Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Staff Report 304-09
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DATE: JUL Y 13, 2009 REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING 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 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 Comprehensive 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 those pertaining to land uses and maximum floor area, that the City Council deems appropriate, 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 amendments 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 CMR: 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 staff report to the Commission (Attachment 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 if needed, 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, some 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 amount 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 customer 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 (TOM) 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 commented 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 A venue 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 EI 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 El 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 recommendation 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 El 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 Amendment; 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 Comprehensive 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 along El Camino Real. Encourage development of pedestrian-oriented neighborhood CMR: 304:09 Page50f7 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 staff report Attachment A). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS An environmental review has not been conducted for the project since the requested zone change initiation is not considered a project under the California 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: ~.// ~-RUSSREICH~ Senior Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD: CURTIS WILLIAMS Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment 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 ATTACHMENT A PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: Russ Reich, Senior Planner AGENDA DATE: April 29, 2009 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment 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 the 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 EI 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 EI 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 PageS 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 development 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 LivefWork, 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. LivefWork refers to one or more individuals living in the 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 perimeter of the project. However, the code does not allow on-street parking spaces to be counted towards the required amount of parking for the project. The 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. 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 Avenue, 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 comparison 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 be re- 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 building 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 Pagel Prepared by: Russ Reich, Senior Planner Reviewed by: Amy French, Manager of Current Planning DepartmentiDivision Head APproval:' __ ~~~""':""':::....:::.Iu..\1A9.4'" ...!.\O.;lLD.lI&.~~"":L...!..~ ______ _ Curtis Williams, Interim Director City of Palo Alto Page 8 <C I-Z w :E l: () ~ ~ m The City of Palo Alto ~ IZl ~ 0 ..... ,.J::l C ~ ~ . § ::E -:S ";l ~ ~''''''I:: U<l)~<l) -~ < ~<r:; \0 o 00 -C'l o o C'l This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS ® 0' &4' This document 1$ a gr:aphlc re~lIon only ofbest available 8OtJfC8S. The City etf Palo Allo assumes no ~1Ity fi:n' any 9ftOOl, C1989 to 2008 City 01 Palo Alto Legend .-.... , •••••• .!' 2180 EI Camino Real (Project Site) c::::J Stanford Lands c::::J Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels The City of Palo Alto rriv«a, 2008-01~30 15:14:36 (\~18$\gIs\admIn\Par&OnaJllrtvera,mdb) 2180 El Camino Real Zoning Districts Area Map ATTACHMENT B This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS -. o· This doournerIlla a graphic repfesentaUon onfy of best avallable~. The City of Pare Alto assumes no responsibiAty ror any errors 4:/1969 10 2008 City of Palo Allo Attachment C Planned Community District-College Terrace Centre 2180 EI Camino Real 07PLN-00000-00327 Applicable Comprehensive Plan Policies 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 residential 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-quality signage 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. PolicyT-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. PolicyT-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-site parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art, and interesting architectural details. 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 them 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. PolicyN-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 Com prehensive 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 B-1: A thriving business environment that is compatible with Palo Alto's residential character and natural environment. Policy B-2 Support a strong interdependence between existing commercial centers and the surrounding neighborhoods as a way of encouraging economic vitality. Goal B-2: A diverse mix of Commercial, Retail, and Professional Service businesses. Policy B-4: Nurture and support established businesses as well as new businesses. Policy B-7: Encourage and support the operation of small, independent businesses Goal B-3: New businesses that provide needed local services and municipal revenues, contribute to economic vitality, and enhance the city's physical environment. Policy B-9: Encourage new businesses that meet the city's business and economic goals to locate in Palo Alto. Policy B-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 B-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 Community District-College Terrace Centre 2180 EI Camino Real· 07PLN-00000-00327 Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.38 (PC DISTRICT) Regulation Required Proposed Conformance* i Building Height 50 foot limit Up to 50 Conforms Building Height (Within 35 feet 30 -33'-6" feet Conforms 150' of a residential zone district) Roof Top Gazebo 40' 5 feet too tall Yard opposite an RM 10 feet 2'-4"Oxford 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 Site 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 required 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 N/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" Build-To-Lines 50% of frontage built 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 200 sq ft per unit for 5 or fewer 105 square feet per unit Space units; 150 sq ft per unit for 6 units or more Maximum Height Standard 40 feet Height varies up to 50 feet (due to EI Camino Real frontage) Within 150 feet of a 35 feet Grocery loffice 30 feet residential zone (40 feet to top gazebo roof) district (other than an RM-40 or PC Residential units 33 feet six inches zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site. Daylight Plane for Daylight Plane height and slope NIA no residential zones directly abut any lot lines abutting shall be identical to those of the project lot lines one or more most restrictive residential residential zoning zoning district abutting the lot districts line Residential 15 Dwelling Units Per Acre = 17 14 Dwelling Units Density units Maximum 0.5:1 0.16:1 Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Maximum Non 0.5:1 1.06:1 Residential Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Total Mixed Use 1: 1 1.23:1 Floor Area Ratio Minimum Mixed 0.15:1 0.47:1 Use Ground Floor Commercial FAR Maximum office 25% of the lot = 12,569 sq. ft. 38$5 sq. ft. square footage 0Bo without CUP (25% of lot size Maximum Office Code allows Director Discretion 38,~95 sq. ft. square footage No numeric limit is set. 3'1, 'leo with a CUP 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. Togo beyond the 12,569 sf. of office would require a variance to the FAR limit in addition to the CUP for additional office. Attachment E Planned Community District-College Terrace Centre 2180 EI Camino Real 07PLN-00000-00327 Review Timeline Application Received: P&TC Prescreen 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 l3, 2008 October 1, 2008 April 29, 2009 To Be Determined To Be Determined To Be Determined CARRASCO &ASSOCIKrES ARCHITECTS COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE 2100 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, California PROJECT DESCRIPTION ATTACHMENT F Submitted by Applicant Department of PI.8xmlnc . Comml:d,y EnwonXH1[ 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 i-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 company. 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 many "'1i~~~a%lRdIfjQ,£f,SpIlYd'AQb:"&~~6a.n~s'?p£i~kl!ewr.arl&r6g8~2~~~~~0.oQ~a~!sJ~g,qte21~8~arrasco.com A Professional Corporation COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE -PC ZONE APPLICATION 2100 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STATEMENT 1 . Necessity of the application for a PC district 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 assulJle 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 CN 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 15t 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 additional common 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 Ef Camino Real, to minirnize 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 15t and 2nd levels of the garage, while Grocery Store customers can park on the 1st 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 asa 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 to this 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 3fd 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-serving 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 units of below-market rate rental housing, located at the 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. Dick & Karen Damian 870 College Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 April 3, 2009 Palo Alto City Council Members Members, Planning & Transportation Commission 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ATTACHMENT G Received APR 062009 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. PAHC Housing Services, LLC 725 Alma Street· Palo Alto, CA 94301 • (650) 321-9709 • Fax (650) 321-4341 April 20, 2009 Planning and Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: College Terrace Centre Project Letter of Recommendation Dear Honorable Commission Members: Received APR 202009 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 EI 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, P AHC HOUSING SERVICES, LLC. An Affiliate of Palo Alto Housing Corporation o:'~~ Jaeje,J;: 0- BMR flousing Administrator ~~ez 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 ATTACHMENTB 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(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, 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. 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,S, 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 from 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 ofthe 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 I 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 ten below market rate housing units. The applicant is 8 proposing to provide 14 of the units, all of the units, as BMR but since 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 II 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. Ifthe 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 ultimately approved by Council. 26 27 Staff has 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 31 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 in 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 Commercial. 46 On the other hand you have very strong neighborhood commercial 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 property 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 El 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 El 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 3 I 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 square footage 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 full 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 time. 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 I will demonstrate how 8 College Terrace Centre has been carefully and specifically designed to meet the context based 9 design criteria of the existing CN zone. The images on the following slides are taken directly to 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 El Camino means easy access for pedestrians and bicyclists from the College Terrace 18 neighborhood. 19 20 Two, street fa((ades are detailed to provide a strong relationship with each street frontage. That 21 relationship varies as one moves from the commercial fa((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 from the comer ofEI Camino and College 3 I to lower heights and massing facing the neighborhood. The comer 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 El 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 fa((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 I 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 El 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 comer of College Avenue and Staunton Court reflects the commercial uses immediately across 15 these streets. The JJ&F Market forms the comer magnet at Oxford and El 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 photo voltaic 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 il1ustrate 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 ofthe project 33 coupled with our village style allows the project proposal to work beautifully on the site. I will 34 now tum 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 comer 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, El Camino is a transit corridor. It is served by five bus lines I 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 more than exceed at 27-foot space deficit. 7 8 A lot has changed since our last meeting. Palo Alto has decided to 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 Tuma 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 comer 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 El Camino, and so it is more economically viable to have that retail use 33 facing El 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 El 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 ofthe building in order to get the columns 43 lined up and square footages worked out allowed us a plaza on the comer of Oxford and 44 Staunton. It is a sunny comer 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 ofthe 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 El 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 mentions 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 I 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 Commission 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 illustrations 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 ofa 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 ofthe 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 .17 FAR is 40 residential. In the PTOD in order to do a project ofthis 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 ofa 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 Ordinance? 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 is of that. 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 corner 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 corner to Staunton Court and go up. 46 1 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 Tuma, we have a Letter ofIntent and 17 we created this memorandum of it so that the Commission could see that it is signed. It is a very 18 brief summary of a 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 EI Camino. The EI Camino Guidelines, which are guidelines 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 much 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 El Camino Guidelines suggest for something that doesn't do I 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 ofthese 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 fayade would of a I I 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 tum 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 ofthree, 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 month there. I am 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 incumbent 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. I 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 El 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 project. 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. I 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 I I spend a lot more than $1,000 a month at 11's. I don't know if Mollie Stone's would every let 2 me sign for my lunch. J1's does. I have never been called by my name in Mollie Stone's. I am 3 repeatedly every time I show up at 11'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 11'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 J1's a little more by getting full market rent for those apartments that 9 would be a better idea. Thank you very much. 10 II 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 Commissioners 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 oflooking at that stretch ofEI 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 if has 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 EI 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 Camino 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 Commissioners. I have had a dental office in Palo Alto 46 for over 35 years and I think Palo Alto is very fortunate to have 11&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 Coffi·an 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 ofEl 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 El 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 manages 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. Number 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 I 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 El 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 community 9 interaction. 10 II We are neutral about the BMR units and the prior space for community room. 12 13 We would not support the following three: transformation 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 El Camino Reallocation 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. Chairman, 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 information 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 Memorandum 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 ] The fourth point is assurance as to the continuing grocery store. More than ten months 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 ofIntent doesn't cut it. 7 There is no assurance. 8 9 1 would hope that you would exercise your trustee capacity with respect to the Comprehensive ] 0 Plan so that in two years 1 don't have to be here with an intensity of a development with no ] I 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. 1 would like to say tonight that 1 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 1 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. 1 think at the very least that if you approve this you should require 29 that the new housing units have dedicated 2417 parking so that at least those people are assured 30 of a parking space. 3] 32 Thirdly, I would like to say that the entrance on EI Camino is not approved. Many ofthe 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 Finally, many ofthose 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 ofa 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 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 I 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 lOA grocery store limited to 8,000 square feet with no contiguous retail space in which it could 1 1 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 EI 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 Commercial 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 matter 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 genera] 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 Comprehensive Plan designation of this property would severely harm 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 of941 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 terms 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 Permit 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. 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 Staffto 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 amend 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 ofthe 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 ifthey 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. I 2 Ms. Tronquet: In terms 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. II 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 ifthat 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 ofthe 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 terms of what gets recorded. We can also record a 36 memorandum of lease but that would only go for the term 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-term 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, ifthe 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, I am going to interrupt just briefly. I 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 I 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 much as I am interested in the answers here I 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 l3 ordinance and a violation of the ordinance. 14 15 Commissioner Keller: Well, I am not a lawyer but what I 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, I 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 Commissioner 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 genera] 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: IfI 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 Staffhave 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 ofthe 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 the land 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.1 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 with the 42 Comprehensive Plan by changing zoning? So at what point -it comes back to one ofthe 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 El 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 El 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 El 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 El 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 El 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 El 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 El 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 proposed BMR units, I believe it was 8,400 square feet, so it would be about 600 square feet per 9 unit, one bedroom. Do we know ifthere is demand for that? I am sorry, Amy. The 8,400 square 10 feet of BMR units, 14 units, so they are 600 square foot each. Is there demand for 600 square II 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 demand for small low income 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 Commissioner 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 number 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 corner 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 something that Staff has 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. Smai1ey: 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 ofa 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. Ifthere 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 comment on that but 6 we are supposed be evaluating public benefit and I am seeing quite a large divergence here in 7 dollars coming in. So if we are weighing how much 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 po licies 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 number 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 all 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 8 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 Stafflike us to proceed in terms of determining ifthere is 14 enough public benefit here? Do you have any guidance to offer in that regard? 15 16 Mr. Williams: No more 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 median trees adjacent to 2180 EI Camino Real. Would that be in close enough 43 proximity 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 faryade. 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 Commissioner 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 expand the 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 ifthere 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 3 1 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 of floor 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 recommendation. 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: Commissioner Fineberg. 46 I Commissioner Fineberg: This is a question for the applicant and you might consider this the cart 2 before the project. I am thinking about carts and I 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 access to 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. II 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 I 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. I 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 market. We used to have Norm Starlight Market, which 33 was a relative small, almost convenience store size, but I 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. 1 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 mile 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 something 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 ofit in terms ofa 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 I 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 Element. 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 ofthe 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 tum without being blocked by cars that are parked there so you have to nose your way 40 out and get your front comer 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 EI Camino Design Guidelines 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 EI 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 oftrip 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 Commissioner 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 ofthe 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 ofthe BMR units can more easily access the parking 41 and if that is through some other staircase or elevator located on the comer of! 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 terms 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 terms 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 EI 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 benefit, the retention ofa market at a below market rate. 35 The retention of the market which has been acknowledged needs to be at a below market 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 I 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 ofthe 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 ofthem is that small. Maybe JJ&F 28 has managed to do that over the last 60 years but ifthey 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 I 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 ofthis 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. 1 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 amount 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 .s 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 that would 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 El 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. Ifthere 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 askjust a couple of quick questions 29 before I get to some of my comments. First of all, for Staffthe 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 ofthis 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 determination. 