Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-20 City Council (6)TO: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER 20, 2004 CMR: 420:04 2401, 2409, 2417 PARK BLVD AND 101 CALIFORNIA AVENUE #D101: APPLICATION BY RICHARD & SHARON REYES, ELDAD & CHARLOTTE MATITYAHU, DONALD DOUGLAS & NINA MOORE, AND NORTMAN WEINTRAUB & DEBORAH LONDON ON BEHALF OF PALO ALTO CENTRAL FOR A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT TO DELETE THE (R) COMBINING DISTRICT ON PORTIONS OF PALO ALTO CENTRAL TO ALLOW OFFICE USES WITHIN THE REAR 50% OF BUILDINGS C AND D AND ALL OF BUILDING E. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS PROPOSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CEQA GUIDELINES. FILE NUMBERS: 02-ZC-6, 03-EIA-13. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend the City Council: (1) approve a Negative Declaration (Attachment L), with a finding that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts; and (2) approve the ordinance (Attachment A) modifying PAMC Section 18.43.030 and rezoning portions of Palo Alto Central at 2401, 2409, 2417 Park Boulevard and 101 California Avenue, to allow office uses within the rear 50% of Buildings C and D and all of Building E. DISCUSSION The project site is on the corner of California Avenue and Park Boulevard, developed in 1983 as a mixed-use (commercial/residential) condominium complex known as Palo Alto Central. The complex takes up an entire b!ock at the end of California Avenue near the Caltrain station. The commercial condominium units are within the California Avenue Assessment District, while the residential units are outside of the district. There are five commercial buildings in the complex (buildings A, B, C, D, and E). These ground floor units were designed and constructed for commercial and office uses prior to the establishment of the CC(2)(R)(P) zoning designation on this site in 1984 as a result of the California Avenue Study. The Retail (R) combining district regulations restrict CMR:Page 1 of 5 ground floor uses to eating and drinking services, personal services, and retail services. The Pedestrian (P) combining district regulations restrict vehicular access and require pedestrian design features, and display windows. Buildings A and B, adjacent to the applicants’ buildings, contain four ground floor offices fronting Park Boulevard (2423, 2431, 2441 and 2443 Park Boulevard). Office uses have been allowed in Buildings A and B since may 1990, when the combining districts (R and P) were removed via the rezoning process. Buildings A and B were in office use as of March 19, 2001 so the ground floor restrictions that became effective on that date have had little impact (PAMC 18.43.030(m)). Buildings C, D, and E are still zoned CC (2)(R)(P). Building C has frontage on Park Boulevard only and Building D is adjacent to the corner plaza and has frontage on both streets. Building E does not have street frontage, but is accessible via a ground floor corridor through building D. There are two ground floor commercial condominium units within Building C and three ground floor commercial condominium units within Building D. Building E is a restaurant, currently the Silk Road Cafd (151 California Avenue #El01). There are three ground floor offices in Building C and D, which are not permitted under current zoning. One of the two units in Building C is an office. Two of the three units in Building D have been partitioned into six tenant spaces, two in retail use, two in office use, and two are vacant. The current uses of Building C are an office (Stewart Title at 2409 Park Avenue) and a personal service (Ingrid’s Tanning Salon at 2417 Park Avenue). The owners of Stewart Title were issued a Code Enforcement Administrative Citation Warning and had until November 1, 2003 to cease the office uses or be subject to a citation. This citation has been delayed pending a decision on this rezoning application. Uses of Building D are the Plantation Caf~ (101 California Avenue), Montoya Jewelers (101 California Avenue #103), Palo Alto Central Nails (2401 Park Avenue), a vacant space that faces Park Boulevard and three spaces that do not have street frontage; Douglas and Moore Real Estate office, located behind Plantation Caf~, the Impact Interasia office, located behind the nail salon, and a vacant space facing the corridor. Letters and maps submitted by the applicant (provided in Attachment H) note that the retail and personal service uses that are currently permitted do not do well in the complex ’and cite instances of vacancies. Laura Rasmussen (owner of Unit E101), commissioned Wallace & Steichen, Inc, a Real Estate Market Analysis firm, to prepare a report to (1) determine whether a restaurant or other retail business could operate successfully, and (2) determine the best use of Unit El01 (Silk Road Caf~). The report (included as Attachment J) was completed on July 10, 2000. CMR:Page 2 of 5 The report focused on the economic viability of Unit E 101and could be considered to be applicable to all of the retail units fronting on the courtyard of. Palo Alto Central. The report found that this location was not suitable for retail use since it lacked visibility to the street for pedestrians and vehicle traffic, and had no synergistic retail uses. The report also states that the viability of retail at this location is reduced by the requirement to close by 10:00 to eliminate noise to residents and that condominium residents have complained about the noise and odors of a restaurant use. PLANNING AND TRANSPORATION COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed this project at its meetings of October 8, 2003 and February 11 and April 14, 2004. Minutes of these meetings are included with this report (Attachments C, D, and E). On April 14, 2004, the Commission reviewed the ordinance attached to this report (Attachment A) and voted 5-0-1-1 to recommend that City Council approve the ordinance. The Commission staff report is provided (Attachment B). After the public hearing had closed at the Commission’s meeting of April 14, 2004, a letter was submitted expressing concern that Stewart Title would be allowed to become a legal nonconforming use and that a provision should be added allowing no more than 50% of the floor area of Building C to be office space (see Attachment I). Because it was submitted after the public hearing, the Commission did not discuss the letter and it is attached to this report for Council’s consideration.’ Building C includes two individually owned commercial condominiums (2409 and 2417 Park Boulevard). Adding a provision to the ordinance limiting 50% of all of Building C to be office because Stewart Title (2409) already occupies 50% would be inconsistent with the Commission’s recommendations to the owner of 2417 and would limit his/her ability to lease the unit. Staff continues to recommend that Stewart Title be allowed to become a legal nonconforming use. The report’s findings were that office would be the best use of the premises because the design of the building was not intended for retail use and could not be modified to increase the viability of the retail spaces located in the courtyard. RESOURCE IMPACT The revenue impact from the proposed rezoning of 101 California Avenue will be minimal. Since the rezoning merely, gives the owners of the buildings the option to lease 50% of their space to offices as well as to retail businesses, there may be no change in the CMR:Page 3 of 5 tenant rolls. Depending upon the ultimate occupancy of the three buildings in question, staff estimates that the revenue loss to the City will range from $0 - $2,000. PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: EMSLIE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING ENVIRONMENT AND COMMUNITY CITY MANAGER APPROVA EMIL ASSIST’ANT CITY MANAGER - ATTACHMENTS!EXHIBITS: Attachment A: Draft Ordinance modifying Section 18.43.030 of the PAMC and Rezoning Portions of the property at 2401, 2409, 2417 Park Blvd and 101 California Avenue #D101 to allow office uses in parts of the ground floor of three buildings on that site (with Exhibit 1, zone map change). Attachment B:Report to the Planning and Transportation Commission dated April 14, 2004 (without attachments) Attachment C: Minutes of the April 14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting (Council Only). Atfachment D: Minutes of the February 11, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting (Council Only) Attachment E:Minutes of the October 8, 2003 Planning Commission Meeting (Council Only) Attachment F: PAMC 18.43 Attachment G: Location Maps Attachment H: Letters from the applicants Attachment I: Letter from Joy Ogawa, submitted during the April 14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting after the close of the public heating. Attachment J: Economic Study prepared by Wallace & Steichen, Inc, July 10, 2000 CMR:Page 4 of 5 Attachment K: Email from Judy Glaes, received October 10, 2003- Attachment L: Negative Declaration and Environmental Impact Assessment. cc:Richard & Sharon Reyes Herb Borock Eldad & Charlotte Matityahu Joy Ogawa Donald Douglas & Nina Moore Chuck Marsh Norman Weintraub & Deborah London Montoya Jewelers Laura Rasmussen, Silk Road Caf~ Owner CMR:Page 5 of 5 DRAFT Attachment A ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO MODIFYING SECTION 18.43.030 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE AND REZONING PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY AT 2401, 2409, 2417 PARK BOULEVARD AND i01 CALIFORNIA AVENUE #DI01 TO ALLOW OFFICE USES IN PARTS OF THE GROUND FLOOR OF THREE BUILDINGS ON THAT SITE The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. Findings and Declarations. The City Council finds and declares that the amendments to section 18.08.040 (the zoning map) and chapter 18.43 (Community Commercial District (CC) Regulations) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code are in accord with the purposes of that title and the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that retail usesare preserved in the areas of Palo Alto Central facingthe pedestrian ways of California Avenue and Park Boulevard,and office uses are permitted facing the interior courtyard, where they will contribute to the vitality of the California Avenue commercial area’ without detracting from the retail- and pedestrian-oriented character of the area. SECTION 2. Subsection (m) of section 18.43.030 of Chapter 18.43 (Community Commercial District (CC) Regulations) of Title 18 [Zoning] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code hereby reads as follows: (m) Medical, professional, and general business offices located on the ground floor of a building, as limited by Section 18.45.070(f), which (i) have been continuously in existence in that space since March 19, 2001, and, as of such date, were neither non-conforming nor in the process of being amortized pursuant to Chapter 18.95 of this code; or (2) occupy a space that was not occupied by housing, retail services, eating and drinking services, personal services, or automotive services on March 19, 2001 or thereafter; or (3) occupy a space that was vacant on March 19, 2001; or (4) are located in new or remodeled ground floor areas built on or after March 19, 2001 if the ground floor area devoted to housing, retail services, eating and drinking services, personal services, and automobile O12104jea 6030026 1 services does not decrease; or (5) are on a site located in an area subject to a specific plan or coordinated area plan, which specifically allows for such ground floor medical, professional and general business offices; or (6) are located anywhere in Building E or in the rear 50% of Buildinq C or D of the property at the southeast corner of the intersection of Park Boulevard and California Avenue, as shown on sheet A2 of the plans titled ~I01 California Avenue Townhouse/Commercial/Office, Palo Alto, CA" by Crosby, Thornton, Marshall Associates, Architects, dated June 14, 1982, revised November 23, 1982, and on file with the Planning Department. As used in this subsection (m) (6), ~rear 50%" means a maximum of 50% of the square footage of the building, none of which faces Park Boulevard or California Avenue.; SECTION 3. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of portions of a certain property known as 2401, 2409, 2417 Park Boulevard and i01 California Avenue #DI01 (the "subject property")from "CC(2) (R) (P) Community Commercial District With Combining District (2), Retail, and Pedestrian Overlays" to "CC(2) (P)CommunitY Commercia! District with Combining District (2) and Pedestrian Overlay." The portions of the property to be rezoned are the rear 50% of the buildings labeled ~Building C and Building D" and all of the building labeled "Building E," as those three buildings are shown on sheet A2 of the plans titled ~i01 California Avenue Townhouse/Commercial/Office, Palo Alto, CA" by Crosby, Thornton, Marshall Associates, Architects, dated June 14, 1982, revised November 23, 1982, and on file with the Planning Department. The subject property, as rezoned kby this ordinance, is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 4. The City Council finds that the changes effected by this ordinance are exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per section 15061 of CEQA Guidelines, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. // // // // 012104jea 6030026 2 SECTION 5. This ordinance after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: ATTEST: shall be effective 30 days City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mayor APPROVED: Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning & Community Environment Director of Administrative Services O12104jea 6030026 3 EXHIBIT "A" RM-3 P For location of see Ord. CC PF Date: Project Address: Application Files: Proposal: April 1, 2004 2401 Park Blvd. 02-ZC-6 and 03-EIA-13 Zone change from CC(2)(R)(P) to CC(2)(R)for a portion of an ex- isting mixed use site 2401 Park Blvd. This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS Attachment B PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: Christopher Riordan, AICP Planner April 14, 2004 DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment 2401~ 2409~ 2417 Park Blvd and 101 California Avenue #D101: Application by Richard & Sharon Reyes, Eldad & Charlotte Matityahu, Donald Douglas & Nina Moore, and Nortman Weintraub & Deborah London on behalf of Palo Alto Central for a Zoning Map amendment from CC(2)(R)(P), Community Commercial Combining/Retail Shopping Combining~edestrian Shopping Combining classification to CC(2) Community Commercial Combining Classification. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration is proposed in accordance with CEQA guidelines. File Numbers: 02-ZC-6, 03-EIA- 13. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend approval of an ordinance modifying PAMC Section 18.43.030 and rezoning portions of Palo Alto Central to allow office uses within the rear 50% of Buildings C & D and all of building E (Attachment A). BACKGROUND The Commission previously reviewed this project to rezone properties at 2401, 2409, 2417 Park Boulevard and 101 California Avenue #D101 from CC(2)(R)(P) to CC(2) at their meeting of October 8, 2003 and again on February 11, 2004. At the October 8, 2003 meeting, the Commission reviewed three possible project options as recommended by Staff. The Commission reviewed the three options and requested additional information be provided for further consideration of the third option. City of Palo Alto Page I At the February 11, 2004, the Commission reviewed and recommended approval, on a 5-0-0-1 vote, of the following Staff recommendation (Attachm6nt D): Retain the (R)(P) Combining District for all of Palo Alto Central to ensure the front 50% of each building with street frontage on Park Boulevard and California Avenue (Buildings C&D) is maintained for uses conforming to the (R)(P) Combining district, such as personal service, retail, and restaurants. Any existing office in the front 50% of a street facing space would become legal nonconforming as of the effective date of City Councilladoption of such code amendment. If a legal nonconforming use were to be discontinued for at least twelve consecutive months, it would be considered abandoned and could only be replaced by a conforming use. Office use would be allowed as a permitted use within the rear 50% of each Building C&D, and within all of Building E. PAMC Section 18.46.040 (Retail Shopping Combining District (R) Regulations) would be modified to allow office as a permitted use DISCUSSION The Commission’s action was consistent with Staff’s recommendation to modify PAMC Section 18.46.040 (Retail Shopping Combining District (R) Regulations) to allow office as a permitted use. During preparation of the Ordinance, the City Attorneys office suggested an alternative that would accomplish the same objective. Instead of modifying the Retail Shopping Combining District (R) Regulations as discussed above, the Community Commercial Zone (PAMC Section 18.43.030) could be changed to include offices at Palo Alto Central as a permitted use within the rear 50% of each Building C&D and within all of Building E. Staff agrees with the changes as recommended by the Attorneys Office and is of the opinion that it is consistent with the Commission’s recommendations. A draft ordinance to modify PAMC Section 18.43.030 and amend the zoning map to delete the (R) Combining District on portions of Palo Alto Central to allow office uses within the rear 50% of Buildings C & D and all of building E is attached to this report (Attachment A). ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: Attachment A: Draft Ordinance with Zoning Map revisions modifying Section 18.43.030 of the PAMC and Rezoning Portions of the property at 2401, 2409, 2417 Park Blvd and 101 California Avenue #D101 to allow office uses in parts of the ground floor oft~ee buildings on that site. Attachment B: Negative Declaration and Environmental Impact Assessment Attachment C: PAMC 18.43 (Excerpt, Commission Only) City of Palo Alto Page 2 Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Minutes of the February 11, 2004 Planning Commission Meeting (Commission Only) Letters from Applicants (Commission Only) Email from Judy Glaes, received October 10, 2003 (Commission Only) COURTESY COPIES: Richard & Sharon Reyes Eldad & Charlotte Matityahu Donald Douglas & Nina Moore Norman Weintraub & Deborah London Laura Rasmussen, Silk Road Caf6 Owner Montoya Jewelers’ Chuck Marsh Joy Ogawa Herb Borock Prepared by: Reviewed by: Department/Division Head Approval: Christopher A. Riordan, AICP, Planner Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto Page 3 Attachment C 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes April 14, 2004 2401~ 2409~ 2417 Park Blvd and 101 California Avenue Map Amendments and Zoning Text Change: Proposal for a map and text amendments to modify Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.43.030 to add medical, professional and general business offices as a permitted category of use on the ground floor in the rear 50 % of Building C & D and within all of Building E of Palo Alto Central. Environmental Assessment: A Negative Declaration is proposed in accordance with CEQA guidelines. File Numbers: 02-ZC-6, 03-EIA-13. Mr. Chris Riordan, Planner: Yes. Good evening. This application was previously. reviewed by the Commission on October 8, 2003 and again on February 11, 2004. At the last meeting the Commission recommended approval of the Staff recommendation to retain the RP Combining District for all of Palo Alto Central to ensure that the front 50% of each building with street frontage on Park Boulevard and California Avenue, Buildings C and D, be maintained for uses conforming to the RP Combining District and to allow uses in the rear 50% of Buildings C and D and all of Building E by modifying the R Combining District regulations to allow office as a permitted use. During preparation of the attached ordinance the City Attorney’s Office recommended that it would be a better option to modify the underlying Community Commercial zoning instead of the R Combining District to include offices as a permitted use in the rear 50% of Buildings C and D and all of Building E. Staff concurs with the Attorney’s recommendation since it is consistent with both the Commission and Staff’s objectives. Therefore Staff recommends that the Commission recommend approval of an ordinance modifying PAMC Section 18.43.030 and rezoning portions of Palo Alto Central to allow offices within the rear 50% of Buildings C and D and all of Building E. Staff would also like to add that we have all of your previous comments on file and they are attached to your report. Thank you. Chair Griffin: So if I understand it this is. a formalization of a procedure that we have already initiated and largely dealt with on a previous occasion. Mr. Riordan: That is correct. Chair Griffin: Before I open the item to public comment do Commissioners have any questions? Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have one for clarification on the map that is Exhibit A. I think I am looking at the right map here, This is the map that is traveling with the ordinance. What is the zoning that is on the crosshatched portion because there is no key? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 t8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: That zoning would be CC(2)(R)(P). It is actually listed just below the note that says for location of zone boundaries see ordinance and there is a place for the ordinance number. It says CC(2)(R)(P) that is that hatched portion. Under the CC(2)(P). We can make that clearer in a revised map for the City Council. Commissioner Holman: I would appreciate that because it looks like the line could point to the interior portion too the arrow kind of stops at the line so that would be appreciated. Chair Griffin: If there are no further questions then we would open the public comments. I have one card from Ione Hartley. Ms. Ione Hartle¥, 153 S. California Avenue, Palo Alto: I am not sure how to do this I have never done it before. I just want to confirm that you are going to maintain the P designation on this reclassification. Chair Griffin: I am wondering if you could speak more directly into the microphone. Ms. Hartley: I just want to confirm that you support the commercial association in this effort however we want to make sure that the P designation is retained for these reclassifications. Chair Griffin: Do you have any more comments? Ms. Hartley: That is my only comment. I want to make sure that that P designation is maintained. Chair Griffin: Thank you. Now if Staff Would wish to reply to that at all. Mr. Riordan’ Staff would like to affirm what she just said. The P designation will be retained in this location. Chair Griffin: I have no further cards for this item so I will close the public hearing and open it up to questions or comments and a motion here at the desk. Colleagues? Commissioner Holman: One other one. In addition to the clarification that portion of Palo Alto Central would still be zoned CC(2)(R)(P) on page one of the draft ordinance under (m) on the fourth line down that starts, "existence in that space since March 19, 2001, and, as of such date were neither nonconforming nor," I had trouble deciphering this. There is currently an illegal use there. So could Staff explain how the ordinance addresses that? Ms. Grote: The office use that you are referring to that does front on Park Boulevard would become nonconforming and therefore when that front 50% of the space is vacated for more than 12 months it would need to be replaced with a conforming use. So it would have nonconforming status until that time. