms
27 of looking at shared parking. So there is a formula if you feed in the various square footages and
28 types of land use it will pop out the anticipated maximum number of parking spaces needed. So
29 they did that work and provided that and 215 parking spaces was the total that was arrived at.
30 Additionally the Institute of Transportation Engineers has published parking generation rates as
31 well and in going through that exercise they come up with 181 parking spaces. So based on
32 those two existing institutions it would look like they are providing ample parking. It may not
33 meet our current standard but according to those institutions they would have enough parking to
34 meet the demand.
35
36 Mr. Williams: If I could just add that we received this today. We have not had a chance to
37 really go through it in some detail and our Transportation people have not either. We think there
38 are some problems with it, which is why we didn't just distribute it to the Commission tonight.
39 Certainly the applicants are here tonight and they indicated they have their traffic consultants
40 with them if you would like to hear more from them on this they are available to discuss it. We
41 want to stress that we have not had any real chance to review and this and see how it dovetails
42 with the reductions in our code, specifically 20 percent for one kind and 30 percent for another,
43 that kind of analysis.
44
1 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. The institutions that they referred to those are not institutions or
2 criteria that We have in any way referenced or adopted into our code, so our code would control.
3 These are just other reference points, is that right?
4
5 Mr. Williams: Right. These are professional engineering standard and engineering practice.
6 Our engineers utilize these sources but our code has specific numbers in it and that is what we
7 base our compliance on.
8
9 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, so talking about our code for a second, there are reductions for things
10 like in certain mixed use environments there are reductions. We saw a project not too long ago
11 where we applied that. Are there criteria in our code that deal with the type of mixed uses that
12 you have? For example, where you have a project that is half residential and half commercial
13 there is a certain mix there because of the overlap of when people go to work and that sort of
14 thing. Would we look at that differently than a project like this one that is predominantly
15 commercial with a little bit of residential, and would that impact how much reduction we would
16 see?
17
18 Mr. Williams: It certainly would be a different mix and a different type of reduction. The
19 reduction mayor may not come out to be similar. The code doesn't specify exactly how you do
20 that calculation. The code does say you need to do a calculation using sources such as ULI,
21 Urban Land Institute, which I think Russ indicated was one of the sources used. They have
22 standard methodologies that they use. So when you have a retail and an office use they overlap
23 in certain ways like the nighttime uses if there is a restaurant or a grocery store or something like
24 that a lot of the office people would be gone. So maybe some of those peaks would overlap in a
25 way that would allow for reduced parking. In this case you have a residential component that is
26 not very many units first of all, I don't know if the parking for that is sort of dedicated over to
27 that side. If it is, it is not really usable for the retail. If it is not, if it is grouped all together and
28 the parking is all jumbled together then there would be some benefit there, but obviously given
29 the scale of the office· and retail and the minimal amount of residential you wouldn't expect a lot
30 of reduction based on that kind of use. So it depends on the amount of each type of use and this
31 calculation methodology being accepted by our Transportation Staff.
32
33 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Switching topics, several people from the public expressed some
34 concern regarding the size of the grocery store and the viability beyond JJ&F if for whatever
35 reason they did not continue there. The first question is, remind me the approximate size of the
36 market at Alma Plaza.
37
38 Mr. Williams: It was 15,000 square feet.
39
40 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. So does Staff have any comment or concern on the size 'of the market
41 that is being proposed here? Not as to whether it would work for JJ&F they seem to be
42 comfortable with that, but whether it is generally a good size for viability long-term.
43
44 Mr. Williams: I don't know if Russ or Amy has seen anything different. I don't think we have
45 an indication that it particularly fits one market model as opposed to another. Our understanding
46 generally is that there is this model now of more smaller neighborhood type markets that even a
1 Safeway is considering and some of the other market chains are considering now, and usually
2 they start at about 10,000 square feet. So in this case I think it is 8,000 but they have the outdoor
3 area too. So I think their point is that it actually gets to be 10,000 but it is kind of on the cusp of
4 the low end of what we have seen from other markets.
5
6 Mr. Reich: In addition to that there is the fact that the market is required. So the actions that the
7 property owner has to take in order to get a tenant in there also impact the viability of that
8 particular market. So for instance if they have a much lower lease rate then that changes things
9 and helps increase the viability, whereas a typical market may need more square footage to have
lOa greater volume or whatever other parameters there may be.
11
12 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, great, one last question for now. In the Staff Report there is a section
13 that says under Adequacy of Proposed Public Benefits one of the items is the provision of a
14 subsidized rental rate to ensure neighborhood serving grocery market will remain at this location.
15
16 Mr. Reich: Consider that a typo from the previous iterations of the Staff Report. Basically the
17 public benefit would be the assurance that a market remain there not necessarily the rental rates,
18 again because we can't enter into those private agreements but we can ensure in the ordinance
19 that theland use be specified at whatever square footage that it be a market. So that would be
20 amended the next time it goes around.
21
22 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. I have a comment that I will hold until we get to the comment period.
23
24 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, you had a quick follow up on parking.
25
26 Commissioner Keller: Yes to follow up on Vice-Chair Tuma's comment, looking at the diagram
27 title sheet AO.l I think it is that indicates that the total required commercial parking is 228 spaces
28 and the total required for the residential is 26 spaces. But somehow after you add the residential
29 and the reduction you wind up with 226 spaces at the end. So the amount of spaces required
30 after the reduction is actually less than the commercial requires, which is somehow we get a
31 negative there by mixed use, which seems to be somewhat counterintuitive, let me put it that
32 way. So again when you have percentages off the top and you have skewing as Vice-Chair
33 Tuma pointed out large percentages don't make sense like that. Thank you.
34
35 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Holman.
36
37 Commissioner Fineberg: I have a question for Staff about the logic for the findings of a PC. The
38 findings require that the uses in the site development regulations are consistent with the
39 Comprehensive Plan. Ifwe need to amend the Comprehensive Plan in order to get consistency
40 does that mean that then by definition the project isn't consistent? Otherwise couldn't we go to
41 every site, every parcel, amend the zoning and then make everything consistent w.ith the
42 Comprehensive Plan by changing zoning? So at what point it comes back to one of the
43 questions I asked when I started a couple of years back, does the Comprehensive Plan matter?
44 How do we value the Comprehensive Plan as a document, as a well thought out whole? Ought
45 we be in the business of changing underlying zoning to fit a project?
46
1 Mr. Williams: Well, you certainly can change the Comprehensive Plan at which point it
2 becomes consistent with that. That is your determination whether to do that or not. So whether
3 it,is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan depends on whether you are comfortable with
4 changing the Comprehensive Plan. There are valid reasons to consider a Comprehensive Plan
5 change and if you feel those exist and then that this project fits within those valid reasons then
6 that is fine and you are consistent.
7
8 The other thing I would say is there are a lot of Comprehensive Plan policies and programs. So
9 when it says it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan it doesn't just mean the
10 Comprehensive Plan land use designation it also means that. So you could find, and I think this
11 case is probably a good example where it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
12 designation, it probably is consistent with quite a few of our policies and about design and design
13 on EI Camino, and access of mixing uses and those kinds of things, but it doesn't fit the
14 designation. So I think one of the points we made in the Staff Report and that I was trying to
15 make early on in the meeting is this an area of EI Camino where it may be appropriate to be
16 looking at some different Comprehensive Plan designation than a Neighborhood Commercial
17 just by the nature of what El Camino we may want to see along El Camino in the future. On the
18 other hand, the Comprehensive Plan is a fundamental planning document. Is it appropriate to be
19 making that change on this parcel before we have had a chance to discuss it sort of up and down
20 EI Camino, which we will be doing to some extent not a real focused extent but to some extent as
21 part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. So those are the kind of things the Commission needs
22 to consider. There are some reasons that sort of commend this towards the direction of a
23 Comprehensive Plan change looking at maybe the longer-term future of EI Camino. On the
24 other hand it is Neighborhood Commercial, there is a neighborhood nearby that is served by this,
25 so there is reason' for arguing sort of both designations. Ultimately if you feel comfortable with
26 that, you have to feel comfortable with that Comprehensive Plan change, and then it becomes
27 consistent but it is not just de facto inconsistent because right now it doesn't meet what the
28 zoning is proposed. That is a long roundabout way to get there but hopefully that is understood.
29
30 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. You touched on my next question, which is there have
31 been some discussion up and down the state about the redevelopment of EI Camino. There have
32 been some descriptions of it as a grand boulevard, there have been some plans coming out about
33 how it is going to change regionally. I am sorry I didn't get this to you earlier. Could you
34 characterize just from your sense of this project whether this is consistent with how the EI
35 Camino redesign for the longer scope of it beyond Palo Alto, is this consistent with how that is
36 going or not the way the bigger picture is going?
37
38 Mr. Williams: Well those efforts have two parts to them. One is sort of the public space, the
39 street, the width of the roadway, the way pedestrians or bicyclists can get across the street and
40 making those safer as well as street trees, and just the whole appearance of what is within the
41 right-of-way. Then the second part is the private development along the streets which generally
42 is characterized in most of those plans as higher intensity, mixed use, or residential development
43 that is maybe closer to the street, but for residential maybe not too close to the street.
44
45 I think this does a good job probably of emulating the concepts that are out there as far as
46 particularly having the office space up close, there should be some tiering back and setbacks up
1 upper floors to break up the massing along the street, having the sort of open space feel at the
2 corner there with the market and also at the office, are concepts that are in there as far as trying
3 to bring more public spaces and mixing uses. Those concepts are all part of that EI Camino
4 effort. Again, it is like you said up and down the state. It is a very broad brush approach and
5 there are certainly going to be locations where that isn't appropriate as well.
6
7 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you. Switching a little bit to some smaller areas. The 14
8 proposedBMRunits, I believe it was 8,400 square feet, so it would be about 600 square feet per
9 unit, one bedroorri. Do we know if there is demand for that? I am sorry, Amy. The'8,400 square
10 feet ofBMR units, 14 units, so they are 600 square foot each. Is there demand for 600 square
11 foot one bedroom BMR units at whatever level of affordability they might be?
12
13 Mr. Reich: In your packet there should be a letter from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation
14 supporting that. They have stated that there is a denland for small low inconle rental housing
15 units for single occupancy. Over time as this property is redeveloped we are actually losing a
16 number of affordable rental units so any additional affordable rental units are appreciated. There
17 are significant waiting lists for people to be in those BMR rentals.
18
19 Comnlissioner Fineberg: Okay, because there have been some conversations about maybe for
20 the larger ones whether at that price point there is a demand. So I was just wondering if that
21 particular kind of product, and there were some they were saying they had to get people outside
22 of Palo Alto. So do we know if that particular size and affordability is a demand or are we
23 building something we will have to import people for?
24
25 Mr. Reich: Right, I have not asked the Housing Coalition that specific question.
26
27 Commissioner Fineberg: All right, thank you. For the applicant about the BMR units, not trying
28 to get to too fine a grain of detail but if the units are 600 square feet and each unit has its own
29 internal stairway that means a large proportion of the unit's square footage is that internal
30 stairway. I was just wondering if there could be any consideration for making it first story units
31 and second story units and one external staircase. Granted, I know the building regulations
32 would be different but consider changing it so that there would be one staircase that could access
33 like four upstairs units and then you wouldn't be eating up so much of the unit on stairs. Just as
34 an idea.
35
36 Then also if this moves forward some consideration for how the tenants in the residential would
37 access their entries from the parking. It looks a little convoluted that they would have to go up
38 into the offices, out a back door, next to a driveway. It doesn't feel residential.
39
40 This is for the applicant. One of the issues a nurrtber of residents have talked about is questions
41 about the size and viability of the grocery store. Is there anything precluding a larger area that is
42 attached if the driver shifted that there could be larger ground floor retail with more flexibility
43 that JJ&F or whatever grocer could be bigger?
44
45 Mr. Carrasco: If you combine that with Lee Lippert's question about can we move the units
46 backwards and provide space, and then Commissioner Keller's question about whether that wall
1 has to be there or not there as an opportunity to move that parking lot to the comer and provide
2 more grocery store space in the future if we need it. So there are options and we will look at
3 them and bring them back to you.
4
5 Commissioner Fineberg: Great. That is it for my questions for now. Thank you.
6
7 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman and then Rosati and then we will move onto comments.
8 Commissioner Holman.
9
10 Commissioner Holman: Staff probably has the answer to this. What does office space rent for in
11 this general vicinity?
12
13 Mr. Williams: I don't really know. You might have an architect who knows better on the
14 Commission.
15
16 Chair Garber: You want an architect to talk about pricing?
17
18 Mr. Williams: Not about cost of services but of the leasing rates.
19
20 Chair Garber: No comment.
21
22 Commissioner Holman: Would anybody dare say if three dollars is way off target?
23
24 Mr. Williams: I would say it sounds low.
25
26 Ms. Kennedy: About five dollars and twenty-five cents to five dollars and seventy-five cents to
27 six dollars a square foot based on our analysis over the last four weeks.
28
29 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. I might need a moment to change my calculations if
30 somebody else has a question in the meantime.
31
32 Chair Garber: Commissioner Rosati.
33
34 Commissioner Rosati: Yes, I wanted to follow up again with the City on the calculation of the
35 incremental revenue. There was a comment form the public challenging the $700,000 number
36 and I was wondering if we could apply you perspective on that number. Does anybody know
37 how it was calculated and whether the number was within the ballpark or completely off?
38
39 Mr. Reich: That number is not son1ething that Staffhas analyzed. Perhaps the applicant can
40 speak to the calculation they provided.
41
42 Mr. Smailey: The $700,000 total is split between JJ&F. JJ&F would, we assume, double their
43 current tax payments to the City up to $200,000 a year. The remaining retail tenants would
44 generate the other $500,000 a year based on their projections of sales.
45
46 Commissioner Rosati: So the number is a total sales tax.
1
2 Mr. Smailey: I am sorry, total sales tax, yes.
3
4 Commissioner Rosati: So basically the City would be receiving the standard proportion, which
5 is?
6
7 Mr. Williams: It is about one cent of the eight or nine now.
8
9 Commissioner Rosati: Twelve percent of 100 percent of the taxes, something like that.
10
11 Mr. Williams: Something like that, yes. I should point out that there also would be I am sure a
12 property tax increase. Again, we get like nine percent of property taxes that are generated but
13 there should be some fairly significant property tax increase on this property being redeveloped
14 at this level of development given that the existing buildings are very old and have been kept at
15 low property tax levels.
16
17 Commissioner Rosati: So there would be incremental property tax as well.
18
19 Mr. Williams: Yes, but we haven't gotten any numbers on either of those.
20
21 Commissioner Rosati: Are there business taxes from the offices that would be using that as
22 well?
23
24 Mr. Williams: Oh yes. There are not right now, there are not business taxes but the City as you
25 probably know is evaluating the business license tax that may be in effect at the point these come
26 online and may generate some of that as well.
27
28 Commissioner Rosati: Okay.
29
30 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman.
31
32 Commissioner Holman: Okay, understanding that this doesn't include everything. It doesn't
33 include construction cost. It also doesn't include depreciations. This might be more of a
34 comment but I think it is going to raise a question so I am going to throw it out there. I am being
35 conservative here and I am using five dollars a square foot. Three was really conservative but I
36 didn't know it was that conservative. If there are 39,980 square feet of office here, let's forget
37 the other retail space we are just talking office here. At five dollars a square foot that generates
38 $199,900 a month in rental income. If you look at how much over even a CN CUP would allow
39 in office, which is the 27,411 square feet at five dollars a square foot that is $137,055 a month
40 over the CUP office allowance.
41
42 If you look at, and we have to suppose here, a 30 percent subsidy for the 8,000 square foot
43 grocery store and I am going to use the 8,000 square feet because the outside space is beneficial
44 but it is not the same as having indoor space for a market. It doesn't have the full utility that an
45 indoor space does. So if you use 8,000 square feet at five dollars a square foot we all know
1 groceries really can't support that usually, if you look at a 30 percent subsidy it is a $12,000 a
2 month subsidy, which pales quite a lot to the $137,000 a month or the $199,000 a month.
3
4 I understand that that doesn't include of course the construction costs. I understand that doesn't
5 include also depreciation. So I don't know if Staff or the applicant want to conlment on that but
6 we are sUPPQsed be evaluating public benefit and I am seeing quite a large divergence here in
7 dollars coming in. So if we are weighing how nluch of a public benefit -have I totally
8 confounded everyone?
9
10 Mr. Williams: I think we would suggest that is an applicant question to respond to how that
11 works. I would point out that it is a little bit apples and oranges in terms of -well, what it does
12 is assume that the market rent if you didn't have the subsidy for the grocery store and the office
13 space at the CN with a CUP level is a viable project. I don't know if it is or not. It gives you
14 numbers here and based on then you take out construction cost and operating cost and all that.
15 So we don't have that level of information to kind of analyze that but the applicant may.
16
17 Commissioner Holman: It is one of the difficulties because Palo Alto doesn't do pro formas on
18 projects. It is a difficulty and a challenge that we face because we don't, which I wish we would
19 change. Does the City Attorney have something to add? Applicants want to comment at all?
20
21 Mr. Smailey: There are so many different components that apply here. The cost to build the
22 project is in excess of $50 million. The debt carry on that is an absolute shot in the dark today.
23 Our requirement to provide additional equity is a bigger shot in the dark. The comparison that I
24 think you want to consider is not against office rents but against retail rents that are lower than
25 office. The information that we received by polling two consultants and three brokerage houses
26 indicate that retail rents are probably in the two dollar and twenty-five cent to fifty cent to
27 seventy-five cent range per square foot in today's marketplace at the low end. Office rents are
28 someplace in the six dollar to six dollar and fifty cent range at the high end. Based on that we
29 gave you a comparison of three to four to one depending on a time and market and time of
30 product. So those factors will come into playas you look at an understanding, if you will, of the
31 financial aspects of the project.
32
33 In addition to those construction costs there is an equity carry and a carry of the funds that have
34 already been expended over the last five years to get us to this point. So the responsibilities of a
35 project once completed are frankly enormous at this stage.
36
37 Commissioner Holman: That is why I said I wasn't including the costs of construction. So
38 thank you for that. I really want to ask some pro forma questions but.
39
40 If the Commission were to, I guess since it is a PC we could condition it any way we wanted, so
41 that we could condition it such that whatever size we end up with, whatever project we end up
42 with we could condition it such that CN office uses were the only office uses that were allowed?
43 Okay.
44
45 Mr. Williams: Yes.
46
1 Commissioner Holman: This isn't the most important thing but I was curious about in the Staff
2 Report the Comprehensive Plan policies that were applicable to this. There were a good number
3 of them. This is pretty extensive, it is a little bit more than two and a half pages of
4 Comprehensive Plan polices that would apply to this project. Now they are not saying that the
5 project at this point complies with all of those. You are saying that these are all of the ones that
6 might apply to the project. Do I understand that correctly?
7
8 Mr. Reich: Yes, those are policies that would typically apply to this project based on the scope
9 of what the project is.
10
11 Commissioner Holman: But not ones that you are saying that at this point the project does
12. conform with, because it is unclear how it was submitted in the packet?
13
14 Mr. Reich: I apologize for that. Because we don't know that we have a project yet because the
15 PC has not yet been initiated, normally what we would do is go through each of those policies
16 and explain how the project is in compliance with that. We will certainly do that when the
17 project comes back if it comes back, but that level of detail has not yet been provided for the
18 Commission.
19
20 Commissioner Holman: I carped you a little bit because it wasn't clear but I do want to thank
21 you very much for identifying the other attachments and their authorship. So thank you for that
22 to be absolutely fair.
23
24 The applicant did some of this but could Staff indicate some of the other changes you have seen
25 take place in this project since our last review?
26
27 Mr. Reich: There really have not been a significant nurnber of changes since the last review.
28 There is a little bit more detail provided and information but the parameters of the project are
29 very similar. There were some significant changes from the first time that you saw it to the
30 second time, but there were not a lot of changes from the last time that you saw it.
31
32 Commissioner Holman: That was clarifying my understanding too, so thank you for that. Is
33 there any indication that you have that the property owner would bring forward a subdivision
34 map?
35
36 Mr. Reich: There is every indication that they would not be subdividing the property but they do
37 need a map in order to combine the lots. So there is no intention to condominiumize or do
38 separate and that would not come to the Commission actually.
39
40 Commissioner Holman: What I am interested in is, well we could require the retail to all remain
41 on one parcel, so I that is where I am going with that.
42
43 Mr. Reich: Well, the whole site is going to be built on podium parking so it is al1 one building so
44 it will become on parcel.
45
1 Commissioner Holman: But could we condition it such that they couldn't condominiumize the
2 second retail space if it remained a second retail space?
3
4 Mr. Reich: And sell off those spaces individually?
5
6 Commissioner Holman: Yes so that they are under different control.
7
g Mr'. Williams: I think you probably could condition that as part ,of the PC because you would not
9 see the subdivision given that this is not over two acres in size. The Commission wouldn't see
10 the subdivision unless the residences were to be sold and there were to be a subdivision for that
11 purpose.
12
13 Commissioner Holman: How would Staff like us to proceed in terms of determining if there is
14 enough public benefit here? Do you have any guidance to offer in that regard?