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 I certainly an expectation because of the inertia ofthe 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 am 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 ofthat 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 EI 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 corners 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 EI Camino at which point you end up subdividing the retail space. Short of invoking the fourth I 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? II 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 push back on that. I am 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 I 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 Avenue. 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 A venue, when you get to Stanford where you have another reason to get across EI 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 ifthat 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. Tronquet: 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 Commission? 31 32 Mr. Smailey: 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 I support Commissioners Lippert and Fineberg in that this is a fairly transit oriented 39 development. We are right on El Camino routes, VTA routes, 22,522. They are extremely 40 productive from VTA's perspective. We are within easy walking distance offCaltrain. 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 I bicycle parking spaces will be incorporated but an additional 50 bicycle spaces can be provided 2 ifthere 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 II 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 ofa 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 comment is 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 important 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 Commissioner 37 Lippert said, it was earlier mentioned that there was this driveway, which in some sense bisected 38 buildings. The driveway on Ramona 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 number 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 terms of a century 8 long or at 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 market 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 mind, 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 comer 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 terms 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 moving forward with 4 1 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 I spent by everybody in that process. So I 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? I 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 I am not going to make a 5 motion but that is basically what my thinking is, and the kind of changes that I 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: I will be pretty brief here. There are several things to like about the 12 project. I mentioned several things earlier that I thought really needed some work. The things I 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. I actually think it is a good thing that there 15 are BMR units here. 16 17 Where I think it is challenged are the things that you have heard before. I think this can be a 18 more creative project in that I 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 El 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, I have to mention this, is usable open space needs to be 26 better. The one thing that, as I read the specs, on College A venue I 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 alarm for me 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. I 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 I think perhaps there is a 44 way to not have to expand the size ofthe 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 that we 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 shift that 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 zoning, 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 ofthat 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. 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 El 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 ofthe 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 oftrading 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. I 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 until the PC initiation happens. So we are not doing either of them at this point. 10 I I 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 recommendation 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 and 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 lO 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 ifthe 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 ofthe 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 maker and the seconder. I don't think the word 'tweaking' applies. So I just want to get that out 2 there. 3 4 A PC project as a standalone needs to be a good project. It needs to respond to its context, uses, 5 and built environment, and at the same time provide significant public benefit. This project has a 6 ways to go to achieve those ends. I think the applicant has heard much this evening that will 7 give them a lot to consider in revising this project. 8 9 Chair Garber: A couple of comments from myself. I, like Commissioner Rosati, don't have as 10 many fears about having heavier office use because I think the office and/or a different mix 11 begins to talk to the project operating differently for the City and supporting growth along El 12 Camino and beginning to anchor the California Avenue business district. I can't imagine that as 13 a public benefit but I think understanding how the property operates in this larger mode helps us 14 understand what its potential benefit is beyond simply providing the immediate functions, and 15 helps us make an argument that addresses some of the larger Comprehensive Plan issues and 16 how it fits into the city. Then of course I have my recurring comment about the El Camino 17 Guidelines but you have heard that. 18 19 MOTION PASSED (6-1-0-0, Commissioner Rosati opposed) 20 21 With that Commissioner, shall we vote on the motion? All those in favor? (ayes) All those 22 opposed? (nay) One opposed. So the motion passes with Commissioners Holman, Keller, 23 Garber, Tuma, Fineberg, and Lippert voting aye and Commissioner Rosati opposed. With that 24 we will close the item. 25 ~4/~~/~~~~ Ib:~~ 65~7~116~9 04/22/2839 16:19 6563241215 'IotCllllilo ltotfan> I.IIeIlt 'd<IId ttmIt 'S1fIIIpIIaI QrII ....... £ WTdJolW; 1(11 a 0IIIIff ISS( .,1Ik ..... "'~ IIoIrI PIM.! t BlII!k j/'Id Tn t CoIIIJIIIIr tarlWllnll!r hIz:.loI\a OInlllri Child tift .tx\1C11115 StinIarIJ tfCIH m:: IIII~ ~I IIIIIlt;IIIDrs ........... Ct ltliallaP,k t.IIt I GIrstMr The iloeftllalllYh 111 __ .. lUI" Me C9lIR HvIII ADVENTERA PACe 'ATTACHMENT C April 22, 2009 . Dan Garber, Chair Palo Alto Planlriq • TraaspQrtation Commission. City of'Palo Alto 2.5() Hamilton A~e. Palo Alto. CA 94301 A.t the April 14, 2009 Palo Alto ChembC% GovC1'mdA!lftt Action Committee meetiDE. Iqn'eSentatives of •• Conege Teaace Center project made a presentation of tho current iteration of the prcject 'I'he GAC voted to endorse the project's raqllest for ~ itmn eN to PC. Ofpartioala: appeal was the retention oflon,.tenb grocery store, JJ&1 and the addition ot otb .. nItail. ApPreCi_tiOli wa aiven by the Committee for the inclusion of8M1., one bedroom aparImtmtl and parlclDg ingteiS8 gel caress tom Bt ~ino RaJ. Thank YQll fur your consideration, Ncllllddclr _ rJOMlmC .... ~ .. lIltc.t:IIlaHal&1II 1It1'Olo-~ 5.)1\SIIIIIIII ';'It<1lfttu of H lid MImM lI.11idcD, SIIIIIord Sh _ CIntIr ~~ ......... ,./:<xlllvlllt!v80. ~Q\OSwnaI .II ~ Mr.CuwcI SIe!Il1ItInMo .. " M\dIIII!IIft ~ 1II0xIIpq I 1IIiellcltr I'J;",wIQAItCtr! f~ -,.. Aklllulft;lal llgehn/dng JaIIt!elIl~ SItmMort I!II!~ a-~ /t.crIm LII\ ~ Sinlces,lIt:. "'" amaGO IIIuII klldil P'aulaSmdu ~=riele.nt1CEO PAGE ~l/~l PAGE 81 College Terrace Residents' Association STATEMENT FROM THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION The Board of the College Terrace Residents' Association (CTRA) 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 1 Betten, Zariah From: LONERGAN [scobbin@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:11 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 Lonerga n 2090 Cornell St. 4/30/2009 Dr. and Mrs. 'rulng Schulman 836 Mayfield Ruenue Stanford, eft 94315 We haue been residents for 31 yaars, one mile from .JJ&F, and customers of the 6arcla family Since our arriual. dd&F is a unique market In the area .. It Is ueru small, compact and packed. Despite the size of the store. they manage to stock Just about euerything the customers want.. Rnd If they don't haue It, they will try to get it. Thera Is no other store as conuenlently locatad, and if you hape done any comparison shopping, you tnow that dd&F pricing Is more than fair. dtJDF's most unique quality is their relationship with their customers. They are our neighbors and friends .. 1111 bet there is no other marlcet hare or anyWhere that was eller gluen an annluersary party by thalr patrons! For those of you who weren't here in 1996 or didn't hear about it, the streets arollnd JJ&F were Closed, and some 311 neighbors and customers celebrated Jd&F's 61th year in business! We want to Iceep .... &F. They need more and better space and they are willing to saerlfite to get It. The new fatility would be a blessing for JJ&F, their tustomers, and those who are lucley enough to get one of those low .... tost apartmaots .. The Garcia family has done a great deal for our community and we should show our appreciation. Thank: you for your tonsideration. April 11, 2009 Virgiala Spea .... Berger ,SO Matadero Ave 'al. Alto, CA 9430' 650-4","5." Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Palo Alto City Hall Palo Alto, CA 94306 Subject: New College Terrace Centre Dear Commission~ I write to support authorization of the New College Terraa Center. This New-College Terr8l;e Center plan is welt designed. It includes much needed moderate income housing. It supports pubJic transit and pedestrian movement. Tbe design. is the result ofbroad, bigb--quality 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 comments in support oftbe New College Terrace Center proposal. Betten, Zariah Subject: FW: JJ&F Market / 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 of faceless 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 MOll, 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.Comm[SSiPfl@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@210011c.com>wrote: I From: TOHV, LLC <info@2IOOllc.com> Subject: JJ&F Market 1 College Terrace Centre -WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!! To: Ifagrant3@yahoo.com" <fagrant3@yahoo.com>, "ann_hayashi@yahoo.com" <ann_hayashi@yahoo.com>, "ericivers@gmaiLcom" <ericivers@gmail.com>, "ebandu@aol.com" <ebandu@aol.com> Date: Friday, April 24, 2009,6:03 PM Good Evening, 4/2912009 Betten, Zariah From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear commissioners, Michelle Oberman [moberman@scu.edu] Wednesday, April 29. 2009 1 :30 PM Planning Commission College Terrace development I am not able to attend tonight's meeting. so I am sending 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 Sand as [paula_sandas@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 4:34 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 Sand as Paula Sandas paula_sandas@yahoo.com 4129/2009 Page 1 of 1 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 Planning Commission: 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 4/2912009 Page 1 of 1 Betten, Zariah From: Fred Balin [fbalin@sbcglobal.netJ Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 9:39 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: Item 2: Ass't City Attorney: "Subsidy ... Not ... Appropriate as a Community Benefit" On page 5, the Staff Report reads as follows: The applicant has suggested the following public benefit 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 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 4/29/2009 Page 1 of 1 Betten, Zariah From: Joy Ogawa Ooy.ogawa@usa.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 20099:06 AM To: Planning Commission Subject: 2180 EI Camino Real Dear Planning & Transportation Commissioners: Here is a short list of some of the major issues I have concerning the proposed project: 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 connection 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 in 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 ofthe project are too big and not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Reduce the amount of office floor space and reduce the project's size and scale. Sincerely, Joy Ogawa 4/29/2009 Anna FaDkhauser Ernest Regua 567 o,cford Ave. Palo Alto, Ca., 94306 Palo Alto City Council Members Members, Planning &: Thmsportadon Commission 250 Hatmlton Avenue Palo Alto, Ca., 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning & Tmnsportation Commissioners, As .residents in the College Terrace neighborhood and JJ & f Store, we are writins to support the College Tccrace Center plans. We are pleased to see that the new facilities for the 11 &. P Store will briq our neighborhood and the City of Palo Alto a larser assortment of non-chain deli specialties. ftesh local products and a variety of food. We cherish this fiunily owned businesst as they have always $appotted our oommunity. They have been a valued member orthe businesses on Califomia Ave. The store is loved by families, students, lonatime resIdents. schools, businesses and offices. We are a150 pleased to see the 14 o.bedroom housinS units rented at affordable rata, which will be an enrichtnent to ou\" neipborhood. The green-village style d.evelopment design with living roof and LEED certification is at1 important step in the direction of green building. The new office space will provlde the 5urrounding ne1gb.borhoods with new customers, which we all welcome during these challenging economic times. Thank. you for aU your efforts to brini an improved. value to our neig.'hbothood and eommuniff. We hope you. will pus the project at the fonnal approval hearing on Wednesday, Aprl129, 2009. Sincerely, ~(t7t~ hmaF8~,~ __ ~--~ ----...,., EmestRegua Page 1 of 1 Betten, Zariah From: Joy Ogawa Ooy.ogawa@usa.net] Sent: Monday, April 27, 20091:55 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 El 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 page 1 or 1 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 project 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 OJ 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 yage 1 or 1 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, 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 of JJ &F and my need for a functional market in our neighborhood. However, after some reflection I emailedthedeveloperonApriI23rd(info@210011c.com) 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 EI Camino could cause back-up traffic on EI Camino going south and really big problems trying to tum left going north on EI Camino after exiting the underground garage. Cars are going to try and cross all lanes oftraffic 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@birketthouse.com] Monday, April 27, 20094:02 PM Planning Commission 2180 EI Camino I once again have another commitment on Wednesday evening and am unable to participate in your discussion of the proposed development at 2180 EI Camino Real. Despite minor improvements in the proposed project, I still remain very concerned about the massive scale and several other aspects. Neighborhood Commercial zoning is intended to provide a comfortable 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. 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 units at 550 College, the noise inside my home was utterly intolerablel Though almost inaudible outside, the vibration was transmitted through the rock layer under the soil into my house. Again, Palo Alto IS 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 "benefit" of BAAR 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 April 29, 2009 Planning and Transportation Commission 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Re: 2180 EI 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 ofthe 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 of2,400sf 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 oflost 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-line research suggests that 1 O,OOOsf under roof is the minimum area needed (e.g. Fresh & Easy) but 12,000 -15,000sfis 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 El 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 form 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 [Ikavinoky@stanfordalumni.org] Sunday, April 26, 2009 9:16 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 fied by you and your staff, not the current 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 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 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 "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 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: TaskForceDistributi 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 on_27Apr09.... C .. ommlssloners, fYI. Members of our Task force began distribution yesterday of the materials in the attached 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@cityofpaloalto.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 of El 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 oflast 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 0[2 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 judgment to the commission, citing that "the Planning & Transportation Commission is in a better position to translate these preferences into a structured framework for moving forward. " 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 diminish 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 El 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 at JJ&F Market? Did someone bring one to your door? 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. lfyou 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-fuceted 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 of El Camino discussions in the neighborhood have been dominated by the future of a market, and 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 # I 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(1) 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 to 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 the 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 not merely between one of these two misleading 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. IV o ~ '. --" o GROCERY STORE o UTIlITIES 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 Dubhc 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 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 El Camino. -11 spaces off Staunton by day, for residences otherwise) (Continued at end of Second Floor margin material) N o R ', . ..'\ 12 4 I.. o o 2ND FLOOR Of ACE o 2ND FLOOR OFFICE o o o o o o o o S TAU N TON C 0 U R T o o o o o Second Floor 2180 El Camino Real Proposal Offices 27,888 sf across north and south buildings -Two buildings connected at this level Housing -Top floor of 14 BMR housing units (Continued from end of Ground Floor margin.) Below Market Rate (BMR) 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 _ -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 o It IE -4 L Q Q :lRD FLOOO OFFICE Q Q Q Q Q S TAU N TON C 0 U R T o o Third Floor 2180 EI Camino Real Proposal Office Uses 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 pennitted 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 El Camino: 4 ft II in (to create sidewalk) -to Oxford: 2 ft 4 in 12 ft -to Staunton: 7 ft opposite residential; 18 ft opposite commercial -to College: 1 ft to in ~ETAILiOffICE'flHAAED : PARKING AND LOADING PlAN -BASEMENT LEVEL B TOTALPARKIHG-BA,SEMENTl.EV'E1.1 "" the parking garage driveways are on El Camino. 1 5t Level _ 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 (105 + 111 + II) 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. 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 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(AU.OFFICEPAflI(JNG) Stanford and California Avenues and via interior street cut through even if 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 Allowed under CN Choice 1: ALLOWEP Under CN Choice 2: PROPOSED by Applicant via DIFFERENTIAL (D vs. C) Neighborhood Commercial (CN)l Neighborhood Commercial (CN) Change to Planned Community Between Proposed PC and Non-Residential Standards Mixed Use Standards (pC)' District Existing CN Mixed~Use Standards ~~~~~ ~~~~~-~~~ ------~~~ ------ Lots / Sizes 4 lots, 50,277 sf (1.15 acres) I lot, 50,277 sf (1.15 acres): Combines 4 lots into I; 520 College: -10,200 sf 2180 EI Camino Real: 50,277 sf 2155 Staunton -6,900 sf 2121 Staunton: -11,200 sf 2180 EI Camino: -22,000 sf Non-Residential Sections: Total Floor Area 18,028 sf 20,Ill sf 25,138.5 sf 53,560 sf + 28,421 sf Floor Area Ratio 0~36 to I 0.4 to 1.0 0.5 to 1.08 1.065 to I + 0.565 to I -Retail 13,027 sf, including: 10,055 sf "protected"; 12,569 sf "protected,,9 13,580 sf, including: + 1011 sf -JJ&F: 8,712 sf' -JJ&F or other market, 8,000 S[IO 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 -16,738.5 sf Floor Area Ratio 0 0.5 to 1.0 0.167 to 1.0 -0.333 to I i Units / Density 0 17 units I 15 per acre 14 unitsl2 - 3 units Non-Res Plus Res Sections Total Floor Area 18,028 sf 20,111 sf 50,277 sf 61,960 sf + 11,683 sf Floor Area Ration ~C~~~~ ~~~~_~~~~ 0.36 to I 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 15 -Generally I story Up to 25' 12 stories up to 10' -Within 150' of residential 1 and 2 story Up to 25' 12 stories Up to 35' 14 BMR units 33'6; -1'6" North bldg: 30'; 40' gazebo rooftop + 5' at gazebo ~rootop ~ Lot Coverage ?% for each of 4 lots Ujl to 50% of the total sf of the lot Up to 50% ofthe total sf of the lot 47% covered by buildings -3% Landscape IOpen Space ? 35% 35% ? ? On-Site Parkine: 47 surface spots Up to 10010 Up to 165 227 proposed; 254 required" not applicable Setbacks Front (EI Camino) ? -4'2" to 10' 19 -4'2"1010' • 4' 11" +0' 9" Side Street (College) ? -20' -S' -I' 10" -3' 2" Side Street (Oxford) ? ,20' -5' • 2' 4" -2' 8" Side Street (Staunton) ? -20' -5' • 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) Purposes of Neighborhood Commercial (CN) District: " ... intended 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 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 of 6,459 shales 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 the second floor, which can expand up to 25% ofthe 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 Permitted 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; farmer's markets; and temporary parking facilities. 8 For CN mixed-use sites on El Camino Real, non-residential FAR may increase to a maximum of 0.5 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 of 25, 138 sf (i.e, 0.5 x 50,277) were evenly split between office on second floor and retail on ground floor, total floor area for each would be 12,569 sf (as per 4/29/09 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 10/1108 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 EI Camino Real, heights may increase to a maximum of 40 feet (from the standard 35-foot limit). 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 (P AMC 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 comer and impacts about 40% of the site. 15 PC requirements stipulate a maximum height of35 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 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, 5/1000 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. (P AMC 18.53.040) If all non-residential is intensive retail, 511 000 x 25,000 = 125 spaces non-residential max; if all 17 residential unit.~ (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 of these 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 Re: 2180 EI 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 EI 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 Camino Real that was developed during this process of public participation is: -To change the character from a highway to a road safe for walkers, 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 10ffice: 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 EI 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 am a member ofthe 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 ofinitiating 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 of Neighborhood Commercial Land Use Designation on a piecemeal basis. The Honorable Daniel Garber, Chairperson and Members 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.! 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 of El 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 ! 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 environmental 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 :vhen an~lysis of the environmental impact of a project as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq., "CEQ A") is to be accomplished. In Save Tara v. City of West 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 specifically, 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 related to this Project. This 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 mandatory 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 El 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, ;;~~.~ William D. Ross WDR:lla Enclosures: October 1, 2008 letter to the Planning & Transportation Commission February 12,2008 letter to Planning & Transportation Commission Willi:Ull D, Russ l-:yprus (;, Hustetter K""ill :\. Hl'ill~S ('him:! Shah OI'CtlUlL~eJ VIA FACSIMILE (650) 617-3108 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 October 1, 2008 The Honorable Daniel Garber, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hami1ton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Palo Alto IOmee: 400 Lambert Street Palo Alto, CnUfomi3 94306 Telephone: (650) 843-8080 Facsimile: (650) 843·8093 File No: 1I1O Re: Agenda Item No.2; Public Hearing 2180 EI Camino Real (College Terrace Center) Dear Chairperson Garber and Commission Members: As a member of the College Terrace Task Force on the proposed development, 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 <md the continued provision for a neighborhood grocery store consistent with the Comprehensive 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 involved. What is involved is a grocery store, which until the confidential agreement -Palts of which have been discussed and in reality actually suppressed discussion about a continued grocelY store use on the subject propelty -do not involve trade secrets. This type of agreement cannot serve as the basis for a land use decision. In Trancas !Jroperf;Y Owners Ass 'n v. City qj'Malibu (2006) 138 Ca1.App.4th 172, 186-187, the Court of Appeal examined whether a settlement involving land use authorizations in a litigation settlement could serve as the basis for a pruticular 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 amity and the Developer which cannot 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 claimed 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 agreement. Remarkably, 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 component being a confidential agreement between the parties. A second issue which is advanced by the current 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. W1ll the Comprehensive Plan along College Terrace on El Camino be compromised by one PC Zone after the other? That celtainly would be the precedent if this development proposal is 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 pennanent restriction for a grocery use consistent with the Comprehensive Plan is not furthered by this development proposal. The Honorable Daniel Garber, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto October 1, 2008 Page 3 Y Ollr Commission should take steps to address the original public concern regarding this property -assllling that a neighborhood grocery store will be present. Very truly yours, f,./~ .o.