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Holman: I hope nobody else had trouble deciphering that but I had great difficulty understanding the language there. Chair Griffin: Further questions? I would entertain a motion. Phyllis. MOTION Vice-Chair Cassel: I will move that we recommend to City Council the approval of an ordinance modifying PAMC Section 18.43.030 and rezoning portions of the Palo Alto Central to allow office uses within the rear 50% of Buildings C and D and all of Building E as stated in the draft ordinance, Attachment A and that we approve the Negative Declaration. Chair Griffin: Actually, we are right in the middle of the motion so I think we will just keep pressing on here. sorry. Do I have a second? SECOND Commissioner Packer: I will second. Chair Griffin: Would the maker like to speak to the item or has it already been covered in sufficient detail previously? Vice-Chair Cassel: I think a few comments would be appropriate. We did indeed discuss this in great detai! and asked the Staff to come back with this motion. This seems to be agreeable with the owners and it keeps the retail portion that we wanted on the street front and allows for more diversity inside in the areas where it has very poor retail exposure. Chair Griffin: Seconder? Commissioner Packer: ’I agree with what Phyllis said and I think this is a very clean way to deal with it by changing the uses in the CC zone and maintaining the P on the interior courtyard I think is also a good thing and fits with the intent of our discussions of the past several meetings. MOTION PA~ SED (5-0-1-1, Commissioner Bialson absent and Commissioner Lippert abstained) Chair Griffin: All those in favor of Phyllis’s motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? There are none. Did you vote? Commissioner Lippert: I will need to abstain. I did not participate in the earlier hearings and I cannot come in midstream on this item. 1 2 3 Chair Griffin: Then the item carries with Commissioner Bialson absent and Commissioner Lippert abstaining. That brings to an end item number one. Attach ment D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes February 11, 2004 2401~ 2409~ 2417 Park Boulevard and 101 California Avenue*: [ 03-ZC-060] Request by Nina Moore, President of the Palo Alto Central Commercial Association, on behalf of Richard & Sharon Reyes (2417 Park Blvd.), Eldad & Charlotte Matityahu (2409 Park Blvd), Donald Douglas & Nina Moore (2401 Park Blvd.) and Norman Weintraub & Deborah London (109 California Avenue) for a zone change from CC(2) (R)(P) to CC(2). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Ms. Grote: Thank you Chair Griffin and Commissioners. Before Chris Riordan comes up to make the official Staff Report I wanted to just give some background on the Wallace and [Stichen] Study that we talked about a couple of months ago. I apologize for not including it in your packet I realize I had indicated that I would do that. It is at your places and I did want to just verbally summarize what it says. Basically the study was focused on Building E, which is the 3,200 square foot building that is interior to the courtyard. It stated that since the 1980s that space has either been a restaurant or vacant. In that time it has been five different restaurants. The reason the Wallace and [Stichen] Study concludes that retail is not appropriate for the building is because it lacks the four basic elements of successful retail: That is visibility, vehicle traffic, pedestrian traffic and a synergistic relationship with other types of retail or personal service uses. It notes that the visibility is nonexistent from California Avenue into the courtyard. The vehicle traffic is much less in that lodation than it is on the rest of California Avenue, It is located towards the edge of that retail district. The pedestrian traffic is poor again because people don’t walk into the courtyard area. It appears that it is private property and so there is nothing to entice people into that area. Therefore, it lacks a synergistic relationship with the rest of California Avenue. So because it lacks those four elements the study really concluded that the most appropriate use would be for office. They also noted that there are some condominium regulations which require the businesses to close at 10:00 PM makes it difficult for a restaurant in particular to operate but other types of retail use as well, So they do conclude that office is a more appropriate use for Building E. We believe that those same elements are lacking in at least portions of the rest of the businesses in that project. So that is what led to our current recommendation that is before you tonight. Christ is going to summarize that. Thank you. Mr. Chris Riordan, Planner: Good evening. This project was previously reviewed by the. Planning and Transportation Commission at the meeting of October 8 of last year. At that meeting Staff was recommending to the Commission that the R and P Combining Districts be removed from Buildings C, D and E and to allow ground floor offices as a permitted use in all of the Palo Alto commercial spaces but no other properties in the 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 surrounding Community Commercial zone. The Commission requested a provision that not all types of office uses be permitted uses. The Commission was concerned that future retail opportunities would be lost if existing retail were to convert to office uses. The Commission suggested the possibility that the commercial spaces with street frontage be differentiated from those with frontage limited to the courtyard and that the P Combining District B maintained for the street fronting commercial spaces. The Commission also generally supported a consideration to allow office use as a permitted use on the ground floor and the removal of the R Combining District for the commercial spaces with frontage limited to the courtyard. With respect to the Commission’s comments to Staff provided during the previous hearing Staff recommends the retention of the R and P Combining District for all of Palo Alto Central to ensure the front 50% of each building with street frontage on Park Boulevard and California Avenue is maintained for uses conforming to the R and P Combining District such as personal service retail and restaurants and existing office in the front 50% of a street facing space would become legal nonconforming as of the effective date of City Council adoption of such code amendment. Office uses would also be allowed as a permitted use within the rear 50% of each building C and D and within all of Building E. If the Commission recommends Staff’s current recommendation the project description would be changed, the hearing Would be re-noticed and Staff would return to the Commission with a draft ordinance and revised environmental document. This concludes Staff’ report. The applicants are here this evening and have 15 minutes to present their project. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Are there any questions of Staff or can we move on to’the applicant’s presentation? I have no questions here so would the applicant step forward and introduce yourself if you would, please? Ms. Nina Moore, Applicant: I am the owner of 2401 Park and the President of Palo Alto Central Commercial Association. We see the City’s point of view in wanting to have retail. We understand that they are recommending that the interior complex only be that. They want to differentiate 50% of the interior of the unit being office space whereas the exterior being retail. There are times when you are leasing out the whole unit as an entity because you just happen to get lucky and somebody wants the whole space. Then you are going to have the dilemma if it is office space and you don’t want the office space on the exterior you want retail. At the same time it is not producing the revenues that they think. Right now the Plantation Coffee Shop I think for the tenth time has just sold out. They are not making it. They are not cutting it. There is a nail salon that is on 2401 Park and they are not making it. So I am not quite sure. We need the whole place to conform as one entity. Palo Alto Central is an entity it is not just little cubicles that we just take and slice and dice. It needs to be one and one thing. It is all very well and fine to say well Building E which is inside that’s not a building it is part of the complex. This is creating a lot of intemal problems for us. They keep coming in front of the Board at the end of the day. So we would like the City to see it our way. I am very happy to have 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 retail there when retail is making it. But when retail is failing over and over and over again what do small property owners do? This is why this has come to be. For one thing the overlay hadn’t come, it was put on irrespective of the fact that this is not a building.owned by one person. This is a building owned by 143 residential and something like 18 commercial units. It is an entity it is not buildings like up and down California and University Avenues. It does not fall into the classification of a building where you have the option of having something downstairsand.something upstairs and you have the option of diversifying your risk. That is out take on it. As far as we are concerned we would like to see the whole building as a whole just become the way it was. What it was initially was CC (2). Then an overlay came and created all that havoc for us. Before that we had retail. It is more expensive for the owner, I would rather rent to retail because I make more money. I do not make more money by having it as offices. Offices pay less rent except for that crazy thing with the Internet and the dot.tom thing that has already fizzled and gone. I don’t think we are going to see that again. We are kind of back to everyday living where we need to be able to survive. So that is my point of view of the whole thing. Do you have any questions for me? Chair Griffin: Commissioners questions of the applicant? Commissioner Packer: I have one. Palo Alto Central was built in 1983 and the R and P Overlay came in 1984. Is that correct? So there has been that retail element there since 1984. Ms. Moore: No. There have been lots of offices there. Commissioner Packer: That grandfathered. Ms. Moore: Grandfathered or not grandfathered, nobody has been there for that long. Nobody has been there for 15 years straight. Commissioner Packer: Was there a time when any of the retail was successful? Ms. Moore: There is no one that’s been there that long. The only one that has originally been there is the name Plantation Coffee Shop and that has changed, this is the ninth or tenth time it has changed hands. They tried to sell it to a new owner. The new owner lost all of a year or two years at the most and then gives up because you just can’t make it, you cannot make it on that amount of coffee. Pastries or whatever. You have Molly Stone’s across the street. Why would anybody go to the coffee shop across the street when you buy whatever you want from Molly Stone’s including I think they are now making espresso or something like that. They have had it hard and I have seen them one after the other give up and leave, one after the other give up and leave. The same thing with the people that had Building E they have always had trouble making ends meet. This is like struggling retailers in the area is not what we want, we want thriving people, people that can make it.. 3 i 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 Chair Griffin: Any other questions? Thank you very much. If Commissioners have questions of Staff now is the time. We will hear from the public. Do we have some cards. I have two speaker cards. If there are more of you that would like to address the Commission now is the time to fill out a card. My first speaker is Warren Beer and you will have five minutes Warren. Mr. Warren Beer, 153 California Avenue, Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. I am a resident at Palo Alto Central. I am a homeowner there.. I have lived there for nearly ten years. I was President of the Palo Alto Central Homeowners Association for three years and Chairman of the Plaza Committee for two years. The Plaza Committee is a group that has representatives of homeowners and business people that make decisions about the area that is under discussion this evening. For a number of years people who have lived at Palo Alto Central have talked about the viability of the businesses in our community. We have seen what Nina has described and that is the business turnover is pretty frequent. It is disruptive. When we are trying to conduct business between the two associations often times we don’t know who the current owners are of the properties that we are trying to make decisions about. So it has an effect on the way that the two associations communicate and make decisions with each other. Because of the turnover we don’t always know who is in what position. What I would like to say is that there are some differences between homeowners and business owners. For example the business people are generally there during the daytime the homeowners are generally there in the evening. Some of the businesses are very conducive to the interests of homeowners. For example Nina Moore provides real estate services which some of our homeowners take advantage of when they decide to sell their units. Some of the businesses there people don’t take advantage of because they don’t feel that those types of businesses may not be conducive to their community. For example the restaurant in Building E has been a source of division between the two associations for as long as I have been there. The restaurant is in an isolated part of the community. Like Nina said it doesn’t get much visibility from the street traffic but the homeowners see it every day. We see the trash. We hear the noise. We see the garbage. We see all kinds of stuffthat you wouldn’t see on the outside of the complex. So we think that from the homeowners perspective that it would be to the interest of the ..... homeowners living at Palo Alto Central to go along with Staff’s recommendation. There will be a discussion from Chuck Marsh who is a current member of the Palo Alto Central Board. Maintaining the P designation is very important because we want pedestrians who walk past our community to see it and look at it as though it is a welcoming place. We want people to walk by and think it is an attractive community,. I think if the P designation is eliminated the property probably wouldn’t look as good as it does now. But I don’t think that homeowners would be missing anything if these areas were converted over to office space. Half of the businesses that are there right now are office space. Most of the people when they go shopping they go across the street to Molly Stone’s, they go to other restaurants along California Avenue. There is a lot of variety to choose from. I think that in general the recommendation that Staff made here is a good 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 one. I think every homeowner at Palo Alto Central would be very happy to see the City concur with this change. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you, Warren. Our next speaker is Chuck Marsh to be followed by Donald Douglas and ~Joy Ogawa, Mr. Chuck Marsh, 2557 Park Boulevard, #2110, Palo Alto: Good evening. Thank you for doing this tonight. I am the Vice President.of the Palo Alto Central Homeowners Association and a resident there. One point I want to make that came up last time was the concern about the design and the layout. One of the problems I think that brings this up is that when the project was developed it wasn’t developed with retail integrated along California Avenue from Park down to the railroad station. So next to the tracks at the comer of California and the Cal Train parking lot you have residential units. So there is not a real good tie-in with the urban transit interface, which would have been a design enhancement, I think. So people have walked by blank walls and residents from the train station before they get to the retail and that has made it difficult for the retail. I would disagree with Nina a little bit. The Plantation Deli is a much better place to have coffee than standing up in Molly Stone’s even though they have remodeled Molly Stone’s. I would hope that the deli is something that could continue because that is an amenity that residents and other people who bicycle and walk in on weekends really enjoy. I understand also the problem with designating the rear half of the building in one way and the front in another way because I think the individual office condominiums don’t necessarily follow that layout. I do want to echo what Warren said, we really want to maintain the pedestrian orientation for this. We don’t want offices on the outside that are blanked off to the street so that it looks like the residents are just above an office building. I don’t think it was artfully designed in the beginning but we do need to preserve the pedestrian sort of the few pedestrian amenities that we have. That is our main concern. I think we would much prefer to have retail on the outside of the buildings as Staff has suggested but the marketplace also speaks. Thank you very much. Chair Griffin: Thank you, Chuck. Our third speaker is Don Douglas. Mr. Donald Douglas~ 101 California Avenue, Palo Alto: I am one of the owners of the commercial. I just want to say I think the recommendation of the Planning Staffis a fair recommendation and I agree with everyone else, the preceding speakers. Chair Griffin: Thank you. Our last speaker at the moment, if there are other speakers wishing to make a presentation I encourage you to fill out a speaker card, in the meantime Joy Ogawa. Ms. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto: I would like to reiterate the comments I made at the previous public hearing on this topic about the importance of retaining 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 ground floor retail and the inappropriateness ofrezoning to eliminate the existing, ground floor retail requirement at this site. Now I see that in response to Planning Commission direction given at the previous public’ hearing Staff is now bringing forward recommendations to eliminate the ground floor retail requirement for the non-street facing spaces. However, two aspects of Staff’s recommended proposal are of great concern to me. One major concern that I have is that Staff proposes to grandfather in existing illegal ground floor office uses so that these currently illegal office uses that are there in violation of the Municipal Code that these illegal office uses be grandfathered in regardless of whether or not they are located in street facing spaces. In other words, Staff is proposing to allow currently illegal uses to become legal nonconforming uses. This grandfathering provision is horrible policy. Staff proposes to reward bad actors, to reward flagrant violators of the Municipal Code by allowing these currently illegal street facing office uses to continue and to allow these spaces to continue to be replaced by new office uses in perpetuity. Talk about rewarding bad actors. Staff proposes to reward the bad actors, the property owners who have violated the code by allowing them to have street facing ground floor office uses. However, property owners who have followed the rules and not put in office uses where they are currently not allowed are punished because they won’t be allowed to put in new street facing ground floor office uses. I guess the message Staff is sending is that in Palo Alto it pays not to follow the rules. Property owners who follow the rules are in fact suckers because the property owners who break the rules never suffer any consequences and in fact as in this case the violators get singled out for special treatment because they ultimately get rewarded for having violated the code. The second concern I have is regarding the floor area of the street facing space. Staff is recommending that only 50% of the front street facing space be required to be retail. I don’t think that is enough. The Downtown Ground Floor Combining District allows only up to 25% of the ground floor area not fronting on a street to be used for general business service office use. Even then such office uses are only allowed subject to a conditional use permit. I am referring to the provisions of Chapter 18.50 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The Staff Report claims the 50% of the street fronting ground floor space is enough for retail here because this would provide a minimum of 500 to 800 square feet. I really don’t think that is enough space for many types of retail because maybe 500 square feet is enough for nail salons but not enough for a variety of retail sales. Five hundred square feet is certainly not enough for a regular restaurant use. Staff’s proposal would allow the existing restaurant that is located in the courtyard area to be converted to an office use. That restaurant occupies well over 1,000 square feet, the way I look at it, yet Staff’s proposal would not provide any street fronting space that would accommodate a ..... restaurant of that size. That restaurant was a condition of approval of the original project. Now the property owners want to wiggle out of that condition without making any provision for a street fronting space that would accommodate such a restaurant. I don’t want to see a bunch of nail salons on the ground floor street frontage of those buildings. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 We already have too many on California Avenue if you follow Staff’s recommendation that is what we are going to end up with. There are a couple of comments here one was they want to go back to CC (2) but even CC(2) has ground floor retail protection on top of that and it sounds like they want to get out of even that because they want to be able to convert even the existing retail space to office which is not allowed under our current CC (2) zoning with ground floor retail protection. Also they talk about it is hard to fill the spaces. Well again it is hard to fill almost any space, retail or office, in Palo Alto right now. So I don’t really see why this building should get special treatment just because they are suffering from the economy just like everybody else. To complain about, if we allow the economy to run things we are going to end up with no retail at all in Palo Alto. I think our experience with Downtown and our other business districts have shown that requiring ground floor retail has helped Palo Alto. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you, Joy, We have one more speaker card. I am encouraging you people in the audience if you would like to address the Commission please fill out a card otherwise, Michael McClellan will be our last speaker. Mr. Michael McClellan, 151 California Avenue, Palo Alto: Thank you very much. Thanks for having Us here this evening. My wife and I are the owners of the restaurant, which was just previously mentioned in E building. Really all we are here to make sure that there is some way for that building in particular, Building E, to survive. This is a place that has been a restaurant or tried to be a restaurant for 15 years. This was actually first conceived to be a restaurant for a retirement area. That whole area was going to be a retirement area and that restaurant was going to be exclusive to that area. Then it became restaurant as in public restaurant and for 15 years it has strived to be so. It has five different restaurants there. I now have no tenant there anymore. They were unable to pay rent for three months and we had to evict them. It is a tough bird to fly. That thing doesn’t want to be a restaurant and it has proved it. We hired an expert witness to tell us what is going on here and why this place isn’t being successful. Then he mentioned all the things that have been mentioned earlier on to this Commission that is pedestrian traffic, vehicular traffic and visibility all the things that it doesn’t have. So if you were to make all the front office then we would definitely not have any drawing card coming back in there. So I don’t know what you guys are going to decide but I am hoping that in some way or another we can bring about some success to this whole building as a whole. Thanks very much. Chair Griffin: Thank you. We have a question for you Michael. Commissioner Packer: As owner of Building E what use do you think would be best in the building as it is? What is your dream? Mr. McClellan: I think it would be kind of a neat place for a dentist or chiropractor or something along those lines. I think it would be kind of nice in that regard because of the atriums and that. We are looking at the possibility of it continuing being a restaurant but 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 the thing is for it to continue to be a restaurant there are certain criteria. We have never been able to achieve that so I just don’t think it will be a successful restaurant. What could it be? Well it has proven that it can’t be a restaurant so far with the way things are now. I would think something that still pulls people into that courtyard area because it is a lovely area but the drawing card doesn’t seem to be a restaurant. So to really say exactly what it should be is something other than a restaurant, I guess. Chair Griffin: Fine. ~Thank you. We have no other speaker cards so I am going to ask the applicant is she would care to make any closing comments. You are not obliged to but you certainly have the opportunity to use three minutes. Ms. Moore: I would just like to address one of the speakers. She made a comment about the fact that because the economy is not good that we are going after the rezoning, etc. The truth is that is not the case. We have a 15-year history of failing retail businesses there. It is not yesterday or the day before yesterday or last year or the year beforel We have the Plantation while I know Chuck would like to see it stay and I would love to see it stay it so happens that it has changed hands about nine times. The last one is just recently and Della, the owner that just sold it, has only been there a little over a year. The prior owner was there for about a year. So there is a history there and each one of the things we presented show that that unit has had a history of failures of 15 years. So we did not just come up and say oh the economy is bad now so we can’t make it. Actually in one of my unitswhen the rents were sky high we didn’t raise it on our office space that was there. The result was that when we went for the rezoning he stayed month to month. It has been over two years now we have been trying to get this thing rezoned to keep our offices. The man is staying month to month because we have been decent to him. We would like people to be there for retail but if they can’t make it we need to make it whatever it is so that the place looks nice and it looks inviting. Having vacant units does not cut it. You walk in there and there is nothing in there just for rent or for lease. Is that what we are projecting? Is that what we are allowing Palo Alto to say we don’t care whether you make it or not we need retail here because we need income for the City. Well, guess what? If it stays vacant there is no income for the City and the owners are suffering. This is not the economy this is 15 years of track record. Chair Griffin: Thank you. Do we have questions of the applicant? Commissioner Holman: I do have one question. You mentioned that there have been five different owners of the Plantation in 15 years. Ms. Moore: More than five. Commissioner Holman: More than five? Ms. Moore: About nine now. Five in the restaurant. Kind of keep in mind that the restaurant was vacant, Michael, help me here how long was it in foreclosure and owned by a bank? 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. McClellan: About a year and a couple of months. Ms. Moore: So it like somewhere along the line it went into foreclosure and was owned by a bank for awhile before somebody came in and rescued it from there. I don’t think that is what we are looking for for the rest of the units. Commissioner Holman: But Plantation has had nine different owners in 15 years? Okay. Ms. Moore: It is a scary concept. Vice,Chair Cassel: My question is that complex has been zoned this way for 20 years. What happened to the other five? This is 2004 and that was 1984. Ms. Moore: I lost five years some where along the road. Twenty years. I always think of the complex younger than it is it makes me look younger. Chair Griffin: If there are no further questions of the applicant I am going to close the public hearing. Thank you. I will bring the discussion back to the Commissioners. Does anyone wish to begin our discussion? Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I have a legal question, The proposal is that Staff is proposing that the Code Section 18.46.04 be changed in order to address the rear 50% of buildings that are in an R P Overlay and allow that to be 50% usage. Are you proposing that that be an across the board change for every overlay district that is R/P? I just don’t know how? Ms. Grote: It would be an amendment that addresses these specific addresses~ There are other sections in the Zoning Ordinance that address specific sites. So we are using that as an example of how this wording could be crafted in order to accommodate this project: Commissioner Packer: That doesn’t raise any legal questions or the spot zoning issue? Mr. Dan Soder¢ren, Special Council to City Attomeys: I think the way it is applied here is fine. It’s the way we have done it previously and I think it is acceptable. Vice-Chair Cassel: This is a mixed use project but it is not a PC. Am I correct? Ms. Grote.: That is correct. It is not a PC it is zoned CC(2)(R)(P) and in some cases just CC(2). Vice-Chair Cassel: So the residential was built behind and this is part of a condomini~ complex that all mixes together. So it must have had some common planning base when it started. Ms. Grote: I think the concept, it was one of the first mixed use concepts. It was approved in i 982 1 believe. It was always seen as a whole however there are two 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 separate associations one for the residential portion and one for the commercial portion that govern the use and the operation of the whole. Vice-Chair Cassel: So it is not a PC it was done on the regular zoning for that site at that time? Ms, Grote: Correct. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have a question that is probably a legal question too. A member of the public pointed out that and maybe Staff can confirrn this or not that the restaurant was a condition of approval for the building. So if we rezone that which was a condition of approval how does that play out legally? Mr. Sodergren: I am not sure. I haven’t seen that. Ms. Grote: We can look at the original conditions ofapprovaI. I don’t know that it was actually stated that it had to be a restaurant. I think that it was conceptualized as a .... retail/other type of commercial or restaurant space. I don’t know that it was specifically called out as a restaurant but we will check and see if we can find that information in the file. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. Vice-Chair Cassel: Sort of where I was going is if this were not a PC, if it was a PC then we wouldn’t have changed the zoning in the commercial area because it would have stayed with its original zoning I would presume. You wouldn’t have been able to put the overlay on it. You don’t usually build a building with a condition to a specific use if it was zoned CC(2). Ms. Grote: That is correct. Usually when things are built with some sort of zoning on it there are a variety of uses that are allowed in that zoning district and therefore in that building. It is with PCs that we get very specific and we tie it to a site development plan. So ordinarily if it is zoned CC any use that is permitted within the CC zone can be in that building and it is not held to being only a restaurant or being only a retail use it can be a variety of uses. Commissioner Holman: As follow up the part that is a bit quizzical about this though is as far as I know they have only tried restaurants here. When it was built if this was to be a restaurant to serve the residents in the building then it does make me wonder if it was a condition of approval in some say ........ Ms. Grote: We can certainly look at that. Actually that would be an unusual circumstance. We will look to verify it but it would be unusual that it would be that specific. It was probably conceived as or conceptualized as a retail use some sort of 10 1 support use for the other either residential or commercial uses in the building. It would 2 be unusual to be so specific as to say it had to be a restaurant. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Griffin: Let me interject where is it that we got the comment that the restaurant was a condition of approval? Ms. Grote: I think one of the members of the public mentioned that and I don’t know what she is basing it on. Chair Griffin: Would the person who made that comment wish to amplify? Come forward. Joy, it was you. Mr. McClellan: What I mentioned was that it was my impression looking at the plans that I have viewed in the past which is an original document that it showed waste, cleanouts and grease traps and that that it seemed to me that it was thought to be possibly a restaurant because there were those kind of considerations taken. So maybe there was some assumption on my part. But when I see plans that show distinctive things that are attributed to a restaurant although there was a bike rack shown inside the building too. So I could be. Chair Griffin: We have a question. Vice-Chair Cassel: You worked with the documents when you purchased the building. When you purchased the building were there conditions on the building that said how you could use the building? Mr. McClellan: My wife can answer. Ms. Laura Rassmussen: I am his wife and one of the two property owners. No there are no conditions in the CC&Rs that require us to be a restaurant. The CC&Rs require that each of the units be of a legal use. So it is whatever is legal. It is clear, there are lots of reasons why this was done to be a restaurant. At one point I was told by someone that originally this was going to be like a retirement center and that was going to be the eating area. Then later it ended up being commercial condos and that remained as a restaurant. I haven’t seen anything anywhere that ever said that that had to be a restaurant. I have done some research from when I was going to bring in an application like this a few years ago looking into how it was zoned and so forth. I didn’t see anything that said it had to be a restaurant, There is one thing I came down here to point out. If you recall the document that I provided to you at the last meeting, which was from an expert that I retained that theCity has used, he says very clearly in there that if you put commercial uses around the restaurant it will damage it because people won’tcome into the courtyard. So the one think I wanted to point out is that option one would be detrimental to us. We would have to take some type of action if you did that because it would harm our restaurant severely. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Griffin: Fine, thank you, I am wondering if we could hear from Joy Ogawa who had made a comment about this. Can you clear this up for usplease, Joy? Ms. Ogawa: Maybe I am technically wrong here. I based that on the previous hearing where it was presented as they have to have a restaurant there. That the only thing they were allowed to do was have a restaurant and a restaurant was failing and they wanted to put something eise in. Chair Griffin: You haven’t read anything specifically? Ms. Ogawa: I haven’t read anything specifically but I inferred that from what Staffhad said previously and from the comments that were made. There was one other point that I wanted to make in response to what she said. Chair Griffin: I think we got what we needed from you and I do appreciate your Comments. Thank you. So we are back here. Karen, did you have any further questions? Commissioner Holman: I do have another question, which is a lay of the land question here. Staff is recommending 50% of the street facing and how would one draw that 50% if that is what we did if you look at building D where the Plantation is and where the Douglas Moore Real Estate office is there? The spaces inside are configured in kind of a strange way so how would we actually do a 50% if that were what we decided to do? How do you draw that is my question and where do you measure from?. Do you measure from the street or do you measure from the entrance to the building? Ms. Grote: You would need to measure from the interior of the building. So it is the interior dimensions. It wouldn’t necessarily coincide exactly with how the spaces are configured now. They may need to modify some of those spaces so you would .measure from the interior wall back half the depth of the building and that is where the new partition or the new division would be. At this point this is our concept of how we think this could be approached. If you have a different way to figure how the interior could be laid out then we can certainly talk about that but that in general terms is what we were anticipating that you would measure from the interior space ...... Commissioner Burr: I have a follow up on that, When I ~ead what you had proposed I had assumed that what you would be requiring under this definition would be that the street face of the building would be required to be occupied entirely by a retail tenant and that 50% of the square footage of that condominium area would have to be occupied by such a retail tenant and that those would be the two ways in which you would prescribe the objective that you were setting forth here. Is that not correct? Ms. Grote: Well, I think that is conceptually correct. Everything that is on the street frontage would be retail or other personal service use. Then 50% of the interior space would be devoted to retail, I think we were thinking that the portion that is along the street frontage and then halfway into the depth of the building. Now there may be some other way to configure that but I think that is what we were conceptualizing. 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: Would we.necessarily care what the configuration was of the walls in the interior as long the street face was occupied by the retail tenant and 50% of the square footage of that condo was occupied by the retail tenant. Ms. Grote: Yes, that would work. So it doesn’t have to be a straight line it could be a non-straight line. Commissioner Burr: Just a simple formula. Ms. Grote: Yes, that would work. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I have a follow up. In the CC(2)it says a lot can have no more than a total of 5,000 square feet of office. So is this area one lot or is each building a lot? How would the 5,000 square feet total play out? Ms. Grote: It is a commercial condominium and so essentially each space is owned individually. None of these spaces would exceed the 5,000 square foot maximum. They are all fairly small actually. Commissioner Packer: So the 5,000 square foot applies to each of the condominium units not to the whole project. Ms, Grote: Correct. Commissioner Packer: Thank you. Chair Griffin: Any other comments? Questions? Pat. Commissioner Burr: I believe at our last hearing we had had some discussion about usages that were not strictly retail but were pedestrian oriented. We heard tonight the owners of Building E, the restaurant condo in the interior plaza area, as suggesting chiropractic services or dental. We even on the street right now have a title office and a real estate office which I am not sure whether any of those meet our retail definition but they are pedestrian oriented more so than a software company or something that has almost no interaction with this street and provides no services to the community on this ground floor area. I would very much like to see us accommodate the reality that the interior courtyard unfortunately does not work well for true retail space but to have the ground floor commercial space be uses that are kindof transitional in between a pure retail and a very passive office space. That would be more consistent with Comprehensive Plan objectives for this area. So does Staff have any follow up? We had had discussions about this in the SOFA II about this classification whether it be business services or some other definition that would allow just the very sort of thing that the current owner says thinks would work well there. I don’t think we are offering that 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 alternative which would serve the community well and potentially meet the needs of the property owners. Ms. Grote: At various times we have tried to discuss pedestrian oriented office or neighborhood serving office. We really wanted to have that discussion as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update so it could apply citywide rather than trying to focus it on a particular building or a particular area of town. So yes, while we would like to see more exploration of that kind of a concept we didn’t want to apply it before we had a chance to really discuss what that would mean citywide. So we didn’t look at limiting the types of office or narrowing the definition of some sort of neighborhood serving office in this particular case although we do want to have that discussion as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. Vice,Chair Cassel: I am kind of asking Pat and the Staffat the same time. You are thinking in terms of using one definition for both the inside and the outside? Commissioner Burt: Nope. Vice-Chair Cassel: You are keeping the outside where it is and looking at just the inside? Commissioner Burt: Yes. I am looking at and we had had some discussion along this line at the last meeting. I am looking at at least the buildings that are more adjacent to the corner of California and Park which would be Buildings D and C that those buildings on the exterior have some viability for retail and that the proposal by Staffto have 50% of the square footage of that be retail according to our current definition of retail. The interior buildings and possibly Building B would be zoned for a use that would not allow boarded up offices that have no dynamic with the street, no services to the community but instead would be things where we have walk-in traffic but they don’t sell traditionally defined retail services such as a title company, a chiropractor and those sorts of uses. Ms. Grote: The other way to approach that would be through the maintenance of the P Combining District because that is what is there now and it also is what requires the pedestrian orientation, the insets for the entryway, kind of the inside to outside interaction. So if you maintain the P Combining District that may. Vice-Chair Cassel: On the inside of that? Ms. Grote: On the whole thing. Chair Griffin: That encourages store front windows. Ms. Grote: Yes and display areas and entry points for better design in such a way that it attracts pedestrians. 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Cassel: That is already on the building now it just means that it maintains it. Ms. Grote: That’s right. That’s correct. Vice-Chair Cassel: The building was built with that. Ms. Grote: That’s correct. Commissioner Burt: So let me just try and clarify. If we change the zoning of the interior to allow an office use but within a P Combining District it would be an office use that would require these characteristics that you are describing. Ms. Grote: Correct. Right. Vice-Chair Cassel: So shall I make a motion then with that added on to it? Commissioner Burt: It is in there. Commissioner Packer: That is what the Staff Report says. Chair Griffin: I am reading the recommendation and it says retention, of the (R)(P) Combining District for all of Palo Alto Central. So it is there. MOTION Vice-Chair Cassel: But will allow office uses within the rear 50% of C, D and E. Then I will make that proposal that that will retain that P. I will so move. Chair Griffin: Do I have a second? SECOND Commissioner Packer: I will second it. Chair Griffin: Phyllis do you wish to discuss or have you already spoken to it? Vice-Chair Cassel: Well, I lived in this area. This building was put up at the time I was living in this neighborhood. It wasn’t built to accommodate the retail spaces on the inside the way I think we all had hoped. I am sure we all hoped to have a restaurant on the inside. It seemed like it was a real neat idea and when I heard about it at the time I was watching this go.up with great fun. But it isn’t working on the inside. The owners are saying it isn’t working on the outside but I still think we ought to retain that outside 50% and should proceed with that and see what happens. I think that is way we should proceed because that is the way it has been zoned on the street that is what we are looking for that is what Susan Arpan was just saying is that we are having trouble throughout the town and that by keeping that R and P they have been able to retain some retail in spaces 15 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 where we really need it. So I think this is a good compromise. I think the inside of the building needs to change because it is not working in combination with the residential area. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I agree with what Phyllis said. I think Staffhas come up with a very simple solution or compromise to what the applicant would want. I think we have to still try and give retail on those street facing building a chance and that is what we are doing and still allowing some flexibility by saying it is okay to have some office space in part of those units if that is what works. It could still be 100% retail if one observes the minimum of the 50%. It is a shame that Building E didn’t turn out to be a restaurant. I have eaten in various versions of the restaurants there. I think it is a neat courtyard but to give the flexibility and allow some other uses there is okay. It doesn’t mean that they can’t put retail in if one day you decide that the other uses don’t work out and a restaurant would work. I have to keep in mind that in other cities there are interior plazas that work well with shops and restaurants. I don’t know what it is about this place that isn’t working but just because there is an interior space around a plaza it doesn’t preclude the concept of retail. Having said that I support the motion and I hope that it will work for the applicant. Chair Griffin: Maybe it is because it is not Carmel perhaps. Karen do you have comments? Commissioner Holman: I still have a couple of questions. Why did Staff come up with 50% as opposed to 75% for instance or 60%, why 50%? Ms. Grote: Because the spaces are relatively small and the 50% would result in a 500 to 800 square foot allowance for a retail use and that is what we are hearing from Susan Arpan is the minimum necessary. So we didn’t want to say more than that because then that doesn’t leave much room for anything else but if you use 50% then you have the minimum 500 to 800 square feet. Commissioner Holman: What about this project, because we are looking at some of these thing during the ZOU, what about this project coming backduring the ZOU? Ms. Grote: Revisiting the zoning during the ZOU? If that is something you wanted to entertain that is a possibility. We could put that on the list of things to look at. I don’t know what the rest of the Commissioners think. Vice-Chair Cassel: Can I ask a follow up question to that? If we change what goes into a zone then that will apply. Ms, Grote: That is correct. If you changed what was allowed in the CC zone then it would certainly apply to this site, That is true. 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Holman: I just think if we do that though we might have some more noncompliant or nonconforming uses here. Ms. Grote: You might. Steve is mentioning that you might have nonconforming uses created citywide if you do that. Commissioner Holman: Right, Then the other thing was Staff recommends allowing the currently nonconforming use to stay. That is troubling to me. Ms. Grote: Yes, until it vacates. I think it is worded that it can stay, it would be considered abandoned and replaced by a conforming use if it is abandoned for 12 months or more. So you could shorten that 12 month period but it would have to be replaced with a conforming use if it is abandoned for 12 months or more. Commissioner Holman: But it is currently illegal. Ms. Grote: This acknowledges that there is an existing illegal use that would become existing nonconforming. If that front portion is abandoned for more than 12 months as is our standard nonconforming policy then it would need to be replaced with a conforming use, which would be retail. It does acknowledge that there is a situation out here that would become nonconforming that is not Vice-Chair Cassel: legal Ms. Grote: Currently. Vice-Chair Cassel: My understanding also is that the City passed that. In other words it went to the City and the City allowed that. Is that the use we are talking about? Ms. Grote: There is actually an open code enforcement case on it pending the outcome of this rezoning action. So if this is not approved ultimately by Council the code enforcement action will be resumed. Vice-Chair Cassel: This isn’t the site that was accidentally approved by our Staff Ms. Grote: No. This one is on a month to month lease they understand that there are some issues to be resolved here. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: Come back to me in a minute. Chair Griffin: Pat, Commissioner Burr: For Building B Lisa let me just ask you if there is any way to achieve this objective. I would be willing to consider it because it is further along Park 17 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 and there just aren’t other retailers along that far up the street as I recall if it were to have 2 that P Combining District and be included in the P Combining District and allow it to 3 have office but under the constraints that we put for the rest of the office space in this 4 complex I would be willing to consider it but I wouldn’t be willing to consider that if it 5 would only kick in if they had a 12 month vacancy. I would like to see that frontage for that building be of uses similar to what we have just decided was appropriate for the balance of this complex, the balance that is not retail. Is there some way to move in that direction? ..... Ms. Grote: If you just referenced Building B, as in boy, which is on the Park side that isn’t part of this application. That actually was rezoned in 1990 and the R and P were taken offofthat in 1990. So that is a straight conventional CC(2) zone. That was rezoned in 1990. That is one of the things that the existing commercial condominium. Commissioner Burt: So that is conforming right now? Ms. Grote: That is conforming. That is a CC(2) zone. This is an unusual project in that the zoning district is different for part of the project than it is for the rest of the project. Commissioner Burt: Could you clarify then which or Phyllis can you clarify which parcel you were referring to just then? Vice-Chair Cassel: I am referring to the application. B is not in our application. Ms. Grote: C; D and E. Vice-Chair Cassel: C, D and E because that is part of the application. Commissioner Burt: I am asking when you were just talking about an illegal use. Vice-Chair Cassel: I had thought there was one. Ms. Grote: There is, it is Building C, it is Steward Title who occupies that space. That is the only illegal use that would become nonconforming. Commissioner Burt: I see. Vice-Chair Cassel: I recognize that in Building B the windows to the front have had shades put on them the day I was there, they were closed or sun would have gone in. The entryway in that case interestingly enough is to the back and not to the front and it isn’t pedestrian oriented in the front of that building although it has doors and everything else to make that happen. That is one of the reasons I would like to keep the P and the retail to the front of the other buildings is I am afraid that is exactly what would happen. Chair Griffin: Karen. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Holman: A couple of questions. Has there been any physical change to this building? If it is 20 years and it has been unsuccessful has there been any physical change or any attempt over that period of time to make the building more successful by design enhancements? Ms. Grote: The property owners may be able to speak more specifically to that. I don’t believe so. I think one of the findings and conclusions of the retail report that was referenced earlier was that the design the impediments to retail use .can’t be solved with design changes. The design challenges, the design flaws are so great in terms of a retail use that they can’t be fixed. There isn’t a way to make that interior space more visible. Thereisn’t a way to make the backsides of these small storefronts or spaces more visible from the street that the design flaws are not fixable. Commissioner Holman: On the Califomia Avenue side for instance it is really just a dead wall. I know I mentioned last time although it is certainly not our purview for the applicant or the City to point them to the Arts Commission and I do understand they have many. Anything that livens that wall up is going to help get people to any of these whether they are street facing or if they are interior. Ms. Grote: If you wanted to make that kind of a comment certainly the applicants could be encourage to go to the Arts Commission. There isn’t anything that would require them to since this isn’t a Planned Community but if you wanted to give them some encouragement to do that and they might want to explore it with our Community Services Department. Commissioner Holman: Last question I think is CUP. Was there any consideration of requiring a conditional use permit? Actually it is two questions one is the CUP and then the other is the entry to this building we have talked about here the 50% but this entry to the building is what leads you back to what currently is the restaurant space. So it would seem like there ought to be some consideration given to that passageway to retain-a retail overlay. Ms, Grote: That is why we were recommending the retention of the P Combining District because that is again what gets at the pedestrian interaction and the pedestrian orientation. So that is why we were recommending that that P be retained ........... Commissioner Holman: Just one comment about that. There is nothing in the P overlay district that requires open shades or anything like that. You can still have window coverings that are closed. Ms. Grote: It requires large storefront windows, it requires special entry features, it requires physical things. It doesn’t say that you have to keep your shades open but it does require those physical features that are pedestrian oriented. Commissioner Holman: Then the CUP? 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38. 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 Ms. Grote: A conditional use permit? We didn’t consider the conditional use permit 2 because we wanted to give flexibility to the uses and we didn’t think that there would be 3 anything particularly gained by making CUP findings in this instance. The uses could be 4 found to be compatible already. That office use in the back half would be compatible with the surrounding land uses and there wouldn’t be anything particularly gained from further analysis of that. Commissioner Holman: I truly don’t know this so I claim ignorance on this one. As a part of a CUP could that interaction between, I understand keeping the P overlay, but as a part of a CLIP can you require that for instance window shade, this is the interior of the building we are talking about, could window shades be required to be retained open? A building storefront can close its back to the street. Ms. Grote: Our legal advisor is saying that it is not illegal, it is certainly legal to put those kinds of conditions on a CUP. What we are saying is there isn’t a need for a CUP because the uses with the Pedestrian Overlay are compatible with the surrounding buildings, with the surrounding uses. So you don’t need the CUP but certainly if you did want to consider a CUP you can put conditions on CUPs. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I just want to follow up on what Karen is concerned with. I am looking at the P code and it says in here design features are intended to preclude blank walls or building faces. Now clearly this was an overlay that was put on after the building was built. The fact that the Staff is proposing and our motion is agreeing with that we retain the P and retain retail uses for those units that face California around through the corner to Park is an incentive for the owners to try and do something with that blank wall. There is nothing to prevent them from putting some planters or doing something. The Commercial Association or the Plaza Association whoever to do that and this may be an incentive because we are saying I think the original application was saying let’s see if we can put office in all of it. We are saying in our motion and in agreement with Staff, no, not in the street facing. I think our comments tonight would hopefully encourage the owners to try and do something with that blank wall to encourage that foot traffic. There is probably a lot that could be done to enhance the retail viability. So I agree with what you are saying but I think because it is part of the P overlay they can do it. Commissioner Holman: I would hope so. History shows that they don’t. I am going to add an amendment to the motion. I hope it will be a friendly amendment. That is that the current illegal use in Building C not be allowed to stay and become nonconforming that it should become conforming. I don’t know what should happen there as far as a, I am not sure what it is called, the time limit by which Ms. Grote: Amortization period to allow them to Commissioner Holman: No. It is illegal now. 2O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Grote: A code enforcement action to be taken to remove them from the first 50% of the building or the space. Vice-Chair Cassel: But isn’t it possible with the rule passes that the owner may indeed adjust the inside wall to make it legal? The use isn’t going to be illegal it is just the amotmt of space. Ms. Grote: The amount of space and the location would become nonconforming. It is currently there in an illegal manner. What we are suggesting is that it be allowed to stay until it vacates for 12 months or more and then it has to be replaced with a conforming use. So if Stewart~Title. Vice-Chair Cassel: I guess I am misunderstanding the placement of this spot. I thought it was in Building C. Ms. Grote: There is only one illegal use. Currently it is illegal because it is not a permitted use. What we are recommending is that it become a nonconforming use. If it were to vacate for 12 months or more then the first 50% would have to become retail or other personal service. Chair Griffin: Lisa, ifKaren’s amendment prevails the way that the owner of Building C would rectify this situation would be to rotate that partition between the tanning salon and the title company would be to rotate it so that for example the tanning salon would occupy then the entire frontage facing Park and for example the title company would then occupy the rear half. Ms. Grote: That is one solution. The other is they may make the space smaller for the office. I don’t know if that is possible. What you mentioned is a solution. Commissioner Holman: Hasn’t Stewart Title been there for quite a number of years? Ms. Grote: I don’t know. Probably. Commissioner Holman: I think so if I remember correctly from reading the minutes of the last meetingi So it is not likely they are going to become a conforming use soon. So that is my friendly amendment that the current illegal use not be allowed to remain as it currently exists and become a conforming condition. Vice-Chair Cassel: I would like to hear some discussion. Commissioner Burt: As you have heard throughout the discussions here I certainly want to keep as much of a pedestrian orientation as is economically possible here. for me in this case the difference between a use such as a nail salon and a title company is not a significant difference in terms of how it serves the pedestrian orientation. There is walk- in traffic to both. There is a little more to a nail salon. The title company I shouldn’t say 21 1 2 3 r4 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 is walk-in it is a combination. I agree with Michael that one I wouldn’t call it would occur but it certainly is a very plausible scenario would be to keep the exact same tenants and not really change anything except requiring them to repartition their walls so that the title company would be in the interior of the courtyard and the nail salon would be on the exterior, I don’t find it that advantageous to have twice the street face of nail salon as we presently have. Chair Griffin: Tanning salon. Commissioner Burt: Is that what it is, Oh; ~ Vice-Chair Cassel: No because it is blocked off just as much actually the title company may be more pedestrian friendly because it has a reception area and the tanning salon is in fact trying to provide some privacy, So when I went there what I saw was the tanning salon was quite secluded in the way you can’t see in and there were privacy issues that relate to that. Commissioner Burr: So my feeling is in this case although I appreciate the objective of trying to do whatever we can to make it as pedestrian oriented as we possible I don’t think we would have a discernable net impact by that change. Vice-Chair Cassel: And we don’t have a second to that amendment. Commissioner Holman: Just one comment about this though if I can argue my case here for just a moment. Commissioner Burr: Please. Commissioner Holman: Stewart Title is the current occupant of that space but if some other office use comes in without a vacancy of 12 months then it could be some other office use that is. Commissioner Burt: But it still would have to have that P overlay compliance. You are right that it might not be as amenable maybe it is a chiropractor, maybe it is a dentist and that is where I was struggling earlier with do we restrict the dead time period instead of the standard 12 months, do we reduce that? Maybe rather than mandate the change now I would feel a little more comfortable with a shorter period in which a nonconforming use. Excuse me, as I think about it it wouldn’t really change the type of use that could come in there. It would just say that it had a shorter period of time in which it would have to convert to a true retail. That is what it would do. Say you had a six month period so it would narrow the period of time if the current title company left and within six months there was not a replacement tenant then it would revert to a true retail occupancy in a shorter period of time than we are currently considering. That would be the impact. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Cassel: And the reason for leaving the 12 is it is a standard rule and it doesn’t get confused when they get down to the Building Department downstairs and they have a different rule for this building than for other buildings. Commissioner Burt: The difference here is this is an illegal use. Vice-Chair Cassel: My problem has been that I don’t agree with the narrowness of our retail uses in general. I wasn’t allowed to participate in the discussion for the citywide discussion because I have a conflict with Stanford. I am allowed to participate in the discussion when we talk about a specific area. I have a difference of opinion with what is general policy. I really believe that we ought to be allowing businesses such as the title company to be on the first floor and real estate and things of that sort to be on this first floor level in these small offices as part of the accepted uses in.the space. They are pedestrian oriented so I don’t have a problem with this particular company being there. It isn’t an issue for me because it does in fact getpeople coming in and out and it is small. The issue here is these are small spaces. We aren’t going to have a great big dot.com move there just isn’t the space. So I want to keep it pedestrian oriented and I want to keep it with people walking in and out and all of those requirements and I don’t have trouble with a real estate office and a title company. Commissioner Burr: I think I could live with that concept on part. We are not too far apart on the general thing that we should differentiate between general office and what we are allowing here under this P overlay. If it were California Avenue I would feel differently and I do think we do need to differentiate between true and retail and a chiropractor. But since this is on Park and in a transition area between a retail zone and a commercial zone I can live with this I think. Vice-Chair Cassel: Then I won’t accept the friendly amendment. Chair Griffin: You are not going to accept the friendly amendment? Vice-Chair Cassel: That’s right. Chair Griffin: Do you wish to propose that as an unfriendly amendment? Commissioner Holman: I am not stupid. I may be stupid but I can count noses. Chair Griffin: Just asking. All right. Have we had sufficient discussion on this? Has everybody said what needs to be said? Commissioner Holman: I will make just one last comment. I will support the motion. I have reluctances about it but I guess we will have another opportunity when it comes back to the ZOU to take a look at it so I will follow my colleagues here. I really, really appreciate that the P overlay is on the entire space. That is very, very key. Chair Griffin: Staff, we are going to see this come back to us yet again, is that correct? 23 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 3i 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 2 Ms. Grote: When you see this specific building it will come back to you as a an 3 ordinance. It will codify what you are taking action on tonight. So you will see this as an 4 ordinance and then it will go on to the City Council. 5 6 Chair Griffin: If we have any changes of heart in the meantime is that ordinance? 7 8 Mr. Sodergren: Not permitted. 9 Chair Griffin: Not permitted. Just asking. Ms. Grote: So this is your defining action and then we will just follow up with the ordinance. Commissioner Holman: Again we will have another shot at this when we look at the ZOU overall. Ms. Grote: You will talk about uses in the ZOU overall and if you make any changes to the district then it would apply in this area. I didn’t hear the Commission say they wanted this building or this portion of the building to come back specifically. MOTION PASSED (5-0-0-1, Commissioner Bialson absent) Chair Griffin: Then let’s vote this item up. All those in favor of Phyllis’s motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? How did you vote Commissioner? Commissioner Holman: I voted aye and I did want to add one comment ifI could. Chair Griffin: Let me just wrap this up and say that the motion does in fact carry with Commissioner Bialson absent. Now, Karen. Commissioner Holman: The comment was that I would really suggest to the applicant and to Staff to just point them in the right direction that they look at the California Avenue wall and talk to the Art Commission or some such vehicle by way of getting life on that side to make the businesses more viable. Chair Griffin: I really would like to support that. I think something definitely needs to be done and you have spoken on that issue a number of times and I wish to support those sentiments. Pat. Commissioner Burr: I’d just like to offer another brief comment. Prior to this item we had our presentation on economic circumstances and in particular retail circumstances in the City. I find it ironic that we have had a location like this with vacancies and we have lost retail to other cities, small retailers like the comic book store and others at Alma 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Plaza and a whole series of them. I just don’t know that we are providing the mechanism nor is the Chamber of Commerce providing the mechanism to make the connections between retailers in need of space and property owners having surplus retail space. It just seems to be that we need to have greater dialogue occurring there and greater facilitation. Commissioner Holman: If I could make another comment too, I think there is some merit to the City giving some assistance like if it is forgiven or reduced permit fees. If there haven’t been any physical changes to this and it hasn’t been successful in all this time I am not comprehending why there hasn’t been some recommendation, if that’s true, why there hasn’t been some recommendation or application by the owners to make changes to this building. If the City is trying to get more retail, get more retail dollars it might be a good investment for the City to do something to assist getting this building more successful. Chair Griffin: Perhaps they were hoping it was going to be all office and they wouldn’t have to do anything. Vice-Chair Cassel: I think we are going on with conversation that is not really on the table. Chair Griffin: Fair enough. Then let’s bring this item to a close and we will have break for seven minutes. 