15
16 Mr. Williams: No nlore so than usual. I think it is almost like a pluses and minuses list. I think
17 there are certainly some thing to commend the project in terms of public benefits, the guaranteed
18 market, the BMR units in particular, but how that weighs against the extensive amount of office
19 space. I commend you for trying to fiscally or financially try to make that and it might be
20 something that you ask us as this works its way through the process and then comes back to you
21 that we try to develop a better financial equation for that even though I am sure the developer is
22 not going to open up his books and show us all the details of how they get there. We probably
23 can do some basic analysis along the lines of where you were headed to try to give a better sense
24 of that as we get more into it.
25
26 Commissioner Holman: Chair Garber, I have a couple of other questions. I think you wanted us
27 to finish questions.
28
29 Chair Garber: Yes, I am not seeing any other lights so please.
30
31 Commissioner Holman: Could Staff comment on should we pass this along to ARB we don't
32 have any indication from Caltrain as to whether they are going to allow an entrance there. So
33 would we not be moving forward without any indication as to whether we have viable project
34 here or not?
35
36 Mr. Reich: We actually have to move forward. Caltrans will not weigh in on that until they
37 have an approved environmental document in front of them to review. So the project actually
38 has to be completed in terms of its review process in order to get Caltrans to weigh in the
39 granting of that curb cut.
40
41 Commissioner Holman: Thank you. There was a letter from Susan Rosenberg talking about
42 replacing the nledian trees adjacent to 2180 El Camino Real. Would that be in close enough
43 proxinlity to this project that we could require that as a condition of approval?
44
45 Mr. Reich: Are you referring to the median trees directly out in front of the project?
46
1 Commissioner Holman: Adjacent to 2180, so yes.
2
3 Mr. Reich: I think that there would be a nexus to condition that.
4
5 Commissioner Holman: A question for the applicant. Last time this was here and then this
6 attachment to the Staff Report talks about that a grocer would have opportunity to take over more
7 of the retail space. But as indicated last time it really isn't feasible because it doesn't seem to me
8 feasible because there are real impediments to being able to expand in that space because of the
9 separations.
10
11 Mr. Carrasco: Commissioner Holman, you have an example of a driveway going through a retail
12 zone on Ramona Street right across from City Hall at the project where you have public parking
13 in the basement. That retail doesn't seem to be disrupted. We plan on a similar kind of
14 arrangement in this regard. So we think it will work.
15
16 Commissioner Holman: The Ramona situation that you refer to between University and
17 Hamilton, I am presuming you are speaking?
18
19 Mr. Carrasco: Yes.
20
21 Commissioner Holman: That doesn't have the at grade impediments that within the project
22 sphere that that project does as I read the plan.
23
24 Mr. Carrasco: In our design, which is better I think than Ramona, the Ramona driveway comes
25 right up to the sidewalk. Whereas ours has two car lengths of flat space before you get to the
26 sidewalk so the continuity of retail should be better in our case than it is at Ramona because you
27 can watch and see a pedestrian when a car is horizontal than at an angle.
28
29 Chair Garber: A follow up to that or perhaps something you might consider in your question.
30 The impact of the ramp on Ramona is less relative to the streetscape because it is one small
31 opening in a larger far;ade. Here it is a gap between buildings. Does that change the way that
32 you might want to phrase your question? So perhaps the question is here there isn't a visual
33 continuity between the two building masses that would tend to keep a pedestrian from
34 understanding that those two buildings are actually occupied by the same use and/or the same
35 owner with the same identity.
36
37 Mr. Carrasco: Maybe two different but compatible uses on either side of that driveway. In one
38 case, in this case the grocery store is setback 29 feet from the 12 foot sidewalk so you have these
39 active sidewalk type uses that we spoke about that merge the continuity from one end to the
40 other side. It will probably appear in our next version of our landscape plan where it shows the
41 continuity of those outdoor public uses and how that driveway gets narrowed by those uses to
42 show continuity.
43
44 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman.
45
1 Con1missioner Holman: I thought I had one more but I am not exactly finding it. I do have
2 comments and concerns.
3
4 Mr. Garcia: Excuse me can I put my two cents? One of the issues is of course the size. I have
5 been to areas, in San Francisco there are some areas like this where the actual store is here and
6 let's say the meat market is the next building over or the next building over, because of how busy
7 it is or whatever. So if I need to expand maybe into a pharmacy or let's say a coffee shop or
8 exparidthe meat department or deli department I· can do it on the other side of the driveway and
9 it still can be utilized with the front area, patio area, or produce area. Do you understand what I
lOam saying?
11
12 Commissioner Holman: I do.
13
14 Chair Garber: This was a topic that was brought up in one of our earlier meetings. I think what
15 the tension here is, not to put words in Commissioner Holman's mouth, but in a circumstance
16 where you have let's take the architect's example on Ramona. You can create a project that has
17 a continual image, a continual impact along an entire streetscape and the opportunity to create a
18 continuity of identity for a particular occupant on both sides of that ramp is much greater. Your
19 observation, Mr. Garcia's observation, is that given that you going to have two separate masses,
20 you are going to have these two separate identities. Your strategy for expanding your business
21 would be to create a different type of business that is still owned by you, potentially shares some
22 sort of identity but because it is different, it is not a grocery store, it is a meat market, it is a
23 pharmacy, it is a coffee shop it would have its own separate identity and would support a two
24 building scheme. That is what I am hearing. I am seeing nods of heads over there.
25 Commissioner Holman.
26
27 Commissioner Holman: Just two other things really quickly. To follow onto that with more of a
28 comment, you hear people mention a lot in the retail districts that if there is just a blank
29 storefront that is enough to get people to stop going to the next -it is applicable to this and a
30 double car parking garage entry is even more of an.impact, but just having a vacant storefront is
31 enough to get people to stop going from one store and skip that open space and then go to the
32 next store. So that is the concern.
33
34 Also I brought my Staff Report from when we were looking at Neighborhood Center Zoning in a
35 Study Session. Just for whatever it is worth there is some number offioor area square footages
36 for some of the markets that Commissioners might want to consider. Segona's at Stanford is
37 17,000 and I am rounding these numbers to whatever the closest thousand is, Andronico's at
38 Stanford is 25,000, Whole Foods is 21,000, Mollie Stone's is 23,000, Country Sun we don't have
39 a number, Safeway in Midtown is 19,000, Piazza's is 18,000, Trader Joe's that will be going into
40 Town & Country is 12,000, Alma Plaza you heard is going to 15,000, the Albertson's that was
41 there was 17,000, and the Co-op that was on Middlefield was 18,500. So if that helps to provide
42 any context.
43
44 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Tuma has a question and Commissioner Rosati did
45 you have more questions as well? Commissioner Tuma and Fineberg have questions and then
46 we will move ourselves towards comments.
1
2 Vice-Chair Tuma: This is a question for Staff to make sure that I understand what we are being
3 asked to do and what we are not being asked to do tonight. I just want to make sure that I
4 understand this. Is it correct that we are not being asked to recommend that the zoning or the
5 Comprehensive Plan designation be changed but we are merely being asked to initiate the
6 change?
7
8 Mr. Williams: That is correct.
9
10 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. So likewise we are obviously not recommending approval or not
11 approving the PC?
12
13 Mr. Williams: That is right.
14
15 Vice-Chair Tuma: We are also not recommending whether the public benefit is adequate or
16 whether the parking is adequate or any of these other components as to whether they are
17 adequate or not for purposes of approval tonight.
18
19 Mr. Williams: No you are not although they are certainly considerations in whether you move it
20 forward. Are they in the right direction?
21
22 Vice-Chair Tuma: Right, so it would be appropriate to comment on the adequacy of those things
23 going forward but that is not the determination as to whether we initiate or not.
24
25 Mr. Williams: That is right.
26
27 Vice-Chair Tuma: So what I am left with is that if we recommend initiation tonight of both the
28 zone change and the Comprehensive Plan land designation change that we are essentially
29 sending a signal that this general mix of uses seems to be in the ballpark. Is that sort of a fair
30 characterization of where we are going tonight?
31
32 Mr. Williams: I think that is a good characterization that generally what you are moving forward
33 is this sort of level of mix and intensities but recognizing that the site plan could change, it could
34 be up or down on different types of uses before you see it again, but there is enough here to get it
35 started. Let the ARB take a look at it and get it back to you for your recomnlendation.
36
37 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. But all the issues of adequacy of public benefit, adequacy of parking,
38 all those other issues would certainly come back prior to any definition of what the PC would
39 look like let alone approval of that PC.
40
41 Mr. Williams: That is right.
42
43 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, thanks.
44
45 Chair Garber: Comnlissioner Fineberg.
46
1 Commissioner Fineberg: This is a question for the applicant and you might consider this the cart
2 before the project. ] am thinking about carts and] am thinking specifically about the Whole
3 Foods in Los Altos on EI Camino and how they handle carts and basements, the parking spaces
4 that were given up, and the mechanisms for getting carts to the basement, getting food to the
5 basement, getting carts back up. As this progresses could you please have Some consideration of
6 carts? I don't know if you have any comments tonight or that will come.
7
8 Mr. Carrasco: The general configuration and the accessJo the elevator very much mimics the
9 Whole Foods in Los Altos in your plans. We will look at that even in more detail when we bring
10 it back to you.
11
12· Commissioner Fineberg: Great. I would also agree with Commissioner Tuma's characterization
13 that we are not making findings tonight regarding adequacy of parking, consistency with
14 Comprehensive Plan, but I do think that our recommendations tonight send a message about our
15 preliminary determination on those items. At several of our meetings] have seen the argument
16 put forward that we ought to initiate an action so that we can have continued discussion. Then at
17 subsequent meetings that logic is sort of used as a well, we brought it forward because we liked
18 it therefore we should progress. I guess I just don't like that line of logic and I think that the
19 consideration tonight should focus on whether the preliminary determinations seem to be in the
20 ballpark and that we not go down a road of if we initiate we can decide later. That just gets into
21 slippery logic.
22
23 Chair Garber: Thank you. ] see no more lights for questions. Commissioner Lippert you
24 wanted to start off our comments.
25
26 Commissioner Lippert: First of all I want to thank the applicant for coming back, and I really
27 appreciate hearing from the neighbors. I think it is real important that the College Terrace
28 neighborhood, especially the Association speak up in support or against the proposal here.
29
30 I am having great difficulty with this project. Part of it is that there is only one benefit that is
31 crucial here and that is the JJ&F Market or having a viable market. I live in Downtown North
32 and I know what it is like to not have a nlarket. We used to have Norm Starlight Market, which
33 was a relative small, almost convenience store size, but 1 think it was maybe about 8,000 square
34 feet. At one point it was bought out and a bank was built there. That bank got bought out by
35 Comerica and Comerica had several banks in the Downtown and they consolidate, and gee you
36 can't eat money. It doesn't work. You want to have viable markets that people can go to and do
37 their neighborhood shopping. I happen to be lucky. I happen to live not very far from another
38 market, Willow Market, which is in walking distance. If I want to I can go to Whole Foods,
39 which is also within walking distance.
40
41 What troubles me here are a couple of things. Number one, economic viability means different
42 things at different times. So while I appreciate Commissioner Holman's analysis and trying to
43 assign dollars per square foot we have seen market trends where office space was the driving
44 factor for development. We have seen times where housing is the driving force for economic
45 development. What is important here is the location of a neighborhood center and the viability
46 of a market in that area. I am not blind to that but I don't see it in this proposal. The BMR units
1 while they are nice and it is generous to have them doesn't make or break the project, it is really
2 the market. The little gazebo on the roof doesn't make or break this project, it is the market.
3 The LEED elements or the sustainability elements or the solar panels on the roof don't make or
4 break the project, in fact, this project is going to have to comply with the green building code no
5 matter what is built there. So it is going to need to comply energy wise and sustainability wise.
6
7 What I do see are a couple of things here. I think that this is particularly important. Number
8 one, the State of California has the Village Development Infrastructure Financing that just went
9 actually went through. It is AB 30338. It just passed through committee. What it does is adds
10 to cities' ability to identify transit villages. The direction the state is actually going in with this is
11 that from a quarter of a mile they are now beginning to expand this out to what they are looking
12 at is half a mile. This market happens to be in half a nlile walking distance of the California
13 Avenue transit center. So it becomes more important in terms of it being transit oriented
14 development. The questions that Commissioner Keller was asking in the beginning with regard
15 to PTOD were actually beginning to get to the meat of what is important in terms of this
16 development. If PTOD could be applied to this that is what is important.
17
18 Now, I did a little bit of calculation here and I think that the amount of office space that is being
19 asked for here is almost obscene. This really needs to be a true mixed use development. Where
20 I see a PC fitting in again is if you were to take the standards for the CN district which would
21 allow for basically 58,000 square feet plus or minus of development. Am I correct?
22
23 Mr. Reich: It is 50,277.
24
25 Commissioner Lippert: Okay. It is 50,000 and change. The point is that if you were to take
26 those 50,000 square feet that would be allowed to be 50 percent residential, 50 percent
27 commercial, and out of that commercial 50 percent of it could be office and 50 percent could be
28 retail. Then you add back into it to make it a PC the market. You get to about 58,000 square
29 feet. So what it does is goes over and above the allowable FAR but it begins to bring things back
30 into perspective in terms of something that is a transit oriented mixed use development. That is
31 really what this needs to be when it is a PC. If you want to add BMR units I think that is fine. It
32 is not sonlething that is required well there are some BMR units that would be required. But to
33 have the mix of residential, office, retail, then you begin to get a mixed use, and then because of
34 ,its transit proximity and the overlapping of different kinds of uses during the day you can begin
35 to look at parking reductions.
36
37 So the way it is right now I would not initiate the rezoning on it. I would not support it as a PC.
38 I think'from a square footage point of view it comes close to what it should be in terms of the
39 amount of square footage but as far as the use and the viability of it in terms of a mixed use
40 development it doesn't even come close. I think that we are just selling the project short. I think
41 that it can be made to work with all of these uses combined.
42
43 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Keller, you had some comments.
44
45 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I am sympathetic with a number of the issues that
46 Commissioner Lippert mentioned. I have a slightly different perspective on some of them. I
1 note that under a CN mixed use zoning it says 17 at 15 units per acre. We are getting 14 BMR
2 units. The 17 units with 15 units per acre essentially would be much larger units, which would
3 probably be more family oriented for a site that doesn't really lend itself as much to family
4 oriented. So I don't mind as much having smaller BMR units that gets the 14 units and helps for
5 a number of things towards our Housing Elen1ent. It essentially gets units that help us with the
6 BMR, it gets us the number of units that you could have there anyway in terms of density with
7 lesser impact. So I don't have a problem with that per se.
8
9 With respect to something that Commissioner Holman said I would not be surprised if there were
10 some sort of condo type subdivision in order for the BMR units to not have property tax
11 associated with them as we saw with some of the other projects that came through here.
12 Therefore, conditioning in terms of the nature of the condominiumization, if that is a word, of the
13 retail spaces and the office spaces and such, or the nature of the ownership I think that some
14 restrictions on that do make some sense.
15
16 It is my impression that the owner of the land doesn't want to sell off any parts of it in terms of
17 condos or in terms of any of these units. So some restriction that basically requires that any
18 condominiumization of this property that remain under single ownership would seem be a
19 restriction that I think the applicant would probably be happy with.
20
21 I think that the deed restriction is a very useful addition to this concept. I think it would be
22 helpful to understand that a little bit better so we see the implications of that and how that would
23 be enforced.
24
25 I would be sympathetic with the idea of being able to figure out how JJ&F could expand in some
26 way. I think it is an interesting idea in terms of being able to expand across a driveway. That is
27 kind of intriguing. That trades one kind of retail space for another. I am not sure whether
28 another substitute under the assumption, which is I hope not the case that JJ&F doesn't remain
29 there for a long period of time, I hope it stays there for a long period of time but in the case it
30 doesn't stay there for a long period of time that it would be nice to be able to figure out how to
31 have a retail space that could be more contiguous for a grocery store, larger in terms of what
32 some other grocer might want to have.
33
34 I do think that the idea of the EI Camino Real driveway seems to be useful. What is also
35 interesting here is that the entrance ramp on the EI Camino, the way to get to that driveway is by
36 way of a bus stop, which is actually quite nice because it means that when you are entering and
37 exiting the driveway you can enter it by essentially making your way into the bus stop if there is
38 no bus there. You can make your way out of the driveway having sight lines to be able to make
39 the right turn without being blocked by cars that are parked there so you have to nose your way
40 out and get your front corner of your car dented. So I think that is actually a clever idea that I
41 like.
42
43 There was a series of questions from Chair Garber about the EI Camino Design Guidelines and
44 the idea that you are supposed to do build to lines. I actually went to a talk a year or two ago
45 about EI Camino Design Guidelines. There was this wonderful grand boulevard vision of EI
46 Camino. The wonderful grand vision boulevard vision is that you had these nice buildings that
1 are all lined up along a grand boulevard, and you had the street in the middle, and somehow they
2 are all lined up and look nice. The interesting thing is the wonderful pictures that I saw of the
3 grand boulevard did not have ten or 12 foot sidewalks with the buildings up against the ten or 12
4 foot sidewalks. The grand boulevard vision pictures that I saw basically had much more than 12
5 foot, you had maybe 12 foot sidewalks followed by a lot of greenery, and then behind that you
6 had these buildings. So in some sense what we have for the El Camino Design Gu~delines is
7 actually something that I think is not desirable. I would like to see a little bit more space to
8 paraphrase or quote what Commissioner Holman has said in the past, you don't feel being
9 pushed off away from the buildings and onto the street because of this framework. In some
10 sense opening this up and providing more greenery is my idea of what I saw as a grand
11 boulevard.
12
13 An example of this is I grew up on Brooklyn, New York and there is an ocean parkway is a
14 wonderful example of a grand boulevard there that is three lanes each way, street in the middle,
15 there is then this little greenery on either side, followed by service roads, followed by walkways,
16 sort of pedestrian paths in terms of sidewalks, followed by greenery, followed by buildings. To
17 me that is a grand boulevard. Our El Camino Design Guidelines don't create a grand boulevard
18 for El Camino. So I think the setbacks we have here go more towards what I think a grand
19 boulevard is than the design guidelines indicated.
20
21 I think that we should have some sort of requirement that there be no medical office space here
22 because of the increase of parking and the increase of trip generation. I would like to see a
23 strong transportation demand program that applies to the BMR units, and the office space, and
24 the grocery employees. My favorite throwing in there of Echo Passes is much more affordable
25 when you aggregate it over all of the employees and tenants of this space. There are nice
26 economies of scale with respect to buying Echo Passes.
27
28 I am concerned, the issue to which there is a parking shortfall, I notice that the diagrams here do
29 take into account, do take some credit for or at least observant, I am not sure the extent to which
30 they really take credit, but they do observe the amount of on street parking around this. I do
31 think that on street parking in this area is at a premium so I don't really want to count that. So to
32 the extent that there is insufficient parking that should diminish the amount office space that is
33 used. I do think that the amount-of office space used is somewhat more than I would be -let me
34 put it this way, I would be happier with less office space than we actually have. I am very
35 sympathetic with the idea of having as a condition of approval the median trees on El Camino
36 Real. I am also very sympathetic with the comments made by or the line of questioning made by
37 Comnlissioner Fineberg with respect to having the BMR units be sort of all one story so you
38 have second story units and first story units, and thereby you don't have the internal staircases
39 for each of the 14 units taking up a lot of the space in there. I also think that is it is important to
40 figure out a better way so that the tenants of the BMR units can more easily access the parking
41 and if that is through some other staircase or elevator located on the comer of I guess Staunton
42 and Oxford near the BMR units, something that doesn't require that they go through something
43 else. That might make sense. If you were to do that one thing that might be intriguing is to
44 provide that elevator so that it not only goes to the garage but also goes to the first story and the
45 second story of the BMR units so somebody could actually use the elevator to get to the second
46 story of the BMR units. I don't think that would add much to the elevator cost but it would
1 allow this sort of nice combination of this space in a way that would allow better you wouldn't
2 have as much of a walkup. Let me say that I spend a lot of my formative years on a boulevard in
3 Flatbush A venue, in Brooklyn, New York. I was on top of a retail store that was on the ground
4 floor, and then were two floors of apartments above it. We had one apartment that basically
5 filled an entire piece of that building. It did have some interesting advantages and disadvantages
6 in tenns of living in that environment and I do have some sympathies for the idea of having
7 housing over retail or housing over office. That might be another consideration to think about in
8 tenns of allowing JJ&F to expand further along Oxford, if there is a possibility of doing that and
9 then allowing some of the BMR units above that. If that necessitates reducing the amount of
10 BMR units in order to allow the additional retail space I think that would be a very desirable
11 tradeoff. Thank you.
12
13 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma followed by Commissioner Rosati.
14
15 Vice-Chair Tuma: So I like a couple of the previous Commissioners, find myself, I think there is
16 a lot to like about this project and think there are some real concerns that I still have. Lot to like
17 things are like the BMR units, I do like the entrance being on El Camino, retention of a market
18 here is good and I will talk about that a little bit more in a minute, and a lot of the other items
19 that Commissioner Keller so eloquently referred to that are benefits. I do think they are
20 positives.
21
22 I continue to believe that there is too little parking, and whether there are TDM measures that
23 will help, but parking reductions I am going to be very skeptical about parking reductions and
24 counting on street parking in my mind is a non-started. We don't want to dump these cars into
25 the neighborhood.