~ William D. Ross WDR:lla cc: College Ten-ace Task Force Members Willi:om 1>. Russ K~'pl'''s (;. Husfefft'r K:ol'in .\. UI'il1l!s (·hj .... ~ Shllh Of( ·"'llIst·' Law Offices of William D. Ross A Professiomll Corporation 520 South Grllnd Ayenue, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2610 Telepbone: (213) 892-1592 Facsimile: (213) 892-1519 F eblUaly 12, 2008 VIA ELECTRONIC & V .• \'. MAIL planning. cOllunission@cityofpaloalto.org The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 9430 I Palo Alto IOffice: .. 00 Lambert Sireet P,du Altu, CalifoJ11ia 94306 Telephone: (650) 843-8080 F .. "simile: (650) 843-8093 File No: 1/10 Re: Agenda Item No.3, FebmalY 13, 2008 Ref,TUlar Meeting; Commission PreliminalY Review of Concept Plans for Development of66, 133 Square Foot Three-StOlY Retail/Office Building with Two Levels of Below Grade Parking and Rezoning from Neighborhood Commercial (CM) District to Planned Community (PC) Dear Chairperson Holman and Commission Members: This conununication comments 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 comments are based upon review of the Project Applicants' file based on a public records request (Govemment Code section 6250 el seq.) Accordingly, some Applicants' documents which were not included in the Staff Report Attachments to your Commission are referenced. The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & TranspOltation Commission City of Palo Alto Februruy 12,2008 Page 2 I. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS Until the Project is completely defined with reference to the ultimate uses proposed, and all needed development approvals PreliminaIY Review by the Commission is premature. Flllther, the proposal as described in the Applicants' Development Program Statement (Staff RepOlt, Attachment 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 (' omprehensive Plan by your Commission precluding further consideration until consistency has been achieved. Notwithstanding 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 made in a meeting with members of the public and business owners within the Project area where it was indicated that the Applicants would preserve the JJ&F Market throughollt the process of development of the property 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 on the Project site, that the Project proposed would be a LEED certified building (of unspecified category), that a PC Zone District is necessary because of the intensity of use proposed to increase three times2 the existing squru'e footage on the subject propelty. I 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. StatTReport, Attachment C. The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto Februmy 12,2008 Page 3 A review of the entire Statement does not list the need for Comprehensive Plan Amendment from the existing designation of Neighborhood Commercial to Service Commercial or Regional/Community Commercial to achieve required General Plan consistency.J The Statement references potential use on the second and third floors of 38,967 square feet of medical offices which is also referenced as a public benefit of the Project (Staff Report, Attachment G, p. 4, Item 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 Designx Parcel Map X ARB Revjew~ Use Permit ~ Zone Change PC Zone EIA, EIRX * 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 Offsite Plans have been submitted, and that a Subdivision Agreement is required to cause compliance with a conditional use approval and security of improvements onsite and otfsite. See, for example, a December 21, 2007 communication to Canasco & Associates regarding the Project from Russ Reich, City Planner. Assuming for the moment only, that General Plan consistency is not an issue or would be subject to some type of Plan Amendment in the future, notwithstanding the holding of Lesh€!r, supra, the question remains as to what the actual Project is in tenns of requested penn its? It is reasonably to conclude that because of the need to both combine .~ It has been accepted case law in California that all development Project approvals or entitlements tllllsl he COl1sistelll with the adopted General Plan, here the Comprehensive Plan. See, Iesher ('ommunicalions, Inc. v. Walnut Creek (1990) Ca1.3d 5 31, 540, 544 ("Lesher"). Stated succinctly, a/~)! suhordinate land use 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 il is passed" Lesher, slIpra. (Emphasis added) The City Municipal Code confirms this requirement as developed il?/i-a. The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto February 12, 2008 Page 4 existing parcels and because of the possibility of existing airspace because of the medical office commercial use is proposed on the second and third floors that the Project should l70t be considered for Preliminaty Review until it is acknowledged that a Plan Amendment, subdivision and conditional use pelmit application for medical office space is a patt of the Project. Such a position by your Commission would be consistent with applicable law, among other things, the Califomia 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-makers would be misled by assessing anything less than the whole of a Project from the outset as opposed to addressing its components on a piecemeal basis, something which is proposed here. See, Hlfrbank-Ulemlale-fJasadena A irport Authority v. Hensler (1991) 233 Ca1.App.3d 577, 592. The prohibition against segmentation was applied to a shopping center mixed use proposal in ('ifizens Associationfi)r Sensihle f)evelop (dBishop Area v. County (dlnyo (1985) 172 Cal.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 qllasi-adjlldicatOlY petmits -exactly what is proposed here, PC Zoning (legislative permits) followed by a review and a subsequent conditional use petmit and Subdivision approval (Cluasi-adjudicatOlY pelmits) for medical office facilities. In summaty, both the Commission and the public are entitled to a comprehensive Project Description of what is proposed. The advancement of a LEED stmcture with cUlTently unspecified tenants should not be used as a rouse to avoid compliance with either General Plan consistency or adeCluate envirolUnental review. In summary, until the Project is completely defined as consistent with what the apparent eventual intent of the Applicants is, Preliminary Review is inappropriate. In. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN As noted earlier, under Lesher, supra, and under the Municipal Code, zoning ordinances l71usl he in c01?fhrmity (with) and promote the objective policies and programs of the Comprehensive Plan. Municipal Code section 18.0] .020(a). Indeed, a PC Zoning District must be of "substantial public benefit and ... cOI?jiJr117 lrifh and enhance the policies and programs (~lthe ... Comprehensive Plan" The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transp0l1ation Commission City of Palo Alto February 12, 2008 Page 5 f\/lunicipal Code section 18.38.010.4 (Emphasis added) The Staff Rep0l1 does not provide a consistency analysis of the Applicants' proposal. The standard for detennining General Plan consistency is that of the General Plan ( luidelines 2003, p. 164: An action, program or project is consistent with the General Plan if, considering all aspects, it will fUlther the objectives and policies of the General Plan and not obstruct their attainment. This method of detennining consistency has been judicially confinned. ,\'ee, ( 'orona-Norm (lnYied School i)isl. v. City o/Corona (l993) 17 Ca1.App.4th 985, 994. As noted earlier, the Applicants' request proposed development of the propelty is the PC Zone. From the outset, the PC Zone designation is inconsistent with the Neighborhood Commercial Designation of the Comprehensive Plan. Separate and apart from that initial and controlling inconsistency, the proposed Project is inconsistent with several Comprehensive Plan Policies and Goals. The Project as proposed will "ohstruct" Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. With respect to land use and community design, the Project cannot be consistent with Goal L-l in maintaining an attractive neighborhood when it proposes a three-fold increase in density which again is inconsistent with the Plan Designation. The Pr~ject 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 commercial area is not achieved if the principal use of the building is as a medical office facility and no real grocety market is maintained. 5 Goal L-4 the repetitive land use and .f Consistency is also required for Site and Design Review, Municipal Code section IS.':;O(G).O 1 0 and Conditional Use Permits section 18.76.0 I 0(c)(2). 5 The idea that a medical center can be lIei:<hhorhood serving is directly contrary to several of the means for providing medical services. Proximity to "neighborhoods" of medical oUices does not cause demand for medical use -medical insurance for a specific type of provider The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto F ebmruy 12, 2008 Page 6 development policy of the City of neighborhood preservation and neighborhood commercial serving uses is not fUlthered by medical offices and the lack of a real grocery store. A veiled presentation of the Project as allowing for a grocery store with less square footage than what actnally exists at the JJ&F market presently is contrruy to the public representation promised by the developers in the previously referenced public meeting and in reality is nothing more thrul a sandwich shop. With respect to the Comprehensive Plan Transp011ation Element, Goal T -I it will be violated as medical office space will encourage single occupancy vehicle use. Likewise, Policy T -\ will not be fUlthered in that what is encouraged in telms of walking and bicycling from College TelTace to an existing full service grocely store cannot be accomplished 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 elimination of a neighborhood grocery market and the elimination of JJ&F.6 Accordingly, employing the consistency analysis of the General Plan Guidelines, as judicially confilmed, absent a cbange in the Project proposal to make it consistent with fhe original development representation of the Applicants to preserve JJ&F and actually increase the amount of square footage grocely store -along with a Plan Amendment, the Project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Conullission should refuse fUlther 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 claimed public benefits of the Project. Given the inconsistency of the Project with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan Designation for the Project site, each of these public benefits should be questioned from the outset. determines use. (, It is noted that in the Phase 1 Environmental Review, a document in the City Application tile, for this Project, that a grocery store has existed on the JJ&F site since 1936. The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transp0l1ation Commission City of Palo Alto February I 2008 Page 7 Proposed Public Benefit No. I provides: A subsidized rental rate to encourage a neighborhood-serving market to locate at the Centre, as a convenience to the neighborhood and community. Such a neighborhood-serving use has proven to be important to the College Terrace neighborhood, and has long been an important piece of the fabric of this pat1 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 retum to a property owner. It sounds as if planning for the area is to be set aside and an economic retum for the developer's proposal is the principal consideration that should be reviewed by the Commission for approval of the Project. This method of analysis of the Project would tum land lise law on its head what is planned for an area would 110 longer control, rather the developer's economic retum would control. This statement 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 allow a greater amount of bTfOCelY market goods to be available to the neighborhood. As it is now with the restricted 7200 square foot presentation at best, a sancilvich 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 make a Neighborhood Cornnlercial uses available to seniors, such as the undersigned, how is that facilitated if full service grocery stores are more than mile and a half away and located on the other side of El Camino Real, a thoroughfare that has been characterized in several environmental documents of the City as a major impediment to bicycle and pedestrian claimed crossing? Public Bellefit No.2 providing an active Public Plaza at the location also should be questioned. Both the College Terrace Libraty and the four parks over the time span of 20 years by personal observation have provided that function on a velY regular basis to The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto February 12, 2008 Page 8 the College Terrace neighborhood. There is no demonstrated need for an increase.7 The open landscape Plaza as a "quiet space to sit read or relax" as it is buffered from the traffic noise of EI Camino is also hard to understand in view of the access off Stanton COUli for both parking and loading for the proposed stmcture, which will present considerable noise and congestion -something that exists presently with one-third of the amount of commercial use. The fourth benefit of wider sidewalks and more street trees along EI Camino Real is offset by the restricted sidewalks and modified setbacks proposed for the balance of the structure. A common sense question might be, how is a wider sidewalk on EI Camino conducive to pedestrian and bicycle traffic which would all becoming from the College Tenace neighborhood to the other exposures of the property?!! The Staff Report also analyzes confonnance with the South EI Camino Real Design Guidelines (Attachment C, unnumbered page 4) suggesting that this is a benefit to the proposed configuration of the Project and that it is consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policies. which are not referenced, for EI Camino ReaL First it is unique that the Applicants' CUlTent proposal for development is analyzed by Staff with respect to (TlI/defines for development but not with respect to the rc:qlliremenls of the land use provisions of Neighborhood Commercial of the Comprehensive Plan. Secondly. it must be questioned whether this is really a policy of the City, inasmuch as a review of another project, the three-story office building at 2825 El Camino (less than a mile from the Project) has direct access to EI Camino less than 100 feet from one of the m3;.jor intersections in the City EI Camino and Page MilL 7 It is noted that the writer's personal observations as well as other residents of College Terrace and customers of JJ&F do constitute substantial evidence as to how the proposed Project Gould affect the College Terrace neighborhood. ,)'ee, Oro Fino Gold lvlining Corp. v. County of i'.J Dorado ( 1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 872. 882. If anything, the existing parks in College Terrace are under utilized. x With the proposed Stanford Mayfield Development it can only be assumed that the pedestrian and bicycle tratlic would be increased to the proposed site t( a grocery store as originally represented by the developer (12 to '4,000 square feet) were maintained. The Honorable Karen Holman, Chairperson and Members of the Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 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 pennit subdivision approval - Preliminary Review by your Commission is premature. Second, the cUlTently proposed Project is inconsistent with the Comprehensive PI an Land Use Designation of Neighborhood Commercial and several of the Comprehensive Plan Element Goals and Policies, which at a minimum, should be analyzed by Staff, as to whether this Project implements those Goals and Policies.'! Third, analysis of the claimed benefits of the PC Zone for the property are also questionable under the CUlTent presentation of the Project as College Ten-ace is presently adequately served by four existing parks and the College Ten-ace Libraty for places of public assembly, among other things. Lastly, the Applicants' statement at a previous public meeting that JJ&F market was to be maintained during the entire construction process and would in fact be enlat·ged 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 CUlTent proposal as to whether the cun-ent proposal actually is "neighborhood serving" to the College Ten-ace Neighborhood. Thank you for your review and consideration of the matters set forth in this ~ommunicati on. VelY tmly yours, /v~o~ William D. Ross WDR:l1a q 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 AM To: Williams, Curtis Subject: FW: JJ&F Market/PC Zone change From: winter dellenbach [mailto:wintergery@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 08,20099:55 AM To: Council, City Subject: JJ&F Market/PC Zone change Dear Council Member: Page 10f2 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 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. () f 0';/ lEJ--~ ~v~~ Printed Name: '-"'-r Signature: ~-~-~ s Shopping-Store Address: Sto _CU_L_l_C'i_G_E:_A.:_v_l _____________ _ Phone number and email: (8SO ~?-1--l2 ~ 2. u-.f' Le.-l .ott>-Ve€~/. c .......... Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: 'f)e.bOY"6Clk 66 per Signature: ~t-M.d-1 fM-tJA----- Shopping-Store Address: _--J,::;::;~"",-,,"J..£.-"'lL~( _______________ _ Phone number and email: (CryJJ ~ r1 ~08'g f drJvO(flr@~ (ttW I (2:z; 11-1 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );.> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidi'zed rent ." I '. - );.> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );.> Office space that will fund the new JJ &F );.> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );.> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );.> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );.> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Shopping-Store Address: Phone number and email: _-I.;;(;::!---'--tJ-><:(::;t)'--2--!..9 ..... b"'---_f!}_' --,-~_O-,V,---' _______ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this deve.!opment will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: » JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a sub,sidlzed rent ..... ,: .... -» 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates » Office space that will fund the new JJ&F » New neighborhood serving retail to enliven th~ .block » Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue » Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification » Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment ~ Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: f1}t+i NGOC-~ \ NH Signatu~ Shopping-Store Address: _____________________ _ Phone number and email: ___ ~_()_& ___ .2_q__'_t,_-_O_~_O_'I..I....._ _______ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue· );> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Sign&Ure: ____ ~~--~--~~----------------------------------------~ Shopping-Store Address: Phone number and email: --\:Ci:+b;:...;;g;;.....)"---+iJj)'-----"'Og~l &==--____________ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: j;;. 11 &F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent j;;. 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates j;;. Office space that will fund the new 11 &F j;;. New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block j;;. Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue j;;. Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification j;;. Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow 11&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from 11 &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: A N A H DN' n::H A R Signature: h~ Shopping-Store Address: __ ------_____________ _ Phone number and email: (40 ~ .. ) 8 3 cF .... G> 4-Co 1 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: >-JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent >-14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates >-Office space that will fund the new JJ&F >-New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block >-Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue >-Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification >-Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: r--::.'-----'-__ CJ.,..-, _~_. _-_~_~_~_~_~ ________ _ Signature: --~--==::;:-""':'--,::=--9'--------------------- Shopping-Store Address: Phone number and email: _-")~.4,.._~-=V,,,--C:;--,,-~.....;..V __ " Z'--/-'->LJ-'-v ________ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Ttl reM// A p-tl:::"1J,tJ(j Signature: ~W It Shopping-Store Address: Phone number and email: (4og) 3f3-l flS t:~~. ~ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ 11&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new 11 &F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow 11&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from 11&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Shopping-Store Address: _____________________ _ Phone number and email: __ -"-__ -_W_· _9_--_' _<f--_<i_le ________ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: };> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidi"zed rent '," - };> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates };> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F };> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block };> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue };> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification };> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Shopping-Store Address: ________________ ------ Phone number and email: ______________________ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: » JJ &F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent » 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates » Office space that will fund the new JJ &F » New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block » Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue » Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification » Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed N arne: r-,L......:;...~--P"f-l--:':~_----'<-~_----r-:>!--'--'---"::::.,.~"-I-_.tf--=---"--~_J-=--R~_j __ _ Signature: __ ~~~~~ ________ ~~~~~~~~~~ ________________ -- Shopping-Store Address: __________________________________________ _ Phone number and email: G$O r) <iS1--:2 q d Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: » 11&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent » 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates » Office space that will fund the new 11 &F » New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block » Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue » Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification » Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Signature: ---~-' --~-~--+lJf-P-'-~-+Uf-~------------- Shopping-Store Address: _____________________ ~ Phone number and email: _--'---=-_~_<}_3_1_-_,r_~_-_3_J? _________ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: \)J\NNt:?'! 6IL_I~AN Sign~ure:~~~~6F~~.~·~~_~~. ~~~_._t_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~_ Shopping-Store Address: Phone number and email: _~~,,·-,-,O,,-y-,,-9+-n __ '_-Lj..:...4--,--,--{O __________ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: )0> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent )0> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates )0> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F )0> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block )0> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue )0> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification )0> Comprehensive traffic, parking. transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in chal1enging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Signature: -L....j}-~--=----:~--1~bol-----------------_~ ~ Shopping-Store Address: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ 11&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new 11 &F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow 11&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from 11 &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. p~inte~d.run.e: ~Jr2. Slgnat:.... _ _ ______________ - . . H,,"._"'_"_··_- Shopping-Store Address: Phone number and email:C:/P) 1;Pi r'7~ ').1.-( Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this develqpment will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: » JJ&F Market expanded al1d improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsid:iied rent , -» 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates » Office space that will fund the new JJ &F » New neighborhood serving retail to enliventhe ?lock » Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue » Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification » Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers. the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and fonnally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: --',lhcl,....,.-'f-!-lllla'"lVl=----LJ...IIfrU!-I--1I"D!J.Jrd_---':"'-J .,---Ufa ....... b-l"licm~I--___ --- Sign~ure:~~~~~I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Shopping-Store Address: Phone number and email: ---\;(....z.:..SI.::.....<O ),--n..L.!.13--,~_' G-'-Q_I_j~ _______ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: __ -"~T-tl ~...:...::..:.../; _--,---~-==---,~"",,-' -=-r\U2~.<..:.;\0t=-________ _ " Signature: ---'-~i""': "",,,-,,=-=" '--!kAAv",-' ==.=----.....;J,~,~=,=. =-____________ _ ! Shopping-Store Address: ____________________ _ Phone number and email: __ ...:...::-""-----=---'-_----'::::..::::...:._.~ __________ . __ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&FMarket expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ &F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and ~njoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ &F customers. the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible 'so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: ,'-f I L YV\6-- Signature: __ ---"w:'-"'-"jj4.</'-l1nt4'-"""'--->.~""-'="""7f-"'------------------ Shopping-Store Address: ________ . _____________ _ Phone number and email: __ 4-,-1J-,-~,' ~" /LI!5 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this develQpment will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded aI1d improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent 'f •• ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ &F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the officeusers and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic tim~s. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: mOl rtf) E ~w~t ;5' £-<\2/7 j:" . Signature: ---,.<ft7--,,,--)~~---,",,,~~-,,::=:7'-------------~----~- :7 J.-' -L til Shopping-Store Address: _7_w_O _N_1_",---, Vl_<;_' '_=~,-(/1_Y}--b~;-7J_cf!-_~/~.,/_j-r ____ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic. parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occt,lpants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: U Signature: __ ----"f+~~=' c:.!ZO'--______ _ Shopping-Store Address: ____________________ _ Phone number and email: __ 1i2t...::...!Lq_-_J1)lJ~'_·____'1:..::.1.z=3'__ _____________ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto. CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: )0> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent )0> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates )0> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F )0> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block )0> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue )0> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification )0> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers. the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above. we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Signature: ____ Q""'''-=-~~.(,.=j./Ur'''''' ""'/wrr-~--~.~-~----- Shopping-Store Address: Phone number and email: ____ c:/_·O-=-f_·~_0_q-'-(.L-[_·---",&~0(..:::::O~tJ,,--________ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ &F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new JJ &F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: __ -:;~:....;i'-'!:\!;::...111)ClLL)lA;:;..;;....:;A,,--_-=.V.;...;\ \":::",~,-.-,-.~-=~,,--______________ _ Signature: ----7riJlt-'1L~Lu=14f~-------------- Shopping-Store Address: ____________________ _ Phone number and email: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: . ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at,affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the blo~k ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ ComprehensIve traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre' as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: 2~ ~ 14. M~ ",,' (j ro S Signarure~~&h~ L'- Shopping-Store Address: -bS,..Lck---,--"..o:..(...;;;b",--'-L=~--,-(-"S=-___________ _ Phone number and email: Z€J'o\ h~y\ @ \( 9 ~ G Cl· <.. 0", Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and TJ;'~sportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ;.. JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ;.. 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ;.. Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ;.. New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ;.. Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ;.. Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ;.. Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&.F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for . other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: -.~-=~~~+------+~------~~--=-~~~---------- Signature: ---~-,L..~~~I=:----~~~~---""''''----------------- Phone number and email: -------------~------------------ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ&F Market expanded and imprOVed consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax: revenue );> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly"this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasure'd family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that copstruction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: ~irr;/!D Signature: ~ _ ~~ Shopping-Store Address: ~i~h_ Phone number and email: C~60) f?51-7q7~ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: » JJ&F Market expanded and improved c~)llsistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent » 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable ~tes » Office space that will fund the new JJ&F » New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block » Approximate.ly $700,000 in annual local tax revenue » Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification » Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In'addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and fonnally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: 0vSTlrJ Z4LG.:s.,.v; Signature: ---t-~r-"''--I:;,.c---------------------- Shopping-Store Address: -~~;------------------------ Phone number and email: ----------------------~----------- Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following:' » JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent » 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at,affordable rates » Office space that will fund the new JJ&F » New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the blo~k » Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue » Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification » ComprehenSIve traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In ",ddition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre' as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: lew6 ~~~~~~~~~~~------------------------------ Signarnre:-7~~~~~==::======~ ____________________________ ___ Shopping-Store Address: ---<.S_· ·L-~--I--""o...=r,_b.o....Lu-=----=c=-\S.!-r_:;: ____________ _ Phone number and email: 0 60 .-3 ~ 7 -iScr I to Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: . We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );-JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );-14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );-Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );-New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );-Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );-Green village-style development design.with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );-Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment . Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. . Printed Name: :{J1!rAJ~ ~iJJl ~J t:r Signa~~----I-"~~~~.jt£~.~~:'--:;--___ _ Shoppmg-Store Address: _--"<..,) ...... ~.L~_-'-f----L _L~ _____________ _ Phone number and email: --~------~~--~~~~~----------------- Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following; );> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias'· preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. , In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. . For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: fir!Ll Gttl Wfu1f\.P tgl Signat~Wv----:p U r Shopping-Store Address: 5fus6Vt,('A~ § ~. F . ) Phone number and email: ~C;7J .. -~ -3S gO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: > JJ&F Market expanded and improVed consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent > 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates > Office space that will fund the new JJ&F > New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block > Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue > Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership In Energy and Environmental Design) certification > Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home oc.cupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. , Printed Name: C a Y\ b l ~=-.---=~~",-"==-f) -"-.:-10=--_______ _ Signature: -~-+----~-~-'--...,.,~,L------'==------------------u~ (? Shopping-Store Address: -----:..9=+--y-"7F-ri--'---"'------------------ Phone number and email: _..-.(pi<:-'-=S,. __ 0 __ --'7'-----"'I_D_--:;9_&_U _______ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viab.i1ity of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family • business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. L Printed Name: 1:xw-QJ-l \ hl±l J ~ Signature: ,~~ . . Shopping-Store Address: ~J-t-~_ .. ~_~,,--=-+_~. ___ . __ _ Phone number and email: Lfp -9.9 -\ c:3 SO Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportati9n Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 9430 I Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will brjng include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue >-Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification >-Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide'many valuable new customers for other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and 'formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name:6{j1R~ V\ e Signature: ----=-~~~"_Io_'t"if'~--=-~-------------- Shopping-Store Address: ---.---~ .. _.--'-I__J__. ____________ _ Phone number and email: DUJ\ \Au n ~(a CuViA..C CtJ )-, n e< t '- Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto business patrons wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As long time local shoppers, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ).> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ).> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ).> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&,F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For us and Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for . other neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined aoove, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: I~ {-1/7.--,1 k-o Signature: 4- Shopping-Store Address: __ .5'-f--~"-~_~'-'~"'--· _c t. _______ .. ____ _ Phone number and email: _[-'->. ,,,,,-1=6 _-hLL.Z_?_-_(j_o_r~y:_---,-e_/J_~_(J_I-,-rf-,-«J_'f-8_(j )_ItA//,_I'f._~--,--.-",c._c"""",-=- Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F ®, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office. and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name/Sianature Address Email Phone tU/L It; z <;{ totl1''t(. t4vt t"lkPv1dbtrttt@~~b-CrA-I 6S"O·S"lL31Z7 ()d-~ro {).RJlesle{jS+-, ~-TSbl W A· SO \;tClVv,-, _ c;ov(,@ \ia.~o o. c~ 07A(l ctraneco ~yc{hwtQm Mfk ~ 1~\ ~ AY~ h~t-etk ~b fo1f'~ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project , proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F Gif), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name/Sia nature Kathy me mlA \ teA 7G1:\-~1 ~ Mel( i1 (' Address lfr. ~~- 113't> JZJ6~~ ~ 1~ ~'~q ~.:~6."? \40 Lowell A\Je. iYQ\b A\to I C A q <-t '?Io \ ;3 }~q O:tvi'd 4v,Q....- y~{o 4-(·to '6 ~ ~ C tClccJen--I{J') -" .et Email Phone ~6'O -'1-'14 ....... JO~~ ~~~,~ ~ ~ '--0'3--\ ,-------------'- kath~ Me @ cwL Ci5YV\ 32..6--5323 ,---------------~----~ t{q4-(;f;f?7 {Pro 'Sg7 w%7 Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F <if>, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name/Signature Address Email Phone ;:;; IJ· 9 f{3t;! 0cf--:52!tP4'7 7--~ ~"'t> D ,~ ~'5t 3>S"'-~ 1 /J J _ (2 (' r _~ ~ lifO S_ Cot) ::jorb"-[ A /dv . I '(0) -x:r) --)! I ~S-c) 7Q~023: ,~ ';{ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (if), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name/Sig nature Address Email Phone HoJ] 7!nfM! lrL.-U-~ 1-~'f'-f WtU e51 ~ y C;t, Mani;hou.@ S~foV6. G-(-?rf --2tvfj .criJ.1 X~ 'SiV\ (h / ~~ ~J!s.\~ <;-t, ~\V\x: ®~1'~{o~d" §Q 1 --;5 \ -!;;ti ~ ~.t" .~ w\-\t~ 'J,2;1-1J ~ S1 ' ~ \\l-t\;N A ~e~llf4-M ~ 7..-\ -S ~ <0 ~ I j \ \ t\ i1--\NA W\·\trp~ \\ Awe q fh2t.:LE/r t5 'i () C'tn.--\ '::OCLN I A 4q 4-/\ LCO? ~:~~~ f1{\/ ~"ct~ 1-~~Lc (;6 ~ ) I: j l 1 f t iF if i f i i I \i ~, r ~ ~; t; ~ ~ f' i Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F Gfj), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approvaL Address ~S5 ~I~S~ .palo Cl..W 0\ L.\&)lo ----;:;>"'1....---1--- ~ -~- Email ~~\<;.~@ ~ I ru.::t Phone laSO '-$1l ":) - 3'60 ~ tffJ)80.r9~ "9:<"7 ...Q~. 'I . , !. W I ~ ~ I~ il J , . ~ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name/Sianature Address " ~j;Dllr~i( ~:X:17~~ ~20 --:;-{;J?JJOJ f.ay S!- Email 0rnrrorrcJ2 calJi/C ~ C/O#L9-JJ / 6 Phone 62 /D~t (fic V\ -eJ( f . -'c I \lJ'JQ~ l3-l{n~ If «-~~ LaA!7/~~ 2Dqc CO(yfe It ~+, 'Y' t-r'~ -I lW-O CO('"I'-e..\\ <s-\-. /V'Y C:>1~ ~ ,.--, c ~tJl-tI-J?7/t 'S{j '1 q 3. 51-s-'-( O.\i'SQ/"'. 'C-€va.---e ,~""~\. I bSO r04 ,<;'2 U COt"'- h~~~1/~'b~ 6D' ~1-5~1 I Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino ReaL We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F <11>, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Address Email Phone zv4t tJheA_Ll~ $( --V020 a~/ frY\ g - e.1A0I ) VC\'7'7\ ) ,W0 ' 2030 0661 /,' VI ~+, Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name/Si nature Address Email Phone - ! I ( U1 r t/~/ts yl{fC!< ck;/ J,/'JS-CD ~~ "' rt-r1 C75d/ .~ ~/2/~rSf to&.At-k4~ Q, ~ J ' (OV\.t ?soC; -( '~~ 0o(N2JJ\ ~ I\A. VJ ~ • e _ ~ l~1\ ~ , \, v--"-7 . d2-kiA.-8-6 ~'L~ 2Ll~) ff;v~.~ Sf- LO~ \ o~{L~ >1-I f\fV(\1 k @ £ tr-~ lr J ' Q.J ~ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real \Ve, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's apIJroval of the proposed New CoIIege Terrace Centre project at '")180 EJ Camino Rcal. 'lve h,lVC rcvic\ved 111e plam; for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approvaL Name Address Email Phone OQSOWo--@hIdc:... C-d;"" t· r;. U~ ~4-- (z.b -zs t.'<i ~~~ ~ V r~~'07L.r f "","'" ~ ~ > '1 ~ () e-( eq,'-A. :"'4) ~ ..... ~r b50" y'tg" -8''7 . ~~\~ esSe> ~I'C=> ~ ~) ck(\~~ '6o-hC:th &m f."..::; o....Lof t:( 'J -~ D/ J~~-/I;~ ~l5<:i ~ \J .~~~~~ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (i), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhoo&-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name/Sianature Address Email Phone ------- ~ ANDRi1) /~/lljj 1. t :; ( 1.11/1/ c! 1~.1/ 1IVDflM J IIIYi f G IIf 11;)1), 0111 GP t 14 SiJ!J SuStXNt Cf2A1~-JA 1150 Cl-L-~/~y S c[2j\hi,-Jo8( @ '(f\'UQ), CCM Cb~ _ 7-99 I 9 '35" LliIj)~ ~ .?f-::11-v~~ ').,\00 O'b~I~'l'\ s~ ~(""' ~ 0{"'>ruL. ~C6~~ \,~ .r-j p C ~-"""':::S' I \ \ I C~CLvv\ VV\c-~ @ ~'v~ v~'fVv'. GSo cscr} ~ oeu .,." ~ -,.,..- 1---1--- -------I 'petition in Support of the ~ew College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 El Camino Real \\le, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F ®, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone /.: --rf -<' . :.J (/fAit'S (fG. .,J vf tV I( f t\(S 2..2-10 CUd0 v r Y; I ~ -92 N lLkro +61) ~{Vx1\,p~ 'fi1-~(Jb - H,\~\~ :O()~,bOSln\~ 1(95" Ptbro.mc; ct, fT 1c8' mbo0..(bcY'\1'l @<;~ ~c\.~ .----- 2-0 1-0 ~l~St '?J-9'{)0? 8$'"7---1')6 '--t 31 ()~d{ LX~ e/~ 1-:'0.;-W6V'~~\, -----.. =- ~~-1{ulr-e-{f-~ . eeL r-- II 6f: lJR...E 61-~ ~ {;; lI-~we~Qva.-vs.JtS.~J(, c~ ,Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real \Vc, the undersigncd residcnts of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New kg\.: Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. \Vc have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly SUppOit it and the benefIts it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F GTi), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone lew S~lw. r 1- r "i"'""'" I. ((JV'.... -- .r~ ,5;JJ", t\ t..t J.. C.,; I <1 f-.k. Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. 'Ne have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F <!i), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone Po.'".X? ct ~ ~ ~ v--.c., }·co..- 1 j'Z-5' c. '" ~ .St~.4 i fo-~~ )(0-d-\;,cl-J-56 d Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real Wc, the undersigncd residents oftlle City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New Collegc Tcrrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. \Vc have rcviev"ed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F <i!), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone f\br 1(\ tesl"~VO\~4\ ct l~ jJr;t ,oie st. \7'\tv AHv{ eli ~Id-,'1\ "-G's~ . cCVV' w-s'ti--SJ9o ~)~} AVVJ1"c 'e-S I S~ R t) 1\\\2.-~ \\l t\ 0 u Q CO) tll y<!f ?-§f?6 (\Oit,( 54'f1tt==' S r-r"2.. "2r 'A( t. \31.. V 'i) I f M.o It I.. ~u I sAy ({ ~s <£ ts Y <-lL 3.1 fi"1I/1bf. r> ...IifA le/N.4 ~tve-. /.fa La, s , t~~tp-@A,~<;.. v.r j &:5b -8ft 2--{od Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the nndersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 21 RO El Cnmino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (i), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking, garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approvaL Name Address Email Phone A c{~VV\ ?-e rAt\. 7--r-7\ Cv\,<\V1 (0<:"'..( t" ,,010. .1"1."2 e ("r)lk ~ t1 m Ott\. Sccft ~n ]1(). f-tAlIs-r fwt-r (<? . : , . .... \. -~ .... -.. ~ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space tor JJ&F (ij), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name ~<?"a)1 BlA,V¥-. Y<A.SeV1 L€-v v- ttn~ Ct~ \ ~a.v( ~' 'P eo.. ~,,~ ~ \v 'l\oO Address 690 ~O-n ttVLd or. 1 & P e 7-er Co-v it) C( V. ~Y. 1'-\ 1. CCYAV'C>va. ),fr"l,) 02- tb,n(J\(t:.( S1 -l' Y1 ~354 s+.M\c.,h~\ Ct· PA Email Phone .~~~leA A- ~l Petition in Support of the New·College Terrace Centre Pr<dect Droposed at 2180 EI Camino Real Vle, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. 'Ve have reviewed the pl:lI1s for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F ®, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Po f.\.A.,( Address Email Phone \U ( ~ ) ~ LO \ S~lA.\')\0 {d I LA '14 (V\ LCo. \ \ 0t \ \) ( '\ \lJ '< q \;1c;O • J '::"0 Co\3'-2Z~ '"2 S <., ru to'W.. t\"1). \.\ ,. .> \-t~ L <-A 9'-\30 ? d\.c14""" (. e.:, +-(N. ~ J ' -€ Jv i\ 0-~h 6'-11.-1.). t 3.--1"'1 v ,itvYpt /rv.-o) ~.Q; tv..J c 1.-,. '- ,I:(~G.r Q ~c, l"\~~ . 6+e Vo pc«<. ~ U cJto~"" r; 1'0-304-84r;1 S" So (c) / !~ Cf*' .q / -L t.f I...{ ""7 v c."" -;L\·vo ~ f~1 st 0"fTl 5)6~· 'l/~t "Cc.11'--- Al1e£ VLACfYlVr 17u-::-(v i1a-,.--/tv;::f) -4 AC:I. :A...oj f'! d''l-:YJ z.::rrp -1/""-. ( 1V"'~ <:::> 2) Petition in Support of the New CoIleJ!e Terrace Centre Proj:ect proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real \Vc, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have revie\:\,red the plans for the proposed project and we wh01eheartedly support it and the benefits it v/ilI offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F , 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully wlth the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustaipable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a -living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. . . Name Sl~2A: \I' j-',.,. Ctt rl . ..A.......- w~0l~~ s.t-?~jv,M 'it.f7 Sa~ ~~a ... ~~ ~tA. \ () l'l{ V4:-'-..) ~~!J...... DbJ~ (S-i-.~, ...... ~, G '1 ~l..~ ,LN PA 4 ~ v c) t4-{<. V-f1 PtA- Email I Phone ~ -~D'-3~(fj2- I t?ro"'11-( ~JJ 'fa 263 (l ~ : J;~ ,~t ;~~ l, S-s-0 G S-c C'( (ol ... Zl( 7 d Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Pr(dect proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. \Ve have reviewed the pbns for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (i), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a deVelopment the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone 'B1.v~)/\\(A \\-() :r2.Z (t,\fqQ, k\JQ-A'3\ 'tt\\\l AttD, I 'll"'V\\~-\XwkJ0J ti\l'\'t(\\·( JO~l1 fv1u(D~ 'St" 1(;·12<6 S)h+'tj:."tJ,( IJ ]ok,,-\ 1\Iw; l' '-J JLtG' k ,,~t t '" 'V \ t ll~\ (',D4 @ \\\'1l~c\(\t;<:du ~Q.~ES '0 91 f:J A-i/v\ ldrJ?~- Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180EI Camino Real V.,re, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholehealiedly support it and the benefits it wi,lI offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F ®, 14 Below i\1arkct Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Address Email Phone JIjJ -&,.,6",.fS; ppAcL)7,;u1' I' ~5 7 C1)']({t1 19D~ t",\i ~ ~rA. ~\(. t.o1S EL C}\Mtt"b ~eAL Petition in Support of the New C'ollege Terrace Centre Pr("ject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at ::?! fiO El C~[Jnin() Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we vvholcheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F ®, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking-garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Email hone 1.'2.. j," "3'r~i> /,_, awl' "" '~r VY'-''"'·o~!-:l.11 Ifj~ -o?J7 -J-e-~ Vf7J~4~~t6 D-., '/lf ~ Cvcl., 411~ b 4'~ ..,9(-i 1'IQ ~(11 ~(~S J¥ ~\\'l.., .. {e. L/6~7Jon32 r-~--~-----==----t--------------l W; •• :S<fAT-, (S-e 5~\'" C-wA.- Vv1l~ btJOv61.A: ,~ltiVJv],€ t-f~.~ f'o..~ G'A"~~ E, 1 C,) <6A~.LoII. U ~' ~~.cI • '""l"Or ~, Petition in Support of the New .. Jllege Terrace Centre PrQ,ject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the henefits it \vill offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&r ®, 14 Below .Markct Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone v~ \)( /~y ~z;,- b l Y tot ~ .~~~ ;lb<'< .4ASt~ /4'bUl IldoAtfo 10000Kml-ll/li e. MIll. t~ ~ ~~ ~14...,..d .... ~ PI} Petition in Support of the New )Hege Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real \Ve, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the henefits it wiI! offcr including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ& F ®, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving rctail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EJ Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone )(o\.f -. f tM. f. O. 11 oX' 17G fl Y' ~T 1(@ sft-.tfurJ·dv w~{~ ~n..ko --=---Z;'=ICQ OA.~a..g-?l.-~ ~ t... o?~~ c:!)y..."..... • c,._ ~ ~f.(~ -8<:x.:r1" lqJl>q M~~L 9SD AI $h' ~i7J,vIO f./J Ai'18A. 1/1) ,"H.JIf-~ 'MhL. LOM 65"P-?5>4 ~ ~------- 1fV1...q,o( .~" b ~ ':'j.i;"l~" Ai: . .l. \.',.i ~, ~. J.~,~-.ll,)\-, )\,; •. -;.l,~.\ J..\.'.~~l. ii\.,~U~·"jj.l.b , ",,:, c' (rr: i', " ,!, i !" (" "t,C'(' ~ '~(' n,'; f~ f' "t"1',;~ C": l" ," ,",' 1"" o'r, I ()C", T 1',1, <::1"l' ('5<: c,"~d~' ,.:II'i·'V"'u n \J and park'!'llg .galage ~,'i ';' • .i' .• ' , t. ~,' ...... /' i.L I"\., ,-,,,·,t ~,.iJ'D 1 .~"" .... J. L"~ '..!.; ... ~,_.\~ll.iO"'" 1. -'-. ... 1 UUIJ .1."-" ...... , .0.11 u. U ",,~yaJ (,ff E1 C~n]jiJic KC to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the Copege Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. . Name Phone VexO(J1 CllYL 42>QC c "~:3~ -Lu-ftzr'(\Jf~ (eCl{~s{~fl~. t-6s'1:l, J 1..b -Y L h' CVt-l' .Jv VY\ ,-,D «e.((D'71 4-\I~ ~A c' vII''' e'1 @ Sj-~~trd.. ~.fu ({'S'6 11:..( -'70 '1Cf 6k~v ~-~t-l A-(ft.-I (L Fw Lv-. ('k..ft~{ rI, ~ {,[l-f !l(rSJl L~"k({ ~tA-~( 5r, Pavlo A \ \-0 z.\,~ke(@.sftw.t(!rJ.e J.M. ,S"o-g3~-1~c> 8 Petition in Support of the New COlJege Terrace Centre PrQject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (10, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking ,garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone IIW't1C-1610 l\;\u~ ~ w VV\ ~ e..vVV\e(( . ed0.-1 5& 7· ~z f Ii", V\ ~ I): d~(NJ qb~ rn~~ Q\-do.. u \" c::J S a v....; Ck..~1 sk I It bJL V\-<t.-t-4 ? s -0 ~? /' S-:.V\ 'De\", ~ \')\ ~ \ ~~ 1u 5-<;l i ~ l);7~® 'VtJ, 7~ ~ IIJ./J'/)~ MAJ.. Co (// ~ (s-t: NW IAbJVtI~t'o)\( DC AV'elflf116'Rl \/ ~h~b -~vd)~ (A) L· t\ tt1 VY1S ~<-7,7 4 1((;"'>0 2.-Ui £/6~' cwAI ,,,e-l-h~h:.-,). e..clc0 ' 7 10 q At[ G-f;v I U\I\.U Cot, 9 (4! I) A~ , Lle-~vl ~(; ~ t. ~c. If IA.. ..... ..; Jc:./' Sf::,..! /;:} ~ I LJ C&../} ::J (' ..... "'e:oc:,..u.. c;.....u £(() 6 4--4-6:J-J..) f,q 1~; c 3 Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F ®, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it~ prompt approval. Name/Sianature ~~.~ ~~A ~4!?P~1- Address ? ({eD )' J-o~~ Ct-~cJro A1h L 0 \ t1 Aq"L v 1\ tt () () I 21 60 C;kUh~~ (0/-.11- ~~~~-I--------j--'- 70 tUI--)L' /;9:&:1 fd/bcJtr4ve. '-. Email ,+..-ts:Qc.~gt.J''VlmW&l( C1(l ,f1lv-aNUi.6 ~---, --- S 4/7(U) ~Ccr:;Jf-'Z 1,1 _ ~\CVvL~ ill> ~"t~ BJ .. V t:;~,_onj"t~) 12 'J Phone Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it'% prompt approvaL Name/Si nature ') :\ o "l vI' J Cr·· 0 1 (Y~(l/y..v- I r~ ~~~ ~ r ~'\ d/ M'\~~ \-\:'\)Lh ~ @~~ Address ) 4,-~o \:" ,·t-" . '1 Y'/ Dlr",lf .. J (j. J #-~ 2 Y ~"353 lJ Q/b$te'0 «5 s> Lr' CO Jl <--Q WI} L( ;Z2S7(WJ//I'('-, C:;r ~4f)JIv I ro26 Sv\., "'\... i ~"V-vl.(J) (. 0 u~ \.0 ltu . 0\\ ~ a~v c., 'n j ;"i\ ~\'\~ \1(:> j(~ ~'\ \,1 ,,'\ (~,,~\IDv\ r-4 ... vA- Email Phone Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 El Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F @' 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it~ prompt approval. Name/Sianature Address Email Phone yl;21J ;f+" '2 ''146' U~:~!\ '7~ ~I )L"~ S't:)l~'f-~ (1--. /J {)./ 'L-s-v 2.-, e'fVl ~ S;{J-Y"\ S ,J.-.- --J(c<r ;.1--'J D'S / I ~j~"h%'Ai ~ ( S ~l' I l-t fl. Ih'."':") / t;; 5:0 5. ~ I , F. f11t.< b.l~l u) IDO/jt0Y~o::> [OvA Petition in Support of the New Ct.utege Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for ,J&F <1>, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking .garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features -.;T' including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone I I Petition in Support of the New College l.'errace Centre PrQ.ject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (i), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone ~ <t1t 1OL~ l)R.,s~q ----. ~ '--- 7[b Petition in Support of the New CL_ .. ege Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F <1>, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking .garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the CoJlege Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name I Address Email Phone I QririL1nnM.El~n@Jo.~,cOM £d~ q0\ W~\\v'(d~'ve J ~o.\o ft\.\-o !J-;iv; ?4m6':;c;At:-r /25 ~d-4-t!/~;-c7 {I/~Sif~ ,geo!! y tJ'B/-,,,,k<O.lJt 6 ()~~ ~",,-,, 'U\ \ \ \.\Jt" 'V,\"'-<)uv \1\1 _ \~..J ,Y\.C \ 11>-' V-.J c> k4 ~ .. \ /T\ ~rp~ (J J.o!--rr,cu j, cCl"0 tA ~ f?4i\ (0) I ~C~ \-4tv-1\~/l7\1 ~M 'if)&, , Cf2L(~/ 1 .;l.j tki3 bII lit) ,~t 71:3I0we . I. o· . I I. ~ r 4-,1\ 1\ 1.-l'\ A c.-o I J 585 fM 'sf"-0rJ 6 I =}~~:~ In\~ ~r~ I I'~f,r J 'h-J~-A ~ f~ I V7J jutf2..q 0 i Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 El Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name/Sianature Address Email Phone <... ,?-o¥'O tt\e S+ IrA ;;LOG't \f~ St Pit- Ju 1 ~ '(, / 5/ j) /J '1l.t I I // 1 W\ fuu'{v\s (')~. \ vA ~ -Zl~Ca WI ~L1VL.? Peti!I.onJ!!. S!!I)]2Qrt. of theJ~T:e~v Co!lege Terrace Centre Project proposed at 218<LE1 Caluino Real \VC., the undersigned residents or the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. \Ve have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F ®, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone C -E: t.-<- 0""(.; f -S'i 3 - s-s-r ~/o,) ~,,--$~5) Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. ,---~~ ~ ~-~~ I I Na me/Sig natu re Address Email Phone ~ ~I z..,S-';-w/lll"'-M S ~ .. rp~ #I-h) Of GJ'r3ah C£ U~ Gj't{\f(\f\/\. (0'1 Ct ~ l1H1 frv (J AVt'IIAIlL ~ P cvi£! 0) to pPt f/ )/1S7..( ,~0/ ~11 s lfJ ~ \ (r-!A.iJ\A ~ ~~- ~~ .. ,~-~ ~- Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. - Name/Signature Address Email Phone 4ftY~ Zlt// tJl/)qw's Sf 1050 ,',5J, "'31 '-f) -- CIviL-v/,//itV>. f j t I 2/.11{ C ')-J -.. P/~I 0>/ .~. IJ ~ e-J \\\\ (,\l/V'-',.. s~ l -I _-~~ l-ZfoO~~~k- I Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. .I n _-_ om J t~_k:::~~~I.b-p~;~O~(J ~o • 0 _-0_ 1_ .' .00 .• ~d: ~ ~ ~ .. I--·-""'I_~P ~b~;l Q!;O &'SI-f{1 &)0 J;Js8q, 0S0 SJJ ~77f Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre PrQject proposed at 2180 El Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. [--= Name tl Address t ± I fIetJtw.f;J,oJ 3rLfk[ JfBl1Itvch-.O?PL~. (2{tYf..1U. eM. Email Phone U· I c/".e--:l (p 7 ~ t.-, :rO'~oY\ . <kAl~ 7 l .. _ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name/Si nature Address Email Phone )~~ z., ~'o W IJt V.../(f l..a ~ )~ Cor6-03.0 ,0 .:ti" ,~l ~~~ 903 ~et- C".i-. J . .-.1 c ~~'I ('70 f~a.-~ I ~@~, 10S1l-,+QJ-$~ cit-Q/.f6()S ~I ~~-g9 1 (f? S(/I/Ll1l ct 'a (v 14 (-Iv ~I fi, ! n \ tl V;1/v) UI'JfJt ~/f3 )/)1.(* t1; 'PJ( Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre PrQject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F <1>, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone 1. ' G 6?J ?>:2J., t; 16"1 r f, 'i"\) '} ~) 37''1;( iit 1'14' ~ L~-#r 'm,/f'fDY3 YClk\-t€s~-forJfci I ... SD-}.).'{ -q ~o 5 Petition in Support of the New Codege Terrace Centre PrQject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F GJ'b, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking .garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the Copege Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approvaL Name Address Email Phone Sr\l{ -?":r {( ~-13L: s':;:) -1:12 ':J.. ~ 1/-Y-J t.t?' fV\ t1Y: \ lo.VI-e o-8.5Jj -:11 [(7 ~fctA 'tlrJ ~. · Petition' in Support of the NewC(dlege Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2'180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (1&, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Email Phone ~ /'1+ . ~'S"o) ~ (., ,?-2S~~ 'jOV\ fN).( \ ~ d ~oo ' ~ IY\ ~T¥.'\-~'S { }t\t\YiG Orn-n"-t~ '5'0 )''2..a. t-[ -'\. /; s-o-?62r-'2--~ V...--V\ "2-. -J/41Y1 ~i1) 3(6' -~r- Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real \\le. the undersigned resident~ of the City of Palo Alto. urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Ten:ace Cenrre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefit~ it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I). 14 Below Market Rate housing units. office and neighborhood-serving retail space Lo encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood. is oriented close to alternative trallsportation. and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, swface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name/Si nature Addr~ss Email Phone . MJ.,~.5 ~ 113 i t.-ot[ t3 e a.,vf-&:;7-2 cZ0' rUt! 0 klto '"2-&(1 ,,~ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F G1f>, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone il'-f~A f.}/Ilf,J Y~e- !---~ t.( ~ (Ufes.mu-r ~T ~Ai) QA1eLo..s h S1J I S-tt 'i -() g 7 Y PA---r k"CtRM,1J ( 0 0 l '3o.~oyi\J<-<-M +-tv U I ..flu) 4?S-V9t;,y// & g ~ ~~~U [~,eI"'ilJ f" ( l t ( L{r\ <:;;l)$-----S I 0 I i J e£D1V-~ ,8 S,M-t.