26
27 Where I am really struggling has to do with what I think was framed in the very beginning, the
28 core issue, which is at one point several people have and I wrote this down, several people have
29 talked about guaranteeing a market here. In my view there is absolutely no way to guarantee a
30 market here. We can guarantee that the space can only be used for a market but that doesn't
31 guarantee that there is going to be a market here. Quite frankly, I feel like the applicant is
32 playing a little bit hide the ball here in terms of how this deal is going to work. Now I know that
33 we are not generally to get into the specifics of the financial arrangements between the parties,
34 however the adequacy of the public henefit, the retention of a market at a below market rate.
35 The retention of the market which has been acknowledged needs to be at a below nlarket rate for
36 us not to know what that arrangement is going to be makes it very difficult in my view to pass on
37 the adequacy. Is it adequate? We are never going to get to a guarantee but how close are we
38 going to get to a guarantee? How close is it going to be to being viable? This is a core, critical,
39 turning point issue for me. Really, without the market there in my view no way are we anywhere
40 close to this amount of office space. So how can we judge whether there is going to be a market
41 there long-term without knowing more about what the arrangements are? It is very, very
42 difficult. I think to talk about what they talk about in the legal world you have opened the door
43 so let's find out about what it is. That is really what this is turning on for me. Ifwe are not
44 closer to sure than we are now that there is going to be a viable market there long-term this
45 project doesn't go forward as far as I am concerned. It just doesn't. There is just way too much
46 office space there. Even with something closer to a guarantee about a viable market it is still a
1 struggle but it is less of a struggle. So as I sit here right now I don't know whether I would
2 support initiating, and I still need to listen to some of the other Commissioners, but without
3 repeating anything that Commissioner Lippert it is all about the market. I don't feel 100 percent
4 or even significantly comfortable that this is necessarily going to happen. So that is kind of
5 where I am right now.
6
7 Chair Garber: Commissioner Rosati.
8
9 Commissioner Rosati: Let me start by stating that in general I view this project positively.
10 echo many of the comments that were made by Commissioner Tuma a minute ago. I also like
11 the aspects such as the BMR units. The fact that there is a significant amount of office space is
12 not a particular concern of mine. I think that the proportions of the development are reasonable
13 for the space. There are many visual aspects that will contribute to the development of a better
14 EI Camino as I can refer to some of the comments that were made by others who have written
15 about this project. I also would say that I am not as keen to understand the private dealings
16 between the parties because I think that we can through our efforts make sure that whatever gets
17 developed is viable regardless of what the private arrangement is between the parties.
18
19 I think that one of the comments that we heard earlier that resonated with me was that we need to
20 be absolutely sure that the development goes forward in a way that is viable with a grocery store
21 regardless of who that grocery store is. I am very concerned about that. I think that the one area
22 of the project that is falling short is the amount of space dedicated to the grocery store. I
23 absolutely do not believe that the 8,000 square feet is sufficient. It may be sufficient for JJ&F
24 but if JJ&F one day decide not to take on that space it will make it very, very hard for the
25 community to have the honest-to-goodness grocery store that they want to have in College
26 Terrace. It will be extremely hard. We have data that was shared by Commissioner Holman
27 about all the grocery stores in the neighborhoods and none of them is that small. Maybe JJ&F
28 has managed to do that over the last 60 years but if they are not around somebody else needs to
29 come in and we need to have a compelling space for them.
30
31 So my single comment is that we must include a much greater allocation, at least 50 percent
32 maybe more I will let the City Planning Department define what that is and make a
33 recommendation, to ensure that there is viable space for full-fledged honest-to-goodness grocery
34 store for that community. In that case, I think personally that the other elements of the project
35 are reasonable and proportioned, and frankly, generally well accepted by the community it
36 appears.
37
38 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman.
39
40 Commissioner Holman: I agree with many of the comments that have been made, many by
41 Commissioner Lippert except I am not fully in align about the comments having to do with
42 PTOD, but many of the other comments I am in alignment with. I also share many of
43 Commissioner Tuma's comments and a number of Commissioner Keller's.
44
45 This project is 25 percent over what the CN zoning allows. That amount of massing just does
46 not provide compatibility with the neighborhood. This site especially as a full block is going to
1 have a significant impact on the College Terrace neighborhood. It is going to have either a
2 positive impact or a negative impact. I think currently it is not such a positive impact.
3
4 I am disappointed that from our last meeting to this that the applicant has not better responded to
5 the issues and concerns that we raised. The grocery store would be a real wonderful benefit and
6 I as well as many people in the public that you have heard from absolutely support JJ&F, but
7 there is just no assurance. It is not something that I can do in good conscience or feel that I am
8 being responsible to barter away the zoning for a hopeful outcome.
9
10 The grocery store also as just stated before me is not of a significant enough size to really
11 provide a viable grocery store for a broader selection should it be necessary of grocers. I sort of
12 agree with Commissioner Tuma's comments about the private agreement but also feel a little bit
13 like if we can put assurances in maybe even better assurances than at Alma Plaza we might be
14 able to deliver a grocery store but I am a little put off by the presentation that it is a private
15 agreement, and it is between us. A private agreement does not constitute a public benefit. So
16 that approach really doesn't win favor I think, and that is pretty blunt but it is how I view this.
17
18 I would very much be interested in some pro forma numbers from the City Staff. I think that
19 would be very, very helpful with us. It is tempting for everyone and it is also probably a true
20 perspective of people and applicants and proponents and opponents of projects to use labels.
21 This project somewhere or other in the project description was called a village. From my
22 perspective this really isn't a village project. It is an office complex that has some element of
23 housing and retail. Ifwe really want to have a village here we would have a lot more retail that
24 responded to the retail across the street on College and provided neighborhood services that
25 would benefit the neighborhood, and some mix of that with perhaps some BMRs and some
26 office. This level of office not only is it going to create -and we could do other things too. I am
27 going to interrupt myself here because we could do other things like restrict the size of any single
28 office, and that is well and good but it is also very hard to monitor. So that is why when you get
29 office space of this scale it is very troubling. It could have immense traffic implications and
30 parking implications. This neighborhood is already overrun with excessive parking demands not
31 just created within the neighborhood but without. I agree with Commissioner Tuma's comments
32 absolutely having to do with parking with this project.
33
34 I feel like to initiate this project when it is so far away from something that would be supportable
35 from my perspective would be I believe irresponsible because it sends the wrong message.
36
37 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg.
38
39 Commissioner Fineberg: There are a number of things about this project that I find very
40 exciting, and that I like. I like the mixed use. I like that it has the BMR units. I like the
41 retention of a grocery store, of specifically JJ&F. I like the idea that people can walk from
42 Caltrain, work in the office park, shop locally, and patronize the retail stores. I wish it had come
43 back with less office space. I am stuck on that. I believe the Commission gave pretty clear
44 indicators that at our last hearing that the intensity of use and the anlount of office space was just
45 too much. I can't get past that.
46
1 There are a number of other things I believe could be tweaked as the design moves forward,
2 things like increasing the square footage of the grocery dedicated space, possibly reconfiguring
3 the BMRs to be one story units, that I think would give some additional public benefit because
4 then those BMRs could be handicap spaces. There is also a lack of private open space for the
5 BMR units. Frankly, there is a lack of what I would consider comfortable outdoor space or just
6 unpaved space on the entire parcel. I understand the green roof. I understand there is a gazebo,
7 but I don't necessarily know that people want to be in sunny, windy, noisy spaces.
8
9 The facility is under-parked. If the office space was reduced-thafwould reduce the demand for
10 parking and it could be easily adequately parked. The sole most important public benefit is the
11 retention of the grocery store, and I would say more specifically the retention of JJ&F. If that
12 8,000 square feet turns into a 7-11 it is a bad tradeoff that we get what is it 40,000 square feet of
13 office space for a 7-11 or other quickie mart. It is not a benefit to the public in that scenario.
14
15 So let me go back a minute to some of the other things I think are really good about this but I
16 would not be able to support it in its current incarnation. I would not be able to support the PC
17 zoning change. I think the way it treats EI Camino is wonderful, creating a vital public walkable
18 space, having the setback even if it is not consistent with EI Camino Guidelines, I think creates
19 vitality at the street front. The driveway, I would agree that the flat space makes it safer rather
20 than sort of a gaping mouth into the basement. If there could be some way that the two halves of
21 the project could work together rather than the driveway being an impediment. It comes down to
22 decrease the office space and one could rationalize it in the way Commissioner Lippert said, that
23 it would be consistent with zoning ordinances but right now there is no way I can get there. I
24 can't say it looks like a CN. I can't say it looks like something that would be a PTOD if we
25 imagined it went further. The inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan are too broad at this
26 point. Thank you.
27
28 Chair Garber: That leaves me. This is really hard but let me ask just a couple of quick questions
29 before I get to some of my comments. First of all, for. Staff the BMR units renting versus being
30 available for purchase, does that create any issues for the City one way or the other in terms of
31 management or ongoing?
32
33 Mr. Williams: No, it doesn't. We can handle it either way.
34
35 Chair Garber: In a brief response to Commissioner Keller's comments regarding the EI Camino
36 Guidelines. I won't argue one way or the other whether the buildings are closer or further away
37 from the street. I think what is important though about the Guidelines is what they present and
38 what they are trying to accomplish, the intent of them, is that they create continuity along EI
39 Camino, which it lacks. One of the problems of this project is that it presents building masses
40 that are both close and far away so that continuity is not sustained or maintained, and does not
41 give direction to the buildings that would be or could be on the adjacent sites to it. So it is not
42 supporting one interpretation or another if you follow me. Those are just nits.
43
44 One other question regarding Commissioner Fineberg's concern about inertia versus
45 detem1ination. If the Commission were to move forward with the initiation of a PC conditioned
46 in some way what happens if the next time it comes to us, after going through ARB, there is
1 certainly an expectation because of the inertia of the process that the applicant would have that
2 they are sort of on the right road, but if it came back to us and the Commission decided not to
3 support it what happens? Does the process simply start over at that point?
4
5 Mr. Williams: You mean after ARB reviews it and it comes back to you?
6
7 Chair Garber: Right.
8
9 Mr. Williams: It goes onto the Council.
10
11 Chair Garber: Oh, at point it does not come back to us?
12
13 Mr. Williams: Once it has gone to the ARB and it comes to you, you make a recommendation to
14 the City Council. So Council ultimately decides yes or no.
15
16 Chair Garber: Okay. So I think what I am hearing from the sense of the Commissioners here is
17 that they would be far more convinced to support the project if there was more or a larger
18 grocery store, and they would be more compelled to accept more office space. The other sense
19 that I an1 getting very clearly is that if there is a finer understanding of the economics behind the
20 grocery store that that may be the way to convince the Commission that there is a reasonable
21 argument therefore to accept a higher or greater amount of office space.
22
23 In my mind, I don't believe that is true. I believe that that is a red herring because fundamentally
24 the project needs to operate on a use basis, on a square footage basis, and support the
25 community. So I think we could get into the economics but I don't think it is going to actually
26 answer the land use questions that we need to struggle with.
27
28 I think one of the conundrums that the applicant has had and is germane to this site, and we have
29 talked about it in our previous meetings, is not surprisingly the parking. I commend them for
30 putting in two levels of parking below grade. That is an expense that is significant and it buries a
31 lot of problems that we would otherwise had. The big problem of course is you have to get out
32 of that hole. You had presented to us, and I forget which iteration this was, a ramp that goes up
33 through the side~ which allows you to create a much larger grocery store space. Am I correct in
34 remembering that?
35
36 Mr. Reich: The ramp used to come off of Staunton. Not off the side but the back.
37
38 Chair Garber: So we had more space along El Camino.
39
40 Mr. Reich: Which was not supported by the community due to traffic.
41
42 Chair Garber: The ramp would present additional traffic into the neighborhood and we said that
43 is the wrong thing. Get the ramp out of there. So the ramp could go to the comers but then it
44 wouldn't meet code or it wouldn't meet traffic safety requirements. So the only other place to
45 put it is in the center. If you want to keep it out of the neighborhood it ends up in the middle of
46 El Camino at which point you end up subdividing the retail space. Short of invoking the fourth
1 dimension there is very little way around that. There are strategies around that that the occupant,
2 not the owner in this case, but the occupant has suggested which doesn't seem to be getting much
3 traction with the Commission.
4
5 So the problem is that we don't, and I say we in the royal we meaning the Commission, the
6 Planning Department because as this is one of the few times that the Planning Department has
7 come before us without a recommendation, and frankly I think the applicant has not figured out
8 this puzzle yet. We don't know what this piece of property is supposed to be doing for the City.
9
10 So I have been trying to think here over the last couple of minutes, what is wrong with it now?
11 Now, the first thought going through your head is, wait a minute, is he proposing that we do
12 nothing? I am not but let's go through the thought exercise here. JJ&F is providing services to
13 the community, which are highly valued at the size that they are now just as they have been.
14 They have been doing it at some pain to themselves. Does the property support the EI Camino
15 Guidelines, i.e., the way that the City would like to see that piece of property that supports the
16 Comprehensive Plan? Not quite. Does the property right now support the ultimate vision of the
17 Comprehensive Plan? Not quite either. We could do things that would improve that, that would
18 get us closer to what the vision of the City is. But the project isn't one thing or another, and
19 unfortunately this is one of those places where I suspect you can't answer everything in one
20 solution and you are going to have to pick one way of dealing with this, and that has to be
21 compelling enough to get us over the hump of all the other problems.
22
23 You tried that once when you first came in here and you had a very large project that covered the
24 site, and there was some significant pushback on that. lam not suggesting you go back to that.
25 Let me pull back here for a minute. Not that I am going to lead you to a solution but] have been
26 struggling to try and find another way of thinking about this property. I do think it is about the
27 property, and where it is, how it operates in that part of the city, and what it is supposed to be
28 doing. This piece of property is unique I think for the following reasons. One, it is at the end of
29 a shopping and retail district known as California Avenue. I keep wanting to bend it so it
30 actually is on California Avenue. It isn't but it is there. It also is in many ways the terminus of
31 this neighborhood. Now there are other neighborhoods that exist on that side of EI Camino but
32 this is the only neighborhood that exists on that side of EI Camino that has a direct relationship to
33 California A venue. So there is in my mind an argument that is being presented to us, which is
34 that despite the intelligence of the Comprehensive Plan there is an opportunity here to both
35 support California Avenue as well as the community that exists behind in a way that doesn't
36 exist other places along EI Camino. The very improvement of this property supports not just the
37 needs of the residential community but also supports how it is, what it does, and what it can do to
38 improve California Avenue. That by the very improvement of that, by the enlargement of the
39 space even slightly will allow it to operate as the anchor, the other side of California Avenue. I
40 think that argument needs to be made much more directly because the only argument that we
41 have really heard in terms of how this piece of property is supposed to operate for the City is to
42 anchor the residential community back behind it. If you can show us how this operates not just
43 for the residential community but also for how it supports the California retail district I am
44 hoping that there is a solution in there that will become more obvious and easier for the
45 Commission, hence the City, to accept.
46
1 So what is wrong with it now? In some ways nothing. What is the opportunity? A variety of
2 things. Certainly for the owner, which is not the occupant, but for the owner there is an
3 opportunity to get a higher use, a better use out of that piece of property. There are certainly
4 opportunities for the current occupant to reoccupy that site and make better use and have a better
5 business or a better space that supports their business. I think it is very important though that the
6 residential community behind there recognize that there is a larger opportunity that supports not
7 only them but the way that this piece of property can support a larger piece of the city, and that is
8 just one part of the puzzle. We have sort of solely focused on what is west as opposed to what
9 this frankly, very unique circumstance, the only other time that that really occurs where you have
10 something on the other side of EI Camino, and I welcome corrections here, is when you get to
11 University Avenue, when you get to Stanford where you have another reason to get across El
12 Camino like that. It doesn't really happen that way at the Stanford Mall. The Stanford Mall is
13 all back there and is sort of divorced from the rest of the city in that way. So in my mind I think
14 seeing that piece of property differently might lead us to a better solution, a more obvious
15 solution, and one that would cause the Commission to say, you know what, it doesn't answer
16 these things, I don't like the way it is doing it, but you know what, it is doing something more
17 and better. It is the one plus one is five or six as opposed to two and a half. I don't know if that
18 makes sense to anybody else.
19
20 Let me see if anyone would like to attempt ....
21
22 Mr. Williams: Chair Garber?
23
24 Chair Garber: Yes.
25
26 Ms. Tronguet: I just want to remind you that the applicant has not had their opportunity yet to
27 make their closing comments and you still have the public hearing open.
28
29 Chair Garber: Thank you. We will hear the applicant and then we will close the public hearing.
30 Would the applicant like to address the Conlmission?
31
32 Mr. SmaiIey: If I may, I think I have three minutes and I would like to split that between myself
33 and the representative from Nelson Nygaard to address some of the parking issues.
34
35 Chair Garber: Please.
36
37 Ms. Jessica Trochoud, Nelson Nygaard: Commissioners, I would just like to start by saying that
38 1 support Commissioners Lippert and Fineberg in that this is a fairly transit oriented
39 development. We are right on EI Camino routes, VT A routes, 22, 522. They are extremely
40 productive from VT A's perspective. We are within easy walking distance off Caltrain. As we
41 know it is within easy biking distance of Stanford University. A lot of people walk and bike to
42 this site that is why we think the parking requirements are too high for this property.
43
44 We will be sharing parking and the shared parking alone will reduce the parking demand below
45 what can be supplied onsite. So just keep that in mind. We also have car sharing being proposed
46 or it will be incorporated into the project. Two car-sharing vehicles will be proposed. The 38
1 bicycle parking spaces will be incorporated but an additional 50 bicycle spaces can be provided
2 if there is a need. In all this is a very transit oriented and mixed use location where most people
3 will walk and bike to, and the parking will not be a big issue here. That is what I would like to
4 say. Thanks.
5
6 Mr. Smailey: To continue on that vein before I read a statement here, the history on the project
7 is we have had commercial tenants whom have occupied the Staunton location. The majority of
8 those tenants have had employees that do not drive to work. The current tenant on that site has ~,
9 over 60 percent of his employees that do not drive to work.
10
11 A few things that I would like to address. The floor sales area for JJ&F in the proposed
12 development is 50 to 60 percent larger than their current location. They have 60 years of
13 experience in running a grocery store. They are convinced and confident that they will be able to
14 use that new configuration to their benefit going forward. I would also like to point out that Sun
15 Country is a much smaller store than the current JJ&F. Lastly, the BMR units, and when we
16 reviewed those unit designs and square footages with the folks from the housing authority they
17 were one, impressed with the size. They considered them large one-bedroom units. Secondly,
18 they were very impressed with the design because they thought it was something unique and
19 would be very desirable in the marketplace. So they appreciate the loft configuration for the
20 designs we are proposing.
21
22 The statement that I had prepared. Our team has worked very hard on the College Terrace
23 Centre proposal for over five years now. We are quite proud of the project that we presented to
24 you this evening. We have made many changes over time not the least of which the original
25 project was proposed I think ten percent larger than our current configuration. We now have a
26 project that we think is beneficial to the neighborhood, to the City, and can be financially viable.
27 This project is balanced and fair. We are proud of how it works, we are proud of how it mixes,
28 and how it fits into the community. You have been provided with I think a substantial amount of
29 feedback from the community. We have over 140 signatures from College Terrace residents
30 who are in favor of the project. We have over 30 signatures from businesses immediately
31 adjacent to the project indicating that this new building will bring them new business and new
32 opportunities for growth.
33
34 I do need to be very clear about one thing. I am not prepared to divulge the financial information
35 I know about JJ&F. We have worked long and hard to ensure them of a financially feasible
36 structure. I can assure you that the way we have designed the project and the components that
37 we have in it are necessary for its feasibility and viability. I do pledge to you that we will be
38 delivering to you a quality product. It is a product I think you will be pleased with and proud of.
39 I think it would be beneficial to the City long-term and I ask you to please approve the PC
40 process to move forward this evening. Thank you very much.
41
42 Chair Garber: Thank you. Clarification, Attorney. When do I close the public hearing and what
43 relationship does that have to closing the item?
44
1 Ms. Tronquet: You would close the public hearing after all of the public comment and the
2 applicant, and if there is an appellant, appellant commentis complete. Then after you take action
3 on the item the item would be closed.
4
5 Chair Garber: So we will now close the public hearing. As much as I would like to find a way
6 to move this forward I suspect I am going to be well let's find out where we go.
7 Commissioners Lippert, Keller, Holman, and then Tuma.
8
9 Commissioner Lippert: I am not going to repeat myself. I am just going to add some additional
10 comments for my colleagues to deliberate on. I have been hard pressed to find an example
11 where a driveway entrance separates retail spaces and has been successful. The one that comes
12 to mind is Plaza Ramona where that entire block is bisected by two elements, the retail of course
13 you have at the comer and then there is a plaza, and there is Fass clothing store, and then there is
14 a driveway entrance that goes down into the basement. Then immediately to that right is Nola.
15 That block is vibrant and works particularly well. So'that doesn't really deter me very much
16 having the driveway aspect bisecting the building like that. In fact Plaza Ramona and the Birge
17 Clark original building along that Ramona block function almost as one complete building and
18 people think it is one building that goes all the way around the block.
19
20 The other comment I wanted to make is again regarding the whole idea of PTOD. I think it was
21 a misnomer for me to us PTOD but where it is lacking in the smart growth and livable
22 communities aspect is it falls short in the three D's and the T's, Density, Diversity, Design, and
23 Transit. It is on the edge of the transit center sphere of influence. The state legislature is going
24 to expand that to half a mile, it isn't there yet. Where it falls short is in the diversity that it is
25 very, very heavy in the office use. What I am afraid is going to happen is that its partner
26 building is really the building that is south of California Avenue on EI Camino Real that houses
27 Bank of America, which is a multistory office building adjacent to the soccer fields. It is about
28 the same distance away, it has office spaces, and it has retail on the ground floor. Actually it is a
29 bank on the ground floor. The point is that is what I am afraid is going to happen with this
30 building is that it is going to really be a major office use and the other uses associated with the
31 building are really just secondary. It is the preservation of the market and that is what is
32 inlportant here but I think that it is going to be a deadly building.
33
34 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then Holman.
35
36 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. First let me observe to underscore what Comnlissioner
37 Lippert said, it was earlier mentioned that there was this driveway, which in some sense bisected
38 buildings. The driveway on Ranlona actually is at the edge of that particular property. Nola's is
39 a separate building next to it. They are sort of glued together and in some sense it is at the edge
40 of that property but it is a long and much larger block for whatever that is worth.
41
42 I don't have an architectural license and I don't want one, just like I don't want a lawyer's
43 license. So let me make a couple of observations. The first observation is that I think that there
44 is a strong sentiment on the Commission that the office space is too large for the kind of property
45 that is basically greatly overrated in terms of office.
46
1 I have heard a nurnber of comments from the Commission and some comments from members of
2 the public. First of all we are very happy that there the opportunity to continue JJ&F in this
3 location. But in some sense being risk managers is a part of what we have to do here. We have
4 to take into account what happens if JJ&F for some reason or other is not able to continue
5 indefinitely maybe the next generation will retire at some point, maybe the generation beyond
6 that won't be able to stay, and whatever. We do think of this as a building that is going to be
7 there for quite a long period of time and perhaps we should think of that in tern1S of a century
8 long orat least 50 years long. I would assume that the next generation of JJ&F that is going to
9 take over is probably going to be there for say 30 years. So we do have to think in terms of the
10 timeframe of what happens when JJ&F doesn't stay as a family-owned store as it is now or even
11 with the next generation. With that regard I think that there has been a consideration of if that
12 were to come to pass, and a grocery store wanted to come in that said we can't do it in 8,000
13 square feet we need 12 or 13,000 or whatever square feet. There is no way to expand except
14 across a driveway. I think the idea of putting a meat n1arket on one side is a creative idea but
15 then you also need a separate set of cashiers, etc.
16
17 So let me just throw some ideas at you to think about in terms of this. For example, suppose
18 what you did was extended the grocery store building along Oxford so it continued all the way to
19 Staunton Court, and that was sort of a continuous building. I wouldn't even n1ind, in some sense
20 and just throwing an idea out, if you put office space down there that could be replaced by a
21 market if a market needed to expand. Suppose some of that office space was taken away from
22 the second story above the market and you extended the BMR units on the second story sort of
23 against that corner and further back? I don't know whether the nature of the loading dock
24 arrangement would be such that you could actually make a continuous sort ofU-shaped store or
25 whether it would be too weird or whatever. That is why I don't have an architect's license. That
26 is the kind of thing you can think about. It is sort of this creative idea of allowing for contiguous,
27 expandable store for which if it came to pass some day in the future that in order to retain the
28 grocery store we needed to be able to expand it, allowing for expansion room without tearing
29 down buildings or without having this weird solution of a driveway separating the same store
30 doesn't make as much sense. It makes more sense to me to be able to allow for that expansion
31 without having that be separated across a driveway.
32
33 So I am basically suggesting that you be a little bit more creative. I think that you have been
34 rather creative in tern1S of coming back to us and I appreciate the thoughts that you have put in
35 here. I think in some ways that the design here is creative and attractive and has some benefits to
36 it but I would be inclined to give you a little bit more crack at doing a design precisely because
37 of the comments made especially by Commissioner Fineberg.
38
39 That is if we do initiate the PC zone that even though there isn't a sense of entitlement that
40 comes from the PC zone there is a great sense of inertia that comes from n10ving forward with
41 the process. One of the things that is important to me about the failures of the Palo Alto process
42 is not spending enough time at the beginning of a project to get the concept right. I think if we
43 spend enough time at the beginning of a project to get the concept right that when it comes
44 through and comes back to us it should be accepted. Where the Palo Alto process fails is where
45 there is not enough time at the beginning and then when it comes back to us we say that is not
46 what we wanted anyway, start over again, and that is too late. It is a lot more time and money
1 spent by everybody in that process. So] quote my boss in college, he had this sign which says
2 why is there never enough time to do it right but always enough time to do it over? ] would
3 rather have the tweaking done at the front end before it goes to the ARB than trying to tweak it at
4 the end where there has been a lot more architectural design. So] am not going to make a
5 motion but that is basically what my thinking is, and the kind of changes that] think would be
6 helpful, and would make the project have more longevity and more flexibility in the future.
7 Thank you.
8
9 Chair Garber: Commissioner Homan and then Tuma.
10
11 Commissioner Holman: ] will be pretty brief here. There are several things to like about the
12 project.] mentioned several things earlier that] thought really needed some work. The things]
13 like about the project are that it is broken up into different buildings so that you don't have one
14 long, monolithic building. That I think is a positive. ] actually think it is a good thing that there
15 are BMR units here.
16
1 7 Where] think it is challenged are the things that you have heard before. ] think this can be a
18 more creative project in that] think it can be a more integrated project. The ground level, there
19 really do need to be better transition areas at the ground level. What is absolutely key for me is
20 not only the grocer store but being able to have other retail space. Perhaps one solution is to
21 expand the grocery store into or towards Staunton Court and make those second floor units. That
22 would solve some of these issues. It is possible or maybe not to move the entry on EI Camino
23 one direction or the other, not at the comer of course, but maybe just move it one direction or the
24 other to provide better flow and access to the other retail space. The way it is now is really
25 problematic for me. The other thing, ] have to mention this, is usable open space needs to be
26 better. The one thing that, as ] read the specs, on College A venue] know the setback is not
27 followed there and yet there is a three story building on that street face. It is exactly the kind of
28 thing that the public just hates to see in projects. It is what they respond to so negatively about
29 projects on EI Camino and this is three story on College at less than the required setback. So that
30 is really an alaml for nle as well. So those are my only comments.
31
32 Chair Garber: Commissioner Tuma.
33
34 Vice-Chair Tuma: Just one topic and there has been a lot of discussion tonight among
35 Commissioners about the appropriate size of a grocery store. We heard a list of sizes read off of
36 what others are and they are mostly in the teens and above. ] think one of the things we have to
37 keep in mind here is that because there is a subsidy being proposed perhaps a smaller grocery
38 store maybe perhaps this is why JJ&F is saying that it is viable at a smaller size because they
39 have lower overhead. They have a subsidized rent. So maybe an 8,000 square foot plus some
40 number of square feet on the pathway in front maybe that is viable because they don't have to
41 pay as high of a rent. So at the risk of being accused of throwing out another red herring, I do
42 think that the magnitude of the subsidy goes directly to the viability of a smaller space. So
43 maybe a smaller space is just fine because the overhead is lower. So] think perhaps there is a
44 way to not have to expand the size of the grocery store, still make it viable, make it something
45 that is acceptable, and will be there long-term because they have a lower rent. This is why it
1 continues to be difficult for me to get to being comfortable with the viability of a smaller store
2 without having that information.
3
4 Chair Garber: Commissioner Rosati.
5
6 Commissioner Rosati: I don't think it is worth raising the point. I think that I withdraw my
7 point.
8
9 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman.
10
11 Commissioner Holman: Just real quickly as a reminder that we can't assume it is going to be
12 JJ&F there. That is our hope but we have to make sure that any zoning thatwe do here needs to
13 account for the fact that over time there may well be a different grocer there.
14
15 Chair Garber:-We cannot put into zoning or the Comprehensive Plan that the space is to be
16 subsidized. To take the words of some of our other Commissioners, we can zone for what we
17 want, which could be a grocery store that is 8,000 square feet and then it is incumbent on
18 whoever ends up taking that deal to make it work for them. If it is a subsidy that is one way to
19 do it. Let me leave it there. Commissioner Lippert and then Keller.
20
21 Commissioner Lippert: I don't want to retread what I said previously but I do want to reiterate
22 one thing which is that the PC might take a profile of the 50/50 floor area, which is 50,000
23 square feet plus in addition to that the 8,000 square feet of grocery store space. So just in
24 looking at that alone it provides a significant amount of bump up and benefit. The question is
25 whether it becomes financially viable for the applicant to look at being able to have only 25,000
26 square feet of commercial, and that would be divided between office and retail, then an
27 additional 8,000 square feet of grocery store, and in addition to that being able to have say
28 another 25,000 square feet of housing which would be permitted under the CD zoning.
29
30 Chair Garber: Would you outline that again so I get it through my head?
31
32 Commissioner Lippert: The way it works is that right now under the zoning they are allowed to
33 have a 1: 1 FAR. The 1: 1 FAR works out to be half of that is residential, which would be 25,000
34 square feet and then out of that 25,000 square feet would be what would be called commercial.
35 Ifwe were to again divide that commercial because the ground floor would need to be retail,
36 12,000 of that would have to be ground floor retail space. Now looking at that just as a base to
37 begin with for the CN zoning and add to that another 8,000 square feet of retail for the grocery
38 store that brings you to 58,000 square feet of FAR. Now they could, because they only have to
39 have that 12,000 square feet of ground floor retail that grocery store figures into that mix. They
40 could take the additional 4,000 square feet and shiftthat up to second floor office space. That
41 gives them a significant additional bonus there also. It is just a question of whether they can
42 make the residential units sell to balance out the equation.
43
44 Chair Garber: I apologize Commissioner Lippert. The total number you are working with is
45 58,000?
46
1 Commissioner Lippert: Correct, but out of the existing zoning, the CN zoni~g, they can only
2 have 50,000 square feet of building. That is the underlying zoning that they have.
3
4 Chair Garber: So you are saying that 50,000 that is allowed in the zoning you would divide that
5 in half. Half of that is .residential, right?
6
7 Commissioner Lippert: Correct, .50: 1.
8
9 Chair Garber: Right, and then half of that is commercial, which is composed of half of that is
10 grocery store and then retaiL
11
12 Commissioner Lippert: No, I am saying retail and then office. .f,
13
14 Chair Garber: Retail and office.
15
16 Commissioner Lippert: Then I am saying let's give them a bonus FAR of another 8,000 square
17 feet for the grocery store. So that brings it up to 58,000. Now on the ground floor they are
18 required to have the ground floor have 12,500 square feet of retail and the grocery store could
19 figure into that.
20
21 Chair Garber: Planning Director.
22
23 Mr. Williams: I appreciate where you are headed but I think getting into this detail of square
24 footage is well beyond sort of the concept of whether to move this along. The point I take from
25 this is that you are looking for a balance of residential, nonresidential, a balance between the
26 retail and office, and maybe giving some kind of credit for the grocery store to help as a bonus.
27 That is the fundamental thing, which is very far away from where the applicant is at this point on
28 the project. If that an idea the Commission wants to indicate might be a direction to go that is
29 fine but trying to get down to understanding number is a little bit too much detail right now.
30
31 Chair Garber: I appreciate your comments and thank you for the summary.
32
33 Commissioner Lippert: Just in closing, I am not deterred by the 60,000 square feet of building
34 that they are looking for. I think the massing is great. It boils down to the use and the diversity
35 of the use.
36
37 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Keller, and Rosati.
38
39 Commissioner Fineberg: Just to follow up to Commissioner Lippert's comment in his scenario
40 the kind of mental granting of that 8,000 square foot bonus because of the grocery store. It
41 basically reduces the property by about 3,000 square feet under what the applicant has proposed
42 now. So I would agree with him that the mix needs to be tweaked, but I think the intensity, the
43 height along the southern portion is still too great.
44
45 One of the other thoughts that came to me in thinking about that driveway splitting the parcel
46 along EI Camino we keep talking about what it feels like along that EI Camino front and we are
1 not considering the College front. While College is really the retail district that it is a part of the
2 face along College on the first floor right now is penciled in as office space. So if I were to be
3 across the street let's say at Common Ground there would be nothing that would visually or no
4 retail that would draw me to come across to the parcel. In the same way, if I were at JJ&F there
5 is nothing that would draw me over to the other spaces on College. So it led me to think should
6 it operate respecting the retail and commercial uses on College and is there a way to tie that
7 together so that parcels are connected, and it is not so much of an island. That was it.
8
9 Chair Garber: Planning Director.
10
11 Mr. Williams: I am a bit concerned. It is 11: 15 and we are designing the project. I think we
12 have heard pretty close to a consensus of the Commission having some concerns about the
13 project and maybe not being able to move it forward although that is yet to be voted on. I am
14 just concerned about getting into this. Everybody has their own ideas we are hearing about
15 designing and there may be great ideas or merit to a number of those but that is ultimately up to
16 the applicant. The question before you is whether to move this proposal forward and if not, you
17 have indicated some of those ideas. They can take those back and decide whether they want to
18 come back to you with a modified proposal or whether they want to move onto Council.
19
20 Chair Garber: I very much want to get to an action here as well. I have been letting this draw
21 out to see if we could find a way to get there. I think what I am hearing is the Commissioners
22 trying to find a way at least in my mind potentially condition a motion that would forward it.
23 Because my sense here is that if we were to create a motion to support the initiation of the zone it
24 would likely not be passed without finding some conditions that the entire Commission can
25 support. Is that a fair statement, Commissioners? No. No it is not. Well in that case let's see if
26 we can get to a motion. I am happy to hear one. Commissioner Rosati.
27
28 Commissioner Rosati: There was a lot of discussion around the amount of office spaces being
29 excessive. As I mentioned earlier I actually don't agree and I want to explain Why. I think that
30 39,000 square feet of office space in that location, which is prime office space, very expensive,
31 would allow for a higher quality building, really high quality finish. That is my assumption
32 based on what I see. This will attract high quality tenants. High quality tenants tend to use the
33 space very differently. They like to have a lot of space. They like to have less dense
34 environments and lots of meeting rooms. My assumption is that it actually would be a good
35 thing. I remain of the opinion that the office space is not the problem and I just wanted to share
36 that perspective with the other Commissioners.
37
38 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller and then Lippert.
39
40 Commissioner Keller: So let me make a few observations. I am sympathetic with what
41 Commissioner Lippert said in terms of the balance and I think Commissioner Fineberg said in
42 terms of the balance. The way that I see it is that in some sense two tradeoffs have been done.
43 One tradeoff that has been done is the tradeoff that Commissioner Lippert said of add 8,000
44 square feet of office space because of the grocery store. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the
45 kind of thing that we would have done if we had created the G-Overlay to basically allow some
46 sort of bonus FAR of some sort like that. I see that in some sense there has been conversion of
1 residential space for office space of two types. One is conversion of residential space to office
2 space in order to create the BMR units, which are rentals instead of for sale. I think that one of
3 the reasons that there is a lack of desire for sale is that I think that the applicant doesn't really
4 want to sell units that will essentially encumber the property like this and sort of encumber
5 the ... my sense is that the applicant wants to own the entire thing in perpetuity and not subdivide
6 it in such a way that other people own pieces of it. So in some sense the BMR units are a way of
7 sort of trading off money to sort of subsidize the BMR units for housing.
8
9 The next thing that is going on is that there is a subsidy of the grocery store. There isn't a formal
10 mechanism for subsidizing a BMR grocery store like there is a formal mechanism for having
11 BMR rental housing. Essentially what we have is a BMR grocery store. That is some of the
12 conversion of the housing to office space is to provide that BMR grocery store. The problem is
13 in some sense we are being in some ways asked to take that BMR grocery store on faith. I
14 understand the business reasons for wanting to do that, but in some sense we are being asked to
15 do faith based zoning.
16
17 The other thing that is interesting is in some sense I have heard from Commissioner Rosati and
18 Commissioner Lippert that a 58,000 square foot building mass is more appropriate in terms of if
19 I take these things together. Commissioner Rosati doesn't seem to mind exactly how big it is.
20 Commissioner Lippert says a little bit smaller down to 58,000 square feet. What is interesting to
21 me is in some sense lowering the office space a little bit so that if you had lowering it by several
22 thousand square feet, bringing it down a little bit, would make the parking issue a little bit better.
23 I think that some of the other tweaks that I talked about might help to make it more likely that we
24 can see a path for the future for when the JJ&F generations decide to retire and maybe the next
25 might or might not want to do it, maybe somebody would buy it maybe not. I think there is
26 enough uncertainly in the life of this project that being able to reconfigure does make some
27 sense. I think that we have given you enough input and I don't think we need to give you any
28 more input in terms of this project.
29
30 MOTION
31
32 I am going to make the motion to deny the initiation of the PC zone. I would like you to tweak
33 it. Come back to us pretty soon. I think we have given you a lot of input to think about. There
34 has not been unanimity on the Commission in terms of the feelings on this but I think that there
35 is enough feedback that you can come up with a better project and bring it back to us. I would
36 rather have the gatekeeper function occurring at this end rather than conditionally moving it
37 forward in a way that we have no idea what we will get after it goes through the ARB process
38 and comes back to us.
39
40 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller, make the motion and then you can comment.
41
42 Commissioner Keller: Okay, I have made the motion.
43
44 SECOND
45
46 Commissioner Lippert: I will second that although I might have stated it a little differently.
1
2 Chair Garber: Thank you. The motion has been made by Commissioner Keller and seconded by
3 Commissioner Lippert. Would the maker like to speak to his motion?
4
5 Ms. Tronquet: Chair Garber, part of the recommendation was on the Comprehensive Plan
6 Amendment as well.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: I think that the idea is we don't go forward with the Comprehensive Plan
9 Amendment fulfil' the PC initiation happens. So we are not doing either of them at this point.
10
11 Chair Garber: Seconder?
12
13 Commissioner Lippert: I will accept that as well, even though I wouldn't have stated it that way.
14
15 Chair Garber: Would the maker like to speak to their motion?
16
17 Commissioner Keller: Yes. So I am hoping that we will be able to have improvements to the
18 design. I think that I would rather have a gatekeeper function at the beginning where we have a
19 design that makes more sense, satisfies more of the Commission's concerns, and then goes
20 through the ARB process and comes back to us, rather than the last minute kind of we don't like
21 this let's change it again later on. I would rather make sure that it is a design that a clear
22 majority of the Commission can support before it goes forward to the ARB. Thank you.
23
24 Chair Garber: Seconder, comments?
25
26 Commissioner Lippert: Yes. If I were to restate the motion I would just simply say that I would
27 not support a recomn1endation having the zoning or the Comprehensive Plan Amendment move
28 forward at this time. I believe that the applicant is on the right track it is really the
29 implementation and getting the right mix there in terms of what they are trying to do. The
30 preservation of the JJ&F Market or any market in that area is viable. I think that the square
31 footage is viable. I think it works particularly well. It is really the mix of the use that is really
32 the sticking point for me. I think with a little tweaking they might be able to come forward with
33 another proposal that will address a lot of the comments that my colleagues have brought up as
34 well as myself.
35
36 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg and then Holman and then Keller.
37
38 Commissioner Fineberg: Can I get a clarification from Staff, please? Ifwe vote in favor of this
39 motion what are the applicant's potential next steps? Would they then be able to appeal this
40 directly to Council and what could their actions be?
41
42 Mr. Williams: The applicant's choices would be to redesign something and resubmit back to you
43 for another initiation request, to walk away entirely, or to appeal it to the City Council. If it is
44 appealed to the City Council the Council could either deny the request or they could initiate the
45 project either as proposed or with some conditions to it and forward that to ARB to begin the
46 process, in which case it would then come back to you and onto the Council.
1
2 There is out there a chance they could do what happened on Alma Plaza too, which is that they
3 could develop the skeleton of the ordinance with some of those criteria in it. I can tell you that
4 we will certainly recommend against that arid I very strongly doubt that they would go that
5 direction. I think if they wanted the project to move forward they would just move it forward en
6 masse to the ARB and let it work its way back through the process.
7
8 Commissioner Fineberg: Would it benefit us to attach some sort of condition on this motion in
9 front of us if the applicant appeals to Council that they not approve the PC Ordinances at that
10 time? How might we fend off that?
11
12 Mr. Williams: Maybe the City Attorney can add to this but you can't essentially deny it with the
13 condition that you something. You could deny the request and then make comments that it is
14 your hope that if the Council does proceed forward with it that they would forward the package
15 and not constrain the review of it as it moved through the process or something to that effect.
16
17 Commissioner Fineberg: So those comments would need to be.made before the motion is voted
18 on?
19
20 Mr. Williams: No, they wouldn't be part of the motion. They would be comments, yes before
21 the motion.
22
23 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, great. Could we take what you just said and consider that my
24 comment, please?
25
26 Chair Garber: Well said, Commissioner Fineberg. Commissioner Keller you had something
27 quick.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: Yes. I will adopt Commissioner Lippert's motion, which was basically to
30 do the denials. I am assuming the issue about mixes and stuff like that is actually commentary
31 and not part of the motion that you proposed, is that correct?
32
33 Commissioner Lippert: That is correct.
34
35 Commissioner Keller: Then I will amend my motion to use Commissioner Lippert's wording.
36
37 Chair Garber: Seconder? I am assuming you agree.
38
39 Commissioner Lippert: Of course I agree.
40
41 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman.