~ ~ ;Z 332.. So uJ-U. Co u..d?-T PA UJ A-L.;(1) --r &tdev ~ [VJ,... (l.,1 h __ c2 332 Sf) uU tJuv.J"--P;t.L b A-L. 7V --- ~ V~SE 11 ~UT Sr. 1M GflRLD,s "~(JfSqf-0 ~7tJ " L...-..~ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I). 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone Y>trTH {kl;ff /S2--5 (. a..it. ttlft CA-1 t/3 v) ",,-lip -CeA..-G s;'¢~32..t-{~)"1- --~ ........ -.-- ,< ~ Petition in Support of the New Lollege Terrace Centre PrQject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I)~ 14 Below Market Rate housing units~ office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking;garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials~ surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address ::' 'A/~Vi ~;';4I;/' . I'" t. .... ,&:"". " /)('1\ \) , ~ (4fc:16~~ ),vl ,-,' ;ur ! I j I" 71tJd J- Email Phone {::,vcd.es t ~ ~'1) v' c'--~~ , • /ot!r, rJ6 ' (' v r"'\ d . \ I ~ ". /' , ' if\. i (v-,@,,'I';C-(' .J ., Ci'J s,rr.k j ~I (,>,,-' I,l') )·8"6~5'-1 /~I VV il,.I1 'VI ' ,/ ~ f) 1 /M 'L, \ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre PrQject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the CQllege Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email t)\~ '4v~ el ,J~ .~)J ·~lr\V\"'~; ~ y~ "I I 6Sl) 7' 'f / :5 5""S" lll{O Petition in Support of the New C,uJege Terrace Centre PrQject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre projec't at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking ,garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the Co~lege Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features /'IlJ{ including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the f '(l City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address -!P'l.i, s\J7-AN3 <S('JSE"J :,)-\-10 :2-' \ -L ,) Email ~"esr-t~~ "iJlVC'-.)'ii @.... SV\.-{~(. (~ ~ riotl) ~ Q qf}, h~f-- 5pi"eree (~tiJVlfctrtl e Phone ~7r~ ?5",--Vf ';(7S' 2"'1 r 9 ~-q 3 --f+ 3kJ o/t ,.03"z.U Petition in Support of the New Co:uege Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking.garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the Co~ege Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone 73! fJ14?t/d:e fA fw, S t4t is ;/)-g t L d~ (.~ '",,-;170 f ( i-) i~ • ./C [= R. _.~o 31(,,7 v '-/7 .e..c,-\..L 1\-7 () k l\r\K(/~ ~ SO-3'2.0-70 'if VOV'-~~~ fA, P.A. (;;c; 1) ~1l{ ~l3 b~ e ~f\JJtJ.L 6·.n~~3~ LoSl WR.jfe>r ~1-J) p~ ICOSUjcVY\ wo Y13-0i1 73( JOSJtV,tr ftv~. ,6..$.. o/~9'1--9/.:J..S:. :,. 'l d-J... Co-s s \..j 0-'I 6 5'" 2l %~-fa -I ~ \ 9 Z;7( 'C\.... ~ ls1-e s~l<J;),eJu Petition in Support of the New Cb-dege Terrace Centre PrQject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F e, 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking;garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name tJO-f'1 -e .{J-C Address ~Cvto 1\1-ro { ::::, S-r;-(x ~ nwo-v-z:-,1 --s-v-c.. L tifU((v-vC:... 1--2--& ~ f'v~(f.M W\OXOjW~ G,e~ I '1 ~'1-(~~\\ w, I St-a.J)\J~ .Jb '3 ~ ~()/ a ()rtK?-I' ~ ... Y\ Av.e . ;;LG15 N ccSA' -65/-0 I ~ L L. /'f7Hd4r>' ;;J R'. ..57l'7A/F&'&:::> Email Phone f.t,:S (P ') -0 -3 ~{-1-fC, bSV-l( q ~'?S-tp 1<75 --f-/70 :7£/~?5 zc -c (~-210) (Os-O -~J \ -Lfb C fO B '-c{7r~'2 ~ ?J::7 -.aG...z:> Petition in Support of the New C\;'_Aege Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We) the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (iff), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking ,garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the Co~ege Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone I , J 0 CA L1 tf:r<.)..IfA AV f. J, . 4-9"5 f1-51- ;<. 3 10 AMke(S {-fit O~)t/5 If-P4 II ~ 01 V'Ast.€cl ¥ol, :If 102- ;;Llf Ol~ fed RJ. ;VI. (OJ-Gf91 -'-(Od----.3 lX~ 1.1A~)--I I Of S-)y~~f~ 52CJ ~U--I t ~/;~ 'Bu1ft r;Je. ,----- '516) ,}(O-262f{ ~~-i'A.u J~ fJVJ1'oNJ.Lj @ J~vo . ~ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (1'1), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone u -, -\" ,J~i . q. -l-r·'oo· '""f«>""' (2,~ol.co-I '.ro 31SCi:?Z./8 ff e N:rl-..~ ~ ttJ... ke;.na,-t{ ,yJje O'\tl{. CdI"l1I '1'JJ -'(fL.} 3)'3-&, /7 q Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approvaL Address Email Phone 'N\0(>e)~ S~S;t Q~~"'-t{[\vyw"d' ~~~Io' Dr mtu1 ... q?,.J Chu;z~ \0 S\· 4'-+ I /'-f SIM..II\.IV\\ ,;",lj. '2 pi Ij_~ ---v v'" v-_ 3 D)' J (7 J cV 54rAttf, v~ : eJtA. ~ :}3<.o (-:;..., \~..., 5' L q'v[ 301 .~ ~)}-, /?5Y~i6" <J!f Petition in Support of the New Codege Terrace Centre PrQ,ject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F GJI), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking .garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone (\ hl >-\ -tN\, d-j ... ? .L .\. 7 i..{ 1,./ (~CiA'1 (\~ Q Il.\o CR fA') /~ ) p(2)9$ b~dmu tI /-'-7-v.~ ~. +t~0'lA BR ~ tJ-. --;}(cJ( 1Aj, t/(CiVvl's (7.1 ' ~O(,CA' '~&\s\-e\~ f ~S"') G~do ~I S+~~d I kei1 F /"JJ<...1 JrCl 109 /fir t Fp.~//{~J c-+ 4~11~\c;,td. ~-h~ M(;{~ wi 0; .I-t~ VVv' \<' ~ I~ Lv. / fOS'TeA o~ !~~11 6~ 5) 71;1 pc;fL f31vlJ , ~Q-+~~So-e~ 232}\ (A y~ t <- 0 \-..J ?-c 7"5 \j.Jgl t J~ S4. .::) u.<~ '-r~ - i I ~ Petition in Support of the New Codege Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 E1 Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking ,garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the CoJlege Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Address Email Phone /a~q V$/frt /f? 5iLvtJ-u li( 171 Ift/p ir i( Yf 3 :;)-e.. --,:;-l{Jc:>9 1 Sf 1 Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F <Ii), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking, garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approvaL Name "'~f:! 58 i C/()! yfd V 1.aJ.?{da5 i ) ,"" r:J~ O'Q) Email Phone ,-bj) D :Jr::JfJY7/ ~) .3~7-~ cfu~ t;(;; r'l1-1j1~7 /'Ai-n. C>~ -g'lc.O vt.t1 4 4G tA~~r-J. 'l'T'-71£p1 lVV\\ L-M1)~ ~k U~~S -1 '5-7--1 ~~ 7'5( n ~r/;. M; n ~Ivfl/l @ 't. ~, Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F CIf), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village~style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approvaL Name Address Email Phone E fA. ~vtk('5()1)ro~1 v: SOJ >'lS'rI17e>9 l .. f\\ * L( , 61= I ctl L\ I \ S4. qql\ \) ( tu&1l.(.lt.{..,.~~ (~" Sl ~~ ~~.:r~ 22.7~ lOl.'\d.t~ " I I 9D"8?S-O l~ Avt.... IbS~ -31,'1-QCbLf t ,,~ t:, c:; ~ (4..e,8e.U" 10 (, tYs~1.1c 4~ vt~ I Petition in Support of the New t;ollege Terrace Centre PrQject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (fJj), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone #)~W~ ~ e(~ 17r-.JJ~5~ e f{J,..·o--·657; cY17 tY/tJ ( ~ <s-SI 5 I~q rc{ ;11 e~ €11 tt-ll ~ ~ <D(Si-J.~ [-e.," n., e. ,......, D~\)w w \ \ .. u'6. ~ So (.()"-Le ~ ~vG. ~1.1e-s 'A)n,us ~~~~.(J)~ Mn ~~)}J}D A,..,c:nc.. l.es \ 1~ IG>SQ Mo..,r'po5~ AI.Jc-Qr l~ l e6t 14 C!..C!..D"1'n~ ~o-~.'~jQl.~ t.her L; &01-Col"", 2.Oqr '.e SJ... p~ tkJo Ii Sa -G> fl-Dvt ~ ~ t-BullfIJ '( Jtf~ /I;(X, JIve, fj) ~- Jlhc?\v---t ilA ~; (g 0, {}e, fel'"Cow If( (,'or" ~ W~IS (l t~ ~ '1 ff4t1liJl>' :Jo I CAt I Fo~ ,vIA "tv G" 1,;1) ~fes'et,..·€? Y(24op, a:;:a." bStJ 'tS'6'12J'...f Ptl+-R1) be. (13 \1;51 ~~lAtt,~~Q n Dr \ Pale itlto til-QV3tb I I Petition in Support of the New Lvllege Terrace Centre PrQject proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alt01s approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (fj), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking .garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone 129(SI oS~/3Y3 ,2,'/ /~~Jr7'~ / ;z... Kt 4-R.Iv?9r' 'D~ 2:> Zl> . 0 C' 5< - I 6 S fl.,D<-"r",- 1~ V\/~. rpL~u- ~?J(v ~iil0e7 ~. ,vIA. 3U/(,(p 5~ '13/ ~~,~/ ?rA 9 7 5 -99¥! .... / ~ ::At ~5G-~30S Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Proj.ect proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F , 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address 'It. LA OiJ ~ A",.( \ Ull \)0 I CJV'e .) qs(" £\.s~ 1S"'. MC-i+t S· hee~lIt~ IS _~~ lJt,t~v.l Dr!v ~\;Ll("Q l \l ~V~ (." \) d-LQ_>~ LCd~_ ( "{t\I.>\bf'HCr,:. c.. L~vJ I) iSIvD ("''''''\fI,''1, flvt. Email Phone ef <0 '-c) n~ ~ 62-8' t",Gr~j~\'\i(~('" 4)~e 1Q~~0'(l"L--1 ~)c) blL-(·-»)l-\ Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 El Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino ReaL We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approvaL Name Address Email Phone 1'1.C; -.#)<;) No ~ '~,v1 I ~:4Yv(k£dtl/l1i9c, 1~~~;C)c:L Hv-G 1322-27£$ .\f I:: . I ...v;"" 72"- \O-Ju-/ 3G J Petition in Support of the New Colle2e Terrace Centre Projiect , J proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real : We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Altots approval of the proposed New College Terrace Crntre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedl~ support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F , 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage offEI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully w~th the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustafuable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a · living roof. This is a df.1~elopment the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. 'I Name Address :iter 'lib / I '" Ut ,-fpR fJ.. 2 t/ /((:'::)4 / 1- /7 ~ 5.t?/7 Itt?' ;'c) p( c! 6vf/ j t~~u,1 0~ \\QX'<\<:::> \0'3 -; kJsL .~<-/ to ,-./!.,'. ~ /::;Jr/. ~ CUA I'Zfl: {~/.iljVV1\'\ SF Email ---" , Phone ., , I G')O 1,,1 r; 3-l~~) n , " /~1l L / L'Ii" I.·-J vr ,r.~.:> lr 7 7 . .<.... () g Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 El Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly suppor:t it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F GJ), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name Address Email Phone .-k~,~ 13;2.6 -~-j-6 , [33 Z E Q r.;/!l /4'i(.o 13 66'~ 8 c;S Z 8t:l ( ~ w I ~5""t,O.3 j &' .Q,t> / ~~ ~ 1-&-~6 ~L2-2.0 1/Y. AJf7 Tl2vYA Se~;c~lVA Afrctt(~1 z~ G'6,"b ~l4 S/'f;O (£1 (,w)~~0f~~!IT t:; Gil /-IM1At://<: (/I \6>0 7577 ?-O 7'(/? \ 1C.()~t') Petition in Support of the !few College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 El Camino Real We, the undersigned, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (Ij), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name ~ 314/ {~fvlt«/~ (j ~e Ei [;t:J£;frrI Email Phone -SF )1GJ)Qdrthl~d-f52to 'r I C ~~, iJ pP M C-. ct?(1 ~\ S~CoDi ( "3. 10 SA.d 1. t.e. (2 Ac ~J4N }vsel IE Bl1rJ¢4 Vv Ao L fU-Lf I 1\ ~~. ( . IS'S [..::.d?' q 1"_t-./() 6 ci I jy . II tdd C/q-l! J C; r- Cf~7 $'o£LAv£ F(E~ , err( If~ f'Pr I t tv fr I. 7 (cJ (;; /i:il!1/J J){JYV'- It IZ -7 )1!~ IYl £../'13 -6ALf-3 t:-/o 11 ~'8"6-lftSCJ G:,<;" (;, ,ak6 9Ctsf .?fC(::;' . ~ 2:-:;3 (GS-;IJ 3fl(-#'oz·/O 3)1c2S·~ t Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F Gj), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off EI Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approvaL Phone 1 VJc J' /Y V" ff I }-?!8 w ,~ (( (-t1M;0 ,1r 3/1 {/ {JC 'II/~/ .:;".rT-~~lo -A-1ID f\lTN· fl/ t0tf.,,~k;a O~"'JI I I ' -------l--I.tLteJ W\\ \ \(,"')15 ~oJo ~ ~ I~Uli tc~ Lcv--"<,v<' S'Y\Q d, i[,tJ. OeM~ I ~ "f{() Wi \ \ IIw\J rc;,\ 0 iA ( -tv r "'-~ U ~ i vi. ""c SVV'&! 1 LcwlW PUII\~ +!lfA Vo \ :i111 3 LJ//iiCif/l3 PJ; If!:to kmJu'vJG hotmot't co. Petition in Support of the New College Terrace Centre Project proposed at 2180 EI Camino Real We, the undersigned residents of the City of Palo Alto, urge the City of Palo Alto's approval of the proposed New College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real. We have reviewed the plans for the proposed project and we wholeheartedly support it and the benefits it will offer including a subsidized grocery store space for JJ&F (I), 14 Below Market Rate housing units, office and neighborhood-serving retail space to encourage local business, and a driveway and parking garage off El Camino Real to minimize neighborhood traffic. This village-style project blends gracefully with the College Terrace Neighborhood, is oriented close to alternative transportation, and offers many sustainable features including recycled and renewable materials, surface water capture and a living roof. This is a development the City can be proud of and we urge it's prompt approval. Name/Sianature Address Email (sf.) 0 I (Yj s k d ~d Apt-l \J 31 c h €.,.r bQ.ft-@s TO".)'"\ ~t){o\ edu ' ;M) ') r Y lX1./fJ (--; ~\)~C) iole Sf 1~iY\j-~';) I a \ 3 b W { \ 'j i IilmS s.l-, J. ~o s@ U);//!.~ [-r ~ 1:J<"ff} J t (I S /: 1COCT'DtJ \q \ (? \{i4({oll ,I))w- QWY tvw'\ ~d)J~(\ ~ VV\S\i\ rflO-(-\In t? . f<e \t c~c"-0 CJMo...l l. C6)'rl Phone 40t -"t-:r ( -~'i..4-8 (pbD 30:)-- u5c;Cj tP 5()- 8 SC:, (/-3 ~-D ONGOING COMMUNITY OUTREACH In the City of Palo Alto, proactive community outreach and information sharing is of paramount importance in the land-use decision-making process. Our team understands this and has undertaken an intensive effort to share our vision for the College Terrace Centre with as many local residents and businesses as possible. Through a series of community meetings, neighborhood and business information walks, and petition and letter gathering activities, we have secured a substantial level of tangible local support for our project. We are proud that the vast majority of people we contacted responded favorably to the proposal. The contents of this binder represent the culmination of our outreach work. In just one month, we have secured support for the College Terrace Centre Proposal from 530 area residents and businesses!! Supportive petition signatures from local residents -454 Letters of support from individual local residents -13 Letters of support from Palo Alto businesses close to project site -30 Letters of support from people who are patrons of Palo Alto businesses -33 Recent Outreach Meetings: College Terrace Residents Association Annual Meeting Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association Chamber of Commerce GAC (2) Palo Alto Housing Corporation PREVIOUS COMMUNITY OUTREACH Public Neighborhood Meetings for the Project: 5/10/2005 -At Project Site 10/18/2007 -Scott's Seafood 4/05/2008 -Ananda Church 9/17/2008 -CTRA Meeting Community Outreach Meetings: 5/11/2004 6/08/2004 7/07/2004 10/25/2004 Neighborhood Mailing: In the summer of 2008, the project team sent out a mailing to neighbors. The purpose of this effort was simply to gauge local support and understand concerns. While not a technical survey, a significant majority --in excess of 75% --expressed support for the project as submitted in the previous Planning and Transportation Commission preliminary review. PAHC Housing Services, LLC 725 Alma Street· Palo Alto, CA 94301 • (650) 321-9709 • fax (650) 321-4341 April 20, 2009 Planning and Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: College Terrace Centre Project Letter of Recommendation Dear Honorable Commission Members: Received APR' 0 2009 Department 01 Planning· & Community Environment The Palo Alto Housing Corporation, through its affiliate, P ABC Housing Services, LLC, hereby submits this letter of recommendation in support of the proposed planned community, College Terrace Centre, located at 2100 EI 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 omite 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, P ABC HOUSING SERVICES, LLC. An Affiliate of Palo Alto Housing Corporation o='~~ Jaejean~ 0- BMR fIousing Administrator ~nzalez Executive Director Susan Rosenberg ________________ 1425 Stanford Ave. April 23, 2009 To: Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Re: 2180 EI Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 Spawned by the Trees for EI Camino Project, and with a grant from Cal trans, the City of Palo Alto developed the EI 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 El Camino Real Design Master Plan should have bearing on your decision regarding this project. Briefly, the vision for EI Camino Real that was developed during this process of public participation is: -To change the character from a highway to a road safe for walkers. 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 College Terrace Residents' Association STATEMENT FROM THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION The Board of the College Terrace Residents' Association (CTRA) adopted the following statement regarding the proposed College Terrace Centre at 2180 El Camino Real on April 22, 2009. This statement is informed bya CfRA 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. 2 Dick & Karen Dami.an i' ,';. ,_',;" ~ _. ,.' r. '\ .' If: ... , 870 College' Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 April 3, 2009 Palo Alto City Council Members Members, Planning & Transportation Commission 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ATTACHMENT G APR 06 l009 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 o't 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. 2!~ Richard (Dick) Damian Karen S. Damian From: Magic Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2 PM To: planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: Reich, Russ Subject: JJ&F Block Project 1 October 2008 Dear Planning and Transportation Commissioners, I'm writing about the project proposed for the block currently occupied by JJ&F market. As someone who for three decades has lived nearby, been a JJ&F patron, and been active in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association, I've followed this project closely since I first learned of it several years ago. I'm heartened both by the changes you requested when the project was previously before you and by the proponents' response to your guidance. The addition of BMR housing in a location so near transit and services is a substantial improvement. So are the interruption of the buildings facing College and El Camino to create a less monolithic and massive structure, and the reduction in non-residential built area. I'm pleased that the developer has agreed to maintain a market on the site and has made a firm commitment to the owners of JJ&F that they can, if they choose, operate that market. I think the proposed relocation of the market to El Camino frontage will draw patrons from a larger area and that the wide sidewalk will create opportunity to extend the market into the open air and make it more attractive. Having reviewed the circulation and traffic impact assessments of the proposed project, as well as its "green" features (e.g., extensive photovoltaic arrays, north-facing clerestory daylighting, cisterns to capture storm water, reduced auto parking, secure bike parking) I think that it sets many positive examples for subsequent building along the El Camino corridor. I hope that you will agree. Thank you for considering these views. David Schrom From: Paula Sandas <paula_sandas@yahoo.com> To: planning.commission@dtyofpaloalto.org Sent: TuesdaYI April 281 2009 4:34:08 PM 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 Paulo Sondos poulo_sondas@yahoo.com From: LONERGAN <scobbin@sbcglobal.net> To: planning.commission@cityofpaloafto.org; board@ctra.org; input@2180ecrtaskforce.org Cc: letters@baydailypost.com; john@jjandf.com Sent: Saturday, May 2, 2009 12:00:01 PM Subject: 2180 EI Camino Real -Missed Opportunity Missed Opportunity To Keep Local Grocery Store &. Improve EI Camino Real The Palo Alto Planning Commission met on May 30th and voted to no longer consider a zoning change being requested as part of a project to rebuild the site of the JJ&F market. This was a missed opportunity to have possibly kept the JJ&F market in business and to have improved this tired section of EI Camino Real. One objection to the proposed project is that it has too much office space. I live in College Terrace, am not generally in favor of growth, but this issue of too much office space is a red herring. An important feature of the current zoning is that it requires retail space on the ground floor. The proposed project also includes retail on the ground floor plus a spot for the JJ&F grocery store. And yes, to go along with that it has more office space than the current zoning allows. Office space is bad for the neighborhood? Wait a minute, all along the California Avenue side of College Terrace we have many thousands of square feet of office space. I often work out of my home in College Terrace and walk to a California Avenue restaurant for lunch. I do this with many office workers who also walk to these same restaurants. Without these office workers, how can we have a vibrant retail area? The College Terrace residents eat like everyone else, but we can't support the retail space on our own. Offices also have the benefit of being largely empty on weekends and evenings so that us locals can have a quiet neighborhood when we are most at home to enjoy it. Have you walked to California Avenue for lunch mid-week or to the Sunday farmer's market? It's a great scene. Yes, office space brings traffic, but it brings in needed foot traffic too. I'm not suggesting a carte blanch zoning change for the entire area, but some flexibility on this particular project when a neighborhood grocery store is in balance is worth it. This is a great opportunity for JJ&F and improves EI Camino Real. This section of EI Camino Real is close to Stanford housing and the wonderful College Terrace neighborhood. It has great potential, but today, much of this section of EI Camino is run-down and not well integrated with California Avenue retail. Not only does the proposed project improve this section of EI Camino Real, but provides a great opportunity to JJ&F. JJ&F is, I have been told, struggling to stay afloat financially with declining sales. It is a small friendly neighborhood-oriented grocery store, in an inefficient space, that is largely hidden from EI Camino Real. As a result, their business is much less than it could be. The proposed redevelopment project provides a grocery store with a slightly larger space than the current JJ&F store, and moves it to a more visible location on EI Camino Real. It also provides the grocery store with 'subsidized' rent by incorporating office space as part of the overall prOject. This looks to be the best chance for JJ&F. There are no guarantees that JJ&F or any other grocery store can make it in this location financially, but at least this redevelopment tips the scales in their favor. The alternatives don't. Either (1) there is no near-term redevelopment and JJ&F sales continue to decline to the point where they have to close their doors after 60 years or (2) the owners rebuild the block consistent with the current zoning that most certainly will not include a low-revenue neighborhood grocery store. The proposed project has insufficient space for a neighborhood grocery store? The Garcia's don't think so and they are the ones running the business -so I would trust their judgment more than the Planning Commission. Also, I thought we were aiming to keep a neighborhood grocery store? Another large grocery store like Mollie Stones is not needed in the area so I believe the point about there not being enough space for the grocery store is misguided. So congratulations to the Planning Commission and others that have opposed the zoning change. You have just shot down the best chance we have to keep JJ&F, a true neighborhood grocery store, as well as improve this section of EI Camino Real with what looks to be a quality project brought to us by long-term owners with long-term interests. Maybe JJ&F will now close its doors due to the delays and lack of opportunity that a new store would provide. Who would fill the space then? Maybe the property will be sold to a short-term profit-oriented developer and give us another drive through fast-food restaurant -surely that would fit the current zoning ... To the Planning Commission and others opposing this project for the benefit of the neighborhood and the city -please reconsider your thinking and decision. Scott Lonergan 2090 Cornell St. From: LONERGAN [mailto:scobbin@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 6:11 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 proposed 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. Anna. Pankhauser Brnest Regua 567 Oxford Ave. Palo Alto, Ca.., 94306 Palo Alto City Councll Members . Members, Planning &: Tnmspo~on Commission 250 Hatnilwn Avenue Palo Alto, Ca., 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council and. Planning &, Transportation Commissioners, As residints in the College Terrace neighborhood and JJ It P Store, we are wri.tJns to support the CoU. Terrage Center plaas. We are p1eese<t to see that the new facilities for the JJ &. P Store will brina. our ueigbborhtod and the City ofPato Alto a larger assorI.Trient of non-cha.1n deli specialties. ftesh local. products and a variet;y· of food. We Qherish this family owned businesst S$ they have always supported our oommunity. They have been a valued member of the businesses on California Ave. The store is loved by families, students, louatlme iesldents. schools, businesses and office$. We ate also pleased. to see the 14 One-bedroolll housing1mits rented at affordable xates, which wi)] be an enric1unent to OUt' nei&hborhood. The green-village ~le development design with living roof and LIlED certification is sa Unl'ottant step in the direction of sreen building. The new office space'Mll provIde the surrounding neighborhoods with new customers, which we all welcome during these challenging economic times. Thank you for aU your efforts to briua an improved. value to OUt neighbothood and cammuni~. We hope yOli witJ pas, the project at the fonnal.pproval ~g on Wednesday, April 29, 2009. From: Jfmcd@aol.com [mailto:Jfmcd@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 1:19 PM To: TOHV, LLC Subject: Re: JJ&F Market I College Terrace Centre -WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!! we, our family that is, has shopped at JJ&F for about 30 years, and think of them as one of the great community resources in Palo Alto. It is a marvelous grocery store, but beyond that, they are folks who care. We would feel lost without them, and we are in support of the effort to keep them there when a new building goes up. Jeanne McDonnell and Eugene McDonnell ************** Check all of your email inboxes from anywhere on the web. Try the new Email T oolbar now! (http://toolbar.aol.com/mail/download.html?ncid=txtlnkusdown00000027) From: Larry Kavinoky (mailto:lkavinoky0{stanfordalumnLorg] Sent: Sunday, April 26,20099:16 PM To: Planning Commission Subject: 2180 EI Camino (aka 11 &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 your staff, not the current 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 benchmark. 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 11&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 11&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 "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 from: Ann Hayashi [mailto:ann_hayashi@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 29,20099:54 AM To: TOHV, LLC Cc: russ.reich@cityofpaloalto.org 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 of faceless 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, TORV, LLC <info@210011c.com>wrote: From: TOHV, LLC <info@210011c.com> Subject: RE: JJ&F Market / College Terrace Centre -WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!! To: "ann _ hayashi@yahoo.comll <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 Planninq.Commission@CitvofPaloAlto.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!! rm unable to attend the meeting but would love to send a support emaiL Could you send me the link? Thanks, Ann From: Karlette Warner [mailto: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 Planning Commission: 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 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F costumers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic time~. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: ~~~~~~~--~---------------------------------- Signature: , Business an' Add {-:'J!~, P h::a::) 54 r< 520 Co Ik"ie A0::. V ~ri: 7 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: };> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent };> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates };> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F };> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block };> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue };> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification };> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F costumers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic time~. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: L--l::) A Q. \A \ 0 \LS L-L.. 0 Signature: L ./(\A_~~o Business and Address: QLA vLC)CJ.[C1e..AA.. a~\S LA to-(\t\..~A.O~ fa.Qo~-\z . Q~ Phone number and email: (lp2D".)3.l1.9 ~~lo--::t ~ Cit{ tole Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and· operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: };> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent };> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates };> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F };> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block };> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue };> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification };> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F costumers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that. the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: bte.1AA ~ ,J \ ( Signature: ~1\,C'>."""7 .. Business and Address: ~buclrz b CO©..e ..... Phone number and email: (p 5:b -D:;YV -<6 [ 'd::-~ e2Dco [~L ~l> SWVI0 t1\vQ)~, Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: » JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent » 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates » Office space that will fund the new 11 &F » New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block » Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue » Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification » Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: ~Jc q"'D.>cClD. ~ Signature: .!~ Business and Address: {cr & S <it c t.l';,A4,s)V\Jl) )t ~ Phone number and email: ---I-r.t;~sn~-1t...s..L.J.,~c:t.1------<%FL.9---l-*-C)+Oy------- Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new 11 &F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );> Green village~style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuabl~ new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: -4~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~------------------- Signature: ---------------,1---7'--1--1-.------------------------- Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: » JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent » 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates » Office space that will fund the new JJ&F » New neighborhood serving retail to en1iven the block » Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue » Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification » Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: £~ GZo.-.. B -edz ~V' Signature: _--lI~_Ctt.:::...:::....~~_"-~=--'" ~ __ ~~~==-----=-_~ ______ _ Business and Address: Ca fY\ VY\ () Y\. 6«) ~ Phone number and email: ~e0S~L!~ rz:~~ (~~~ CP JQ) M~ CA--9l{ 3 ()£ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ &F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: --~~~~~~--~~----~----~T-------------------- Signature: ------I-~...(.£.~::;z:.--1::.-~--..!<:...;'_"'=__=_l£...ji::....::...=__l______.,f__----------- Business and Address: __ ~~UL~~~~~L-_~ __ ~~ _______________ _ Phone number and email: ----~---~------~--~~------------------ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: }o> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent }o> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates }o> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F }o> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block }o> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue }o> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification }o> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Signature: _~ ___ ....::....,_,.,t.llid~I.4(&nt~=-__ ==-____ ----I..'3+.1.;z...:J..t...II-c~Lt>-10-,-q.f---- Business and Address: _-t.SL.ljL01..J...l.f>\."t.:.JFO:tI-·~'{),),.,.ID~-1<~~E ...... :fJ"-!..\.LlJ--LI':f....L----,-"<!U-l1r.....,lJ:=l...OL..l.tJ-=---__ _ Phone number and email: \ rI n> <6:£ g --~(~&~5D~i~3~2~~~~~~~~~--~------------ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );;> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );;> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );;> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );;> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );;> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );;> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );;> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importarltly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F costumers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic time~. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Business and Address: _c<.~1._5_I5_Et_t._&_yr;-,-,-I,,-P-,,-tJ_~-,--,-,f1;,--i ___ KiJ._W_:6:_-r_I%---=--~_ Phone number and email: ~50 3;?6 -IOil --~---------------------------------------- Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and imprOVed consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. PrintedName@foJ)A~ Signature: & a Business and Address: ~lq; r;-( C({ VY\ \' (\() Phone number and email: ra r;;cJ ~ 11-)-tt ~W Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 E1 Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );;> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );;> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );;> Office space that will fund the new JJ &F );;> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );;> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );;> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );;> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Signature: fA) F-&t -- Business and Address: 2.3. 0 S ~ E I CO'.'.';(\(1 15,C!\ l [W~ ') Phone numberand email(fa £ 0) 130 -II 'i ~ ti [ l r. K: It: @. WoM.oa>· CO "'" Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: » JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent » 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates » Office space that will fund the new JJ&F » New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block » Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue » Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification » Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F costumers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic time~. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Phone number and email: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );;> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );;> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );;> Office space that will fund the new JJ &F );;> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );;> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );;> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );;> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from 11 &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: __ ~'""'"-""~_=-_/_~ t{j;u;t-___ -={)~_r_tJ__/_~'· __________ _ Signature: d :::=::> 1z1.. ~ ':5 6 rtJo «-13 A-i3 f}Js 'Ilts -Ctii/jy,/ q J/-;!e· Business and Address: Phone number and email: bSD--3CJ.FI-O-TOO ) Z-'-'1..sbb @~rna~ h (j)1V\ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ? JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ? 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ? Office space that will fund the new 11 &F ? New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ? Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ? Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ? Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to corne. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new horne occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Signature: ____ -'\::5~~=--..;::=~ __ \.___'/___' ______________ _ Business and Address: Cef'( A17l eg \(..A Phone number and email: &>50· 5"6 b ·034-4 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: };;> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent };;> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates };;> Office space that will fund the new JJ &F };;> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block };;> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue };;> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification };;> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. printedName:~ lli<:~<- Signature: -----zv--~~jI2:-~------------------------ Business and Address: a \ j ~?.('.d::) ~~~,~~~~~~--------------- Phone number and email: GE () --W c:---G [ (l Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will aHow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from J J &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. ~ /_ ~' A~" Printed Name: ~ ~ / (i '/ --~~--~~~-o~~~----~~--~--~~~~--------- Signature: /!?d wJ Ii i2-;U (' 11' IrrJ ( rp Business and Address: :r-LfJ..)' 6v J'?!b 5~ 'r> P""t \).v'~(t~ Phone number and email: _--",,6_· :.wdL-:-.'11L-----!.../ ..... i'-'l--q~· _#---__________ _ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new 11&F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow 11&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from 11 &F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: \J '~CAo', ){. A t~« (e-L Signature: ~ Business and Address: __ lr{--'--=O:....::::S~~C=U~ll_-h~O_._, '1.~~_~ __ ~G:;...V=-L-==-___ C{_'-{_~_O b Phone number and email: --------------------------------------------- Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: » 11 &F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent » 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates » Office space that will fund the new 11&F » New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block » Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue » Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification » Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow 11&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy_ In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: ~~~~~~~~~~~~~--------------------------- Signature: ~-==7Lf---H----Al..--w."-f->4:'£------------------------ Phone number and email: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: » JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent » 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates » Office space that will fund the new JJ &F » New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block » Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue » Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification » Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: -I-\::!P~~!s;2,rA--\-4¥~~~~------------- Signature: -~v-----=:::=-....,;z...-'::::='~'-\--lt...£...._--------'----------- 2~ C~ Y:>'rc<::.e'<\ S;-t Phone number and email: ((Q()6) 12"22.\ B t Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 El Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ):> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ):> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ):> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ):> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ):> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ):> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ):> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to corne. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Signature: ------>-.!-''---''i='----'~:::::=>-...f-~---------------- Business and Address: _-L==~~~~~_~~~_~~ ___ ~~~ __ _ ~~oo~~~~:~_~~~_~~ ______ ~_._-_n __ V_u_a_~,~ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ &F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: T ''!'C~L/, ~ c ) Signature: ---~...,L,H-f~~r--~------.I/-H-'/_-~---L ____________ --:-__ Business and Address: <£0 ri {wll; [:;to N { /Iv zJt ell fftJ/rJl CJ 1-t Phone number and email: ------------------------ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Business and Address: Phone number and email: (Q9)-3"2-2-2)0:1 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new 11 &F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to corne. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the offiCe users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: \/'VJ'CENT ~~~ Signature: ----I-,--f1=-±-...D>----1< ~rJ----===~---.-------V Business and Address: M 0(1 \Lt \(4JJ6--1I-R 0-0 Phone number and email: 6S".tP1l1;:. ?.. s-iz.s:- Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block » Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family busin.ess would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F costumers, the office users and new home occupants ofthe College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for . our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic time$. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: • ----, fI Signature: ~ ~ -Q~:~ .. ..,-" --:'I <:--L f . () /} i rn (1.-eft Business and Address:, . d-·:a;o-v 'C \ Lh VI .. 'l \. v ... o IYvt-L r c.J.d L..t W Phone number and email: (950 -«l :l:-;t JO 0 Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block );> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F costumers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Signature: __________ ~.:..l...~----------------- Business and Address: ___ 0sS>=-·_~L_l_~...:...{ S-+I---=-/rJJ_' _5_E_L_C_A_f/l_IM_O...:.../J=~...:...L=--_ C', 6\J\V~ C;:£> LL~ ~, ~' Phone number and email: ...:::::>....,) L--.J ----~------------~r------ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ 11&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new 11 &F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow 11&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from 11&F costumers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: ~, ect\(. Wv Signature: ~ Business and Address: Wv DA..n{oOQtJ'flC'$, 13 ~5 ~L. CAMlt\lo fU:;f}L fAlA1 A£:ilJ CI-\ '1 +Jut I Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new JJ&F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F costumers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic time~. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Signature: __ ~ __ ~:::~=====~=::::.Z:::..::::==-___________ _ Business and Address: ReJ{boy UOvi"':f:» Phone number and email: m ) ::;. ~ c) -lyO / Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: );> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent );> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates );> Office space that will fund the new JJ&F );> New neighborhood serving retail to t?nIiven the block );> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue );> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification );> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F costumers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic time$. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Signature: _-I-f_~_· _~_--=--~ __ ~. ~ ____________ _ Phone number and email: ~~'O -'?1,....~ /~ 3. S? ,g Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: )P> JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent )P> 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates )P> Office space that will fund the new JJ &F )p> New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block )p> Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue )p> Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification )p> Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Name: Business and Address: ~~-fo 1M C I Phone number and email: C('2r Ave") /?£ ~-6 S-'t<-Jt'hzj (i! le~~-6. (~ Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Planning and Transportation Commission Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council and Planning and Transportation Commission: We the undersigned Palo Alto businesses wholeheartedly support the proposed College Terrace Centre project at 2180 EI Camino Real (between College and Oxford Streets) and we urge speedy approval by the City of Palo Alto. As local business owners and operators, we know that this development will greatly enhance the business viability of this vital commercial corridor. The benefits it will bring include the following: ~ JJ&F Market expanded and improved consistent with the Garcias' preferences at a subsidized rent ~ 14 one-bedroom housing units rented at affordable rates ~ Office space that will fund the new J J &F ~ New neighborhood serving retail to enliven the block ~ Approximately $700,000 in annual local tax revenue ~ Green village-style development design with living roof and LEED (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) certification ~ Comprehensive traffic, parking, transit, bicycle and pedestrian program to ensure optimal circulation, safety and enjoyment Perhaps most importantly, this project will allow JJ&F Market and the Garcias to continue operations for years to come. For Palo Alto to lose this treasured family business would be a tragedy. In addition to continued business from JJ&F customers, the office users and new home occupants of the College Terrace Centre will provide many valuable new customers for our neighborhood businesses in challenging economic times. For the reasons outlined above, we fully endorse this project and formally request that the City of Palo Alto approve the College Terrace Centre as quickly as possible so that construction can begin. It is a development we need now, and one that will serve us well in the future. Printed Nameo ~ ~~_=~~I Signarure:)J2 ~ Business and Address: ~L 1 d yt-~ OfF / fIJI U. 9Lf;J0'2 7 7 Phone number and email: <f ~o -~~ I-~ / ~. , ( College Terrace Centre Received JUl ' 8 2009 July 13, 2009 & Dcepartm~ntofPlann;ng ommun.tyE . nVlronment By Twenty-One Hundred Ventures, LLC. COLLEGE TERRACE CENTRE July 8,2009 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council c/o City Clerk 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301-2593 Re: College Terrace Centre Project, 2180 EI Camino Real--Initiation of (1) a Zone Change from Neighborhood Commercial (CN) to Planned Community (PC) District and (2) a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to assign the Mixed Use land use designation to the project site which is currently designated Neighborhood Commercial Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: We would like to begin by thanking your for the opportunity to present the College Terrace Centre project on the evening of Monday, July 13th • Given the significant detail and extensive history associated with this project we are providing this brief overview to facilitate productive dialogue as well as summarize our activities to date. We thank you in advance for your consideration and the opportunity to discuss our project. History of the Site The College Terrace Centre project site consists of an entire City block fronting EI Camino Real and bounded by College Ave. staunton ct., and Oxford Ave. The current owner, the Clara Chilcote Family Trust (liThe Family Trust"), has owned the site for over 80 years and has a more than 60 year working relationship with the Garcia Family, the owners of the beloved JJ&F Market which remains a retail anchor tenant on the block and is a past recipient of the City's Tall Tree Award. Based on this long and mutually beneficial relationship, approximately five years ago the Family Trust and JJ&F entered into discussions on how to: 1) improve the viability and func"tional workings of the grocery store, 2) provide increased sales area for the grocery store, 3) increase the visibility of the grocery store on EI Camino Real, and 4) provide a long term, affordable lease opportunity to JJ&F for its continued operation. Through a series of study sessions with JJ&F, City Staff and community members, our architect, Tony Carrasco, drafted designs to improve this block with the goal of meeting the expressed desires of all the various stake holders. In November 2005 we proposed that a total of 66,946 SF of new improvements be cons"tructed --in addition to retaining 6,459 SF of the current grocery store. The resulting project was proposed at a total 73,405 SF. However, it soon became obvious that retaining the existing JJ&F building was infeasible due to seismic retrofit requirements, other code requirements, ano renovation costs. Current Proposal After several more meetings with stakeholders and following additional plan revisions and submittals, we submitted the current mixed-use plan for consideration on September 10,2008. The College Terrace Cen"tre project now totals 61,960 SF and includes an all new 8,000 SF grocery plus 2,400 SF of outdoor market space, 5,580 SF of additional ground floor retail, 14 below market rate ("BMR") rental units (totaling 8,400 SF at 600 SF each) and 39,960 SF of office. Over 28% of the newly designed project is dedicated to public benefit space including guaranteed, subsidized space for a neighborhood-serving grocery store aJ71d BMR rental units. Please note that if directed by the City Council and in response to "the ongoing request of the Planning & Transporta"tion Commission members, we would be willing to agree to (1) eliminate 6 BMR units in order to reduce the overall square footage of the project, allow potential future expansion of the grocery, and reduce parking demand; and (2) reduce the office square footage by up to 1000 SF. These changes are discussed in more detail in the section below entitled "Responses to Requested Project Adjustments." Grocery store Rent Subsidy and Space Dedication The current design now establishes the grocery operation in a prominent EI Camino Real location and provides a 75% increase in sales floor area (from 5,250 SF to approximately 9,000 SF). This design and size compares favorably with Country Sun, Robert's Market in Portola Valley, Robert's Market in 2 Woodside, Bianchinni's Market in Portola Valley, Emerald Hills Market in Emerald Hills and Trader Joe's in Menlo Park as shown on Exhibit-l. Early in the process, it became abundantly clear that JJ&F -or any other neighborhood grocery operation --could not afford market rent in a Palo Alto location (as evidenced in the article attached as Exhibit-2 summarizing the city cornrnissioned Retail Background Report which concludes that the city's unmet need for grocery stores could justify an additional 133,600 SF of additional grocery store space). This factor prompted the present design which includes sufficient office space to generate a rental subsidy, allowing JJ&F to remain. To provide the assurance of economic viability for a grocery operator, the project necessarily must include an income generator. In this instance, the generator takes the form of the office component of the project, which is expected to generate rents at an approximate 3:1 ratio to the subsidized grocery operation. As evidenced in the legally binding letter of intent attached as Exhibit-3 (redacted only to preserve the confidentiality of the rental rates for business competition reasons), the Family Trust is unconditionally bound to offer JJ&F a right of first refusal to lease the proposed grocery store space at a subsidized rental rate for an initial minimum term of 10 years and a maximum initial term of 30 years at JJ&F's sole option. To ensure the economic long term viability of a grocery operator on the project site, the Family Trust has offered to record a deed restriction that would dedicate the proposed grocery store space --and a rent subsidy for that space for the life of the improvements This assurance, coupled with the expanded business opportunities generated by the new location, an increased customer base from the adjacent planned residential developments and the proximity of new office workers are together expected to provide strong growth opportunities and business stability. Project Design Revisions During our five year process, we have solicited feedback and guidance from all interested parties willing and available to meet with us. These exchanges have generated numerous design changes, project revisions and use changes. In addition, the project, as now proposed, provides vehicular access from EI Camino Real to reduce traffic impacts in the College Terrace neighborhood. 