42
43 Commissioner Holman: I am going to be support the motion but as the commentary that I heard
44 from both maker and seconder of the motion I heard the word 'tweaking' used. I think this
45 project needs a little more than tweaking based on the comments that I have heard from even the
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
maker and the seconder. I don't think the word 'tweaking' applies. S6 I just want to get that out
there.
A PC project as a standalone needs to be a good project. It needs to respond to its context, uses,
and built environment, and at the same time provide significant public benefit. This project has a
ways to go to achieve those ends. I think the applicant has heard much this evening that will
give them a lot to consider in revising this project. '
Chair Garber: A couple of comments from myself. I, like Cominissioner'Rosati, don't have as
many fears about having heavier office use because I think the office and/or a different mix
begins to talk to the project operating differently for the City and supporting growth along EI
Camino and beginning to anchor the California Avenue business district. I can't imagine that as
a public benefit but I think understanding how the property operates in this larger mode helps us
understand what its potential benefit is beyond simply providing the immediate functions, and
helps us make an argument that addresses some of the larger Comprehensive Plan issues and
how it fits into the city. Then of course I have my recurring comment about the El Camino
Guidelines but you have heard that.
MOTION PASSED (6-1-0-0, Commissioner Rosati opposed)
!
With that Commissioner, shall we vote on the motion? All those in favor? (ayes) All those
opposed? (nay) One opposed. So the motion passes with Commissioners Holman, Keller,
Garber, Tuma, Fineberg,and Lippert voting aye and Commissioner Rosati opposed. With that
we w.ill close the item.
U~144'LUUJ ~U.~L u~uru •• uu~ 84/22/2~89 16:19 6563241215
,
lOAM) UF I RlC10RS
eMil'
-.y, ft ....
Stffll MIIn;~ c:~
'iat CMIJt.
)CoffaA>
~Je ~ tt1JId" os HoIplraI carta..-E_~
IQiI a 0IIlIIff
tSBC8111'\k .,.. "',.,. ~I PrM. of BiIlIk ~!Id Tn t COIllp811Y
tar, .........
P..Jr: • .\Ifo COOImlri Child Care
.1Xrac:Ias
~CH
StJnfomtlaS aI'~
'''~ "Jainl wi ~1ItNS ,.. .,.,...
o lerialiP.k
t..h .Ci ......
h itemlon" WI 1ft P8/D AltQ
iii ,., .....
Go'de c_ Hoell
Ncllaedricll ROd!c alA AIm at
MIrt· ~ ..
1IIt CRt: Ih 140101 & '" ~d 1'010* S .)~
'" '11 OftImS Of (oj aid MlmBn
JdtlCdl:v _ford Sh ~ Center ..... ~
i •• v.IlItIV Ik 11m lmmal
.II ~UtCOWn
Stan sd Onlwl'llly
If .,~
HeWu4'IC Itd~
I lJIit PadeS'
Pi! "AIle 61t (tit f~Oft Joel.,..
A_w Mol lilge tanking
... S4.InF .....
Stll1I Mort I!JI! CCMnp.any
lftow"~
Acam lin t)ewlopmenI
~IIIC.
PACe
'ATTACHMENT C
April ~2, 2009
. Dan Garber, Chair
Palo Alto Plannina a TnmspQrtation Commission.
City of Palo Alto
2'0 Hamilton Alia.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Chair Garber.
A.t the April 14, 2009 Palo Alto CUmber GovaDl\Ulftt
Action Committee meeting, representatives ofth. Conege
Terrace Center project made a pm;entatloo. olcho current
iteration of the project.
The (lAC voted to endoJ'Se the project's request for
rezQning fttun eN to pc. Ofpartioular appeal WQ the
retention oflonl-ter.m grocery store, JJ&F and the addition
of other retail~ Appreci.tioft wa given by the Committee
for the inclusion ofBMR, one bedroom apartmCDU and
parking ingress and qress ii'om 81 CaJ;nino hal.
Thank YCJ\I for your consideration.
~ Paula Sandas
Pfesident/CEO
PAGE 01
College Terrace Residents' Association
STATEMENT FROM THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS ·
TO THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
The Board of the College Terrace Residents' Association (CfRA) adopted the following
statement regarding the proposed College Terrace Centre at 2180 EI Camino Real on April 22,
2009. This statement is informed by a CTRA Task Force that has carefully studied the proposed
design, debated its merits, and conducted a neighborhood survey to find where alignment exists
and does not exist. The detailed survey and its results have been submitted to the Commission.
This statement is made in terms of neighborhood preferences and values, and not in terms of
planning metrics, zoning options, or statistics. We believe the Planning and Transportation
Commission is in a better position to translate these preferences into a structured framework for
moving forward.
We would support
• A center that will anchor the neighborhood, mirror the neighborhood, and serve the
neighborhood.
• An enforceable requirement that the center include an honest-to-goodness grocery store,
not a convenience store, with sufficient conditions to be economically viable.
• Giving JJ&F first priority in grocery store lease arrangements and every encouragement
to return to neighborhood service after construction is completed, because of the Garcia
family's roots, ties, and loyalties to the neighborhood.
• Including a strong, verifiable transportation demand management program as part of any
proposed reduction in on-site parking requirements, to prevent spillover parking problems.
• Ingress/Egress to underground parking from EI Camino Real to help minimize traffic
cutting through the neighborhood.
• Retail space and office space designed to attract a diversity of businesses, stores, and
restaurants geared to serving the neighborhood.
• A beautiful, walkable, bikeable magnet for community interaction.
We are neutral about
• The BMR units.
• The prior offer of space for a community room.
We would not support
• The transformation of a neighborhood center into a regional business district.
• The preponderance of office space to the diminishment of other possible uses.
• The level of traffic and parking turnover associated with medical offices.
IN CONCLUSION, we ask you to ensure that any development at the 2180 'EI Camino Real
location will anchor the neighborhood, mirror the neighborhood, and serve the neighborhood of
College Terrace.
Page 1 of~
Betten, Zariah
From: LONERGAN [scobbin@sbcglobal,net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 20096:11 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: 2180 EI Camino Project
Hello,
I've been living in College Terrace for 10 years and wanted to pass along my views on the
2180 EI Camino Real project currently under discussion:
Overall, I am in favor of the project as it is being proposed. The critical elements for
retaining my support of this project are that it retains these features:
> The car access be from of EI Camino (not through the neighborhood streets).
> The bottom floor of the project be neighborhood retail in perpetuity.
If either of the above critical elements were removed I would withdraw my support.
It would seem that the primary disagreement that many have expressed with the project is
that it allows a zoning change to include 'regional offices'. I don't see a problem with this as
there are many regional offices (e.g. Stanford Ave) in the area and they add vitality to the
local businesses and possibly even a job or two to locals.
EI Camino Real suffers from poor decisions in the past -look at the state of many of the
businesses in the area! This project is being propo$ed by a long-term owner/trustees that I
believe they will improve the area with a quality project with long-term goals (not just a spec
builder looking to make short-term gains).
Best Regards,
Scott Lonergan
2090 Cornell St.
4/30/2009
Dr. and Mrs. 'ruing Schulman
836 Mayfield Ruenua
Stanford, eft 94315
We haue been residents for 31 years, one mile from
'dJ~F, and customers of the Garcia family since our
arriual.
dd&F is a unique market in the areB. It is uery small,
compact and packed. Despite the size of the store.
thay manage to stock just about euerything the
custorners want.. Rnd If they don't haue it, they will try
to get it. There is no other store as conueniently
located, and if you haDe done any comparison shopping,
you know that dd&F pricing is more than fair.
ddDF's most unique quality is their relationship with
their customers. They are our neighbors and friends"
I III bet there is no other market here or anywhere that
was eDer gluen an anniuersary party by their patrons!
For those of you who weren1t here in 199& or didn't
hear about it, the streets around JJ&F were closed, and
some 388 neighbors and customers celebrated .Jd&F's
'8th year In business I
We want to keep dd&F. They need more and better
space and they are willing to sacrifite to get It. The
new facility would be a blessing for J .. DF, their
tUllomers, and those who are lucley enough to gel one
of those low-tost apartments.
The Garcia family has done a great deal for our
community and we should show our appreciation.
Thank you for your consideration.
.April 11~ 2009
Virginia Spean-Berger
'SO Matadero Ave
Palo Alto, CA ,43Oti
650-4'3--58'&
Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commi.ssion
Palo Alto City Hall
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Subject; New CQllege Terrace Centre
Dear Commissioners,
I write to support authorization of the New College Terra~ Center.
This New College Terrace Center plan is well designed. It includes much needed
moderate income housjng. It supports public transit and pedestrian movement Tbe
design is the tesultofbroad, bigb...quatity and creative public consultation.
Particularly, the Garcia Family is an important part of our community. 'They are rooted
here and are committed to community service. This family leadership should be
supported by all of us.
Thank you for consideration of my com.ments in support of the New Col1ege Terrace
Center proposal.
Betten, Zariah
Subject: FW: JJ&F Market I College Terrace Centre -WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!!
From: Ann Hayashi [mailto:ann_hayashi@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:54 AM
To: TOHV, LLC
Cc: Reich, Russ
Subject: RE: JJ&F Market I College Terrace Centre -WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!!
As a long time patron of JJ&F, I wholeheartedly support the JJ&F Market/College Terrace Centre. In this time offaceless
owners of big box stores, the-family and community feel of JJ&F is what brings me back to the market. The Garcia family
has been an asset to the College Terrace area and this new project promises to better serve the residents of the area and those
of us who travel from nearby to support them.
Ann Hayashi
---On MOD, 4/27/09, TOHV, LLC <info@210011c.com>wrote:
From: TOHV, LLC <info@210011c.com>
Subject: RE: JJ&F Market 1 College Terrace Centre -WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!!
To: "ann_hayashi@yahoo.com" <ann_hayashi@yahoo.com>
Date: Monday, April 27, 2009, 11 :56 AM
Good Afternoon,
There are two options for providing your support:
1. You may reply directly to this message and we will forward it on your behalf to City Staff
2. You may send your message directly to Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org; we would ask that you also 'cc' Russ Reich
russ.reich@cityofpaloalto.org who is the staff member directly involved with this project
If you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to contact us. Your efforts are greatly appreciated!
From: Ann Hayashi [ann_hayashi@yahoo.com]
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 11:44 AM
To: TOHV, LLC
Subject: Re: JJ&F Market I College Terrace Centre -WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!!
I'm unable to attend the meeting but would love to send a support email. Could you send me the link?
Thanks,
Ann
---On Fri, 4/24/09, TOHV, LLC <info@21 OOllc.com> wrote:
I
From: TOHV, LLC <info@210011c.com>
Subject: JJ&F Market 1 College Terrace Centre -WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!!
To: "fagrant3@yahoo.com" <fagrant3@yahoo.com>, "ann_hayashi@yahoo.com" <ann_hayashi@yahoo.com>,
"ericivers@gmail.com" <ericivers@gmail.com>, "ebandu@aol.com" <ebandu@aol.com>
Date: Friday, April 24, 2009, 6:03 PM
Good Evening,
4/29/2009
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Michelle Oberman [moberman@scu.edu]
Wednesday, April 29, 2009 1 :30 PM
Planning Commission
Subject: College Terrace development
Dear commissioners,
I am not able to attend tonight' s meeting, so I am sendir'lg this note to you as a way of·
registering my opinion regarding the proposed development at the intersection of Stanford Ave and
EI Camino Real. As a neighborhood resident, I want to register my strong opposition to the
proposed zone change on the 2100 block of EI Camino from CN to PC. Knowing that compromises
often are necessary in such cases, I want to make known my sense that the most offensive of the
proposed changes is the over-delegation of office space, which would necessarily change the
character of the community because of the downstream consequences needed to support the
tenants of such offices.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
Michelle Oberman (Dartmouth Street resident)
Michelle Oberman
Professor of Law
Santa Clara University School of Law
500 EI Camino Real
Santa Clara, CA 95050
Tel: 408-551-7104
http://www .scu.edu/law/faculty/profile/oberman-michelle.cfm
http://ssrn.com/author=232686
1
Page 1 of 1
Betten, Zariah
From: Paula Sandas [paula_sandas@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 20094:34 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: College Terrace Center
Dear Chair Garber and Commissioners -
I am writing to express my appreciation for the work done by the developers of the College Terrace Center and some residents
of College Terrace on the College Terrace Center. Since the project Was first introduced, there has been a lot of forward
movement to make the project work for the neighborhood. There are elements of the project that are worth consideration in
rezoning the block from CN to PC.
1. The valuable retention of JJ&F Market at a size that is both potentially profitable for JJ&F and can fully serve College Terrace
and the growing Stanford residential community. While I was a member of the P&TC, the retention of local, independent
business was a significant factor in considering development projects. Not only will JJ&F Market open in a more visible location
from the one it's in now, the family represented by the developer and JJ&F's Garcia family have worked cooperatively to create
the best set of circumstances under which JJ&F can be redeveloped, and hope to re-open as a profitable market.
2. The placement of the ingress/egress to College Terrace Center on EI Camino instead of inside the College Terrace
neighborhood is a key improvement. Avoiding spillover parking into College Terrace residential streets is a welcome relief for the
neighborhood.
3. The consideration given by the developer for low-income, single bedroom apartments that should not impact the school
system shows sensitivity to a broader set of issues faced by the community. The apartments are placed on the block facing
existing residential across Staunton Court, "stitching the seam" of residential to residential.
4. Finally, the family that owns the land on which the College Terrace Center is to be built demonstrates their long-term
commitment to the legacy of a neighborhood grocery store, and the character of College Terrace while developing a project that
will stand as a legacy for the next hundred years.
Thank you for your consideration -
Paula Sandas
Paula Sandas
paula_sandas@yahoo.com
4/29/2009
Page 1 of~
Betten, Zariah
From: Karlette Warner [karlette46@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 8:04 PM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: CTRA Board; input@2180ecrtaskforce.org
Subject: Comments for April 29, 2009, meeting regarding 2180 EI Camino Real (College Terrace Centre project)
To the City of Palo Alto Ptam'ling Gommission: .
I am unable to attend the April 29 meeting and am therefore sending my comments on the subject project via email.
I am a 30-year resident of College Terrace. One of the primary attractions of living in this neighborhood is its proximity to
shopping, transportation, and other services. Like many of my neighbors, I appreciate being able to walk to my local grocery
store. I shop almost daily at JJ&F and never have to use my car! .
I strongly support the retention of a grocery store (preferably JJ&F) in the neighborhood. While I am not enthusiastic about
additional office space and BMR housing in the proposed project, I nevertheless would support the project, if only to guarantee a
grocery store at or near its current location.
Thank you for your consideration.
Karlette Warner
981 College Avenue
4/29/2009
Page 1 of 1
Betten, Zariah
From: Fred Balin [fbalin@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 9:39 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Item 2: Ass't City Attorney: "Subsidy ... Not ... Appropriate as a Community Benefitll
On page 5, the Staff Report reads as follows:
The applicant has suggested the following public benefit assQciatt?d with the proposed PC:
• Provision of a subsidized rental rate to ensure a neighborhood-serving grocery market will remain at this location
• 10 Below Market Rate Units
The JJ&F "subsidy" (part of a private agreement between landlord and tenant) was discussed at the October 1
hearing, and I believe clarified with the following response from the Assistant City Attorney:
Ms. Silver: The subsidy of a private for profit corporation would not be appropriate as a
community benefit to designate a specific grocery store. However, the retention of a grocery
store through the PC zone would be considered a community benefit.
-10/1/08 P&TC Minutes p. 45
-Fred Balin
2385 Columbia
Member, CTRA 2180 EI Camino Real Task Force
Page 1 of 1
Betten, Zariah
From: Joy Ogawa[joy.ogawa@usa.net]
Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 9:06 AM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: 2180 EI Camino Real
Dear Planning & Transportation Commissioners:
~"."':"~~.
Here is a short list of some ofth~ maj9r issues I have concerning the proposed project:
o
1) Please maintain the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial for this property. The
project should be brought into conformance with the existing Neighborhood Commercial land use designation; the
land use designation should not be changed to conform with the proposed project!
2) The current proposal includes too much office (941 sq. ft. increase from October 2008 proposal; 1,485 sq. ft.
increase from Feb. 2008 proposal).
3) The project's retail uses need to be better connected. In the current proposal, the driveway still divides the grocery
from the other retail uses.
4) The project should have a prominent retail component on and facing College Avenue that provides better
coooection with the other existing neighborhood-serving businesses along College Avenue in the CN zone. -->Don't
let College Avenue tum into a big office complex, which it seems to be iIi eminent danger of becoming. This would
make a mockery of the purpose of the Neighborhood Commercial zone and the Comprehensive Plan goals of liveable,
walkable neighborhoods.
5) The proposed 8,000 sq. ft. of designated grocery store floor area is smaller than even the current (8,712 sq. ft.)
JJ&F market. All the residents I have spoken to are concerned that this is too small to accommodate another honest-
to-goodness grocery store if JJ&F decides not to return.
6) The size and scale of the project are too big and not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Reduce the amount
of office floor space and reduce the proj ect' s size and scale.
Sincerely,
Joy Ogawa
4/29/2009
Anna Fankhauser
EmestRegua
567 Oxford Ave.
Palo Alto, Ca., 94906
Palo·A1to Ci~ Council Members
Members, Planning &. Transportation Commission
. 250 Hatnilton Avenue
Palo Alto, Ca., 94301
Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council and .Planning &. Transportation
Commissioners,
As residents in the College Terrace neighborhood and JJ &. F Store, we are
wri.ti.ns to support the College Terrace Center plans. We are pleased to see
that the new facilities for the Jl &. P Store will brina. ~ur neighborheod and
. the City of Palo Alto a larger assortment of non-chain del i specialties. fresh
local products and a varlet)' of food. We cherish this family owned business~
as they have always supported our community. They have been a valued
member of the businesses on California Ave. The store is loved by families,
stud~ts, longtime residents. schools, businesses and offices.
We are al~o pleased to see the 14 one-bedroom housinS units rented at
affordable rates, which will be an enrichment to OUt neighborhood. The
green-vinage style development design with 1ivi~g roof and LEBO
certification ;1 an important step in the direction of green building. The new
office space Will provide the sUlTOunding neighborhoods with new
custom.ers, which we all welcome during these challenging economic tim.es.
Thank you for aU your efforts to brina an improved value to Out'
neighbothood and community. We hope yon will pass the project at the
formal approval hearing on Wednesday~ April 29, 2009.
Page 1 of ~
Betten, Zariah
From: Joy Ogawa Uoy.ogawa@usa.net]
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2009 1 :55 PM
To: Williams, Curtis
Cc: Planning Commission
Subject: 2180 EI Camino Real_ question about office floor area
Dear Curtis:
I have been reading the staff report for the 2180 EI Camino Real preliminary review which is on the agenda for the
Planning Commission's April 29 meeting.
I am confused by what appears to be a discrepancy in the proposed floor area for office use. The body of the staff
report says that the proposal includes 39,980 square feet of office use. However, when I look at Attachment D, the
Zoning Compliance Table, the table indicates that the Proposed PC project proposes 38,495 square feet of office floor
area (see the third page of Attachment D).
Could you please explain this discrepancy and/or let me know which is the correct figure (or have one of your staff do
so --I don't have Russ Reich's e-mail address).
Thanks,
Joy
4/28/2009
Betten. Zariah
From: Robert Phillips [robert.phillips@nomissolutions.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 8:48 AM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: No Zone Change for 2180 EI Camino Real
Dear Planning and Transportation Committee:
I have lived on Yale St in College Terrace for almost 20 years. I have serious -concerns regarding the PFOje:ct proposed for::2180
. EI Camino Real. Specifically, I am concerned that the proposed project is simply too large for the neighborhood and would set a
terribel precedent for further development in the area, destroying the original intent of the CN Zoning.
Some of my major concerns are with the traffic and parking impacts that a commercial building of the size proposed would
place on an already stressed neighborhood.
My preference would be for the zoning to remaining unchanged. However, if the zoning is to be changed or a variance granted
that would allow a larger development, I believe it is critically important that approval be contingent on three items:
1. That the primary entrance to the facility be on EI Camino --which would require the granting of a curb cut.
2. That the building not contain medical offices which generate between 2 and 3 times the daily traffic as
standard commercial offices.
3. That on-site parking be provided in an amount consistent with city code.
Please feel free to contact me if I can answer any questions.
Best regards,
Robert Phillips
2290 Yale st.
Palo Alto, CA
(650) 858-2920
robert.phillips@nomissolutions.com
4/28/2009
..&. "-too::;' ....... ..&. 'J.L .a.
Betten, Zariah
From: Eileen Stolee [estolee@comcast.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11 :04 AM
To: Planning Commission
Cc: Fred Balin
Subject: 2180 EI Camino Proposal
Hello, •.•.. 'j:-
I have lived in the College Terrace neighborhood since 1975 with my husband and two adult children and have been
shopping at JJ&F all these years.
When John Garcia came around on Tuesday, April 21st. with a petition to sign for support of a project that includes a
market for JJ&F I signed it because of my love ofJJ&F and my need for a functional market in our neighborhood.
However, after some reflection I emailed the developer on April 23rd (illfo@210011c.con1) and asked that my name
be removed. I'm assuming this was done in time for the Planning meeting on April 29th.
There are several reasons why I do not feel comfortable signing a blanket support for this project at this time.
1. Currently there is an agreement with JJ&F for a subsidized market of 8,000 sf. My concern is that if JJ&F does not
return in two years, for whatever reason, can another small market (like JJ&F) survive in that small space?
As far as I know the developer does not have to pass on the rent subsidy to the next tenant since it is not considered
as a public benefit. The space seams too small in its current configuration to support a market other than JJ &F and I
fear we will not have one in the end.
I would like to see the grocery and retail spaces side by side so that if a larger market were needed in the
future it could happen. This is not reflected in the current design
2. The entrance on El Camino could cause back-up traffic on EI Camino going south and really big problems trying
to tum left going north on El Camino after exiting the underground garage. Cars are going to try and cross all lanes
of traffic to make a U-tum at an already difficult comer.
I would like to see the entrance to the underground parking either on the first street before College or Stanton
Avenue. Doing that will allow for more space for a grocery store by connecting to the retail space.
For me this really isn't just about JJ&F. it is about keeping a viable market within walking distance of our lovely
neighborhood of College Terrace. JJ&F or not.
. Sincerely,
Eileen Stolee
984 S. California Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
4/28/2009
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Commissioners -
Pria Graves [priag@birkeUhouse.com]
Monday, April 27, 2009 4:02 PM
Planning Commission
2180 EI Camino
I once again have another commitment on Wednesday evening al')d am unable to participqte in_>YOIl~
discussion of the proposed development at 2180 EI Camino Real.
Despite minor improvements in the proposed project I I still remain very concerned about the
massive scale and several other aspects.
Neighborhood Commercial zoning is intended to provide a cort:'fortable transition space between the
busier, more commercial uses on EI Camino and the quieter and smaller scale residential uses
behind. This large-scale office development utterly fails in this regard. It creates the potential
for the type of interface difficulties that have plagued College Terrace for years along its border
with the Research
Park: incompatible uses make uncomfortable neighbors.
The eXisting streetscape along this part of EI Camino consists of single and two-story buildings.
Inserting a massive office block into the middle of our neighborhood will undoubtedly be used as
future justification for all future development to be as big and imposing.
The neighborhood commercial character of the existing frontage will vanish. This poses an
especially alarming threat to the historic church building directly across EI Camino from the 2180
site.
I also continue to have huge concerns with respect to traffic and parking issues around this
project. Although I applaud the decision to move the access to the underground parking from
Staunton to EI Camino, I still anticipate an increase of traffic and congestion along Stanford
Avenue. I also predict that much of the traffic destined for the site will cut through on Yale and
Oxford when the Stanford/EI Camino intersection is busy. Other steps are needed to control the
behavior of these drivers (such as a partial closure of Yale at Oxford plus a center island on
Oxford to direct the turning cars). These measures should be funded by the developer. In
addition, since many people do not like to drive into underground parking lots, the development will
increase the pressure on surface parking on nearby neighborhood streets. Although the soon-to-
be-implemented permit program will provide us with some protection from building staff parking in
the neighborhood, the two hour "free" parking window will allow those coming to visit the building
to park at will on our streets, causing more traffic as well as depriving residents of parking.
I am also extremely concerned about the noise which will result from the project. I believe there
will be unacceptable noise both from the construction and permanently, an increase in ambient
noise levels from the air conditioners which appear to be located on top of this three-story
monster. Our experience with air conditioning units in the Research Park is that the noise from
them can travel a considerable distance into our quiet neighborhood I disrupting our night-time
1
peace and quiet. The City's noise ordinance addresses only noise impacts at or near the property
line and at street level, not the impact on neighbors blocks away who are the victims of noise
passing over the top of the intervening buildings. Once a building is in place, it is extremely
difficult to get any satisfaction should there be a noise problem of this kind.
With respect to the construction, I am particularly concerned about the excavation and compaction
needed to create the below grade parking structure. During the recent construction of the
basements under the two small Llnits at 550 College, the noise inside my home was utterly
intolerablel·· Though almost inaudible outside, the vibration WQS, transmitted through, the rock layer
under the soil into my house.
Again, Palo Alto's noise ordinance does not address this kind of problem and with the much larger
scale of this project, I'm frankly terrified as to the potential impact of this construction.
I remain convinced that this proposal is too big and has too many impacts on our neighborhood.
The proposed IIbenefit" of BMR housing offers nothing to the neighborhood. And while we all want
J J & F to remain, the question is at what cost to those who live here?
Regards,
Pria Graves
2130 Yale
2
ANNETTE PORTELLO .ROSS
Apri129, 2009
Planning and Transportation Commission
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Re: 2180 El Camino Real/College Terrace Centre
Dear Commissioners,
2103 Amherst Street
Palo Alto, California 94306
650-493-3760
I have lived in College Terrace since 1983. For the past year I have been an active member of the
College Terrace Task Force studying this project. This letter is from me individually; it is not written on
behalf of the Task Force.
The applicant for the College Terrace Centre project is requesting a zoning change that, if
granted, would have significant impact on College Terrace. To gamer support for the zoning change the
applicant has been engaged in a campaign to convince College Terrace residents and City decision-
makers that supporting this project is the same as supporting JJ&F, and that JJ&F will return when the
project is complete but only if the zoning change is granted. This strikes me as an incongruous position
to take towards an anchor tenant with a proven client base and broad community support, but that is
where we are. I want to see JJ&F return but I am concerned that the outcome will be a development that,
despite the Commission's previous request that the project be scaled back, is still nearly three times what
is allowed for office space under existing neighborhood zoning but with no requirement or guarantee for a
neighborhood-serving grocery store, be it JJ&F or not. I do not think that the project, as submitted, has
sufficient community benefits to warrant sacrificing the protections of the current Neighborhood
Commercial ("CN") zoning. My reasons follow.
1. The square footage dedicated to a grocery store in the current plan is 8,000sf; a size that
is smaller than JJ&F is now. There is the promise of 2,400sf outdoors, but that cannot be
included in the floor area calculation for a grocery because it is not covered.
2. In Palo Alto alone JJ&F faces competition from Safeway, Whole Foods, Piazza's,
Andronico's, Mollie Stones, Country Sun, the weekly Farmer's Market and, soon, Trader
Joe's.
3. Although we do not know when the developer will break ground (and that could be a
critical detail) there will be a construction hiatus that could easily last 18 -24 months.
That is a long time for a grocer to have no claim on market share while once loyal
customers are forced to shop elsewhere.
4. As currently designed, the College Terrace Centre is 64.5% office, 13.6% residential,
12.9% grocery, 9% other retail and under-parked by 27 spaces. We are told that JJ&F
has a confidential agreement with the developer that may offset certain economic
realities. I hope it is very favorable to JJ&F. However, if the cost of being out of business
for an extended period of time plus the cost of tenant improvements plus the cost of the
new lease plus the incalculable cost of lost market share preclude the return of JJ&F,
where does that leave the neighborhood? I think the answer is clear:. College Terrace
will find itself with a 61,960sf, three story under-parked development with 14 new
housing units but no JJ&F and possibly no neighborhood-serving grocery store at all.
5. JJ&F has stated that they intend to return and they must know that the store is smaller
than what they now have. Presumably, the store will be designed in a way that
maximizes the utility of the useable space, but 8,000sf is still much smaller than what
most other--grocers would require. On .. lin~ research suggests Jhat 1 O,OOOsf under roof is
the minimum area needed (e.g. Fresh & Easy) but 12,000 )5,000.sfis a more common
minimum area needed for a grocery to be competitive. While JJ&F is uniquely positioned
with the promise of a subsidized lease rate and a dedicated client base to make it in an
8,000sf store, it is unlikely that another grocer would be attracted to the space if JJ&F
were not able to return. Whatever decision is made, I think it would be prudent to require
that the space be designed in such a way that sufficient contiguous under-roof square
footage is dedicated for a neighborhood-serving grocery so that the space is viable to
other groceries should JJ&F not return.
6. The requested zoning change from CN to Planned Community ("PC") would be
inconsistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and would eliminate the protections of
CN zoning while a smaller project under CN Mixed Use zoning could achieve much of
what the developer seeks and preserve the neighborhood.
7. Granting a zoning change to PC would set a precedent for doing the same thing along the
EI Camino Real border of College Terrace and this project alone presents uses and
intensities that do not comply with the Comprehensive Plan's requirement for preserving
neighborhoods.
Land use decisions should, I think, be based on the merits of the application and compatibility
with the City's Comprehensive Plan. I urge you to not approve the application in its current fonn but to
instead consider alternative development options that are consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan
and that preserve the College Terrace neighborhood.
Sincerely,
Annette Portello Ross
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Larry Kavinoky [lkavinoky@stanfordalumnLorg]
Sunday, April 26, 20099:16 PM
Planning Commission
2180 EI Camino (aka JJ &F Centre)
I believe the major community benefit of this project is a viable grocery store. To that
end I would like you to approve the zoning change to PC with enforceable provisions that
.,,·,~the.size, rent and other terms be specified by.you ... and·,Y0ur-s1::aff, no·t"the· current· _.-A
landlord and tenant. I am sure that in the last 10 years with Alma Plaza your staff knows
what the industry needs for a viable grocery store in perpetuity.
Perhaps the size for a neighborhood store is 5-10-15 thousand square feet.
Perhaps the rent is 25-50-75% of "average retail" or some other bench mark.
Perhaps the developer should be required to provide a "turn key" project meaning that all
the grocery store furnishings and fixtures are provided in the rent.
Perhaps in the future the rents or terms will have to be adjusted to keep a grocery store
viable. If JJ&F or another local grocery store is willing to pay the requested rent, then
it is viable. If not, then something has to be adjusted to work in a changed environment.
We all love JJ&F so please remember that when we speak of JJ&F you will hear in your
official planning capacity "grocery store". My family has been associated with the JJ&F
folks since before they/we moved to Palo Alto. It should be of no concern to any of us
what the current landlord and tenant have agreed to for now and in the future when you
establish the exact definition of "viable grocery store" for this project. Also remember
that when you see the public's support for this project, much of it really means they are
supporting JJ&F and not the specifics of the rest of the project.
Please move this project along and don't make us wait another 10 years for a newer and
better grocery store.
In my mind there is no II subsidy" here. The term just obscures the economics of the
project. The developer has costs to meet LEEDS standards, earthquake standards, parking
standards, grocery requirements, etc. They then will collect rents from the grocery store,
retail, office, and other tenants. If your restrictions are too severe, the project will
not move forward. Please work with the developer to allow him enough rent, including the
grocery store, to make this project viable for the owners. Perhaps your staff has some
idea of how much income it will take to recover the anticipated costs. If that means
exceeding your normal limits on "office space" or other metrics, please weigh that against
the community benefit of the viable, walkable, neighborhood grocery store. Remember also
that Stanford is adding many new housing units within a quarter mile of this project.
I live directly across the street from this proposed project and I urge you to take the
necessary action to be sure we have a viable grocery store. I do not believe it is in the
community's best interest to drag this out as has been done with the Alma Plaza
development or Ricky's. I believe that approving changes in zoning, etc in order to get
the tremendous community benefit of a grocery store that would otherwise be forced to
close is a great message to send to the citizens and developers of this city. "The city is
prepared to adjust its normal metrics when necessary for a particular site and benefit."
Please pass this project along to the next step.
Larry Kavinoky
550 Oxford Ave, #4
1
Betten, Zariah
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Fred Balin [fbalin@sbcglobal.net]
Tuesday, April 28, 2009 7:44 AM
Planning Commission
CTRA Boardmembers; 2180ECRTaskforce
Item 2: Neighborhood-wide Distribution from CTRA 2180 ECR Task Force
TaskForceDistribution_27 Apr09.pdf
TaskForceDistributi
on 27Apr09 .... -Commissioners,
FYI.
Members of our Task Force began distribution yesterday of the materials in the ~ttached PDF (8
pages, 8.5 x 14 legal size) to all doorsteps in College Terrace to further update neighbors on the
proposal before you on Wednesday evening and to encourage informed participation.
Fred Balin
Member, CTRA 2180 EI Camino Real Task Force
2385 Columbia Street
1
The CTRA 2180 EI Camino Real Task Force
Requests Your Careful Consideration
of This Neighborhood-wide Distribution
Then express your views
to the Planning & Transportation Commission
ASAP via email (to planning.commission@cityofpaloaito.org)
and/or in person at the public hearing
Meeting begins at 6 pm, this Wednesday, April 29
However 2180 El Camino Real is Agenda Item No 2
We do not expect it to start before 7 pm
Monday, April 27, 2009
Dear College Terrace Neighbor,
On Wednesday evening, the Planning & Transportation Commission will decide
whether or not to initiate a zone change on the 2100 block ofEl Camino Real from
Neighborhood Commercial (CN) to Planned Community (PC) for the current project
proposal and to change the corresponding Comprehensive Plan land use designation.
This packet includes:
Project-applicant floor plans with task-force annotations in the margin,
• Chart comparing the proposed PC with current CN guidelines,
• Task force editorials cautioning about a petition and exposing a false choice, and
This information letter.
As a group and since the beginning of 2008, the task force has been carefully studying
the project. Members share a commitment to carefully research proposals, disseminate
thoroughly objective information, gather input, and monitor the process. (Key task
force distributions can be found at www.2180ecrtaskforce.org).
Near the end of last year, the task force developed a survey packet and then distributed
it to all College Terrace households. The results were made available by Christmas.
Recently, the project was updated with minor changes that have little or no impact on
the survey. You will find the survey results within the floor plan margins.
Part 1 of2
Part 2
Last Wednesday, the CTRA Board approved a statement to the Planning &
Transportation Commission. The statement is a skillfully crafted document. It is
informed by the survey results but is expressed "in terms of preferences and values not
in terms of planning metrics, zoning options, or statistics. "
It also defers ultimate ju4gment to the commission, citing that "the Planning &
Transportation Commission is in a better position to translate these preferences into a
structuredframeworkfor movingforward."
In several areas, the statement speaks to a broader vision of a neighborhood-centered
environment and concepts that would enhance it and those that would dimini~h it.
The full text can be found in Saturday's eNews and via the web at www.ctra.org. The
task force recommends that you read it. .
Now you have another important opportunity to let your voice be heard:
Planning & Transportation Commission (planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org)
or in person at the hearing
CTRA Board (board@ctra.org)
Task Force (input@2180ecrtaskforce.org)
Thank you for your interest and participation,
2180 EI Camino'Real Task Force Member
[Task Force: Fred Balin, Maggie Heath, Larry Kavinoky, Emily Marshall, Annette Ross,
William Ross, Doria Summa]
Task Force Editorial JJ&F Store Petition: Understand What You Sign
Did you see. the petition at JJ&F Market? Did someone bring one to your door?
If you sign this petition, you become an important part of a promotional campaign,
orchestrated by the 2180 El Camino Real developer, in stating that you are
"wholeheartedly supporting" the approval of his proposal, in its current form, as it
comes before the Planning & Transportation Commission for consideration on
Wednesday, April 29.
As per the City's Staff Report, the proposal is not consistent with either the current
Neighborhood Commercial zoning or the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Both would
need to change to permit a development with more than twice the commercial space
allowed under the current zoning and dominated with offices geared to a regional not
a neighborhood business district. A significant, increase in parking requirements and
traffic generation, in addition to a potential precedent for similar projects on both sides
of the site are among other possible side effects.
If you are comfortable with all aspects of the project, then endorsing the petition is fine.
But if you thought you were signing on for something else, for example, a simple
heartfelt show of support for JJ &F Market and a desire that it return after
redevelopment - a preference for 88% of our neighborhood survey responses then
you have been misled.
The petition reads, "We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project ... " What
plans were you given for review? Did they discuss trade-offs as well as benefits?
If you wish now to correct matters, send an email to the Planning & Transportation
Commission (Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org), which has received all signed
petitions submitted by last Wednesday, stating that you want your name removed.
If you did not sign the petition but are disturbed by this tactic, you can also help by
saying so in an email to the commission.
In your email, whether you signed the petition or not, you may wish to consider
contrasting this form of "outreach and input" to the detailed, objective material
generated by the task force and the thoughtful, multi-faceted considerations reflected in
the recent statement on the project proposal by the CTRA Board.
Task Force Editorial The False Choice Within 2180 EI Camino Real
Since the initial proposal for redeveloping the 2100 block ofEI Camino Real,
discussions in the neighborhood have been dominated by the future of a market, and
specifically JJ&F.
JJ&F has been on the site for six decades, with one lease after another, in good times
and bad, with.no city requirement for a grocery store, and under the continuing land
ownership of the same family.
So why the heightened anxiety surrounding the proposals? It is fueled in large part by a
pair of misleading assumptions linked as a false choice.
Misleading Assumption #1
The applicants say that if the Planned Community (PC) is denied, JJ&F would be
forced to leave.
It is misleading to make this assertion. If the PC is denied, JJ&F will not continue on
the site only if(l) the landlord refuses to offer a new lease, (2) the rent offered is more
than JJ&F can afford to pay, or (3) JJ&F decides not t~ return for other reasons.
Misleading Assumption #2
The applicants say that if the zone change to PC is approved together with the project
as is, JJ&F will return to business on the site after th~ redevelopment.
This is not assured. Eighteen months to two years is a long time to be out of business
and then start back up again. People form new habits and connections are lost.
Declaring this assumption as' fact is misleading.
The False Choice .
The choice is notmerely between one of these two mi~leading assumptions. A third
option is for approval of a zone change to PC, with as few or as many conditions on the
proposal as the Planning & Transportation Commission recommends and the City
Council decides to impose.
N ••.• "'1. . ~. ) --:j-l--·-~:~~ ... _._ ~~~s ~l -.... '\..,_IV ~.i(~ __ e A I..
o R.
o
GROCERY STORE
o
OFFICE
o o o
S TAU N TON C 0 U R T
/
)
Ground Floor
2180 EI Camino Real Proposal
Retail Use -North Building
Grocery Store (JJ&F or other) as public benefit
/ -8,000 sf enclosed
-2,447 sf of open-air market extending 28 feet back
from 12-foot sidewalk on EI Camino
Neighborhood Survey Results:
• Full-service grocery as condition of approval is
important to 90%; that the condition of approval
should exist in perpetuity, important to 75%.
• If ground-floor retail spaces between the two
buildings are not directly connected and if JJ&F does
not return, 64% agreed that the potential to attract
another market will be signif!cantly reduced.
Retail Use -South Building
5,580 sf enclosed space
Total Retail: 13,580 sf + 2,447 open air market
Neighborhood Survey Results
• 42% concerned that proposed retail space (16,000
sf including 2,400 sf open-air) is not sufficient
Parking Garage Driveways
-Off EI :Camino between retail buildings
(Requires Caltrans approval)
Neighborhood Survey Results:
• Over two-thirds agreed on the importance that
parking: garage driveways are on EI Camino.
Surface':On-Site Parking
-11 spaces off Staunton (shared by day, for
residences otherwise)
(ContinJed at end of Second Floor margin material)
o
2ND flOOR OfFICE
o
OECK& '
VEGETATED ROOf
S TAU N TON
N o 'C",;,i' ~",:,:;;,,/J,c _~/
12 4 l.. '1",,\,
R
o
o
2ND flOOR OffICE o
o
o
o o
o
o o
OPEN TO PARKING BElOW
o
o o
C 0 U R T
/
)
o
Second Floor
2180 EI Camino Real Proposal
Offices
, -27,888 sf across north and south buildings
I _ Two buildings connected at this level
Housing
-Top floor of 14 BMR housing units
(CQntinued from end of Ground Floor margin,)
Below Market Rate CBMR) Housing
14)one-bedroom, 600 sf, two-story units:
- 4 units to pay for commercial impact fees
-10 units as public benefit
Neighborhood Survey Results
• Responses fairly evenly distributed between
"agree," "neutral," and "disagree" on
importance of BMR housing
Office Uses
6,051 sf, includes:
-Offices in south building
-Lobby, stairs, and elevator in both buildings
Community Room
-Not included (was 1,600 sf off-hours office)
Neighborhood Survey Results
• Responses fairly evenly distributed, but
slightly more favorably than for BMR housing
N '\;\ .... ;\{K/·~\;-.. ·_i)J' ... ,~ .. ~~, ..
I? II I .. ".I\.) ----~ . f A I.. \~::.;~:fi.i' ...
o
o
o
:lRD FLOOR OFFICE
o
o
o o
o
o
S TAU N TON C 0 U R T
D
Third Floor
2180 El Camino Real Proposal
Office usb -South Building
-12,092 sf
Total Office Use (of all three floors)
-39,980 sf
Neighborhood Survey Results
• 80% concerned, amount of office space proposed is
three times the maximum allowed under CN zoning.
• 73% concerned, office use seems geared to a
business district rather than to a neighborhood.
• 61 % concerned, medical offices might be permitted
on the project site.
Building Heights
North Building (2 stories): 30 ft (40 ft to gazebo roof.
Gazebo is square area at end of walkway)
South Building (3 stories): varies up to 50 feet
Housing Units (2 stories): 33 ft 6 in
Building Setbacks (from property line)
-to EI Camino: 4 ft 11 in (to create required 12 ft
sidewalk)
- to Oxford: 2 ft 4 in
- to Staunton: 7 ft opposite residential; 18 ft opposite
commerc,ial
- to College: 1 ft lOin
Ii
I'
« __ !~r_ ... )
PARKING AND LOADING PLAN -BASEMENT LEVEL A ~~ETAlUOFFICE.SHAAEO = PARKING AND LOADING PLAN -BASEMENT LEVEL B TOTAl.. PARKING· BASEMENT LEVa. 1 E
the parking garage driveways are on EI Camino.