3 The project design and components submitted to you today incorporate the major alterations requested in our Community and internal meetings. These include, but are not limited to: • Relocate the main driveway from staunton Avenue to EI Camino Real (pending Cal Trans approval, which cannot be initiated until the environmental analysis under CEQA is complete) • Keep building heights in line with existing CN zoning in the residential arc • Locate the residential portion of the project adjacent to existing neighborhood residential properties • All commercial components of the project are contiguous with other commercial properties and uses • Remove a park setting on the corner of staunton Court and Oxford pursuant to the neighborhood's request • Redesign the architectural theme to create a "village style" project • Substantial pedestrian access to the block and all retail locations • Bicycle parking in excess of code requirements • Abundant parking capacity on the site • A repositioned project that mirrors Palo Alto's CN design criteria (as discussed in more detail below). • A mixed use design that is in concert with the Grand Boulevard vision for EI Camino Real • Walkability and transit orientation that encourages fewer vehicle trips and the use of proximate public transportation • Economic stimulus to existing businesses in the California Avenue Business District • Additional retail and office uses on EI Camino Real that anchor and support the California Avenue Business Distri~t • Project is in keeping with SB 375, the California Legislature's bill to promote transit oriented development in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobile transit. • Compatibility with the development expected to result from the planned expansion of the PTOD. Project Complies With Existing CN Zoning Context-Based Design Criteria 4 The project complies wi"th the existing CN zoning context-based design criteria (set forth in Section 18.16.090 of the City's Municipal Code) via the following elements and features; • Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment is created by providing walkability and connectivity 'from transit to shopping, work and residences. • Street Facades are detailed to provide a strong relationship with each street 'frontage. • Massing and Setbacks and Low-Density Residen"tial Transitions have been complied with by carefully modulating "the scale of the buildings. • Project Open Space consists of private and public open space designed for use by residents, visitors and employees at the site. • Parking Design includes 95% of the parking located below grade, so as not to detract from the pedestrian environment. Primary parking access is 'from EI Camino Real in response to community and Planning & Transportation Commission input. • Large site criteria has been applied in the design, providing physical and visual connectivity throughout the site, using a hierarchy of public and private spaces, and employing a diversity of building types. • Sustainability and Green Building Design are key elements in the LEED Silver design, including photovoltaic panels, a vegetated roof, on-site stormwater management, use of nontoxic materials, and natural daylighting. Public Benefits Provided Over 28% of the project comprises public benefits, which include; • Guaranteed space for a neighborhood serving grocery store for the life of the improvements. • 10 BMR rental units (in addition to the construction of 4 BMR units for which an in-lieu fee would otherwise be required by the City) • At least two car share vehicles for use by the public Responses to Requested Project Adjustments by the Planning & Transportation Commission • Eliminate the BMR Units 5 According to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, BMR Units in Palo Alto are in high demand and low supply. Our proposed one-bedroom units will provide housing for an underserved section of the market (as evidenced by the letter from Palo Alto Housing Corporation attached as Exhibit-6). We believe this is an invaluable public benefit that should not be removed. However, as discussed below we would be willing to eliminate 6 of the BMR units at the direction of the Council to accommodate a potential future grocery store expansion as requested by the Planning & Transportation Commission. • Reduce the Office Component The community's primary request throughout this process has been the retention of a neighborhood-serving, full service grocery store. The cost to provide a grocery shell including land, development costs and hard costs is approximately $800/SF. Per industry standards, small, non- chain grocery operators cannot pay more than $2.50/SF for NNN rent. Therefore, the proposed office component is needed, to subsidize the inclusion of a grocery operator in the project. While any reduc1"ion in the proposed office space would substantially weaken the economic viability of the project, in response to Planning & Transportation Commission's concern regarding the office density, we are prepared to agree to reduce the office component by up to 1000 SF at the Council's direction. • Allow for Expansion of the Grocery JJ&F, which has successfully operated a full service grocery for 60 years, explicitly requested the proposed grocery space square footage and has stated that it does not want additional space beyond the current design. Furthermore, industry trends indicate that the space as designed is in line with new stores being built in California and throughout the United States. This is supported by letters attached as Exhibit-4 from Bristol Farms and Emerald Hills Market -two other grocery operators -indicating that they would gladly pursue a tenancy in the proposed grocery space in the event that JJ&F decides to close its doors. However, if the City determines that expansion potential for a larger store is necessary, this could be accomplished by the elimination of 6 of the BMR Units at the corner of Staunton ct. and Oxford Ave.. (Note, however, that the additional square footage would not be subsidized, nor would JJ&F be willing to lease it). • Eliminate the Park at Oxford and staunton 6 This design element was removed at the request of the Planning and Transportation Commission and in response to comments from College Terrace residents. However, if the City Council directs us to remove the 6 BMR units to allow for expansion potential of the grocery store (as discussed above), the park could be ternporarily reinstituted in place of the 6 BMR units until this space is ultimately developed. • Provide Adeq uate Parking As discussed in Exhibit-5, a memorandum prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., the project provides more than adequate parking and satisfies the City's parking code requirements. Note that if the underlined changes above are made at the direction of the Council, parking demand would be significantly reduced and the project would be substantially over-parked. • Construct For-Sale, Market Rate Residential Condominium Units as Replacement for Omitted Office Square Footage to Help to Subsidize the Grocery Market. The Family Trust has held the property for over 80 years. The trustee family members consider this ownership a legacy that they are morally and legally obligated to continue. Under the terms of the Family Trust, the sale of the property -or any portion of the property -is prohibited (much like the sale of property held by Stanford University is prohibited by the terms of its trust). Therefore, substituting for-sale condo units for office space square footage is not an acceptable option. In addition, construction of for-sale residential units runs contrary to the stated desires of the community and the Planning and Transportation Commission. Such units would add to the drain on public services, impact schools and increase parking demands and traffic impacts as, for purposes of marketability, they would be necessarily larger than the proposed one bedroom units. • Change the "Monolithic" Design Facing EI Camino Real and Reduce the Massing of the Project This request has been addressed in the new 'village style' design, with increased articulations of the retail and office buildings, increased set backs, a reduction in building heights, and the relocation of the driveway to EI Camino Real. The project has also been designed to searrllessly meld with the College Terrace neighborhood, stitching the seams of all proposed uses to contiguous like existing uses in the 7 neighborhood (Le., residential faces residential and commercial faces commercial). • Build a CN Compliant Project and then Add a Grocery This request represents a financially infeasible project alternative. While the total project created under this suggested scenario would have a larger floor-area-ratio ("FAR") than the one we propose, it is not economically viable as it would require 50% of the project (less the grocery) -or approximately 25,000 SF --to be residential. As stated above, the incremental office portion of the project is needed to offset the subsidized rent requirements of JJ&F and cannot be made up with the addition of residential space. Furthermore, residents of the College Terrace neighborhood have made clear that they would not welcome more residences on the project site. • Conduct More Public Outreach In response to this request, and as discussed in more detail in the enclosed binder in your council packet, we have conducted a series of public outreach sessions in the neighboring communities. In addition, we have walked the College Terrace neighborhood, met with owners of local businesses and gathered more that 500 signatures in support of the project as designed. We have also received letters of support (attached as Exhibit-6) from the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, and other prominent members of the community including David Shrom of Magic, Inc. and Susan Rosenberg, a board member of the College Terrace Residents Association. Conclusion For over five years and at great expense, the owners of the proposed College Terrace Centre, the developn1ent team and the owners of JJ&F Market have worked diligently to respond to the desires of the community and arrive at the application before you. Our application offers a forward-thinking, village-style development that retains a beloved neighborhood-serving, full-service grocery store (which may be lost to the City of Mountain view if this project is not initiated as evidenced in Exhibit-7). Our project also implements SB 375 by providing this much needed community service within a walkable distance of alternative transit and residential neighborhoods, thus reducing greenhouse gas emissions generated by automobiles. In addition, it complies with Palo Alto's 8 vision of EI Camino Real --and regional plans for this Grand Boulevard --by offering a transit-oriented, smart-growth, mixed-use, LEED silver, in-fill development that would revitalize a deteriorating and visually prominent block fronting EI Camino Real. We respectfully ask that you approve our request to initiate our PC rezoning application, allowing us to officially begin the City's consideration process starting with a public hearing before the Architectural Review Board. We understand that an affirmative vote by the City Council at this stage does not bless or approve any aspect of the project; it simply allows Palo Alto to carefully consider our application over the coming months. 9 Sincerely, Its: Managing Member cc: Jim Keenel City Manager Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager Curtis Williams, Interim Planning Director Russ Reich, Planner Camas J. Steinmetz, Esq. Robin B. Kennedy, Esq. Enclosed Exhibits: 20218219.1 Exhibit;..l: Exhibit-2~ Exhibit~3: Exhibit·4 : Exhihit-5: Exhibit-6: Exhibit-7: Groce'ryStore SF Cornparables Palo Alto Weekly Article SummarizIng Retail Background Report . Lette r of I nte nt Bristol Farrns letter Emerald HilTs Market letter Hexagon Traffic Consults Memo Letter from World Centric Chamber of Commerce letter ' Palo Alto Housing Corporation letter David Shrom letter Susan Rosenberg letter Scott Lonergan letter Letter from: GarCia Family to City Of Mountain View Letter from City of Mountain View to Garcia Family Daily Post Article 8 COMPARABLE STORE SIZES JJ&F Sales Floor Area Current Proposed Sales Floor Area AND TRENDS 5,200 SF 9,000 SF Approximate Sales floor Area of Nearby Comparable Markets County Sun Palo Alto 5,250 SF Robert's Market Woodside 6,300 SF Emerald Hills Market Emerald Hills 8,000 SF Robert's Market Portola Valley 8,640 SF Bianchinni's Portola Valley 9,360 SF Trader Joes's Menlo Park 10,000 SF Approximate Gross Floor Area of National Chain Markets Fresh & Easy 13,969 SF Wal-Mart Market Side 15,000 SF 7-11 2,200 SF 20216695.1 Uploaded: Friday, May 15,2009,9:30 AM Report: Dearth of grocery stores in Palo Alto But city's department stores, restaurants continue to attract shoppers from throughout the region by Gennady Sheyner Palo Alto Weekly Staff Palo Alto may be a regional Mecca for high-end fashion and classy restaurants, but local neighborhoods are suffering from an acute shortage of grocery stores, car dealerships and gas stations, a new report has found. The study, released this week by Walnut Creek-based consulting firm Applied Development EconomiCS, analyzes Palo Alto's retail conditions and confirms what many local residents, commuting shoppers and developers have long known or suspected --that residents often cross the city line to fill their grocery bags. The report finds that the city's unmet demand for grocery stores could justify 133,600 square feet of additional grocery-store space in Palo Alto, the equivalent of two major, full-service supermarkets or four smaller markets. The new grocery stores would have the potential to attract about $64 million in consumer spending. The report also found that Palo Alto households spend almost $303 million annually at retail stores outside Palo Alto. This "sales leakage" could potentially support 41 new retait establishments, the report states, and bring in about $215 million in annual sales. Other store categories with significant retail leakage, the report stated, are home-improvement stores, car dealerships and used-merchandise stores. For developers, the biggest obstacle to bringing a large grocery store to the city is the dearth of space. John McNellis, a major developer whose projects include the recently approved Alma Plaza, said a typical 60,000- square-foot supermarket requires about 6 acres of land --an amount that's hard to come by in Palo Alto. And given the magnitude of the current economic recession, luring even smaller stores presents a major challenge to local developers. McNellis, who is required to bring a 20,OOO-square-foot grocery store to Alma Plaza before he could build other portions of the project, said he expects the search for a grocer to take a year or longer. McNellis characterized Palo Also as a "Fort Apache" when it comes to supermarkets. Though large grocery stores abound just outside Palo Alto, giving local residents plenty of shopping options, few supermarkets can penetrate the city border. "It's like Palo Alto has a fence around it and all the retailers, if theywant to be in Palo Alto, are right outside this fence," McNellis said. Though this trend diverts sales-tax revenues to other cities and forces residents to commute to other towns for their groceries, it also has several benefits for Palo Alto, McNellis said. Most notably, the lack of bulky, boxy stores makes Palo Alto a more pleasant place to work and live in, he said. The new report acknowledges the challenges of finding space for supermarkets, but also emphasizes other benefits of neighborhood grocers. The new supermarkets would not only allow shoppers to spend their money in Palo Alto but would also inspire other businesses to open up shop. Conversely, recent closures of Albertson's supermarkets at Alma Plaza and Edgewood Plaza "eroded grocery store spending in Palo Alto and contributed to the loss of other retail stores at those shopping centers," the report states. "Because grocery stores typically serve as anchors for local-serving shopping centers, this shortfall also paints to unmet demand for other locally oriented establishments that currently goes into neighboring communities," the report states. The subject of grocery-store retention is expected to resurface on June 1, when the City Council is scheduled to hear a developer's proposal for College Terrace Centre. The new analysis also emphasizes Palo Alto's major retail strengths, particularly in department stores and restaurants. The downtown district and Stanford Shopping Center will continue to boost the city's retail figures, even as the luxury-goods market takes its knocks from the worldwide economic slump. These two shopping areas, the report states, represent assets that surrounding communities cannot readily replicate. "Currently, the lUxury retailing market is most vulnerable, but also represents Palo Alto's greatest strength," the report states. ~ i ~ t, , I t-I I ! I i J I ! Mr. John fJ~t9ia c/o JJ&:PMarket 2100EI C}an)inQ Re.a1 PalQ AhQ,Californla94036 The Chilcotc'Trust c/o Twenty:-Dne Hundred Ventures) lJ ... C 274 Redwo()d Shores Parkway. # 202 RedWo(jd City,CaHfornia94065 August 30) 2008 This]e;tter,oated a~~ofA:o,g~$t 3(), 2008~constitutes a '~Letteroftntentn ,by and between TheClulCbteirust·f''Trust'tl. 'asownererthatcenain :block Iocaterlin the City of Palo Alto, COUflt)"Qf ~at1t~rClar~1$t~t,e' O~·Ca1ifQtl1ia,.o:t1 whichthe.cnrte.'rlt JJ&F Marketis locat(!d{the ~'1l1(l¢.k'?~~$y0t! ateaw~et tb~1;~stil)t~l1d~Joq~m()1ish .~lofthee~jstini improvements on the 13T(;}~k ,and.torep]acet1mmwithJtcmixedretailf residential.·and Qffice,,cmnple~caUed '·QQl1~ge Terrace '~entre~)) AS'~Quarea1$p'aw~C~.i~~heC.ity ,of]?alo Alt{},C'"City") appri1ves.·the Trust';s appnqatiotrtole..;z,onefb~<QlockftQtn ·eN (ne*ghhoin(}()d'cQlnrnel'cial) to 'PC (pIMned CQ.ntJlJ:llni~Y.)iColl~geTett~ce~~~trewnl B~abl¢to -and,. w'lUprovide · .• a com,mitmentt<ttbe City f()r,-·jtlQl\l~j(;)njntbe.Q¢ye~QPti1~ntof.,a:n:cighqorhoQd..,gerYing;gr()cerystore·(a.(·G~o¢e.ryHl,~of the typeandqu~t1ity .. currently:bcing'ollerated by JJ ~fhtl aOl()TC fa.vQTableand visjble 19c~tJ()nOrt~he Block According t~t()U~i;no,st recent plans , .. the ... Grocery ·wiJJ.bave tlIe .. followiIlg .squ;~refootage: 7;035 ,~QunciJ~yel inte~;Or$p~ce; .. lj$OOattacb~d 'alld c{)vere{l'receivingaref\~ .1 ,3J2 :uQpen M~tl\ef1' (comCor sioewaIlr~pap~}i aJl;d60~ for4ry st(Jra~ejll tnebaSCI)lenr (which ll!tt~rgturage sp~cewin be" ~djacen~to . a.deqicatedelevator)tfor .. a·.totalof'lOA47sq1.taxe. feet .. (th~~'(1VnniInum S(Jg;~re F'oofage");.,At t.~t;p~tionQf~he owne,rl01)~ratorQft~:e. Groncryy the gronnd~level :i~telior ~pa~~Tnay~eas largea~ 14"QOQS9uarefc~t{tbe"'~1\1a~il~lnn .sq~l~reF(}otage'T .. Othe[YIise~ t~e addit~Q;Qi;dQ19650f intcri{lr,gro~tnd lcvel.space in thedeveJ()pll1ent wUlbeleased t();bther 'neighbQ't'h90d":$~rvirlgr~taner~~ Thebase'lnonthIy.tetitforthe7Jt351bJfound level intedorspacea:nd the 1,50Q ;r-ec.~i)f;it1g1pt'9fc?gP spa¢~.'(c.o.ll~pt~w~lYitl~e '~PdltlarySpacen) (fora total of 8~535) \>viUbe .$" !9ft,ot$~>·. -~~'~r~~l~nth).Thetn()ntfdY:rentatf:orthe It312 ~petlnl~u:,kct~pac~wiJl be. $' .. ;S~ft; 'Q{,$~ ' ........ ~t\.l)eflnd~th+.Andthe1il(}nthlyrental · for the6eOstorag~'space wIll ilea n~t xateof$-....... '~:f •. TJlis .brjngs thetQtattlipl~ n~t~9nthlyreIltJQrth~ entires;pace to ,$';~conectiy~l))Jmase,~IQlitblyRetlt)1), This resultrs in an effective blended ftlteof $: {sq fUrnontb. ' t~pl~l1et!neanf)th,~t~~he<:t.t;()g~r~·willhex~spOf1sible f()f paYIIlentofproperty taxes. ..' insutall.¢e •. anuutilitj;es~ Vtilities(wltb';the 11{)ssibleexceplion QfWa.te.f~ which · we· Ill~t)' . not be: able, to~~p-~atelYniJ!tet)wiHOtq:1:\Vis~b¢ separately metered. the GrocerywHl .mainhtin aU of jts eqtJ!~l11em. includ~l1g'btiln()t l'i.rnitedtoHVA(:. As you have been involved with U$ in our effotts to move College Terrace Centre through the City ofPaloAlto!sentitlement proces.Sj you· ate Well a.ware that theeconOlmc terms set forth in· this I~tter of Inte.ntdepcnd.u.PQn the ~quateftJotageo(the:.entitlementsthatare actual1y approved. by the City .. Thecun:entCN' zoning,which authQrizes 25,000 square feet of office/comm'etcial space and' 25 iOQOsqllare feet or resideHtial space, does not provide sufficient re?ttoprodilcetbe income ne~esstl(y tosubsidize .th~ rent for ·~gr()cery .. If the City does not grantaPl'roval for a zoningchangefron1 CN10·.PG, there will 'be no subsidy for thcgrocery. Th1& lettera(:knowledg~$thatYQur' fa¥iilyme·mbers, LloydGarci~ and Denriis Gfux;ia, who have owned and operated jJkF withyonfor'mal1Y yeats~intend to retire . at the end of th~ CUl1l}tltleaseterm ~iJp:rep~rati()hf()r ground brt~akihg. forCotIege Te1l'a.ceCetltre. If our understfindingofsuchimpending retiremen.tsis incorrect,QrU'eitherLloydGarciaorDennis OarciashouJdsubs~qlJ{entlyclultfgetheirrt~lridsabouttheiTrespective intentions to retire, the exclusive b~-nefitspro¥lded tQyouin ttJ.is L¢tterof Intent \\'i1] Of course becxtend.ecHo then) as "veIL By' thisLetteroflntetrt~ the ;Trus~ offers tpyou, persol1ally ,aright. offlrstrefnsaI to lease the Grocery; YOll :mayexercise thjs .rightcijnytirnebt~twccil the date on. which thec City gives final'1ppr()va]t()Jhept()PQ~~ddevelopment ofC?UegeTep:ace Centre and the date that is eighte~n(18) lllOntlis;priottQ the~xpected··~Qlnpieti.onofconStructi<>n thereof and the issuance ··of a Certificate'ofOccupa~cy fortbe;devel()pme~t (the~(Required. Date: of A~Cel)tancen) .... The undersi~1}e(l wiU provide YOlf with writtyu no~ice Qfthe.Re~luiIed Dat~ .of Acceptance at leasf Sixty (QO)daysin~ldv~ncethel"eQr,d~Qr,ingwbi~tI sixJY (tSO) day period you willbavc the opportll1'lity toexerciseyourrightoffirst refusaL ,Uyou hav~ nQtexerc.lsed.yo~r.righ t of first r~fu~alby su.chqate,Jh~ .• u.fld~rsigl!tedWill .nJ.aI'ket ·th~ Grocery·tootner potential 9wnerJoperators. Untilsm:htime as the.undersignedac.tuallyexecutesa leHsewith .anotherowner!operator, yo~ carrm.nJ,:e~. and the Tmstwi11 'wijrrnly receive; an alfef to lease the Grocery. Thc ··terms.ot thelease'for the ·Grocety·(thc4't~(!ase';) will include the foHowing: L TheJniEialtermo'ftne lease (ttle HTermH}sh:.ali be a minimum often {I 0) years. At . your option, themjnhnuQl. termmaybeaslonga$thirt;y (30)years~ 2: Therentwillbe>suusidized;bytbe owners and thGir suc:cesso!S .. itl,;,lnter¢st · fpras It)ng~s .you (and'yoursuccessbts;.i~~interc$t}agree that the' grocery 'usc'rerhruI1s viable andso Jongasthepremises .a,renot taken. bycondenlnatiorlQrdestroyeqbY'fire or natural disaster. If tl}eCe.rti{icateof >OCCttpancy.isissued Qn orbefore f)eGCln~er31t2011 ,the . lease rate for the i~ti,m~ySp~cefor.tllQ .fir~tJive.(5) ye~l:sof.~l1e Tent! win b¢$; ; NNN, .. per sq\lat"e,;fooL The lease ·rate f<)17 tneO:pen MatkQtancl. thebasen~ent>$torages}mce.shal] increase bya sinal lar ftaCtion .. If~ltlC;e1"tlficatc()f9ccqpattcyisis8U~d()tr 6tafter J(Uluary It 2012; the 1easerate,·per sqqa~cf()ot for the . Nfiniromll Squar~,Fo()tage,for tht~tiJ:stfive· (5) years (If:the .'ferm win .be ~l$ .fOilOVlS; . (;aleri(Iat Year 2012 C€;\1~udif:year201.$ Caiendar . Year 2014 Calendtu. Year 2015 CniemlarYear2016 $: $: $ $: $' 3. . NotWitl:t$tandingtheprovis.iorrsinParagr~ph 2, during thetlrst three (3) months of the Terrn, Hase,~on~bly,~Renlwil1 ,be, W~iv~d ,so,mp'~t,~tY~nd.dJ.lring the following thr~e, (3) . months of the Term"Bas'l~·MonthlyRent. wHlbe reduced-by'titty percent (500/0 ). . , 4 .. , .. Duong thet~rm:: oft~e L~ase for the()r0cery~·th~pers{luare foot Tentfot·tlleTotal Squarel?oQtage(i.c..,tne P.~ln~. Spacc~,theQpen:Mar;kei Spaccan(rthe ~st9ragespace) will i~creasel 'eY~rr five ('~ yeatsJ'b)ttne arnou~tQf inctea$e~ ifariY,in the San Francisoo-San Josc- Oakland CPI' Index Qver theptvVtollS tlve{5J-Y~4irpetiod~ . 5. YOll win fl~ve thetignt)ex~t¢isabl¢ nine (9) m6nths pripr'to the issuance 00£ a Certifi(tateo,foc~up~ncy.JQr ~~~ .. d~velqpmcnt toincrea¥elhr·squure·. fuotagy .of.theGrocery~. tip to the .]Maxi1);iurJ1Sq9.are .:Footage~ptOv.ided, however. ·that . any square fQotageso.leascd.in' exc~ss ofth(tl\1initnulljSq:~~r'cPVQt~~ef$h~Ilti6tb~Pi(JY'i4edtlt a subsidized tent, out rather at. a. nl~kel~rate .. r~nt. (which·W~;~~"'e.'~tr~e,~peGJ'JP ·.be$' . ~. pf~r squ~re.fQot,if.tbe Certlticat.e of Occupancy .is iss.ucq·.on .()itbefb.re~eCel!l,b.er31;· 2011 ),~ aiia: .s,ti.al1 b~.adjusted Oll. the· s~nne'Jnlsi$as the rest ofth{;retai),~pt'lcejn (}9Ilege ~e~~c.e Centre. . Altho.tigbnlqstLettenr{}flnt.ertt~not'b!Jld:b\g,crflheparties theret,6uritil and u~des$ a lease ()r. putcha~pagr¢etn.t;~t .is ,e~~Pt~'f~et~ye~ntJleljlrOlltinte~rlons Wi~h respect t{}lhis.L~tte,r ,(lfInte~t ar~dif:f~l:en.t .. '~f¥o~ ~gt~ewitathe.,fort~goh1g/ ttr'(i. e~e~ut~ thi~ ~eiteriJf IJlt~nf,intlie space provided· ~ltlw .for:you~\~~gnattlre ()RQt before S'el1M~}:rlbet .1. .. 2008'~ .. ,wcagreel(1'beOOund by its tern~s .• 0~'tll~ ... f.)tllerlt~a,;ullf.i~r~tandnlg.,th&t. y'our,pqrs~n~d. cjrcuJJ1stances'm~ychaT1g~ betweennow:,an<f the,-.tlmc. y()u .w.oul:d.berequt:red,t~;\'eXeH;js~your iigl?t:of fifst~fu$"d lluac'rthis Lett.e.r pi Int9nt~we ,als?a:gr~e 'tht\t'~his, Ecttcr'oflrrtbnt i$. l)()l oindingdn ,yQo.~ ,andth*t, y:ouhavc t.he,dgbt,:~l,~llYtimepr~olLt{);the l.~eq~i~ed I)ate. of ,t\(~ccptaj,{~e.~ to ,t~nmnaleit·by· ~tiyjng; the undersigriedn:otic6; in writing;' Df· yd~tdeci~ian. ' ' , tfyo~ a~e in a~eeNnen(~ilJlthc. t~rl11$ of thisbettet,OfInl~ntt Ple,a~e.so iitdicatcby iSlgniu!fht; thespac:eptovidedbelo'W": fory(;)Ji'signat1.lr'C'att~:t' retun)il1g th~ onginal. sigt1arut~: page t()R:oh~l1 . I(er)uedy. ' 20?QOOI~, 1.1 PatrickSm<lHey A~tttbodzedAgenI MEMORANDtfMOF LETTER OF INTENT :FHIS MIt'M:ORLt\NDUM' 0E.LE'iTE& OF INTENT is .• effectiveas·.of August 30, 2008 by andbetweenJohl1q~ia~nbeha]fQfJJ&F'MI1fk~f{ "JJ~FU) at)d The Chilcote Trust e'9Wl101"') (collecttvely,.fhe "F1U1iest1, who hereby agree as follows: 1. By that'c:edainLetterof Intent by aIld between the Parties, dated as of August 30, 2008~ .~rheChilcoteTru.stoft:ere.dt()~J;J&F,nndJl&F·ncc¢pt~d) ... a righc of first refusal to lease . 10A47sqtl1ltefeet inne\.\{premis~stobeconstfilcledb)l The Chilcote Trost in anew d~velopn;umtjn tb¥qltypfR~O .. A.lf()ktloWnas. \:alleg~Terrace Centre. This square footage shall. be dedicated fQt:tlse .. byJJ:&PMarketas;a grogcr)',stofY. Pil.r~tiantto· the Letter ()f!ntenfilheirdtifdterIi1 of the lease will be teo .. (10) years. AtJj&F'$~sQle optian, the initial term of the lease may be u$lollgas thirty (30) y~ars: 3. :E>Ul"Sutillttotne!Letterti£Intentj 1J~:{Market shall have the rightto lease up to an addidonalo;965 square <l;eetofgr(l~nd level re,tijl space at College Terrace Gentre. 4. Pursuant.·totl1eLettc.rd-fIntent; lheright .• to·· exercise·. the· ,tight. of first ret~usal to lease' the .spac.eshal1be~t. JJ&Fl ssQledisctetion. IN'VlttNE$S~:EREOF:}theJ'ard~sbaye executed tlusmstrumentasbfthe date fitstset forth ilbove. By: Its: Date: M&y 28,2009 Mr. Patrick Smailey Managing Member lJDristolg-arms Twenty-One Hundred Ventures, Ltc 27 4 Redwood Shores Parkway, #202 Redwood City, CA94065 Dear Mr. Smailey: I was recently infonned about your potential new grocery store site onEI Camino Real in Palo Alto. While I understand that you have a local operator iaplace, this location would be an attractive one for Bristol Farms or Lazy Acres, our two specialty store retail fonnats. As you mayknow,E3rist<)lFarms has 15 markets in ·California, including one in San Francisco. We specialize in gourmet and specirutr foods andpdde ourselves on excellence in customer service ... All of our-locations are specifically tailored to. the community in which they are . situated.·· We are considering furtherexpansiQn in ,Northern California and believe th&t Palo Alto would be an ideal city fOl".a new store based on the: high-end income demographics and education levels of the residents there. Our real estate brokers have targeted this market area for some time; and while We nave not yet found a suitable location or existing store, we would certajnly consider all locations that might beCol11eavailable. As past Chaiiman of Unified Grocers, the largest ·wholesalegrocery distributor in the western United States, I am familiar with several high-end operators who would consider this location an ideal demographic . fit for their lifestyle oriented store formats. . Please call me at 310-233-4715 if you have further questions or requite more detailed inforll1ation. . 1 wish you all the best with the· approval' and construction process. Sin¢erely; ZlJ, Kevin· Davis : PresideIlt, Chairman and CEO KD/ps.smailey 915 K 230th Stre~t. Carson, ealifornia.90745 51 0-253L4700 tel 31() .. 23$ .. 47(jl!a..1: May 19~ 2009 Mr. Patrick Smalley EMERALD -----MARKET Re(ldy to Serve Twenty-One Hmtdred. Ventutes, LLC 214 RedwQod Shores Parkway, # 202 Redwood City, ea 94065 21 QO El CaminQ Real Dear Mr. $mailey, Thank you ·fQrta,kingmycaU rodayabout your PQtentialnew grocery store site on El·Camino Realm Palo Alto-Your deseriptiot1ofthe proposed retail site is impressive andjust the kind of Opportunity we look for~ We know that we could make it work. I fully understan", and you were quite clear that you have along-standing tenant in JJ&F Market. I also know that they plan on occupying tbe new site for the foreseeable future. However, please know that w~ would be very interested in ~t location if ever it becomes available. . Bestregams, Emerald Market ~~ ..• I~saAho . . . .President "":0: .• .-., 32150akKnoU Drive, Redwood ,City Ca 94062 (650)568 ... 6000 (650) 568 ... 6005 fu a f:J . . jiiP4iiiiiiii ~~XMON T~ANSPOHATION (ONSULTANTS, INc. Memorandum Date: To: From: June 19, 2009 Patrick Smailey Gary Black and Matt Nelson Subject: Parking Analysis for the Proposed College Terrace Center Mixed-Use Development Introduction Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed this parking analysis for the proposed College Terrace Centre mixed-use development in the City of Palo Alto. The project proposes 14 affordable multi- family residential units, 8,000 s.f. of grocery store use, 5,580 s.f. of general retail use, and 39,980 s.f. of office use. The project proposes a total of 227 parking spaces (216 of those parking spaces would be located within an underground garage accessible from EI Camino Real and the remaining 11 parking spaces would be located at surface level and accessible from Staunton Court). All parking spaces are planned to be shared among all land uses. In addition, the project proposes an area of landscaping reserve within the garage that could be converted to parking if necessary. The purpose of the parking analysis is to evaluate whether the proposed number of parking spaces is adequate to satisfy the City of Palo Alto parking code. Parking Requirements The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code specifies the number of off-street parking spaces that development projects need to provide. Section 18.52.040 lists the required number of spaces for each type of land use. The code also states that parking requirements may be adjusted by the Director of Planning under specific instances. Section 18.52.050 describes the allowable parking adjustments. Both of these parking code sections are described in detail below. City of Palo Alto Parking Code: Section 18.52.040 This section of the code enumerates the number of required parking spaces based on the type of use and size. Based on the size of the College Terrace development and the parking code rates, a total of 251 parking spaces are required, broken down as follows (see Table 1): • Residential Units (One Bedroom): 1.5 covered spaces per unit + (1 space plus 10% of total # of units) = 23 total spaces • Retail -Intensive: 1 space per 200 s.f. of gross floor area = 68 total spaces • General Office: 1 space per 250 s.f. of gross floor area = 160 total spaces egEkiQg/~\E)glY?I?,.fQr the ProposE?9~gIJ~g~I~C[g~,~,~~nJ~L~i2<~g:,~?~ ........ Q~y~IQP,CD~Qt)~ne 12,2009 City of Palo Alto Parking Code: Section 18.52.050 This section allows a reduction in the required parking for a proposed development project if it includes the following features: on-site employee amenities, joint-use parking facilities, housing for seniors, affordable housing units, housing near transit facilities, or transportation and parking alternatives. The code specifies a maximum reduction for each factor and a maximum overall combined reduction. " The following parking reduction factors are applicable to the proposed College Terrace Centre Project. 