1st Level (A)
105 spaces provided
40 for Grocery
Basement Levels of 2180 EI Camino Real Proposal
65 shared between residential, retail, and office
Total Parking On-Site Parking Provided
227 spaces (l05 + III + 11)
Parking Required by Parking Code: 254 spaces
Applicant cites to areas of code for exceptions up to 20% permitted at the discretion
of the Planning Director
Neighborhood Survey Results:
59% of all responses agreed it was important that the city does not permit a parking
reduction on the project site unless the applicant's justification is clearly permitted
within the curent municipal code.
2d Level (B)
III spaces provided
all for offices
Basement Levels,
Overall Parking
and Traffic Generation
2180 EI Camino Real Proposal
Traffic Generation
As per the latest Transportation
Impact Analysis from the applicant's
consultant, the project:
-would increase the projected number
of daily vehicle trips to and from the
site, from an estimated 897 to 1590,
an increase of 693 trips (or 77%) .
-would not create significant impacts
as defined by standard metrics, related
to delays at intersections and traffic
increases onto residential streets.
Neighborhood Survey Results
Just over 70% agreed that they were
concerned about the amount of
additional non-resident traffic on
TOTAl.. {ALL Of ACE PARKING) . Stanford and California Avenues and
;}
via interior street cut through even if
Surface Level Parking
11 spaces
shared by day
for residences at other times
Zoning Comparison Chart: 2180 EI Camino Real Proposal
Created by CTRA 2180 EI Camino Real Task Force for Neighborhood Distribution (4/27/09)
A B C D E
EXISTING Lots and Uses ~ under CN Choice 1: ALLOWED Under CN Choice 2: PROPOSED by Applicant via DIFFERENTIAL (D vs. C)
Neighborhood Commercial (CN») Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Change to Planned Community , Between Proposed PC and
Non-Residential Standards Mixed Use Standards (pC)2 District ' Existing CN Mixed~Use Standards
Lots 1 Sizes 4 lots, 50,277 sf (1.15 acres): 1 lot, 50,277 sf (1.15 acres): Combines 4 lots into 13
520 College: -10,200 sf 2180 EI Camino Real: 50,277 sf
2155 Staunton -6,900 sf :
2121 Staunton: -11,200 sf
2180 El Camino: -22,000 sf
Non-Residential Sections:
Total Floor Area 18,028 sf 20,111 sf 25,138.5 sf 53,560 sf + 28,421 sf
Floor Area Ratio 0.36 to 1 0.4 to 1.0 0.5 to 1.08 1.065 to 1 + 0.565 to I
Retail 13,027 sf, including: 10,055 sf "protected"S 12,569 sf "protected,,9 13,580 sf, including: + 1011 sf
-JJ&F: 8,712 sf' -JJ&F or other market, 8,000 sflO II
-Futon Shop: 4,315 sf Other retail, 5,580 sf ,
-Offices 5,001 sf: 10,055 sf 12,569 sf 39,980 sf + 27,411 sf
-World Centric )
-Other Other permitted uses6 Other permitted uses
Other conditional uses 7 Other conditional uses
Residential Sections No residential permitted
Total Floor Area 0 25,138.5 sf 8,400 sf -16,"(38.5 sf
Floor Area Ratio 0 0.5 to 1.0 0.167 to 1.0 -0333. to 1
Units 1 Density 0 17 units 1 15 per acre 14 unitsl2 -Junits
Non-Res Plus Res Sections
Total Floor Area 18,028 sf 20,111 sf 50,277 sf 61,960 sf + 11;683
Floor Area Ration 0.36 to 1 0.4 to 1.0 1.0 to 1.0 1.23 to 1.0 +0.23
Heights: Up to 40,13 South bldg: varies, up to 50ft IS f' -Generally 1 story Up to 25' 1 2 stories up tolO'
o Within 150' of residential 1 and 2 story Up to 25' I 2 stories Up to 35' 14 BMR units 33 '6; " ~1'6"
North bldg: 30'; 40' gazebo rooftop ,1 + 5' at g~ebotOotop
Lot Coverage ?% for each of 4 lots Up to 50% of the total sf of the lot Up to 50% of the total sf of the lot 47% covered by buildings -3%' .::.
Landscape IOpen Space ? 35% 35% ? l ?
On-Site Parking 47 surface spots Up to 10016 Up to 16511 227 proposed; 254 requiredl8 not applicable
Setbacks
Front (EI Camino) ? • 4'2" to 10' 19 • 4'2" to 10' • 4' 11" +0' 9"
Side Street (College) ? • 20' • 5' • l' 10" -3' 2"
Side Street (Oxford) ? ,20' • 5' • 2' 4" -2'8"
Side Street (Staunton) ? • 20' 05' • 7' at residential; 18" at commercial +2';+13'
Zoning Comparison Chart: 2180 EI Camino Real Proposal
Created by CTRA 2180 EI Camino Real Task Force for Neighborhood Distribution (4/27/09)
1 Purposes of Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District: " ... fntended to create and maintain neighborhood shopping areas primarily accommodating retail sales, personal service, eating and drinking, and office
uses of moderate size serving the immediate neighborhood, under regulations that will assure maximum compatibility with surrounding residential areas;" (PAMC 18.16.010 (a»
2 Specific purposes of Planned Community (PC) District: " ... intended to accommodate developments for residential, commercial, professional, research, administrative, industrial, or other activities, including
combinations of uses appropriately requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. The planned community district is particularly intendedfor unified
comprehensively planned developments which are of substantial public benefit, and which conform with and enhance the policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Palo Alto Municipal Code
18.38.010)
3 Minor subdivison, i.e., combining of 4 lots or less, requires approval by the planning director. (PAMC Chapter 21)
4 Current JJ&F space of8,712 sf consists of6,459 sf sales area and 2,253 sf for other uses.
5 Under CN, existing ground-floor retail space cannot be replaced by offices on the ground floor (PAMC 18. 16.050(a». However the total could be reduced via offices on tQe second floor, which can.. expand up to
25% of the site without a conditional use permit. If the maximum floor area on the site of 20, 111 sf (i.e, 0.4 x 50,277) were evenly split between office on the second floor and retail on the ground floor, total floor
area for each would be 10,055 sf (Based on methodology in 4/29/09 Staff Report, Attachment D, Table 3, last item.)
6 Pennitted uses include retail services; neighborhood business services; personal services; eating and drinking services; churches and religious institutions; animal care, excluding boarding and kennels; day care
centers; family day care homes; small adult day care homes; and reverse vending machines
7 Conditional uses include medical offices, spaces over 25% of the lot size; private educational facilities; private clubs; recycling centers; commercial and outdoor recreation; liquor stores; ambulance services;
automobile service stations; convalescent facilities; large 'adult day care homes; banks and financial services; mortuaries; fanner's markets; and temporary parking facilities.
8 For CN mixed-use sites on El Camino Real, non-residential FAR may increase to a maximum ofO.5 to 1; otherwise it is 0.4 to 1 (PAMC 18.16.060 (b) (8»
9 As stated in footnote 5, under CN, the existing ground-floor retail space cannot be replaced by offices on the ground floor. (PAMC 18.16.050(a» However the total could be reduced via offices on the second
floor, which can expand up to 25% of the site without a conditional use permit. If the maximum non-residential floor area on the site of25, 138 sf (i.e, 0.5 x 50,277) were evenly solit betlNeen office on second
floor and retail on ground floor, total floor area for each would be 12,569 sf (as per 4129/09 Staff Report, Attachment D, Table 3, last item).
10 Proposed additional 2,447 sf for open-air market is not counted in floor area if it does not have a permanently covered roof (as per City Planner Russ Reich at 1011108 P&TC hearing.)
II Proposed public benefit: requirement for a grocery story in the PC. Note: A grocery store is a permitted, but not a required use in the CN. 2d Note: a private agreement, such as a lease with a subsidized rent
cannot be considered as a public benefit in regard to approving a PC (as per Assistant City Attorney at 10/1108 Preliminary Review).
12 Proposed public benefit: 10 of the 14 one-bedroom below market rate units. Remaining four units to cover mandated housing fees for commercial development above what currently exists on the site.
13 For CN mixed-use sites on El Camino Real, heights may increase to a maximum of 40 feet (from the standard 35-foot
14 For CN mixed use sites within 150 feet of a residential zone district abutting or located within 50 feet of the site, the maximum height drops to 35 feet (PAMC 18.16.060, Table 4). This stipulation encompasses
two nearby residential zones, the RM-30 zone along part of Oxford and the RMD (NP) zone surrounding the Oxford-Staunton corner and impacts about 40% of the site.
15 PC requirements stipulate a maximum height of 35 ft for portions of the site within 150 ft of residential districts (PAMC 18.38.150 (b). In addition to the two sites noted in the previous footnote, this stipulation
would also include a third residential zone, the Ananda Church, R-2 zoned site on the east side ofEI Camino. (See also 4/29/09 Staff Report Page 7 discussion of Ananda site).
16 Intensive retail at 5 spaces per 1,000 sf; office at 4 spaces per 1,000 sq ft. (PAMC 18.53.040). If entire site is intensive retail, 511 000 x 20,000 sf = 100 spaces max. If 10,055 sf (protected) is retail and balance is
office, (5/1000 x 10,055) + (4/1000 x 10,055) = 50.2 + 40.2 = 90 spaces.
17 Intensive retail at 5 spaces per 1,000; office at 4 spaces per 1,000 sf; 2-bedroom multi-family units at 2.33 spaces per unit. (PAMC 18.53.040) If all non-residential is intensive retail, 5/1000 x 25,000 = 125
spaces non-residential max; if all 17 residential units (i.e., 15 * 1.15 acres) are 2-bedroom units or more, 2.33 x 17 = 40 residential spaces max. 125 + 40 = 165 spaces max.
18 "Code does make provisions for parking requirement reductions in specific instances such as joint use (shared) parking facilities, affordable housing units, and housing near transit." (4/29/09 Staff Report p. 6)
Add the discretion of the Planning Director, code allows up to 20% reduction in each ofthese areas (PAMC 18.52.050 Table 4).
19 Minimum of 4' 2" setback is required to create 12' sidewalk on El Camino Real as required by PAMC 18.16.060 (b) (8).
Susan Rosenberg ________________ 1425 Stanford Ave.
April 23, 2009
To: Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission 'LR.e: 218CfEI Camino Real
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Spawned by the Trees for EI Camino Project, and with a grant from Caltrans, the City of Palo
Alto developed the El Camino Real Design Master Plan in 2003. The plan was the result of the
inconsistencies that exist with having a California State Highway running smack dab through the
middle of Palo Alto. The project before you effects an entire block on EI Camino Real, the
adjacent College Terrace neighborhood, Evergreen Park neighborhood, and an expanding
Escondido Village, and therefore the goals reached in the EI Camino Real Design Master Plan
should have bearing on your decision regarding this project.
Briefly, the vision for EI Carnino Real that was developed during this process of public
participation is:
-To change the character from a highway to a road safe for walkels, bicyclists and vehicles
-To become a center of community activity rather than a barrier
-To become an aesthetically attractive corridor
-To improve the quality of life along EI Camino Real while protecting adjacent neighborhoods
The vision becomes reality with this project in some of the following ways:
-A comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program would enhance safety
over what exists
-The return of JJ&F market and additional neighborhood serving retail coupled with the
comprehensive safety program would draw consumers
-A well designed project would replace buildings that are architectural "tired" and seismically
unsound
-The location of housing along Staunton provides a "step" into the neighborhood
I believe this project would greatly assist in bringing the vision of a better EI Camino Real to
reality, and would benefit my neighborhood and my community as a whole. It is truly a forward-
looking project for Palo Alto.
Given my interest that the Trees for EI Camino Project continue to flourish, I would have the
developer replace the median trees adjacent to 2180 EI Camino Real consistent with the Trees for
EI Camino Project as a condition of approval.
Sincerely
Susan Rosenberg
Cc: Curtis Williams, Russ Reich
2
')
William D. Ross
Kypros G. Hostetter
Karin A. Briggs
ChiragShah
Of Counsel
Law Offices of
William D. Ross
A Professional Corporation
520 South Grand Avenue, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2610
Telephone: (213) 892-1592
Facsimile: (213) 892-1519
April 29, 2009
VIA FACSIMILE & ELECTRONIC MAIL
(650) 617-3108
planning. commission@cityofPaloalto.org
The Honorable Daniel Garber, Chairperson
and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Palo Alto IOffice:
400 Lambert Street
Palo Alto, California 94306
Telephone: (650) 843-8080
Facsimile: (650) 843-8093
Re: Commission Meeting Date: April 29, 2009 Public Hearing No.2; 2180 El
Camino Real
Dear Chairperson Garber and Commission Members:
This communication comments as a resident and homeowner within College Terrace
and a business owner and taxpayer within the City who has both a personal and business
account with JJ&F Market ("JJ&F"), a portion of the proposed project before your
Commission.
Although I anl a member of the College Terrace Task Force, the views set forth in this
communication are mine and are repetitive of previous requests made to your Commission
in communications dated October 1, 2008 and February 12, 2008 respectively, copies of
which are enclosed.
It is again requested that the Commission consider a less dense alternative then that
which is now proposed by the Applicant as the effect of initiating the requested Zone Change
and General Plan Amendment is to initiate a process by the Planned Community ("PC")
zoning, which will amend the Comprehensive Plan ofN eighborhood Commercial Land Use
Designation on a piecemeal basis.
The Honorable Daniel Garber, Chairperson
and Menlbers of the Planning & Transportation Commission
City of Palo Alto
April 29, 2009
Page 2
~. Further, despite numerous representations concerning the Project, there is no
guarantee that JJ&F Market will return to the site, and in fact, there is no guarantee that a
neighborhood serving market could be maintained at the site. 1
The personal observations set forth in this communication concerning the College
Terrace area and JJ&F do constitute substantial evidence as to how the proposed Project
could affect the College Terrace neighborhood. See. Orofino Gold Mining Corp. v. County
ofEI Dorado 225 Cal.App.3d 872,882 (1990).
THE PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project is defined in the Staff Report under the designation "SUBJECT" and is
supplemented by Appendix F "Applicant's Development Proposal" dated January 14,2009
accomplished by Carrasco & Associates, Architects.
ISSUES FOR ANALYSIS
A review of the presently proposed Project indicates that the following issues need
to be clarified before your Commission makes a recommendation.
1. The environmental analysis of the Project
should exist presently prior to your decision
because of a recent decision of the California
Supreme Court.
2. The Project configuration, which now contains
a General Plan Amendment, has not been
sufficiently analyzed with respect to its internal
consistency with the balance of a Comprehensive
Plan,2 or its consistency with the Comprehensive
1 Your Commission's action to initiating a G Combining District and Neighborhood
Center Zoning at your June 12,2008 meeting would have lead to more assurance that a
neighborhood serving grocery store was possible at the Project site.
2 See, Government Code section 65300.5.
The Honorable Daniel Garber, Chairperson
and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission
City of Palo Alto
April 29, 2009
Page 3
Plan Housing Element, a document which is
subject to periodic review,for its legal sufficiency
by the State Department of Housing and
Community Development.
3. The consistency of the PC Zone with the
Comprehensive Plan should be analyzed first
. before determining whether there are "substantial
public benefits" associated with the Project.
4. There is still no guarantee that JJ&F will return
to the Project site, or that the site will be
adequately restricted so that a Neighborhood
Commercial grocery store use would in fact
remaIn.
With respect to the environnlental review of the Project, it is initially noted that since
last reviewed by the Commission, the California Supreme Court has clarified the obligations
of a lead agency (like the City here) with respect to ~~e,!._(;l,!l~lysis of the environmental
impact of a project as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code section 21000 et seq., "CEQA") is to be accomplished. In Save Tara v. City
afWest Hollywood 45 Ca1.4th 116 ("Save Tara") the California Supreme Court, among other
things, clarified what constitutes a project and when evaluation of a project should
commence. More specifi~ally, the Supreme Court held that when an action is taken by a
public agency in the land use context that:
... commits the public agency as a practical
matter to the project, the simple insertion of a
CEQA compliance condition will not save the
action from being considered and approval
requiring environmental review.
Save Tara, supra, 45 Ca1.4th at 132.
Stated differently, there is substantial legal authority that the CEQA analysis should
be accomplished now, before the Commission makes the decision. This can be directly
The Honorable Daniel Garber, Chairperson
and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission
City of Palo Alto .
April 29, 2009
Page 4
-felated-to this .Projeet~ ·:rhis is particularly appropriate in .. this case as the adoption of a PC
Zone sets·the stage for cumulative PC Zones on adjacent property. In other words, the City
has an obligation to presently consider the cumulative environmental effects of its action
before a project gains irreversible momentum. City of Antioch v. City Council 187
Cal.App.3d 1325 (1986) found that the construction of infrastructure would have a
cumulative impact of opening the way for future development. City of Antioch, supra, 187
Cal.App.3d at 1333-1334. The same type of cumulative impact could be present here for PC
Zoning on adjacent properties.
CONCLUSION
First, the revised proposed Project has not been established as being consistent with
the Comprehensive Land Use Designation of Neighborhood Commercial and several of the
Comprehensive Plan Element Goals and Policies, as well as the Comprehensive Plan
Housing Element to ensure that they would fulfill the nlandatory requirement of City
implementation of those goals and policies.
Second, until the Comprehensive Plan Analysis has been accomplished, it is uncertain
as to whether there is any public benefit associated with the Project components supported
by substantial evidence as required under the PC Zone criteria.
Finally, because the exact terms and conditions of the private agreement between
JJ&F and the Applicant has still not been disclosed as to whether and how it would return
to the property, the potential misuse of the PC Zone for accomplishing an intense mixed-use
development along EI Camino persists, which should more appropriately be accomplished
as a part of the Comprehensive Plan periodic revision, rather than by piecemeal PC Zoning.
Very truly yours,
t~'2:.·~
William D. Ross
WDR:lla
Enclosures: October 1, 2008 letter to the Planning & Transportation Commission
February 12, 2008 letter to Planning & Transportation Commission
Willi:un n. Russ
K)'pl'us (;. Hustetter
KllI'in :\, Bli~~s
( 'him:! Shllh
Of ClItIIlsel
VIA FACSIMILE
(650) 617-3108
Law Offices of
William D. Ross
A Professional Corporation
520 South Graml Avenue, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2610
Telephone: (213) 892-1592
Facsimile: (213) 892-1519
October 1, 2008
The Honorable Daniel Garber, Chairperson
and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Palo Alto IODice:
400 Lambert Street
Palo Alto, California 94306
Telephone: (650) 843-8080
Facsimile: (650) 843-8093
File No: ·l/HY' ~. -----,
Re: Agenda Item No.2; Public Hearing 2180 El Camino Real (College Terrace
Center)
Dear Chairperson Garber and Commission Members:
As a member of the College Terrace Task Force on the proposed developlnent, in
addition to the issues presented to you by Staff, the following concerns should be considered
and addressed,
In making these comments, it is acknowledged that the Developer has seemingly
addressed some of the concerns previously raised before your Commission. However, the
essential issue that raised public concern was the potential elimination of the JJ&F Market
and the continued provision for a neighborhood grocery store consistent with the
COlnprehensive Plan. The modified proposal for the involved property raises two principal
concerns.
First, the proposal is contingent upon a confidential agreement between the Garcia
Family and the Developer. The agreement evolved after a long litigated rent dispute
between the Garcia Family and the Developer. The idea that there can be a confidential
agreement in association with this Project is a misuse of the land use approval process.
There are 110 trade secrets such as a formula for a soft drink or an intellectual property
"
The Honorable Daniel Garber, Chairperson
and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission
City of Palo Alto
October 1, 2008
Page 2
program~ involve& What is involved is' a grocery' ~toT~~=which >until· 'the confidential-
agreement ~ pruts ofwhich have been discussed and irrreality actually suppressed discussion
about a continued grocely store use on the subject property -do not involve trade secrets.
This type of agreement cannot serve as the basis for a land use decision. In Trancas
jJroper(y ()wners Ass'n v. City qj'Malibu (2006) 138CaLApp.4th 172, 186-187, the Court
of Appeal exanlined whether a settlement involving land use authorizations in a litigation
settlement could serve as the basis for a particular type and kind of development going
forward. The litigation settlement was not made public and was discussed in Closed Session
of the involved City Council. The Court of Appeal held that even the confidentiality
provisions of the Brown Act could not shield the settlement from a public hearing. The
public and your Commission is presented with a similar situation here, You are asked to
initiate a proceeding with the understanding that there is a settlement between the Garcia
F aJni ly and the Developer which calIDot be disclosed, but implies it is in the public's interest
with the Project now proposed. Regardless of the merits of this proposed Project as may be
c1ailned by the Developer, and without the anticipated analysis of the Project at a public
hearing before your Commission an initial step must be disclosure of the confidential
agree1nent.
Relnarkably, in Palo Alto which prides itself on openness and thoroughness of
process, it is unacceptable that a land use decision should proceed forward with one
conlponent being a confidential agreement between the parties.
A second issue which is advanced by the CWTent proposal for development is the use
of the PC Zone. It can be justifiably stated that the current proposal is once again just too
big for the subject property and offers no guarantee to the original concern of the
neighborhood for the property. There is no guarantee for a neighborhood grocery store, there
is no guarantee for a neighborhood commercial use as designated by the Comprehensive
Plan.
Will the COlnprehensive Plan along College Terrace on EI Camino be compromised
by one PC Zone after the other? That cel1ainly would be the precedent if this development
proposalls allowed to proceed.
Pragmatically, it is recognized that JJ&F may choose not to be in the grocery
business, but the concern that there be a permanent restriction for a grocery use consistent
with the COlnprehensive Plan is not furthered by this development proposal.
._ ..: _... ;;lb. '~.-
The Honorable Daniel Garber, Chairperson
and Metnbers of the Planning & Transportation Commission
City of Palo Alto
October 1, 2008
Page 3
Your C01ll.1Uissioll should-takestepsto address The original public concem'rc'garding-
this property -assuring that a tleighbol~hood' grocery store will be present.
VelY truly yours,
f./~ 2).~
William D. Ross
WDR:lla
cc:' CoJ1ege Ten"ace Task Force Members
Williml! I), Ross Law Offices of
I~nll'ns (:, Hustetft'r
I..: .... in .\. B.'if!!S William D. Ross
( 'hinl~ l'ihnh A Professiomll CorpOI"ation
orC'lIIll1s('1 520 South Gnmd A,'enue, Suite 300
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2610
TeJellhone: (213) 892-1592
F~lcsimile: (213) 892-1519
Februaty 12, 2008
VIA ELEC'TRONIL' & U.I.\". MAIL
planning. cOlnniission@cityoipaloalto.org
The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson
and Mernbers of the PlalUling & Transportation Commission
City of Palo Alto
250 Hanlilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Palo Alto IOffice:
401.1 Lumbert Sfl'eef
Pul" Alto, Califonua 94306
Telt' phone: (650) 843-8080
Fncsollile: (650) 843-8093
File No: 1/10
Re: Agenda lteln No.3, FebrualY 13, 2008 Regular Meeting; Commission
PreJiininaty Review of Concept Plans for Development of66,] 33 Square Foot
Three-Stoty Retai1l0ffice Building with Two Levels of Below Grade Parking
and Rezoning frOl11 Neighborhood Commercial (CM) District to Planned
Conlnlunity (PC)
Dear Chairperson Holman and Conunissiol1 Members:
This corrununication conunents as a resident and homeowner within College Terrace
and a business owner and taxpayer within the City on the above-referenced matter on your
Regular Meeting Agenda of February 13, 2008.
The C011l.111ents are based upon review of the Project Applicants' file based on a public
records request (GovenunentCode section 6250 et seq.) Accordingly, SOlne Applicants'
doculnents vv'hich \vere not lncluded in the Staff Report Attachments to your Commission are
referenced.
The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson
and fvlelnbers of the Planning & Transpoliation Commission
City of Palo Alto
Februmy 12, 2008
Page 2
1. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS
Unti I the Project is completely defined with reference to the ultimate uses proposed,
and a]] needed developlnent approvals Prelilninaty Review by the Comlnission is premature.
Flllther, the proposal as described in the Applicants' Development Program Statement
(Staff Repoli, Attaclunent G) is inconsistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan
Designation for the Project site, Neighborhood Commercial, I and unless the proposed
development includes a Plan Amendment, the Project should be found inconsistent with the
COlnprehensive Plan by your Commission precluding further consideration until consistency
has been achieved.
NOh;vithstanding the lack of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, the allegations
of public benefit for the Planned Community (PC) Zone are superficial and inconsistent with
actual facts as presented by the Applicants.
Finally, the Applicants' Development Program Statement is inconsistent with
representations Inade in a meeting with members of the public and business owners within
the Project area \vhere it was indicated that the Applicants I·f/ould presenJe the JJ&F Market
throughout the process of developnlent of the propelty and that the square footage would be
increased upon conclusion to between 12 and 14,000 square feet.
II. \VHAT IS THE PROJECT FOR WHICH PRELIMINARY REVIEW IS
REQUESTED?
The Applicants' Development Program Statement, Staff Report, Attachment G,
represents that a three-stolY mixed office and commercial retail development would be
located 011 the Project site, that the Project proposed would be a LEED certified building
(of unspecified categolY), that a PC Zone District is necessary because of the intensity of
use proposed to increase three tilnes2 the existing square footage on the subject property.
1 See, Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010, Land Use and Circulation Map, Revised
through 2003 (the "Comprehensive Plan").
2 18,028 square feet of commercial space exists currently, 66,133 square feet is proposed.
Staff Report, Attachment C,
The Honorable K.aren Holman, Chairperson
and Melllbers of the Planning & Transportation Commission
City of Palo A1to
FebruaIY 12, 2008
Page 3
A review of the entire Statement does not list tneneed forComprenenslve Plan
Atnendmellt tioln tbe existing designation ofNeighb6rhodd Commercial to Service
Cotnnlercial or RegionaIlCOI11D1Unity Conunercial to achieve required General Plan
consistency,;! The Statelnent references potential use on the second and third floors of
38,967 square feet of tnedical offices which is also referenced as a public benefit of the
Project (Staff Report, Attachment G, p. 4, ItelTI No.7).
In the Project Applicants' file, in a document entitled "Environmental Assessment
W orksheef' the following is set forth which clearly contemplates other Project approvals:
7. Application for: Minor Subdivision
Site and Design.x Parcel Map ARB Review~
Use Pennit-=-Zone Change PC Zone EIA, EIR.x
* for Tenant use by Medical Offices in future
Additionally, several Staff communications indicate as proposed conditions to the
PC zone that a Parcel or Final Map shall be submitted for review until the
()ffsite Plans have been submitted, and that a Subdivision Agreement is required to cause
cotnpliallce with a conditionaillse approval and security of improvements onsite and
offsite. See, for example, a December 21, 2007 communication to Can'asco & Associates
regarding the Project from Russ Reich, City Planner.
Assullling for the lTIOlnent only, that General Plan consistency is not an issue or
would be subject to saIne type of Plan AnlendInent in the future, notwithstanding the
holding of Lesher, .\'uj.Jra, the question remains as to what the actual Project is in telms of
requested pennits? 1t is reasonably to conclude that because of the need to both combine
~ 1t has been accepted case law in California that all development Project approvals or
entitlements musl he COllsi,\'tent with the adopted General Plan, here the Comprehensive Plan.
See, I.esher ('ommllnicaliotls, Inc. v. Walnut (. 'reek (1990) Ca1.3d 5 31, 540, 544 (,<Lesher").
Stated succinctly, £Illy suhordinate land U:'ie action such as a zoning ordinance, e.g.. the PC zone
designation, that is not consistent with the current General Plan is "invalid at the time it i,..,'
pa.\·sed. ,. Lesher, slIpra. (Emphasis added) The City Municipal Code confirms this requirement
as developed il~fiYl.
The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson
and ivletnbers of the Planning & Transportation Commission
City of Palo Alto
February 12, 2008
Page 4
existing parcels~lnd oecause'ofthe possibiliti'of existing airspace because'bftlre medical
otllce cOllllnercial use is proposed on the second and third floors that the Project should
no/ he considered for Preliminruy Review unt~l it is acknowledged that a Plan
A.tl1endnlent, subdivision and conditional use pennit application for medical office space
is a palt of the Project. Such a position by your Commission would be consistent with
applicable lavv, all10ng other things, the Califolnia Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code section 21000 et seq., '~CEQA") as "segmentation~' or ~~chopping up of a
Project" is prohibited under the concept that the decision-tuakers would be misled by
assessing anything less than the whole of a Project from the outset as opposed to
addressing its cOlnponents on a piecenleal basis, sonlething which is proposed here. See,
811rhank-(jlendale-/)asadena Airport Authority v. Hensler (1991) 233 Ca1.App.3d 577,
592.
The prohibition against segmentation was applied to a shopping center mixed use
proposal111 (";/;zcn.\' Associationji)r Sensible Develop (?lBishop A rea v. County (~f1nyo
(1985) 172 Ca1.App.3d 151, 165 where the COUlt invalidating the use of two separate
Negative Declarations for a single shopping center proposal requiring both legislative and
q uasi-adjlldicatolY pennits exactly what is proposed here, PC Zoning (legislative
pennits) followed by a review and a subsequent conditional use permit and Subdivision
approval (qllasi-a.djud1catolY pennits) for luedical office facilities. In sununmy, both the
('0111n11ss1011 and the public are entitled to a cOfllprehensive Project Description of what is
proposed. The advancelnent of a LEED SOllcture with cUlTently unspecified tenants
should not be lIsed as a rouse to avoid conlpliance with either Genera1 Plan consistency
or adequate envlfolUllental review.
In SU111111aIY, until the Project is completely defined as consistent with what the
apparent eventual intent of the Applicants is, Preliminary Review is inappropriate. /
III. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE
COMPREH.ENSIVE PLAN
As noted earlier~ under Lesher,· supra, and under the Municipal Code, zoning
ordinances I7Ulsl he in co}?/i)nnity (It'ith) and promote the objective policies and programs
of the COlnprehensive Plan. Municipal Code section 18.0l.020(a).
Indeed~ a PC Zoning District 1111181 be of~~substantial public benefit and ...
C(H?ti)l"111 lJoi/h and enhance the policies and progran'lS (~lthe ... Con1prehensive Plan"
The Honorab1e Karen H01man~ Chairperson
and Menlbers of the Planning & Transpo11ation Commission
City of Palo A Ito
February 11. 2008
Page 5
Muni'cipal Co(le section-18.38.0 10:' (Emphasis added)
The Staff Report does not provide a consistency analysi s of the Applicants'
proposal.
The standard for detellnining General Plan consistency is that of the (Jeneral Plan
(luidelines 2003, p. 164:
An action, progralu or project is consistent with
the General Plan if, considering all aspects, it
will fUliher the objectives and policies of the
General Plan and not obstruct their attainment.
This tnethod of detennining consistency has been judicially confinned. See,
( '()rono-Norco { InUied Schoo/})is!. v. City (~lC()rona ([993) 17 Cal.App.4th 985, 994.
As noted earlier, the Applicants' request proposed development of the property is
the PC Zone. Fronl the outset, the PC Zone designation is inconsistent with the
Neighborhood COlnmercial Designation of the COlnprehensive Plan.
Separate and apat1 from that initial and controlling inconsistency~ the proposed
Project 1 s inconsistent with several Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals. The Project
a.s proposed H'ill "ohstruct" COluprehensive Plan Goals and P01icies. With respect to
land use and cOlnnlunity design, the Project cannot be consistent with Goal L-I in
mal11tainjng an attractive neighborhood when it proposes a three-fold increase in density
which again is inconsistent with the Plan Designation. The Project would be violative of
Policy L-6 as it would create an abrupt change in scale and density between residential
and non-residential areas. Likewise Goal L-4 creating and inviting pedestrians to a
COll1tnercial area is not achieved jf the principal use of the building is as a medical office
f~lCility and no real grocery market is maintained. 5 Goa] L-4 the repetitive land use and
-t Consistency is also required for Site and Design Review, Municipal Code section
IS.30(G).OIO andConditional Use Permits section 18.76.010(c)(2).
:-The idea that a medical center can be neighhorhood serving is directly contrary to
several of the means for providing medical services. Proximity to "neighborhoods" of medical
ottices does not cause demand for medical use -medical insurance for a specifIc type of provider
The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson
and Melnbers of the Planning & Transportation Commission
City of Palo Alto
Februaty '2, 2008
Page 6
develop111ent policy of the City of neighborhood preservation and neighborhood
comJnerclal serving uses is not fU11hered by luedical offices and the lack of a real grocery
store. A vei1ed presentation of the Project as allowing for a grocery store with less square
footage than what actna11y exists at the JJ&F lllarket presently is contralY to the public
representati 011 prolllised by the developers in the previously referenced public meeting
and in reality is nothing Inore than a sandwich shop.
With respect to the COlnprehensive Plan Transpo11ation Element, Goal T -1 it will
be violated as tnedical office space will encourage sing1e occupancy vehicle use.
Likewise, Policy T -1 will not be fU11hered in that what is encouraged in telms of walking
and bicycling from College Ten'ace to an existing ful1 service grocely store cannot be
accOlnpIished because of the practical elimination of that use. Finally, the proposed
Project does nothing to encourage and support the operation of small, independent
businesses (Policy B-7), if the Project results in the elin1ination of a neighborhood
grocery Inarketand the elimination of JJ&F.6
Accordingly, employing the consistency analysis of the (Jeneral Plan CJuidelines,
as judicially confiImed, absent a change in the Project proposal to 111ake it consistent with
the original development representation of the Applicants -to preserve JJ&F and actually
increase the amollnt of square footage grocely store -along with a Plan Amendment, the
Project is inconsistent with the COlnprehensive Plan.
The Conunission should refuse fUl1her Project review until a development
proposal that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is presented.
IV. LACK OF PUBLIC BENEFIT ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED PC
ZONE
As previously stated, the Applicants' Development Statement sets forth claitned
public benefits of the Project. Given the inconsistency of the Project with the
COlnprehenslve Land Use Plan Designation for the Project site, each of these public
benefits shou1d be questioned froin the outset.
determines use.
(, It is noted that in the Phase) Environmental Review, a document in the City Application
tile, for this Project, that a grocery store has existed on the JJ&F site since] 936.
The Honorable Karen Holnlan, Chairperson
(lnd Metnbers of the Planning & Transpoltation Com.mission
City of Palo A1to
February 12~ 2008
Page 7
ProposedPubfic Benefit No. I provides:
A subsidized rental rate to encourage a neighborhood-serving
Inarket to locate at the Centre, as a convenience to the
neighborhood and conununity. Such a neighborhood-serving
use has proven to be impoltant to the College Terrace
neigh borhood, and has long been an important piece of the
fabric of this PaIt of Palo Alto.
This supposed "public benefit" tests credibility. There is presently no need for a
subsidized rental rate on other portions of the property to maintain the viability of JJ&F.
It is certainly not a function of the City's police power through land use regulation to
guarantee a fixed profit or desired market retmTI to a property owner. It sounds as jf
planning for the area is to be set aside aIld an economic return for the developer's
proposal is the principal consideration that should be reviewed by the COlnmission for
approval of the Project. This nlethod of ana1ysis of the Project would turn land use law
on its head what is planned for an area would no long~r control, rather the developer's
economic retunl would control. This statelnent of public benefit should also be
questioned as even the developer acknowledged in the referenced public meeting that an
increase in the square footage for a grocery store, and for JJ&F in particular, would anow
a greater alnount of grocely market goods to be available to the neighborhood. As it is
now with the restricted 7200 square foot presentation at best, a sandwich shop would
result.
This concept of public benefit also relates to the issue of General Plan consistency
if an overriding development policy of the City is to preserve neighborhoods and to also
Inake a Neighborhood Comnlercial uses available to seniors, such as the undersigned,
how is that facilitated if fu]} service grocely stores are 1110re than mile and a half away
and located on the other side of EI Camino Real, a thoroughfare that has been
characterized in several environnlental documents of the City as a Inajor iJupediment to
bicycle and pedestrian clailned crossing?
Public Benefit No.2 providing an active Public Plaza at the location also should
be questioned. Both the College Terrace Librmy and the four parks over the tin1e span of
20 years by persona} observation have provided that function on a velY regular basis to
The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson
and MeHlbers of the Planning & Transportation Commission
City of Palo Alto
February 12, 2008
Page 8
the College -Terrace neighborhood. There is no delnonstrated need for an increase.7 The
olJen landscape Plaza as a '"'"quiet space to sit read or relax" as it 'is buffered from the
traffic noise of E1 Call1ino is also hard to understand in view of the access off Stanton
Couli for both parking and loading for the proposed stIucture, which will present
considerable noise and congestion -sOlnething that exists presently with one-third of the
mnount of cOlnlnercial use,
The fourth benefit of wider sidewalks and more street trees along El Camino Real
is offset by the restricted sidewalks and nl0dified setbacks proposed for the balance of the
structure. A COllUllOn sense question might be, how is a wider sidewalk on El Camino
conducive to pedestrian and bicycle traffic which would all becoming from the College
Ten'ace neighborhood to the other exposures of the property?l(
The Staff Repoli also analyzes confonnance with the South El Camino Real
Design Guidelines (Attaclunent C, unnunlbered page 4) suggesting that this is a benefit to
the proposed configuration of the Project and that it is consistent with COlnprehensive
Plan Pollcies. which are not re.fe.renced, for El Caln100 Real.
First it is unique that the Applicallts~ cunent proposal for development is analyzed
by Staff with respect to ( ;lIidelines for develop111ent but not with respect to the
1'('{/uirel17el1ts of the land use provisions of Neighborhood Conltnercial of the
C0111prehellsive Plan,
Secondly. it luust be questioned whether this is really a policy of the City,
inasnutch as a review of another project~ the three-story office building at 2825 EI
Calnino (less than a mile froll1 the Project) has direct access to El C31nino less th311 100
feet froll1 one of the olajor intersections in the City -El Camino and Page Mill.
7 1t is noted that the writer's personal observations as we)) as other residents of College
Terrace and customers ofJJ&F do constitute substantial evidence as to how the proposed Project
could atfect the College Terrace neighborhood. l'lee, Oro Fino Gold Iv'filling (YOf]). v. COllntyof
XI l.)orado ( 1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872, 882. If anything, the existing parks in College Terrace
are under utilized.
x \Vith the proposed Stanford Mayfield Development it can only be assumed that the
pedestrian and bicycle trank would be increased to the proposed site {f a grocery store as
originally represented by the developer (12 to 14,000 square feet) were maintained.
,.
The Honorable Karen Hohnan, Chairperson.
and Melllbers of the Planning & Transportation COlnmission
City of Palo AJto
Februmy 12. 2008
Page 9
v. CONCLUSION
Again, until the Project is completely defined with reference to all of the pennits
that would be needed for development, which have already been discussed and analyzed
by City Staff with the Applicants -conditional use permit subdivision approval-
Prelilninary Revievv by your Conunission is premature.
Second, the clllTently proposed Project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Plan Land Use Designation of Neighborhood Commercial and several of the
COlnprehensive Plan Element Goals and Policies, which at a minimum, should be
analyzed by Staff, as to whether this Project itllplements those Goals and Policies.9
Third, analysis of the clailued benefits of the PC Zone for the property are also
questionable under the CutTent presentation of the Project as College Ten"ace is presently
adequately served by four existing parks and the College Terrace Libraty for places of
public assenlbly. cllllong other things.
Lastly, the r\pplicants' statelnent at a previous public 111eeting that JJ&F market
was to be 111aintained during the entire construction process and would in fact be enJarged
should be considered in the context of what is advanced as benefits under the PC Zone
and the lack of a Plan Amendment for the cutTent proposal as to whether the current
proposal actually is '·t~eighborhood serving" to the College Terrace Neighborhood.
Thank you for your review and consideration of the matters set forth in this
c01n.nlunicati on.
Vety truly yours,
/v~D~
Willianl D. Ross
\VDR:Ua
I) A mandatory duty under Government Code section 651 03(a).
Reich, Russ
From: Williams, Curtis
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11 :03 AM
To: Reich, Russ; French, Amy
Subject: FW: JJ&F Market/PC Zone change
fyi
From: Emslie, Steve
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 11:00 AI"1
To: Williams, Curtis
Subject: FW: JJ&F Market/PC Zone change
From: winter dellenbach [mailto:wintergery@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 08, 2009 9:55 AM
To: Council, City
Subject: JJ&F Market/PC Zone change
Dear Council Member:
Page 1 of2
I have one main concern re: the JJ&F block development -the size and continuity of the
market Public
Benefit. I recognize that you are under a lot of pressure from the developer and market owners
because you don't want to loose a market. However, if you approve of the current size market
proposal, it is as good as lost anyway within a few years. So don't give into the pressure.
I have reviewed many Planned Community (PC) zoning ordinances and found a surprising
number contain Public Benefits that were never produced or the on-going use simply dropped
after a few years, completely canceling the benefit to the public as required by the PC
ordinance. I have recently filed 3 complaints with Code Enforcement on 3 PC zoned
properties based on discontinuance or complete non-compliance with PC Public Benefit
requirements.
I see with this current proposal before offering yet another potential Public Benefit (JJ&F
Market) that will likely vanish within years of City approval of the PC zone change.
Points:
-This market is tiny by any standard but for convenience stores such as 7 -Eleven (average
size approximately 3000 square feet).
-While a new design may make the store space for efficient,
it is not a magic bullet that actually makes very small space significantly larger.
-The owners are retirement age and very well may try to sell the market in the not distant
future.
-At the current size proposed (about 8000 square feet) it is reasonable to expect that in a few
years the market will become nothing more than a large convenience-type store without fresh
produce, meat, dry-goods, etc. In other words, not a market at all, and near useless to local
residents.
-It frustrates the intention of our zoning laws if the City Council approves a PC with a Public
Benefit that is not viable in the short and long run.
Recommendation:
7/8/2009
Page 2 of2
-The market must be larger to be viable beyond the current owners.
-Your standard for evaluation should be not only what current market owners are satisfied
with, but also what seems reasonably practicable for the future viability of real market.
Winter Dellenbach
859 Barron Park, Palo Alto resident
& JJ&F customer
7/8/2009