0 1. Affordable housing units 2. Housing near transit facilities 3. Transportation and parking alternatives 4. Joint-use parking facilities These are each described below. Pursuant to Section 18.52.050(a), the combined maximum allowable reduction for this type of development is 30% (which represents 75.3 spaces in the case of the College Terrace Centre Project) Affordable Housing The parking code allows a 20% reduction for low income units, 30% for very low income, and 40% for extremely low income. The proposed units would fall into the "low income" category. Therefore, the 20% reduction can be applied. The reason for allowing a parking reduction for low income housing is that low income units tend to be smaller, which can mean fewer residents, and the residents tend t own fewer cars. The particular affordable housing proposed herein would consist of one bedroom units only 600 s.f. in size. Applying the 20% reduction reduces the residential parking requirement from 23 spaces to 18 spaces. Table 1 City of Palo Alto Parking Code Required Land Use Size Rates Parking Multiple Family Residential 14 units 1.50 21 Guest Parking (1 +1 0% x unit count) 2 Total Residential 23 40% Affordable Housing/ Transit Reduction 0.40 -9 Net Total Residential 14 Retail -Intensive (Grocery) 8.000 ksf 5.00 40 Retail -Intensive (Retail) 5.580 ksf 5.00 28 Total Retail 68 5% TOM Reduction 0.05 -3 Net Total Retail 65 General Business Office 39 .980 ksf 4.00 160 5% TOM Reduction 0.05 -8 Net Total Office 152 Total Parking Spaces Required 231 Source: City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, October 2007. ~ ...... WeXdgOn T rdnsportdtion (onsultdnts, 2 Po ge e2E~.i.Q,g, ... ,6Q9 .. I .. Y?i~, .... ,fQr,t .. b,~w erQ.PQ,~ .. ~g ,_~.QJt§,g,.~ ..... I~Erg~,.~ .. ,.~ .. ,~.Q.!.~.r ..... MiX~~t:,ld.?,~"I2 .. ~.y~.IQ.f?QJ~Q!} .. ld ... Qe 12,2009 Housing Near Transit Facilities The parking code allows up to a 20% reduction in spaces for proximity to transit. The College Terrace site is within reasonable walking distance of the California Avenue Caltrain station. In addition, the California Avenue area is a mixed-use, walkable area that includes stores, offices, and other businesses. Residents can meet many of their needs without the use of a car. In Hexagon's judgement, the full 20% reduction is warranted. This represents an additional reduction of 4 spaces for the residential component of the project. Transportation and Parking Alternatives The parking code allows up to a 20% reduction where alternatives to automobile access are provided. Examples include transportation demand management (TOM). The project is located in a mixed-use, walkable area. It is reasonable to assume that a portion of retail customers will walk to the site. It is also f1 reasonable to assume that some office and retail employees will use transit seNices since the site is within walking distance of a Caltrain station. In addition, the project applicant proposes to include two Carshare vehicles in the garage. These Carshare vehicles will allow residents or employees to forego bringing their personal vehicles to the site. The project also proposes to include 60 bicycle parking spaces where only 38 spaces are required. In total, the TOM measures will reduce the number of cars that will be brought to the site. Hexagon recommends a conseNative 5% parking reduction to be applied to the retail and office component based on these proposed TOM measures. (A TOM reduction for the residential portion of the project already was applied as described above.) Applying this 5% reduction would reduce the number of spaces required for the office and retail components from 228 spaces to 217 spaces. • I Joint-use Parking Facilities The parking code states that the total number of spaces may be reduced when "the joint facility will serve all existing, proposed, and potential uses as effectively and conveniently as would separate parking facilities for each use." The code specifies the use of criteria developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) to estimate the shared parking characteristics of the proposed land uses. The maximum allowable reduction is 20%. The combined land uses of the project will provide the opportunity for shared parking on-site. It is expected that the combined land uses will result in a demand for parking that will be less than the demand that would be generated by separate free-standing developments. To determine the shared parking reduction, an evaluation of the peaking characteristics for the proposed development was completed. The evaluation is based on sUNey results compiled by the Urban Land Institute and the methodology presented in their Shared Parking guide. Parking demand for the proposed project was calculated based on the Net Total Parking Spaces Required in Table 1 and the application of the Shared Parking guide methodology. Based on the Shared Parking guide, the parking demand for the proposed land uses are staggered throughout the day and have the highest demands on weekdays rather than weekends. Weekday retail peak demands occur between the hours of 1 :OOpm to 2:00pm. Residential peak demands occur during late night/early morning hours of 1 0:00pm to 6:00am. Office peak demands occur between 1 0:00am to 12:00pm and 2:00pm to 4:00pm. The combined peak parking demand of residential, retail, and office uses for the site was determined to occur during weekdays between 2:00pm to 3:00pm, with a peak of 224 spaces. This represents a reduction of 7 spaces or 3% of the 231 spaces required by the code as indicated in Table 1 when considering each proposed land use separately. ~ ~ Wexagon Transportdtion Consultants, ~ • I egr~ing,6ngly?j?tQrtb~e~QJ2Q?~g~QIIE?gE?" .. IE?rrg.C:E? ... C::.en.tE?r.Mi?<E?g.-uSE? .. gE?YE?IQPtJJE?nt,.,J~,EJe l2,2009 Table 2 Shared Parking Requirements Based on City of Palo Alto Requirements Residential Hour of Day Office Retail (All) (non-CBD) Total 600am 5 1 14 19 700am 46 3 13 61 800am 14 900am 144 23 11 178 1000am 152 42 11 205 1100am 152 55 10 217 1200 m ____ t~? 62 9 208 100pm 137 65 10 212 200pm 152 62 10 224 300pm 152 59 10 220 400pm 137 59 11 206 500pm 76 62 12 150 600pm 38 62 13 112 700pm 15 62 14 91 800pm 11 52 14 76 900pm 5 33 14 51 1000pm 2 20 14 35 1100pm 0 7 14 21 1200pm 0 0 14 14 Source: ULI Shared Parking, Second Edition, 2005. Landscape Reserve In addition to the 227 spaces supplied by the project, the parking garage includes a landscaped light well that could be converted to parking spaces, if needed. Thus, this area could be considered a landscape reserve pursuant to Section 18.52.050(b). The reserve area could accommodate up to 14 tandem parking spaces (7 pairs). If used for tandem parking, the spaces would need to be reserved for specific residents or employees. Accordingly, 14 of the spaces required by code could be deferred on the basis of the landscape reserve pursuant to Section 18.52.050(b). Conclusion Hexagon has determined that the project would qualify for a total parking reduction of 27 spaces (11 %) under Section 18.52.050 of the Parking Code. This is within the maximum allowable reduction of 30%. A reduction of 27 spaces would reduce the number of parking spaces required by the code from 251 spaces to 224 spaces. The applicant is proposing 227 parking spaces. Based on this analysis, the project would comply with the City of Palo Alto parking code. It is not expected that use of the landscape reserve (which could provide an additional 14 tandem spaces) would be necessary. ~ IIra...dlI ~eXdgOn T r~nsportdtion (onsLiltdots, -4 -WORLD CENTRIC 2121 Staunton Court Palo Alto. CA 94306 r<J-Y Ar· ~e.U:·~w W',,,AI'f PH 650·283H3797 .F 866-850-9732 May 17, 200.9 Patrick Smailey Clara ChilcotE) Trust P.O. Box 620.186 Redwood City, 'CA 940.62 Dear Patrick, AS per your request, the breakdown of transportation fOr employees at World Centric is as follows: 1 -walk 4.. 50-70%' public tran~poftatiQn(bikelbus/CaITrain), drive 30-500/0 4 -drive tOO~VQof the time 4 -OaITrain90%·of time. PleaSe let me know, if additional information may beneaded. Sincerely .~~ Aseetn Oas Founder & ExecutiVe Director \V"W\v~wor1d(entri~.Ol'g W! ilMl!Jt> 1Awnv. FIiiIoAItv, A~!)t ~I_ 2401n' !i.m~ l240t21S Ill! :~{.,.,lrodll I~(om w.,w,pili\);tItr,4w -.her.rom SOAR,!) ()F 1. ~f;(:l'Ol5 ClIail' TOll'lmy F lI'~nbJdI 5t1>ffi Mortg~! COl1l'p<!TI)' ;~<l!1l1rs ) Coffaro LuCift 'mid Chi1l1l1 .~ HQijlItli/ tn,l-'.ampst&n E wrdJorw: Kit ;'IOJmflH jSBCBank ~C~D lh Papp«" sere! ~11l Blll1k and Tn ~Ct7mpanr !arJlI'l~ Pille-!®1 communt 'Child Ca~ .~ AndyC04 StD1'lford tlOH ill a Ckll/u ; 1R1)~ J.\J~1J11 w11'l~1~ ~'II1!:I~1 CI lelica ;a~k CtJlI' I G.mntr ThiI ihwtlln aWe lI'1Jl3IoAim ~ 14\rllGro;.t Glfdt C(ll,lrt~ AI (NHdriu. Rethe .tl~ "'I~ U.e MUk·~ __ lh~ QI: !liiij Motel & R~ lit P610 Alto S ip Ju51lWlt, 1, 'N OftIW~ of H old Justmflll It,tIie ~11y S~nfl)rd 5h >plr,g Center ,lame! ~nlqar ;',i~(lvlla!'!y-9t fl~JOl-ll'llal ' .I!~M~ ~1~1\ rd UnMl~1ty If MkXe~on HIlV/lE!tN'!!I:. 1m (otftpitny a llTi!) Pl!d!« Po \) Alto 4rt (en r &lunttWoi\ JOI~ISpOIJrJ .;\brgluw MOl lage Sanklng Mie~ n !iukuf'la~ S1eltI Mi;nt f92 Company lJ!"'WI\f~r Ata!~ ~4n OMl~p~nt 5mictS,Irte:. PN ilent&om J"Guhl $i)nd.s Apri122~ 2009 . Dan Garber! ChaiT Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission City QfPalQ Alto 25() Hamilton Ave. Palo A1to~ CA 94301 At the April 14,2009 Palo Alto Chamblitt Government AotiOti Committee meeting, representatives of the College Terrace Center project made a presentatio~ of the CUlTent iteration (lithe project.. The GAC voted to endorse the project~ s -request for rezoning from eN to PC. Ofp.artiQulU appeal was the retention oflQng-term grocery store, JJ&F and the addition of other retail. Appreciation W3£ given "by th~ Committee for the inclusion ofBMR? one bedroom apartm~Dts and parking in.grees an~ egress from HI Camino Real. ThaJ1k YOU for your conside;ratioD) Paula Sarldas Presjde.nt/CEO (..a PAHC Housing Services, LLC 725 Alma Street • Palo Alto, CA 94301 • (650) 321~9709 • Fax (650) 321M4341 April 20, 2009 Planning and Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 943Q1 Re: College Terrace Centre Project Letter of Recommendation Dear Honorable Commission Members: The Palo Alto Housing Corporation, through its affiliate, P ARC Housing Services, LLC, hereby submits this letter of recommendation in support of the proposed planned community, College Terrace Centre, located at 2100 EI 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 a= '--~ Jaejean~ 0- BMR flousing Administrator ~nz8lez Executive Director Message----- From: Magic [mailto:magic@ecomagic.org] Sent: October 01, 2008 2:38 PM To: .commission@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: Reich, Russ Subject: JJ&F Block Project 1 October 2008 Dear Planning and Transportation Commissioners, I'm about the ect for the block currently by JJ&F market. As someone who for three decades has lived been a JJ&F patron, and been active in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association, 've followed this project closely since I first learned of it several years ago. I'm heartened both by the changes you requested when the ect was before you and by the proponents' response to your . The addition of BMR housing in a location so near transit and services is a substantial improvement. So are the interruption of the buildings College and EI Camino to create less monolithic and massive structure, and the reduction in non-residential built area. I'm pleased that the developer has to maintain a market on the site and has made a firm commitment to the owners of JJ&F that they can, if they choose, operate that market. I think the proposed relocation of the market to EI Camino will draw patrons from a larger area and that the wide sidewalk will create opportunity to extend the market into the open air and make it more attractive. Having reviewed the circulation and traffic impact assessments of the proposed project, as well as its features (e.g., extensive photovoltaic arrays, north-facing clerestory cisterns to capture storm water, reduced auto secure bike parking) I think that it sets many positive for along the EI Camino corridor. I that you will agree. Thank you for these views. David Schrom 1 Susan Rosenberg _________________ 1425 Stanford Ave. April 23, 2009 To: Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission Re: 2180 EI 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 Camino Real that was developed during this process of public participation is: -To change the character from a highway to a road safe for walkers, 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 Missed Opportunity To Keep Local Grocery Store & I m prove EI Cam ino Real The Palo Alto Planning Commission met on May 30th and voted to no longer consider a zoning change being requested as part of a project to rebuild the site of the JJ&F market. This was a missed opportunity to have possibly kept the JJ&F market in business -and to have improved this tired section of EI Camino Real. One objection to the proposed project is that it has too much office space. I live in College Terrace, am not generally in favor of growth, but this issue of too much office space is a red herring. An important feature of the current zoning is that it requires retail space on the ground floor. The proposed project also includes retail on the ground floor -plus a spot for the JJ&F grocery store. And yes, to go along with that it has more office space than the current zoning allows. Office space is bad for the neighborhood? Wait a minute, all along the California Avenue side of College Terrace we have many thousands of square feet of office space. I often work out of my home in College Terrace and walk to a California Avenue restaurant for lunch. I do this with many office workers who also walk to these same restaurants. Without these office workers, how can we have a vibrant retail area? The College Terrace residents eat like everyone else, but we can't support the retail space on our own. Offices also have the benefit of being largely empty on weekends and evenings so that us locals can have a quiet neighborhood when we are most at home to enjoy it. Have you walked to California Avenue for lunch mid-week or to the Sunday farmer's market? It's a great scene. Yes, office space brings traffic, but it brings in needed foot traffic too. I'm not suggesting a carte blanch zoning change for the entire area, but some flexibility on this particular project when a neighborhood grocery store is in balance is worth it. This is a great opportunity for JJ&F and improves EI Camino Real. This section of EI Camino Real is close to Stanford housing and the wonderful College Terrace neighborhood. It has great potential, but today, much of this section of EI Camino is run-down and not well integrated with California Avenue retail. Not only does the proposed project improve this section of EI Camino Real, but provides a great opportunity to JJ&F. JJ&F is, I have been told, struggling to stay afloat financially with declining sales. It is a small friendly neighborhood-oriented grocery store, in an inefficient space, that is largely hidden from EI Camino Real. As a result, their business is much less than it could be. The proposed redevelopment project provides a grocery store with a slightly larger space than the current JJ&F store, and moves it to a more visible location on EI Camino Real. It also provides the grocery store with 'subsidized' rent by incorporating office space as part of the overall project. This looks to be the best chance for JJ&F. There are no guarantees that JJ&F or any other grocery store can make it in this location financially, but at least this redevelopment tips the scales in their favor. The alternatives don't. Either (1) there is no near-term redevelopment and JJ&F sales continue to decline to the point where they have to close their doors after 60 years or (2) the owners rebuild the block consistent with the current zoning that most certainly will not include a low-revenue neighborhood grocery store. The proposed project has insufficient space for a neighborhood grocery store? The Garcia's don't think so and they are the ones running the business -so I would trust their judgment more than the Planning Commission. Also, I thought we were aiming to keep a neighborhood grocery store? Another large grocery store like Mollie Stones is not needed in the area so I believe the point about there not being enough space for the grocery store is misguided. So congratulations to the Planning Commission and others that have opposed the zoning change. You have just shot down the best chance we have to keep JJ&F, a true neighborhood grocery store, as well as improve this section of EI Camino Real with what looks to be a quality project brought to us by long-term owners with long-term interests. Maybe JJ&F will now close its doors due to the delays and lack of opportunity that a new store would provide. Who would fill the space then? Maybe the property will be sold to a short-term profit-oriented developer and give us another drive through fast-food restaurant -surely that would fit the current zoning ... To the Planning Commission and others opposing this project -for the benefit of the neighborhood and the city -please reconsider your thinking and decision. Scott Lonergan 2090 Cornell St. 2 JJOF Market 5. ColleKe Aveaue Palo Alto,l:alJJoZ'llla 9006 ~S0.857,0901 Ellis Bems Economic Development Manager City of Mountain View Community Development Department 500 Castro Stre:et Mountain View, CA 94939 .. 7540 Dear Mr. Berns, On behalf of the Garcia family and JJ &F Market, I thank you for your initial call to {ne and now for the detailed information regarding the supermarket opporttmity in the City of MoWlWn View. Please know that we are keenly interested in the prospect of serving as op~rator at this Redevelopment Area site,at the very attractive downtovvn site at the comer of California and'Bryant Streets. - As we have discussed, I am still hopeful that we can remain in place at our current location. However, it is clear that our Palo Alto store is very much up in the air, even though we have been there for 60 years. We fully intend to remain in the grocery business, and if necessary, we will go toajurisdiction where we are better appreciated. Who knows, maybe we ~an operate both store locations sometime in the future. I very much want to remain in close contact about this possible option for my family and me. Again, thank you fqr your initial inquiry ,and follow·up materials. Jo1m Garcia (I. 1'\ ~L-\ \? \f 00 H ~ VE ~IV-f Q Lh; S 7 I Or\J--S 0\0.... WDJL-D L\K~ 70 J)\sc....;J~ ~ArJ¥:-S AGA)J --({ -... ---..... '-~.~ . PREP ARED FOR: PREPARED BY: PB #COOJOOOI (?VU #-1353-002) NOVEMBER 2008 PROPOSEDSUFE~T 8\VC CALIFORNIA STREET/BRYANT STREET DOWNTOWN MOUNTAIN VIEW~ CALIFORNIA PH #COOJOOOl (1\11 #1353-002) MR. DENNIS DRENNAN" RE.AL PROPERTY PROGRAlvI .ADMlNISTRATOR CITY OF MOUNTAIN vmw 500 CASTRO STREET MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA 94039 (650) 903-66~3 PITNEY BOVIES :MAPINFO 7567 A..1V1ADOR VALLEY BOULEVARD SUITE 310 DUBLIN, CALIFORNIA 94568 (925) 556-9999 WEDNESDAY Jul 8,2009 Verdict reversed in Biletnikoff murder Jackson's kids emerge Israel boots U .5. ac'tivists Mtn. View wantsJJaF BY IAN S. PORT Dally Post Staff Writer While developers seeking to build a new space for JJ&F Market struggle against Palo Alto's cumbersome ap- proval process, Mountain View is woo- ing the beloved store, with offers of downtown land and even possible fi- nancial help. Days after Palo Alto's planning com- mission criticized and stalled plans for a project that would build a larger new home for the market, Mountain View officials told the store's owners that they'd love to see JJ&F move south, co-owner John Garcia said yesterday. "I have my neighbor- hood that wants me, but 1 have the city who doesn't really give a hoot." John Garcia, JJF co-owner "They're rolling out the red carpet," Garcia told the Post. "They're asking us to go there." Ellis Berns, Mountain View's eco- nomic development manager, said the [See JJ&F, page 19] (050) 380.1420 NEW JJ&F -This rendering, supplied by architect Tony Carrasco, shows the proposed College Terrace Center development in Palo Alto. THE UPDATE -16 .27 Man with 7 DUls fights No.8 BY JOSH WOLF Daily Post Staff Writer William Scott Simon, who was ar- rested for drunken driving after he stumbled into a San Mateo Starbucks and found two CHP officers inside, goes on trial today for what would be his eighth DUI. Simon, 42, of Belmont, drove into the parking lot at the Starbucks at De Anza Boulevard and Polhemus Road at around 7 a.m. on Jan. 11 and crossed over several parking stalls be- fore crookedly parking his car, said Chief Deputy District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe. Simon then stumbled into the cof- fee shop to find two CHP officers who had witnessed everything, said Wag- staffe. "I have a lot of balls to be walking in here," Simon told the officers who noticed the man smelled strongly of alcohol, according to Wagstaffe. A breath test conducted an hour lat- er determined Simon's blood alcohol [See DUI, page 19] CONTROLLED BURN: Cal Fire says it will be doing a controlled burn today of 100 acres in the Russian Ridge Area at Highway 35 at Alpine Road. Smoke will be visible from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. SWINE FLU DEATH: A 44-year- old woman with underlying health problems is Santa Clara County's first swine flu victim. Her name was not released, and health officials did not disclose additional details about her case, including when she died or Daily Post to add Saturday edition [See THE UPDATE, page 4] At a time when many papers are cut- ting editions and reducing news cover- age, the Daily Post is headed in the op- posite direction. On Saturday, the Post will launch a Saturday paper and begin publishing DEMARTINI ORCI-IARD -KOZY BROTHERS" six days a week. The Post has printed Monday through Friday since it started last year. The expansion of the Post contrasts with the cut backs competing papers are making. In the past year, the Daily News has eliminated its Sunday and Monday papers, and dropped its San Mateo, Burlingame and Redwood City editions. The Palo Alto Weekly, which used to publish twice a week, now has [See SATURDAY, page 19] ----0 --1 I QU1ZnOS' : Enjoy a FREE wedge of creamy & smooth Beemster Gouda cheese and a small jar of whole colossal-sized I I FARMFRE9H ANDALWAV9 THE8E9T • 011" "lid Irom July 8-14. 1009. This Kalamata olives from : ~~Ii,~~o~:'p~~I~~:eOh~~~nae:d~i~::~~er Sigona's when you spend 1 50~~1 66 N. SAN ANTONIO RD., LOS ALTOS www.demartiniorchard.com 650-948-0881 • visil.please. topies not valid. $30 or more! : 2345 Middlefield Rd, Redwood City 399 Stanford Shopping Center, Palo Alto • (650) 368·6993 (650) 329·1340 I PALO ALTO -on Emerson I I between University and Hamilton I t l6~Q>-3_2J :8}9Q! iii; t • ) ~ I il!tfJ :t • SATURDAY just one edition, and its publisher pre- dicted that within four to five years it will stop printing altogether, and only provide information online. On the other hand, the Post doesn't put its stories online and has seen steady growth in reader demand and advertising. "People say newspapers are dying, but we didn't get that memo," said Dave Price, editor and co-publisher of the Post. "We're adding advertisers and readers every day." With a Saturday edition, the Post will be able to print Friday's news in Saturday morning's paper. The Saturday paper also gives adver- tisers another day to reach readers in a popular, locally oriented paper. JJ&F city has talked to JJ&F about getting a space in a redevelopment project planned for what is now a parking lot along Bryant Street between Califor- nia and Mercy Streets, only one block from the main downtown drag, Castro Street. He said City Council has envisioned a residential and commercial develop- ment on the roughly 1.5-acre site and wants to see a grocery s tore of 7,000 to 10,000 square feet go in on the ground floor. That's similar in size to space that JJ&F would get in the project now grinding through Palo Alto City Hall. Garcia said that Berns told him that the city's redevelopment agency will contribute $7 million to various proj- ects before 20 II, and that some of that money might be used for the Bryant Street development, of which JJ&F could be a part. He said the message JJ &F is getting from Mountain View is a radical change in tone from Palo Alto, where planning commissioners frowned upon the of- fice, residential and retail project that would include a new, 8,000-square-foot space for the family-owned grocery. At an April 29 hearing, planning commissioners said the project, known as College Terrace Center, would pro- vide too much office space -about 40,000-square-feet -and not enough space for JJ&F, even though the plan would nearly double its current size. They also worried the project's 227 parking spaces wouldn't be enough, that the project was too dense, and that JJ&F might not always occupy the new space at 2180 EI Camino Real, just up from California Avenue. "If that 8,000 square feet turns into a 7-Eleven, it's a bad trade-off," Com- missioner Susan Fineberg said at the April meeting. After a lengthy discussion, the com- mission eventually voted against mov- SUDOKU ing the College Terrace Center plans forward in the approval process. But that worried Garcia, who says the store will soon need to move out of its current 80-year-old building. And he said commissioners' concerns that his new store won't be big enough are ab- surd -he said that's all the space the market can handle. "I have my neighborhood that wants me, but I have the city who doesn't really give a hoot," Garcia said. He said he wants to stay in Palo Alto -and especially to move into the pro- posed new store, which would give JJ&F space fronting El Camino Real, an outdoor market area and nearby of- fice workers who could become cus- tomers. But until the plans move for- ward, Garcia said he'll keep one eye looking south. "I want to stay. These are my friends here," he said. "I consider them a heck of a lot more than my customers." DUI level was .22, said Wagstaffe. The legal limit in California for adults is .08. Wagstaffe said he doesn't know how Simon's lawyer, Timothy Gomes, plans to defend his client against the charges. At one point, Gomes suggested that Si- mon might consider taking a plea deal if he could avoid being sent to a state prison, said Wagstaffe. But because of the prior convictions, the District Attorney's office said it wasn't willing to waive the possibility of prison, said Wagstaffe. "It's been a prison case all along," said Wagstaffe. "It doesn't have to be, (but) prison has to be one of the pos- sibilities." Man 'driving commando' gets a DUI A Delaware man who claimed he lost his pants faces drunken driving charges after authorities say the deputy who pulled him over noticed he was in the buff below the waist. Jonathan Schultz, 41, "was driving commando" and only partially covered with a towel on his lap, though he was wearing a shirt. Lt. Bernard Chiominto says Schultz was stopped Saturday near Rising Sun for going 69 mph in a 50-mph zone. Chiominto says the deputy smelled alcohol and noticed Schultz's semi-ex- posed situation. The Newark, Del., man told the deputy he'd lost his pants, and the deputy didn't find any in the car. It was unclear if Schultz had an at- torney, and an attempt to reach him at a relative's home was unsuccessful. KAKURO Easy Difficult Bit 6 4 is-1 '~"L$"':;i .i Puzzle on page 21 BERRY & SON Qualitv Repair 30 Years Experience -Licensed .~I-I Tile, Plumbing, Dry Rot Repair, Bathroom & I Kitchen Remodel. Painting InteriorlExterior i _ !:::a~,_s~:c~ ~i~ ~~r~, ~n~ ~r: _ Single low bigb under 30 $60 $149 30's $84 $180 40's $147 $362 50's $264 $578 60's $421 $747 Youth (are Rates low high under 1 $104 $339 1-18 $54 $117 Wednesday, July 8, 2009 Daily Post 19 Married Family low high low high under 30 $175 $276 under 30 $417 $526 30's $308 $408 30's $494 $711 40's $517 $726 40's $662 $944 50's $822 $1138 50~ $798 $"17 60's $1051 $1447 60's $1137 $1576 Call me for a custom ized quote today! (650) 328-1000 SandyWhite sa ndy@alliedbrokers.com 630 Cowper St Palo Alto, CA 94301 blue ~ of california 81ueShIeidoiCanromla .... n Independenl Member ollhe Slue Shield M~ocioTion Uc#OA38716