25 Attachment E 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 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes October 8, 2003 2401, 2409~ 2417 Park Boulevard and 101 California Avenue*: Request by Nina Moore, President of the Palo Alto Central Commercial Association, on behalf of Richard & Sharon Reyes (2417 Park Blvd.), Eldad & Charlotte Matityahu (2409 Park Blvd), Donald Douglas & Nina Moore (2401 Park Blvd.) and Norman Weintraub & Deborah London (109 California Avenue) for a zone change from CC(2) (R)(P) to CC(2). File No. 03-ZC-060. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. Commissioner Burr: I am familiar with the site but I did not do any recent visits, Commissioner Bellomo: I am familiar with the site. I have been by many times over the years. Commissioner Holman: I am familiar with it but not trusting my memory I went by one day this week and then again this evening, I bumped into a member of the public while I was touring today. Vice-Chair Cassel: I am familiar with it also but I went by today and walked the outside of the area. Commissioner Packer: I am also familiar with the site and I walked,around it this morning. Chair Griffin: I was not particularly familiar with the site and I did a reasonably thorough walk- through of the public spaces. Would Staff please make a presentation? Mr. Chris Riordan, Planner: Good evening Chair Griffin and fellow Commissioners. Staff had received an application from several owners of ground floor commercial spaces at Palo Alto Central located at the comer of California Avenue and Park Boulevard, which is currently zoned CC(2)(R)(P). There are five commercial buildings located in the complex, A through E. The applicant request is to remove the (R) and (P) Combining District designation from all of building C and a portion of building D. the applicant’s reason for the request is to increase the type of commercial uses allowed because the retail and personal service uses that are currently permitted do not do well in the complex. At present the Palo Alto Central Commercial Association has expressed the difficulty to Staff that property owners have experienced in attracting and keeping tenants. The R Combining District regulations restrict ground floor uses to eating and drinking services, personal services and retail services. The P Combining District regulations restrict vehicular access and require pedestrian design features and display windows. Removal of the (R) and (P) Combining District regulations would be consistent with adjacent properties that had the (R) and (P) designations removed in May 1990. Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 The applicant’s proposal would not allow office uses on the ground floor nor would it grandfather existing nonconforming office uses in the Center. Palo Alto Central was constructed in 1983 and designed for commercial and office uses on the ground floor prior to the establishment of the CC(2)(R)(P) zoning designation on the site in 1984. In March 2001 the ground floor regulations went into effect, which prohibited medical, professional and general business offices from being located on the ground floor in the Community Commercial Zone District, The applicant’s request would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policy of encouraging a mix of uses in a California Business District. While Staff does support the applicant’s request it does not believe the proposal goes far enough. Staff is suggesting two additional project options. The first option would be to extend the rezoning to include building E and the remainder of building D and to allow ground floor commercial spaces in Palo Alto Central to be used for offices in addition to the other uses allowed in the Community Commercial zone. An additional option is to revise the scope of the project to remove the (R) and (P) Combining Districts from buildings C, D and E of Palo Alto Central, furthermore, Staff proposes to allow offices to be a conforming use in Palo Alto Central by modifying the Municipal Code. Park Boulevard adjacent to the project consists entirely of office uses and allowing for office use in Palo Alto Central would be consistent with Park Boulevard uses. Staff is not asking for Planning Commission recommendation or approval this evening but rather a review of the three project options and a recommendation to direct Staff to pursue option three. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Is there a representative of the applicant that wishes to speak? Ms. Nina Moore, Applicant: Hi I am the President of Palo Alto Central Commercial and with me here is Laura Rasmussen and all the owners of the different units. First of all let me thank you all for being here so late and doing what you do. It is a thankless job. While we all support the overlay the overlay has not workedfor us. We have a very long history of failed retail businesses over there. The Staff of the City of Palo Alto support us in that and I also appreciate the fact that they came in with option C. It is options two and three because they are all inclusive. We have had problems with the different areas within the complex. Chris Riordan had suggested that I go briefly through the history of each one of those units and let you know what kind of businesses failed in each and every one ofthem. WhatI did is I put a little sheet in front of you. It shows the complex but it also shows the cutoff between the CC(2)(R)(P) and the CC(2). On the fight hand side you can see that half the complex while it falls outside of CC(2) and part of the complex was rezoned in 1980. There is an ordinance that when I applied I asked to be part of that ordinance and that was not sufficient. What is happening over here is the overlay has cut the complex in half and that has created a lot of internal problems for us because on one end you see one office and then the next unit next door to it cannot be an office. Atthe same time we have had a history of office space over there even though it is not in compliance because no one really knew what was going on. It is very difficult to figure out what is going on because the same unit can be subdivided into several units that are leased out. So one of the things that is suggested here is to just have one zoning for the whole complex. Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 There have been studies by both the City and by one of the owners of the complex. A study is being done by Wallace & [Steison], Inc. and they have done studies for the City before. It shows that the premises are not suitable for retail use, which the Staff has concurred. It says it is impossible for retailers to operate profitably in this area. Originally the complex was designed as both commercial and retail use. That is what we are trying to bring back, one uniform use for everybody and bring that into the complex. Meanwhile if you go into the different areas, if you look at building D on the little form that I gave you, you have two entities occupy that. Mont0ya Jewelers who have been there successfully I might say for years and years. They have had a very different setup. They have owned the building outright, they have no overhead and it is not their primary source of income. [Name of husband, not legible], who is the husband does that as a hobby and he is a schoolteacher and has been and just very recently retired. They have maintained that forever. Meanwhile they will retire eventually and they will need to bring somebody else in there and since retailers are not typically very successful in this area they would like to go for the rezoning and go forward with that. Meanwhile the Plantation Coffee House or the rest of building D, which is 101 California Avenue, has two entities in it a real estate business, which is myself and the Plantation Coffee House. While the Plantation Coffee House is there since the beginning the Plantation Coffee House has changed hands something like seven or eight times or so. Three of those were in the past two years. So while you are seeing the same name on there you are seeing different owners go belly up or just pass on the business and get out of there. Meanwhile the other part of that same building which is also 101 California owned by Deborah London and Norm Weintraub was a sales office for the original building for quite a while until all the units were sold out. After that he got somebody, a tenant, a dress shop and they could not keep up with the lease and they hadto get out of their lease. Then there was somebody else that came in with some computers and electronics and they could not make it. Eventually I came to the rescue per se and I leased the space as a real estate office. At that time the City did issue me an occupancy permit. Everything was not quite clear-cut. I have been there for something like seven years, maybe eight years or so. ~Even when I wanted to move out I could not get somebody to take the space because the City came to me and said that you can’t stay there. So then I tried to move out of there and the place was vacant. We could not get either retail or anything to go in there. Eventually when I started talking to the City which is all over two years ago, Lisa Grote said well, while we are working on this you can go to month- to-month and that is just how it is. The next building over which is the remainder of building D is owned by myself, Nina Moore, and Donald Douglas. That was originally a stationary store and an ice cream parlor. The stationary store couldn’t make it and went belly up. That is when Blackman, the owner of the ice cream parlor, ended up selling the building and we bought the building, myself and my husband. At that time there was no thought that you can’t do residential, you can’t do commercial, you can’t do retail. There was no thought like that. Part of it was turned into a beauty salon and the other side was an ice cream parlor. Eventually Blackman wanted out he wasn’t kind of making it over there and he just didn’t want to keep that so we took that over. We put in a beauty salon there and that didn’t work out. We ended up putting offices there and there have been offices there for the last eight years. Again, when the City came in and said no you cannot have offices there one of my tenants left and it has been vacant since then. For about two and one-half years now I have had vacancies in that unit. I cannot get retail. I cannot get offices. I cannot get anything. That is just the nature of the beast. The market is not doing well and there is nothing Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 that we can do about that. Meanwhile we finally got a nail salon in there but one of the offices there on month-to-month. So I have two vacancies which is actually 50% of that unit. When you move one over you go to building C. Building C is divided into two tenants. This is 2409 1 believe is the unit number, 2409 Park Boulevard. This is owned by Eldad and Charlotte Matityahu, When they bought it they bought it from [Nuchi] and she owned GVI. GVI bought it from the inception of the project. They had a clothing store there for a very short period of time that didn’t do well so she ended up turning it into offices, She occupied her offices because she did all sorts of things over in Europe. She was more like a wholesaler with these being her offices, Finally she sold it to the Matityahu’s and they had Steward Title come in and lease it out. They have been there for over five years. Their lease comes up at the end of this month and again Lisa Grote was kind enough to say well they can stay just on a month-to-month until we see what we can do. Then the next one over is Ingrid’s Tanning Salon, Sharon and Richard Reyes are the second owners of that, That is a business that has done well. So some businesses do well, some businesses don’t. The majority of the complex has not been doing very well. Now the last business I need to bring into focus is building E, That is where your [reza], your overlay line goes fight across. If you notice where the overlay is it is right in the middle of that unit. With that if you look at that that is a restaurant. It has a very long history of failure. Actually it went into foreclosure back in the early 1990s with one restaurant after another. This is the sixth or seventh restaurant that has not done well in that area. Moreover we have had complaints, incessant complaints, from the residents about the restaurant per se being in the center of the building. It has been designed poorly I would say but meanwhile we have a long history of failed retail businesses over there. While we do not want to exclude retailers from making it there because they might and that is something that should continue. When we were CC(2) the original design of the building was fine because retailers could be there and if they did well that was great but if they didn’t do well then a dentist or a dental office or any other personal service that would make it should be allowed to be there. We are having to exclude so many possibilities that we would like to allow. I would just like to thank the Staff, Lisa Grote, Chris Riordan and Steve Emslie for all the work and help that they have given in putting this together and showing me where I was off because we do need to include the rest of the complex so that it all becomes uniform and becomes less of a headache for the City. We take up your time incessantly and we apologize for that. Chair Griffin: You do have three more minutes available to you if you would like, Ms. Laura Rasmussen, P.O. Box 50817, Palo Alto: If she doesn’t mind me taking the rest of her time there are a few comments I would like to make. I am one of the owners of building E. I also own two office spaces in building A which you cannot see, it is kind of on the fight side. When she says it is split down the middle what happened is when you go down.to the Building Department and this is what is causing a lot of confusion the line at the Building Department where they grant the permits does run right through my building. So Stewart Title got a permit for their place because it was very confusing where the division is. We are almost like spot zoni~ng the CC(2)(R)(P) overlay. Everything to the fight is CC(2) it can be office, it can be retail, it can be whatever. Then you have this one little spot fight on the end of our complex where it Page 4 1 has this (R)(P) overlay, Now because of this new zoning with the Palo Alto Municipal Code 2 saying that you can no longer have first floor retail even if you remove the (R)(P) overlay we 3 will still have the same problem. So I think it is very important and I appreciate the Staff’s 4 suggestion that that additionally be modified so that we can have office space. 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 One thing that Nina was pointing out the success of the businesses over in building A and B has been great, They have been stable, The businesses have been free. I have a law office over in A. WhenI left new lawyers came in and it is still a law office. On the second floor there is a dentist office that has been in there 15 years. They own it and they have done just fine, The problem is with the retail it is not surviving. Building E, we have people who have actually in the residential units in F, if you can see F it is right behind E, that is residences and they go all the way Up to the fourth floor, The top of building E has smells that emit and go into those buildings. They come down and actually stand out there with signs and things. I am sure your police officer, if he were still here, could tell you they have gotten called out several times regarding smell, complaining about ABC violations because there is a little deck area, saying that the doors were left open and you have to keep them closed but it gets too hot because there are windows so you can’t keep them shut, It is an absolutely totally flawed design. We went so far as to have an expert try to figure out what would work that would be compliant with the current codes. We hired Mr. Wallace and in fact later Palo Alto hired him so he has been utilized by the City on occasion to give advice as to retail. I don’t know if you have a copy of it, you should, but in his report he states unequivocally that this will not survive as retail, That it is doomed. It has been so far gone that due to the complaints the Planning Commission has restricted that restaurant’s use. You are talking about restricting Antonio’s they are restricted to only be open between the hours of 11:00 and 10:00 PM. They are not allowed to play loud music. They aren’t allowed to have any type of drinking outside. It is so restrictive that there is just no way business is going to survive. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you for those illuminating comments, I would like to give the public an opportunity to speak unless Commissioners would like to ask the applicant for clarification. Commissioner Packer: I have a question. With regard to building E if the use were changed so that you wouldn’t be limited to retail would you have to change the actual building itself in order to accommodate office? Would you have to just do interior improvements or would you have to change the actual footprint? Ms. Rasmussen: It would only be interior improvements, The building is actually designed lovely for office. It has large glass windows. The problem is that they have a beer and wine license. So they are not allowed to open the doors or anything so it is very, very hot in there. It is not designed well for that type of environment. If it were office space there would be better circulation, you would be able to open the windows, there would be no exterior part of the building that would need to be changed. It would just suit perfectly as office space or for that matter dental, medical, anything that can survive, It was shutdown for four years that it was vacant, four years, So it has been a serious problem. Commissioner Burt: IfI might ask what range of lease rates are going rate, s in this complex? Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ms. Moore: It is something like $2.50 to on the upper floors with the high rents I think they have all the way up to $5.00 or $6.00 per square foot. Ms. Rasmussen: Those higher rents were due to prior dot.com failure~ The current rental rate on office space in that area is probably around $3.50 right now. We rented one space a year and a half ago and got $3.85, They have gone down somewhat since then. So right now you are. finding that office and retail in this particular development I think Deborah gets more for her retail space than we get for our office right now. SoI know in the past the concern was that people were doing this just out of greed. I really beg youto go down to my restaurant and see the face on the owner in there and understand what it is like to be an owner of a building where you are only getting $1.50 a square foot because they can’t afford anymore and you have someone who you are having to ask this money from who is afraid they are going to go out of business just paying you that. It is not a pretty sight., I really beg you to go just tour. By the way all these buildings were designed to have the entrance at the inside of the plaza area. There is just no way that retail is going to survive. The parking is across the street. There is no walk-through traffic. This is at the end of the Palo Alto corridor. There is absolutely no pull. In my expert’s report he says you have no pull down there. You have CC(2) offto the end at the right, there is no large retailer to suck people down at that end of the street. The main body of retail stays up closer to E1 Camino Real where the restaurants and everything are. There is just no reason for them to go back down there and they don’t. With building E being way back in there where residential is it looks private. I have pictures of it, it isn’t conducive to walk-by traffic. The whole purpose of that California (R)(P) overlay was to get pedestrians to walk up and down the street. That is not how this is designed. It just doesn’t work it is strangling us instead. Chair Griffin: I would like to ask a question about the people utilizing the train depot. You are not able to evidently get much pull from the passengers walking up California Avenue from the train station. Ms. Moore: Some of them do come into the Plantation but these people are generally leaving very early in the morning so retailers don’t open at that time and come back at five or six o’clock in the afternoon. They are tired and it is not conducive for running around trying to window shop. So even if they would go home, have dinner, come out the whole street is shut down by then. So there is no way that that would help retail function. Actually the owner of Plantation has tried everything including having somebody doing music or whatever to pull people in on Saturdays or Sundays and that has not worked very well for her either. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: My questions follow along that same line, I would like to know if you have worked with the City’s Economic Development Planner in trying to work out a good mix or this. You obviously have this cooperative among the owners so that would be one question. Then also linking it with the train station. Going down there one problem I see is that you have this residential project that is between you and the train station that is just dead wall space. Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Ms. Moore: Well actually we are the residential project. While there are a couple of offices there the whole building is not offices. Only the first two stories in some of them are offices and then the third story is residential. That is on building D that the third story is residential. Then you go on to building A, B and C parts of the second and third stories are residential. So it is like we are the residential. This is why people don’t quite understand that this is like it is enveloped in residential. It is not the building behind that is residential it is almost like a crescent and we are built right there. Commissioner Holman: I was referencing actually buildings G, H and J. Are those not RM-40? Ms. Moore: Yes those are completely residential but within the commercial portion it is commercial and residential sandwiched together. So yes there is this big portion in the back but if you will notice most of these people do not really go through the courtyard. Some of them do but a lot of them go to underground parking through stairs that go into the residential area directly. In other situations you can go in and out there are so many entrances to the residential area and from the residential to the street directly not through the courtyard. So the way that the building is designed it is not conducive for people to walk in and out all the time. It is not completely a pathway, it is a pathway for a very small portion of the residents. Ms. Rasmussen: I would like to point out that there are pictures of the entrances. They look like they are private areas. It is not inviting. It is just the way the place was designed. That is a design flaw but we are stuck with it. Commissioner Holman: I am going to go back to my question though, have you worked with Susan Arpan, the City’s Economic Development Planner? Just as I am looking at this and I know you had a professional consultant work with you but the reason I was referencing this ~ blank wall between the train station and 101 California is because that residential wall is just blank and to have successful retail you need to have some way to draw them in. Then also about the mix of uses because there are uses that are very successful near train stations like magazine and newspaper stands, wine shops, bakeries, those sorts of businesses. So what has been your discussion with Susan Arpan about these kinds of things? Ms. Moore: We have not discussed anything with Susan Arpan. Ms. Rasmussen: I have. I have been speaking with Susan Arpan since 1998. I think Lisa knows, Lisa and I both have spoken with Susan Arpan. Susan has attempted to help me find a way to get a stable tenant in building E of 101. It is too large for a newspaper stand. There is no walk-through traffic. There are walls and gates that segregate us from residential and as Nina was saying the residential units have staircases and elevators that take them down directly to their cars. They have absolutely no reason to walk through there and they don’t. The only time residential normally walks through that corridor is to come down there and pick at my restaurant. We just don’t get, the people that come to the restaurant usually are people who enjoy that ethnicity of food and unfortunately there just aren’t enough of them to keep the place afloat. I invite you to talk to Susan, she is very aware of our complex. Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Griffin: It appears we have no more questions for the applicant. So if Commissioners would like to address Staff?. Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I have a question about the (P) overlay versus the (R) overlay. The (P) overlay seems to be more like design oriented whereas the (R) is use. Since the building is already built and already has big windows and already has an attempt to have pedestrian walkways whether it was well designed or not. Since we are not talking about creating an overlay in order to encourage a certain design of building could this happen, could we remove an (R) overlay and keep the (P) overlay so that if the use is office it still has windows. Remember the concern that we had with the offices in Midtown is that they shut their windows and you couldn’t see through and it had this blank wall that wasn’t interesting? Is that possible? Does that make sense or not? Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: That is certainly a possibility. We had originally in one of the options recommended as a possibility taking the (P) off because most of the time it relates to a continuity of retail and retail type uses such as personal service. But you could leave it on and that would then ensure that it has the insets, that the physical form has the inset entrances, has the bigger windows and makes it pedestrian oriented regardless of the use. So that is a possibility. Chair Griffin: Just to clarify, you said leave the (P) on but remove the (R)? Is that what you said? Commissioner Packer: That is what I was asking about whether that made sense. I realize when you read the (P) regulation it is talking about retail stores but the actual regulations talk about the physical design. Maybe it doesn’t make sense because it assumes retail. Once you have a zoning you are not talking about the building you are talking about what happens on that land and if the building ever changed and we wanted to keep the pedestrian ambiance. Vice-Chair Cassel: Could we talk about that after we go to the public? It is an interesting question. Commissioner Packer: I’m sorry. That’s right we haven’t heard the public. Chair Griffin: Any other questions? Yes, Pat .... Commissioner Burt: Has Staff evaluated looking at the street face elements of building D and I guess primarily building D and having a different set of restrictions on those than the other condos that are either in the interior such as building E or just those that are facing the plaza and don’t have basically any foot traffic and differentiating in that regard as to the types of uses? Then I will throw out a second question. In SOFA II we had looked at an expansion of what is an appropriate ground floor use and differentiating between allowing any pure office use on ground floor versus other uses that may not be pure retail or personal services but have an element of foot traffic associated with them? So those are the two questions that I am interested in knowing whether Staff has explored or thinks there is feasibility to explore. Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Ms, Grote: We did consider the possibility of different regulations for the spaces in building D that front California Avenue. We did not recommend that because that does then segment the buildings and the overall project to a degree that makes it less cohesive. It means that one or two spaces would have different requirements than the entire rest of the building and that didn’t seem to be an equitable way to zone. We believe that it is better to have the entire building zoned the same way so that it gives everyone the same kind of uses to pull from and to have in the building. Commissioner Burt: But in SOFA II Staff had recommended that the street facing elements of a ground floor have a certain retail oriented use and that the back portion could have a wider range of uses. Why is the thinking different? Ms. Grote: That was on a much larger scale~ That was an entire nine-block area so there was some cohesiveness to that. This is for really one project and to have the differentiations that finely made for one project did not seem equitable, Chair Griffin: Before I have Karen go ahead I just wanted to point out to Commissioners that we have not heard from the public yet and it is 20 minutes past ten. So this meeting has gotten away from me a little bit. Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have a question about if the Staff looked at retail sales tax dollars and what the implication would be if all of these converted to office what that impact might be to the City’s sales tax income. Ms. Grote: We didn’t do that kind of economic analysis. We have not typically done that for zone changes. We have looked at compatibility of land uses, type of interaction between the surrounding land uses but we have not done that specifically on this very detailed level, not that kind of economic analysis. Commissioner Holman: One other question along that line is there is a restaurant right across the street on Park that has been there that I know of at least 20 years, Casa Isabel. Then there is a retailer next to it towards California Avenue too and so the other question would be if building C for instance then converted to office what the impact might be because retail likes retail, service like service and retail, what the possible impact might be to those businesses. Ms. Grote: On the opposite side of Park? Commissioner Holman: Right. Ms. Grote: I would consider Park, and part of the reason why we made this recommendation is that Park is a demarcation, that is retail activity starts or where pedestrian activity starts to taper off a little bit. So on one side of Park it probably still would be successful and on this side of Park because of the office spaces A, B and D that that’s a different character on that side of the street. That is the demarcation, Park Boulevard is where things begin to change. Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Chair Griffin: Could we go to the public then? We have four cards here and considering the late hour I would like to leave it at three minutes if we could. Then if Commissioners have questions the person giving testimony can lengthen their presentation. We have Chuck Marsh as our first speaker and Joy Ogawa is second, Laura Rasmussen is third and HerbBorock is fourth. Welcome Chuck. Would you state your residential address please? Mr. Chuck Marsh, 2557 Park Boulevard, #L110 Palo Alto: I am the Vice President of the Palo Alto Central East Residential Association and here representing myself and 141 adjacent homeowners in buildings F through Z. When our residents purchased here over the last number of years most of them had an expectation that this would be a mixed use development. And most of them I think were seeking more of a retail character to the other uses than commercial or office. But we have been here for a number of years, we have seen what has happened. I do want to say though that I do walk through the plaza every day and I have never picketed the restaurant nor I have seen that done but it is true that you can go from your car to your residence without ever going through this area. One reason I chose to live here, having lived in a much more suburban community nearby, was because I wanted some of this activity including the Nut House which I also like. So I do walk here to go to the post office every day and to go to Molly Stone’s and to go to Kinko’s but I will admit that the only two businesses that I have ever patronized are the Silk Road Car6 when it was Brahma Bull and the Plantation Car& Unfortunately in the four years I have been here we have not had the attractive retail shops that we would like or that the commercial owners would like. So I think we, both me personally and as the association, are reluctantly concludi.ng that the marketplace is speaking to us here and that we are probably not likely to get the type of retail uses we would like. So we are reluctantly willing to support the removal of the (R) portion. However, we have a little trouble understanding the Staff’s explanation of what the (P) or pedestrian designation means from the material here. We just got the postcard like all the other neighbors to respond to this and don’t totally understand that. Our own concern and our recommendation would be that you not remove the (P) designation from the current zoning restrictions. It is our concern that if that is done it will change the way the exterior of the buildings look. If we can’t have the retail that we would all like we would at least like to maintain the appearance that was there when we purchased the units. We would like to see the awnings continue. We would like to see them maintained which is sometimes a problem with some of the commercial units because they are maintained by the individuals and not the association. We would like the benches, the awnings and we would like the display windows. We don’t want these buildings converted into some type of office us where they decided they didn’t want any windows fronting on the streets. So we unless we are educated to the contrary as an association are urging you to retain the pedestrian designation but we do support the removal of the (R). I will be happy to answer any questions. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I have a question. I was wondering in the best of worlds what kind of retail would you patronize on your way out going to Molly Stone’s? What in those small spaces? Where would you stop? Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Marsh: Let me just comment on thing. It is a problem that it is the end of California Avenue and unfortunately the driveway into Molly Stone’s, which is right across the street from DNG, is a one-way driveway. You don’t drive into Molly Stone’s and drive back onto California Avenue getting exposed to these buildings again. You exit on Cambridge and go on your. merry way. So it is nice to have that anchor across the street but it doesn’t do that much good. To answer your question more specifically I think the ideas of a bakery, which the deli services a little bit, an ice cream store, [pearl tea] some of those exist further up California Avenue. I think part of the problem is the viability of California Avenue. There are other vacancies on the street itself perhaps even vacancies on University Avenue. So there is a little bit of a problem now in general in retail. The thing about the commuters that we should point out is there is a huge parking lot there and a lot of the commuters pop right out of the train into their car and off they go. The residents do block the retail buildings from access to the commuters except the few that walk up California Avenue. Chair Griffin: So your take on that is that there are not really very many commuters that do walk from the train depot up California? Mr. Marsh: There are some that do but they are walking up California Avenue so that they don’t have to buy what they want right here. Some of the uses suggested which would be nice exist further up the street where there are bagels and donuts and bakeries, several of each and more coffee. So there are several alternatives for people that are walking up to E1 Camino. Chair Griffin: And newspapers at Printer’s Ink for example and that sort of thing. There is no Printer’s Ink? Mr. Marsh: There is a Printer’s Ink coffee shop only. Chair Griffin: Our next speaker is Joy Ogawa. Ms. OCawa: Good evening. I live in College Terrace. I guess the first thing I want to say is talking about Park Boulevard, that the beginning of Park Boulevard is a demarcation. I don’t get that feeling especially because not only because of Casa Isabel and the hair place that are on the other side of the street but also there is a City parking lot right next to that. So people park in that City parking lot and walk over to California Avenue. It actually is a really great location I think. I used to park in that parking lot to go to a legal bookstore that used to be there years ago, So I don’t really understand this thing about people are not - that it is such a poor place for retail especially because in the future the City is talking about building residences along Park Boulevard and all that which presumably is going to be transit oriented development. People are going to be taking the train. People are goingto be walking by that building along Park Boulevard to go home, to go to and from the train. My big concern here is once you rezone and once you allow offices on the ground floor you will never get retail back regardless of how the economy shift, regardless of how the rest of that area develops to really support retail. You just not going to get the retail back. So I just think this Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 , 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 blanket allowing offices to move in is a really bad thing. And, if the ground floor retail ordinance does protect these existing retail businesses from converting to offices I don’t understand what the difference is between enforcing that condition of all the existing ground floor retail being protected and what Commissioner Burt talked about which is having differential zoning for the street facing locations. So I think actually that is a really good solution to have the street facing locations retain the retail requirement and then to try to do something maybe about the plaza places. That to me is where the distinction could be made. I think generally the economy has been bad and they are suffering from the economy the same as everybody. On the other side of California Avenue I saw today 200 California Avenue is an empty office building. There are other empty office buildings on California Avenue and I don’t think that we should be rezoning just because the economy is bad. There are other points I suppose I could make but I will end there. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you Joy. Laura Rasmussen. Ms. Rasmussen: I am going to say one thing to make you very happy. I am going to let everyone go home. I know it is after my bedtime and I already talked to you so I am forfeiting my time. Thank you. Chair Griffin: Thank you Laura. [Public Speaker] I am one of the owners and I have something very quick to say. Chair Griffin: Perhaps we could just have you do a card that would really be helpful. While you are doing that Herb Borock is our next speaker. Mr. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, Palo Alto: Thank you Chair Griffin and good evening Commissioners. It occurred to me when Commissioner Cassel mentioned that the public hadn’t spoken that maybe it is a bit late for you to be doing anything anymore this evening since no other member of the Commission and no member of the Staff noticed that somehow the process had gotten a bit confused. So I suggest that you continue this item until a time when you are able to devote your attention to it. If you want to proceed this evening I would say that you should reject the Staff recommendation, reject the negative declaration and reject the application. City Council set a policy on wanting to have retail on the first floor. The Staff you have before you have come to you to rezone properties further down Park Boulevard for residential and walkable neighborhoods using retail. The environmental checklist on the land use item I believe it is 9-B, does this conflict with any land use policy, regulation of the agency including the zoning code? Of course it does. This is changing zoning so you have it as conflicting. How can you possibly say that there is no impact from that? It is a potentially significant impact that must be mitigated. The concern here is that you have properties during the peak of the office boom and perhaps if we areto believe one of the applicants, even earlier, had violated the zoning here and had the wrong use, in some cases apparently if we are to believe the applicant, with the cooperation or concurrence of the people in the Planning Division. If you approve the recommendation either Page 12 6 7 8 9 10~ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 the applicant’s application or the Staff recommendation one of the things that happens is you 2 won’t discover why that happens. The fact that something bad happened does not mean that you 3 should correct it by changing the zoning. Implementation of Council policy, which is what 4 zoning is, if that is not happening that is a different kind of problem that has to be fixed in a 5.different way. The dollar figure that I heard in the lobby among the property owners is $5.00 a square foot. They understand that the purpose of this zoning is that when once again offices are in demand the retail will go away and will be replaced by offices. That is what this is all about. It is also to legalize illegal uses and that is a bad idea. So if you can do it reject it otherwise go home and come back at another time. Chair Griffin: And our last speaker is Donald Douglas. Could you state your residential address please. Mr. Donald Douglas, 101 California Avenue, Palo Alto: I am one of the owners. What the gentleman before me said was very true. Historically retail space is higher than office space. Right now we are in a crunch so we need the help of office space. When retail space comes back and the price goes up then theoffice space will move on they will not be able to afford it. That is what the history of office space is. I have a real estate license so I know what the market is in Los Angeles and in this area. That is actually what happens. Office space is less expensive than retail space and service space. When the economy gets better then the prices will go up on retail space and the people that are renting office space will move on. It is an automatic built-in adjustment right in the economic situation. Chair Griffin: Do you have any further comments? Mr. Douglas: No, I just wanted to make that point. Chair Griffin: Apparently we have no more questions so thank you for your comments, At this point I would like to close the public heating and bring the discussion back to the desk for Commissioners to discuss. Does anyone wish to start with comments? Commissioner Burt: Normally at this time we have follow up questions to Staff and then we go into discussion. Chair Griffin: Would you like to ask questions of Staff?. Commissioner Burt: Yes. The applicant alluded to a retail study that had been commissioned by the property owners I believe. Does Staff have this and if so it seems that it would be pertinent for the Commission to have at a minimum a summary of this in order to assist us in our recommendations? Ms. Grote: We do have a copy of it. It was done on July 10, 2000 it is by Wallace & Stiken I believe is how you pronounce the last name. It does discuss the viability of the area. There are extra copies to distribute to you. It does talk about the viability of the area for retail use, the visibility, the vehicle traffic, pedestrian traffic, adjacent uses, history of the retail tenancies in the Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 spaces themselves. So it does outline that kind of analysis and does conclude that it is a poor location for retail use. Commissioner Burr: When are we scheduled to have the Citywide Ground Floor Retail Ordinance return to us for more long-term review? Ms. Grote: That is a permanent ordinance. It is scheduled to be reviewed as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update, which would not occur until probably early next year, probably January, or so of 2004. Commissioner Burr: My recollection is that when we adopted it even though it was adopted as a permanent ordinance there was an anticipation that it would return within a year, if I am remembering correctly. So how long has it been since it was adopted? Ms. Grote: It has probably been over a year. Let me double-check that. Commissioner Burr: Can Staff comment on the issue raised regarding the negative declaration on Section 9-B? Ms. Grote: It has to do with the land use impacts and Chris was just pointing out that it is discussed in the back of the report on page 12 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The conclusion is that because this is removing the retail limitation it is not an environmental impact. It is not going to generate significantly more traffic. It is not going to be significantly noisier. It is not going to have significant air quality impacts. It isn’t going to be an environmental impact. That is what that discussion is about and that is what the Mitigated Negative Declaration concludes. Commissioner Bellomo: Lisa, if you could just briefly address this to maintain the (P) and maintaining the kind of pedestrian vitality if that could really be something that could be in a sense maintained with a (P). The spaces remain vital, the appearance remains, the uses remain in a sense public how that could be scripted. Ms. Grote: To retain the (P) overlay would be to retain the physical requirements that there be an inset doorway, that there be large display windows, that there be pedestrian friendly frontages and that is entirely possible to retain that and then remove the (R) which opens up then or increases the number of uses that could be located there but they would all still have that physical proximity to the street. Commissioner Bellomo: So in your opinion it can maintain the flexibility of the building of these pieces. Ms. Grote: Right. Chair Griffin: Karen. Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Holman: Can Staff comment on the restrictions that the applicant noted had been placed or have been placed on the restaurant like no music outside, no alcohol and the limited hours of operation? Ms. Grote: I believe many of those restrictions came with the conditional use permit for serving beer, wine and alcohol with the food in the restaurant. When that use permit was heard a lot of the residents in the residential portion of the buildings objected to any outdoor activity or any special events because the noise carries up through that courtyard area and into their condominiums, So we did attach conditions that limited hours of operation that limited outdoor activity ............ Commissioner Holman: Did I understand correctly that the hours of operation start at 10:00 AM? Am I wrong on that? Ms. Grote: It is 11:00 AM to 10:00 PM. I don’t recall specifically but that sounds right. I think they wanted to serve brunches. The reason it was 11:00 AM is that they wanted to serve brunch on Saturday and/or Sunday, on the weekends, I believe I don’t remember exactly I would have to look at that. Commissioner Holman: Was the restaurant prior to this, or any restaurants prior to that serving breakfast because that could also add to the viability of a restaurant facility there. Ms. Grote: I don’t recall. I don’t know. Commissioner Holman: I know the answer to this but I want to see if there is anything that we might have an option to do. I do know a lot of people who actually ride their bikes from the train or walk from the train. When you walk from the train to this comer at Park and California a lot of it is just dead because of the residential project there. So is there anything that this Commission could recommend or we could consider for putting some kind of a (P) overlay? I know it is not what we have now as a tool but could we put a (P) overlay on that? Remember the public did talk about we are trying to encourage use of the train and you want people to enjoy that route there to encourage them to use the train. Ms. Grote: Currently and I think you were alluding to this the (P) overlay is specifically called out for CN, CC and CD districts. So the (P) overlay is limited to being combined with commercial districts. So per requirements in the ordinance now you can’t attach it to a residential zone. I think the original thinking is that residential projects are designed for more pedestrian use. Certainly people drive to and from their residences but there is more likelihood that they are going to have a pedestrian orientation to begin with. That is not the case in this particular project because it was built in 1982 or 1984. I don’t know that there is anything that we can put on the building now that would require changes to be made. There maybe something that we can discuss and explore that would then be triggered when the applicants come in to make modifications to their building but there isn’t anything that we could do to require them to come in and change the fagade of the building. Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Holman: Then I think my last question is is Staff aware of any work that the project owners have conducted with the City’s Economic Development Planner to work out functional uses with the residents and also the aspect that the fact that the train is right there? Ms. Grote: I know the applicants have met with and Laura Rasmussen mentioned this a couple times, she has met with Susan. We have met with Susan Arpan together and also with the previous Planning Director. So there have been attempts to find uses that would be compatible and possible for those spaces. They have not been successful to date. They are difficult spaces to fill. So there have been several attempts to meet with Susan and she is well aware of the situation and continues to look for tenants that might be possible but without success. Chair Griffin: Phyllis, Vice-Chair Cassel: I am ready to have some discussion. Chair Griffin: Well, Bonnie then has a question perhaps. Commissioner Packer: One of the problems I am having with this is that zoning runs with the land it doesn’t go with the building. Here we have a building that was relatively recently built but that could be remodeled. The CC whether CC(2) or CC doesn’t seem to have a minimum floor space or maximum floor space. This would be a lot easier if it did then we would be talking about offices for small defined areas and we are not talking about offices for something really large. This is a legal question. If we rezone something we are rezoning the land we are not making a zone for the building. Is there a way to give it a sunset clause or will we be playing games that we shouldn’t be playing? Chair Griffin: Does anyone wish to clarify that? Ms. Grote: I did want to just point out that it does limit office space in the CC district to 5,000 square feet. There is a reference to that. Commissioner Packer: That helps a lot. Chair Griffin: If there are no more questions then we could have discussion here. So Phyllis please start us. It is now ten minutes to 11:00. Vice-Chair Cassel: I would like to have some discussion and then eventually I would like to move this back to Staff for a continuation. I guess I have had a fair amount of time in this area. I didn’t realize how much time I have spent there. I have lived in this neighborhood for a year. I took the train into this area for four and one-half years and then I took the bus through this area when I was coming home from work, the 88 guns through here and then runs around. So I can tell you a little bit Karen about some of these issues in terms of the bus and the train station. The wall that runs along California Avenue that you see at the angle back, it s a solid wall, it doesn’t really have openings out onto that side. It would be really difficult I think for a residence to do that. That is a bus area. There are several buses that drop off into that area and the people Page 16 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 who get offthere tend to go towards the bus sometimes back but it would be very difficult I think for a resident to open out onto a bus space. There are other points I think you can make that are in there but at this point those are residences and they face in for good or for ill that is what we are faced with. People that get off there and some of them go underneath, some of them get into cars, some of them get into buses, a relatively few number come down the street. That is fairly obvious. I think it is really sad that this attempt at a mixed use and hoping to have retail isn’t working. It is true, you don’t get in to see building E, you don’t walk in. The way this was designed and the way they proceeded I tried to deliver some literature into this area once, you can’t. These are all locked areas. This could change but the residents aren’t really encourage to and it is something that if we do more mixed projects we are going to have to be very careful of to make sure that people want to go through those areas. You don’t see the back spaces and they are not there. It is not in there. The other thing that we haven’t pointed out is that across the street you have Molly Stone’s and then right next to that going west you have another whole series of retail space I mean not retail space but office space that runs right along California Avenue on the other side. SO there is quite a bit of office space in this neighborhood. Chair Griffin: I will just say that during my visit I was struck by almost a sterility even though there has been some effort made to put plantings on the inside of that courtyard. Envisioning the courtyard as being a retail space is hard to imagine actually but at the same time the street facing areas of the building still to me seem to be something that are worth preserving. I think we need to discuss how to do that because with some remodeling I just have the feeling that that building does represent potential for retail. Perhaps not the way it looks today and I realize I am talking about spending somebody else’s money here but at the same time I think there are things that could be done that would enhance the street facing spaces and make it a more attractive retail experience. Joe. Commissioner Bellomo: I will just comment briefly. I don’t think you could force this building to become more retail viable. I think this was an early 1980s attempt at mixed use, which I applauded when I saw this going up. We were doing some mixed use down in the South Bay and it failed. It was obvious it failed when it went up and it was a missed opportunity. I am not saying that wecan take the pedestrian flavor out of it I don’t think that is appropriate. I thi .nk there have been some suggestions here to keep the infrastructure opening and to keep the facades open but I do think that this building should be allowed to be what it wants to be. I don’t think it needs to be anything more than that or less than that. I think it can still be viable. We talk about revenues but if there is no one in this building how can it be a tax revenue? It needs to be what it needs to be. It needs to be successful and being successful is being what we are and not something we are not. I really think that Staff needs to encourage this building to remain plaza oriented, vital, small office, large office but a mix of opportunity but nothing more than that. I don’t believe this is going to be a successful retail building ever. I think if it is rebuilt, Bonnie brought up a point that yes, if this building was rebuilt it runs with the land. It would be something totally different. They would want to make it a transit oriented retail mix of uses. They would want that. You would want to rezone it back. You would want to do something different. It has to be viable. So having said that I am in support of Staff’s direction, the Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 applicant’s direction with some modifications that were commented here tonight that can make this kind of happen. Chair Griffin: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I would like to follow up on what Joe said. I agree with what you said and I think we should keep in mind that office is also a viable use. There has been in the past couple of years around here this feeling that offices are like a dirty word and offices are people. People take the train and they can work in the offices. Offices shop in the retail that is also around there on California Avenue. Since I am reminded, thank you, that these are small offices we are not talking about monoliths with the cubicles and that kind of thing that are a different kind of environment that is also helpful. Another helpful way to think about offices is certain uses that we think of more as retail are really included in our offices definition. The one I like to point out a lot is travel agencies, which offer a nice walk-in environment with nice window displays and can enhance a pedestrian environment but those are not allowed under retail use. Those are office uses. So we have some problems in the definitions and the uses in our own code that tiopefully if we ever get around to doing the Zoning Ordinance Update we can fix. Another possibility in the future is if we ever get this transit oriented overlay zone that could be put on top of this area in the future when the building gets remodeled or whatever, there is other potential, So I am in support of going the way of project three but keeping the (P) if we can so that we can maintain the openness but allow some flexibility of use by allowing office which does not preclude retail. We have to keep that in mind. When we are doing this we are not saying no to retail we are just saying okay for some small office uses that will have big windows. Chair Griffin: Pat did you have a comment and then I will come back up to Karen. Commissioner Burt: Yes, I have a few. First I think that we need.to recognize that if we convert this to general office that long term we are highly unlikely to see a return of retail to this area. That is an economic reality that we see in the community, we know long term that is why we have Downtown Palo Alto, why we have set it as ground floor retail a good number of years ago which contributed to the vitality there. We do have some problems with this particular site that we need to address but the premise that we can assume that if we allow general office that someday we have a good chance of it returning to retail is fairly far fetched. And we have a Citywide Ground Floor Retail Ordinance that this is going to fly in the face of. Now we have some particular problems here and I think there may be some ways to address it but I donrt think we should ignore that. Within the context of the Citywide Ordinance we had discussions and I think it is appropriate that we look in terms of more appropriately in terms of retail nodes,. shopping districts and not blanket everywhere in the City. But this is generally within that context of those areas that are supposed to be favored for retail. Another issue that we had talked about in SOFA II and I want to have us return to is if we are looking at liberalizing some of these uses on the ground floor then we may want to look at uses that are business uses that are not true retail under our definitions but have an appropriate vitality for a ground floor function. I think we have not adequately explored that and that may be appropriate for this context. Page 18 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 2 I would also like to think that we should look at differentiating those street faces that are on 3 California Avenue and on the comer there of Park up through building C. On the street face that 4 is much more appropriate. I would be open to reconsidering within the courtyard, I have to 5 disagree with the premise that Staff had expressed that it was an .equity basis that was why they 6 were recommending a blanket change throughout, Our business here is not to provide economic 7 equity for all tenants or all landowners. Our business is to have good land use policy. We may 8 in doing so provide some economic assistance for some of these condominium owners but that is 9 not our mission, Our mission is to look at what is the appropriate most effective land use policy 10 to serve the objectives of the Comp Plan. In the Staff Report they cite Policy L-28 as a reason for justifying this change and I don’t read it that way, It says maintain the existing scale, character and function of California Avenue business district as a shopping, service and office center. Well the existing scale and character and function the balance would be changed by this shift. Maybe not radically but it is a change I certainly wouldn’t use that component of the Comp Plan as an argument that we are sustaining that policy by making this change toward office and making from what was a retail, ground floor retail requirement to something that is quite different. I don’t think we are going to be able to solve this tonight but I think we have some issues that we need to explore in greater depth. I am really hesitant to leap forward to just granting tuming all this into permanent office space and potentially taming that entire comer into a sterile area. So I think we have to really look at his hard before we leap into that. We do have unusual economic conditions today that are making a lot of vacancies in the community. You go up and down 101 and along the frontage roads and we have a lot higher vacancy rate than we do here. As I see it on the street face we have one vacancy right now on a tiny little parcel there. We don’t have widespread vacancies on the street facehere. That doesn’t mean it is the greatest vitality area, the most valuable retail space we have around but we are not addressing an issue of a whole series of vacancies on that comer. So I think we need to bear these things in mind before we make final decisions. Chair Griffin: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I do tmderstand that this building is a difficult design and difficult to work with at the same time from my perspective I see what now are some missed opportunities and if we change this zoning to general office it is going to be lost opportunity. So one thing I would like Staff to look at is expanding the hours of the restaurant especially in the AM hours. This has always been a restaurant and if I am wrong please correct me when you come back but I think this has always been a restaurant and always was intended to be a restaurant. So if people buy into the project they know that there is going to be a restaurant there and they are buying into that circumstance. I agree with Pat’s comments about expending the definition of services. I know that SOFA was a larger area but this is a commuter corridor and it is a retail corridor. If we break it as opposed to encouraging it to be continued I think we are making a huge long term mistake to get people to use the train. Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 My comment about the residential aspect of this the G, H and J buildings is it’s a great opportunity to try to get some public art put in that location or maybe some street kiosks or something of that nature, something to draw people from the train station and from the buses down California Avenue, continue that link. It is widely known that if we don’t make that journey a pleasant one and a very walkable one people aren’t going to walk it, they aren’t going to bicycle it. They are going to get in their cars and zip past blank walls. Then I have one comment to the negative declaration, I think under aesthetics, C, I disagree with that one, I think that this will change the, as it says, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. I think given the circumstance that we are in here for a retail corridor and a commuter corridor and to support the other retail and service businesses that are there I think it would have an environmental impact so I disagree with that. MOTION So given that I think I am going to make a motion. I am open to amendments too. I am actually not going to support any of the Staff alternatives. I would like to see Staff come back with some opportunities to enhance the retail and service opportunities that exist at this site. I would like to see them come back with options for us to expand the allowable uses here like for instance we don’t have take-out food for instance that is not allowed. So come back with expanded uses and maybe those could be allowed under conditional use permits or come back with some mechanism to b( able to do that and to explore some kind of public art component along the residential aspect of this project going toward the train station. And for goodness sakes I absolutely agree with Bonnie’s point about keeping the (P) overlay no matter what we end up doing here. I think that would be my motion. Chair Griffin: Do I have a second? Commissioner Burt: Can I ask a question and then maybe second it? Chair Griffin: We will squeeze you in prior to the second. Commissioner Burt: Karen, would your motion include willingness to evaluate changing the permitted uses within the courtyard area, the non-street facing components? Commissioner Holman: Sure I would accept that. SECOND Commissioner Burr: Okay, I will second the motion. Chair Griffin: Has the maker already spoken sufficiently? Seconder? Commissioner Burt: My understanding is this is only to request Staff to come back with alternative recommendations. This is not an endorsement of those recommendations at this time. Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Griffin: Joe, do you have comments? Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I have a question. We are dealing with existing zoning code that describes uses. How could Staff be changing? We don’t have applicants asking for a conditional use or something like that. You are asking Staff to change the underlying zoning definitions that we need to work with? Is that what you are asking them to explore? There are certain uses that are set out in these particular zoning classifications and that is what we are working with. Commissioner Holman: Right and I am asking for Staff to come back with some options that we might look at as far as expanding those uses for this. We have a very difficult project here. It is unfortunate that this isn’t happening during the Zoning Ordinance Update but it isn’t .and, I wish it were, I want to see a successful project here but rather than seeing it go to all general office and I agree with Pat’s comments we won’t get the retail back especially in up times. So given that I am asking Staff to come back with some options for us. Commissioner Packer: But there are a zillion uses listed under the CC(2) zone and the only uses that are now allowed are the retail uses pretty much. That is what the (R) means. So isn’t that what Staff is proposing to do? Commissioner Holman: Unless I misunderstood and Pat maybe too, that there would be except for medical offices there would be offices allowed on the ground floor up to a limit of 5,000 square feet. Isn’t that right? Commissioner Packer: Along with retail and all the other. There is a whole alphabet soup of uses. Commissioner Holman: where we go awry. Chair Griffin: Phyllis. SUBSTITUTE MOTION Right, but once you open the door to those general offices I think that is Vice-Chair Cassel: I want to try a substitute motion. It is going to go along the same general lines that this item should come back to us. It should return to the Planning Commission. It needs to be renoticed. We need to review the EIR. It needs to be forwarded to a date uncertain. It should follow the general lines of project three. It should look at the options that vary between what Pat is talking about. In other words is there some possibility of looking at a range of uses that are broader than what we now have or should we use just to save the R, R-2. That we keep the (P) zone. SECOND Commissioner Packer: I will second that. Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice-Chair Cassel: I think your definition is very narrow and tends to try very hard to push out anything that is office. I think the angle that it is going is slightly different and a little broader. It is not that it is greatly different but I think the way you have worded it is you just don’t want office down there as far as I can see if we can possibly avoid it and I think I am trying to be a little broader. I think this is the wrong building and I wish it had done something else. Chair Griffin: Pat. Commissioner Burt: Phyllis, does your motion include evaluation of retaining (R) on the street facing as an option and allowing expanded uses on the non-street facing locations? Vice-Chair Cassel: What I am saying is I would like to have it looked at a little broader but you could also look at it in terms of we were talking about is there a broader range of uses that would work other than just the (R). The uses need to be broader. These are small offices that are restricted. Commissioner Burt: If this would be permitted under your motion, if Staff were able to provide us with options of either expanding the types of uses that are allowed on the street face or alternatively I would be willing to consider dropping the (R) on the non-street face parcels or some combination of those two. Vice-Chair Cassel: My motion will include looking at that. Vice-Chair Cassel: So to clarify again, I am trying to differentiate between the two, which seem to be exceptionally similar somehow. The aspect that appealed to me was to drop the (R) designation on the interior courtyard, which I personally did not find to be particularly suitable for retail and looked like it would work much better as office, However, I wanted to maintain the (R) on the street facing side. Is that where we are with your motion? Vice-Chair Cassel: I am willing to look at that but I don’t want to at this stage not let Staff look at both options, whether that is a viable option or not. Commissioner Burt: What I understood Phyllis to be proposing was that on the street face we would be looking at two options, retaining the (R) or expanding the allowable uses not to include necessarily general business but uses beyond strictly the retail, Is that correct, Phyllis? Vice’Chair Cassel: No, I was trying to make it be a little broader. These are very small spaces ~ we are talking about. Commissioner Packer: I did make a second and in the interest of time I will say ditto to what Phyllis said. I think we should ask Staff to look at all the things we have talked about and not try and predetermine in our motion what we want Staff to come back to us with because there may be legal issues that we haven’t thought of. Chair Griffin: But don’t we want to give Staff some guidance? Does Staff feel like they understand well enough what it is we are trying to accomplish up here? Page 22 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 1 2 Mr. Emslie: I think we understand Commissioner Cassel’s motion to mean that you would like 3 for us to prepare a proposal that would address the difference between street facing and 4 courtyard facing and incorporating Commissioner Burt’s suggestion that an option be provided 5 in addition to that that would include not carte blanche for office but more of what we called during the SOFA II discussions a pedestrian oriented types of office. We understand that and could come back with proposals to give you some options and how you would implement that through the zoning. We do understand that. Vice-Chair Cassel: And we keep the (P) in general so things can slide back and forth if that works. Mr. Emslie: That is pretty clear to us. Chair Griffin: Karen. AMENDMENT Commissioner Holman: Well if the maker and seconder will accept one amendment I will vote for theirs, which I just don’t see the difference between Phyllis’s motion and mine. So I will support it if you will accept the one amendment to have Staff look at also opportunities for public art or kiosks or something along the residential aspect. Chair Griffin: When you say residential aspect you mean the blank wall that we have been talking about where the buses are on California? Commissioner Holman: I know that is not a part of the application but it is something that would help to make these retail spaces, if they are to remain retail spaces, much more viable. So I think it is important to look at what possibility there might be there. Mr. Emslie: We won’t have jurisdiction over that. It is not within the Commission’s purview but if you would like us to check with the Community Service Staff as to what would be involved with that we will ask them to give you a memorandum to that effect. Vice-Chair Cassel: I don’t really want it in the motion because it is not part of the purview of what we are doing but it would be lovely if they would look at that issue. It is not part of the motion. It is not part of what we.are dealing with on the floor it doesn’t mean it wouldn’t be great if they would take a look at the issue and see if there is some public art that can be done but I don’t think it is part 0fthis particular motion. As an issue that has been brought forward it would be neat. It would mean City budget or someone’s budget or someone from this large corporation or a group of people wanting to do it. MOTION PASSED (6-0-0-1, Commissioner Bialson absent) Page 23 1 2 3 4 5 Chair Griffin: Have we discussed it enough and we are ready for the question? All those in favor of Phyllis’s motion say aye. (ayes) Opposed? Motion carries unanimously with Commissioner Bialson absent. That closes item number two. Page 24 18.43.010 Attachment F eas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accor- dance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council pursu- ant to Section 16.48.070. (Ord. 4069 § 6, 1992) Chapter 18.43 CC COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT REGULATIONS Sections: 18.43.010 18.43.020 18.43.030 18.43.040 18.43.050 18.43.060 18.43.070 18.43.080 Specific purposes. Applicability of regulations. Permitted uses. Conditional uses. Site development regulations. Parking and loading. Special requirements. Recycling storage. 18.43.010 Specific purposes. The CC community commercial district is intended to create and maintain major com- mercial centers accommodating a broad range of office, retail sales, and other commercial activities of community-wide or regional sig- nificance. The CC community commercial district is intended to be applied to re- gionaUcommunity commercial centers identi- fied by the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.43.020 Applicability of regulations. The specific regulations of this chapter and the additional regulations and procedures es- " tablished by Chapters 18.83 to 18.99, inclu- sive, shall apply to all CC community commercial districts. Additionally, pedestrian shopping combining district regulations es- tablished by Chapter 18.47 and civic center combining district regulations established by Chapter 18.79 may apply within portions of the CC community commercial district. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.43.030 Permitted uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the CC community commercial district: (a) Accessory facilities and uses custom- arily incidental to permitted uses;. (b) Animal care, but excluding boarding and kennels; (c) Business and trade schools; (d) Churches and religious institutions; (e) Convalescent facilities; (f)Day care centers, large day care homes, small day care homes and residential care homes; (g) Eating and drinking services, dxcept drive-in and take-out services; (h) Financial services, except drive-in services; (i) Home occupations, when accessory to permitted residential uses; (j)Hotels without kitchen facilities; (k)Lodging; (1)Medical, professional, and general business offices locate, d on any floor other than the ground floor of a building; (m) Medical, professional, and general business offices located on the ground floor of a building, as limited by Section 18.45.070(f), which (1) have been continuously in existence in that space since March 19, 2001, and, as of such date, were neither non-conforming nor in the process of being amortized pursuant to Chapter 18.95 of this code; (2) occupy a space that was not occupied by housing, retail serv- ices, eating and drinking services, personal services, or automotive services on March 19, 2001 or thereafter; (3) occupy a space that was vacant on March 19, 2001; (4) are located in new or remodeled ground floor areas built on or after March 19, 2001 if the ground floor area devoted to housing, retail services, eating and drinking services, personal services, and automobile services does not decrease; or (5) are on a site located in an area subject to a specific plan or coordinated area plan, which specifically allows for such ground floor medical, professional and general business of- rices; (n) Mortuaries; (Supp. No. 3 - 1/17/2002) 18-80 18.43.040 (o) Personal services; (p) Private clubs, lodges,-or fraternal or- ganizations; (q) Private educational facilities; (r) Retail services and shopping centers; (s) Reverse vending machines, subject to regulations established by Chapter 18.88 of this code. (t) Single-family uses, two-family uses, and multiple-family uses. (Ord. 4730 § 4, 2001: Ord. 3757 §§ 9, 10, 1987: Ord. 3536 § 21, 1984: Ord. 3064 § 1 (part) 1978: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.43.040 Conditional uses. The following uses may be conditionally permitted in the CC community commercial district, subject to issuance of a conditional use permit in accord with Chapter 18.90: (a) Ambulance services; (b) Automobile service stations, subject to site and design review in accord with the pro- visions of Chapter 18.82; (c) Parking as a principal use; 18-80.1 (Supp. No. 3 - 111712002~ Attachment G DO / ESFIOHNBAO,I, DOUGLAS AND MOORE REAL ESTATE INC. ~rs & Mortgage Brokers Attachment H Lisa Grote City of Palo Alto 285 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 June 27,2003 Re: Palo Alto Central Commercial Condominiums Dear Lisa, The following Palo Alto Central commercial condominium unit owners, are filing the formal application to be included in zoning Ordinance #3972 passed in 1990. Richard & Sharon Reyes, 2417 Park Blvd Eldad & Charlotte Matityahu, 2409 Park Blvd Donald Douglas & Nina Moore 2401 Park Blvd Norman Weintraub & Deborah London 109 California Avenue. Enclosed are letters from Richard &Sharon Reyes and Eldad & Charlotte. Matityahu requesting to be added to the application submitted earlier. Also included is the requested $5,000 re-zoning fee We do appreciate your understanding and assistance in resolving the zoning problems we have been experiencing in the complex. Thank you. Nina Moore President Palo Alto Central Commercial Association 101 Ca~fornia Avenu~ ¯ Pa(o Alto, CA 94306 Bus: (650) 326-3306 Fax: (650) 326-3305 Lisa Grote John Lusardi Development Center 285 Hamilton Avenue F~alo Alto, CA 94301 June 27,2003 Re: Palo Alto Central 2409 Park Blvd To Lisa Grote and John Lusardi, The following is a formal request to include our commercial condominium located at 2409 Park Blvd in the formal application being made to include four units in Palo Alto Central in Ordinance #3972 passed in 1990. We purchased the unit three years ago. The prior owners had a clothing store there for a short while in the late 80s. It did not do well and they closed it down. They developed their business into a clothing import company and their offices occupied the unit for at least ten years. The unit had been on the market and boarded up for over two years when we bought it. At the time of the purchase we were not informed of an overlay. The unit was vacant for a while until finally Stewart Title leased it. They wish to renew their lease and expand into an adjacent unit but will not do so until we complete the re-zoning. As you know from what is going on in the complex, retail has a long history of performing poorly in this location. With this historical data, as well as a challenging economy affecting ~.veryon~, i~ is crucial for us to have the re-zoning addressed as soon as possible. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Eldad Matityahu ~Qharlot(e Matityahu Date Date 842 Bovce Avenue. 1)alo Alto, CA 94301 ¯ eMail: link@promo-line.com ¯ Tel: (650) 424-1111, Fax: (650) 424-1880 Kids First Richard & Sharon Reyes 2417 Park Boulevard Palo Alto, CA 94306 Lisa Grote John Lusardi Development Center 285 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Palo Alto Central 2417 Park Blvd June 27,2003 Dear Lisa Grote and John Lusardi, The following is a formal request to include our commercial condominium located at 2417 Park Boulevard in the formal application being made to include four units in Palo Alto Central in Ordinance #3972 passed in 1990. We currently own and operate Ingrid’s Tanning Salon from the above location. We purchased the property and the business from the prior owner. We are faced with the same difficulties as other unit owners attempting to opeFate re,tail and service businesses from the Complex. We have been searching for an appropriate location to relocate to and have been on the waiting list for a vacancy at Town and Country for.quite a while. We realize that any retail business we lease our premises to in the future will encounter the same issues we are experiencing and would appreciate your assistance in rezoning our unit. Thank you. Reyes Sharon Reyes Date Date/ 00T-02-2003 I0:08 AH 0 P A PLANNING Attachment Chris ~ordart City of Palo A!to Planning Department 250 Hamilton Avenue P01o Alto, CA 94301 KE: Rczoning application 03-ZC-06 AS owner of 151 California Avenue #El01 (ourrently o~¢upied by Silk Road located in Palo Alto Central, I would like to participate in the proposed rezoning application # 03-ZC-06 and waiw the right 1;o a 12 day public ttoti~e period. Thm~ Chd,~ Rioma, City of Palo Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, Regar~tlng pf Dear Mr, Rio~ We, Josaphil Palo Alto Cel participate in day public n¢ Thank you. I ,Ito nuQ 94303 O~ober 1, 2003 oposed rezoning application # 03=zc=06 le and Levinio Montoya, the owner= of Montoya Jewellers located in ~tral Complex, 103 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306, would like to the proposed rezoning application # 03=zc-06, We waive our right to a 12 tice time period. )ya J os~e’phine Montoya ~April 14, 2004 -PTC ~[e Palo Alto Central ground floor retail rezonmg Stewart Title has been located at 2409 Park Blvd in violation of the zoning code, that is, illegally, for several years. I looked in the August 2001 phone book, and Stewart Title was listed at 2409 Park Blvd, so this illegal nonconforming use has been taking place for a minimum of 2 and three-quarters years. Yet, not only has staff not enforced the zoning code, staff has proposed to change the zoning code to accommodate this illegal use. And, what is worse is that staff’s recommendation, with the Planning Commission’s apparent approval, is to single out this property owner who has flagrantly violated the zoning code for more than two years, singled out this property owner for a special reward, a special privilege above and beyond what the owners of the other affected ground floor locations are getting. This property owner gets to grandfather-in this illegal non-conforming use. Now, at the last Planning Commission meeting on this topic, Commissioners discussed this issue and pointed out how there would be little practical difference between having the tanning salon occupy the entire street-facing portion of 2409 and 2417 Park Blvd, with Stewart Tilte located in the non-street facing portion, compared with the present configuration. Therefore, Planning Commission felt that the proposed grandfathering-in of the office use at the Stewart Title location would be okay. However, I would like to point out that Planning Commission did no_.At consider a very likely scenario that would be allowed under the proposed ordinance, unless something is done to specifically prevent it from happening. ¯That scenario is the following. Stewart Title, or another office use expands to occupy not only the entire space at 2409 Park Blvd, but also the non-street facing portion, the rear-side portion of 2417 Park Blvd, which is the rear portion of the space where the Tanning Salon is presently located. This would mean that 75% of that space at 2409 and 2417 Park Blvd in Bldg. C would be Office. The only retail required under staff’s proposal would be in the street-facing half of the present Tanning Salon space. Now, perhaps a retail tenant could be found to fill that small space, perhaps not. But considering the differential in rents between office and retail, the property owner might be happy to allow that street-facing half of the present Tanning salon location to stay unoccupied, in order to receive the income from a larger office that gets to occupy 75% of that ground-floor space. We could end up with only office and permanently empty retail on that ground floor space. Again, because of the grandfathering provision, this property owner would be rewarded for violating the current zoning by being allowed a special privilege that is not being afforded to the owner of Bldg D, for example. The Bldg C ower will get to have 75% ground floor office. So, if the City is going to allow this grandfathering, there really needs to be added a provision that says that no more than 50% of the ground floor ofBldg C can be office. Attachment WALIACE & STEICHEN, INC. Real Estate Consultants I Economists I Market Analys~s I Appraisers Attachment J July 10, 2000 Laura E. Rasmussen 2906 Cowper Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 Re: Palo Alto Central, UnitE101 Dear Ms. Rasmussen: This letter summarizes my analysis and findings to: 1. Determine whether a restaurant or other retail business can operate successfully at the premises; and, 2. Determine the best use of the premises. Property Address:151 California Avenue, Palo Alto, California Unit El01 of the Palo Alto Central East Condominium Plan Property Description: The premises consist of approximately 3,201 square feet of commercial space. About 75% of this space is ground floor commercial space, with the remainder second story office and storage space. (It should be noted that the space is actually about two feet, or three steps, above grade.) ExistingUse: The premises are currently used as a restaurant named the Brahma Bull. It is understood that since constructed in the mid1980s, restaurant use has been the only use of the premises, except for periods when it has been vacant. It is further understood that at least five restaurants have operated in tl’ie premises at various times. Current Zoning: The premises are zoned CC(2)(R)(P). Community Commercial Combining District with Pedestrian and Retail overlay. The Retail overlay (R) restricts the use of the premises becanse it is ground floor to eating and drinking services, personal services, and retail services. 1. Can A Restaurant or Other Retailer Operate Suceessft, llv at the Premises? The premises are not suitable for retail use. It is almost impossible for any retailer to operate profitably at this site. Laura E, Rasmussen July 10, 2000 Page Two To operate profitably, restaurants and retailers require good visibility, substantial pedestrian and/or vehicle traffic flow, and adjacent synergistic uses (usually other retailers). In the case of the premises, all three of these necessary retail attributes are either absent or inadequate. Visibility: The premises are not visible from any spot on California Avenue or Park Boulevard, the two streets that front Palo Alto Central. In fact, the premises are not visible from any public street or sidewalk. California Avenue is the primary retail street of the California Avenue District. Signs, like the Brahma Bull sign hanging under the second story overhang of Palo Alto Centralis of little help. The only place where the restaurant is visible is from the small private courtyard of Palo Alto Central, Vehicle Traffic: No vehicle traffic passes the premises because it has no street frontage. In addition, traffic on California Avenue declines substantially at this point because it dead ends at the railroad tracks. Pedestrian Traffic: There is almost no pedestrian traffic passing by the premises. Few pedestrian wander into the courtyard area. Except for the restaurant and tenants of the building, there is little reason to go there. Although there is another small entrance to the courtyard offof Park Boulevard in addition to the main entrance, the courtyard is a dead end. There is no reason beyond the restaurant to go there. Pedestrian traffic is also impeded because most people are reluctant to enter private space. The entryway and courtyard have every indication that it is private. The darkness of the entry’way also make it uninviting. The potted trees also narrow the entryway and give it a darker and more closed-in feeling. Even the three step rise hinder some of the little traffic that ever gets to the courtyard. Most smal! retailers (and certainly a 3,201 sq, ff~ space is small) require traffic created by other traffic generators to survive and prosper. The small retailers are best positioned on a street between traffic generators on either side where they can attract some of those passing between the major destinations. There is nothing beyond the premises. Even pedestrians going to or coming from the CalTrain station do not pass bs’ the premises, they nmst use California Avenue. They can not cut through Palo Alto Central ......... Adjacent Synergistic Uses: Few retail businesses can succeed alone without other nearby retailers. A few large destination retailers such as Price Club/Costco or Safeway can. But most cannot. For small retailers like the 3,201 square foot premises it is almost impossible. Enough small reiailers together, like those lining California Avenue, can create a critical mass and together they can succeed. The premises are physically and visually separate from the WALLACE & STEICHEN, INC. Laura E. Rasmussen July 10, 2000 Page Three remainder of California Avenue. Thus, a retailer heremust be destination oriented - almost an impossibility at 3,201 square feet. Other Evidence that tile premlses are not suitable for Retail Use: Failure of Previous Retaii Tenants: Since first built in the mid 1980s, four restaurants operated and failed at this location. The fifth is doing poorly and desires to close. Also during this period, the space was vacant, sometimes for long periods of a year of more. Other Nonconforming Tenants: Two retail or personal service tenants (The Plantatian and Superstreak Hair Colorist) occupy the two front spaces fronting on California Avenue or Park Boulevard. However, the two commercial spaces fi’onting the entryway or courtyard area are occupied by nonconforming uses which are not retail, restaurant, or personal services. Suite D!09 is occupied by Douglas Moore Real Estate Mortgage and Suite D100 is occupied by Impact Interasia. Thus, the continuity of retail uses (the purpose of the R District Zoning) is already interrupted prior to the subject space, and in spaces closer to the street. Other Problems with Retail Use of tile Pre~nises: a. The premises are required to close by 10:00pm to eliminate noise to residents of’the project. This also makes a restaurant more difficult to run successfully. b. Condominium residents have complained about the noise and odors of the restaurant. c. The project’s residential association are in suppor~ of a change of zoning to office USe, It serves no purpose to doom a retailer to ahnost certain failure. Yet under current zoning that is the result, since only retailers can occupy the premises. 2. What is the Best Use of the Premises? Office is the best use of the premises. This use would also be most compatible with and in conformance with the desires of the residential tenants of the project. For retail use, the design flaws are so substantial and are built into the structure of the project that these cannot be economically corrected. Furthermore, redesign and reconstruction of other Laura E. Rasmussen July 10, 2000 Page Four parts of the Palo Alto. Central would be required. These other parts are under separate ownerships. The building cannot easily be converted to residential use. Furthermore, this is ground floor space that would not be suited to residential uses. Conclusions: The premises are not suitable for retail use. Office use is the best use of the premise. I have also attached some articles I wrote which talk about some of the locational factor necessary for retailers to succeed. Some of the points I make in these articles are directly applicable to the premises. I am available to discuss these findings in additional detail. Sincerely, & STEICHEN, INC. J. W2CRE Attachments: Zoning Map Floor Plan Photographs J. Wallace Curriculum Vitae Published Articles WALLACE CKt STEICHEN, INC. Attachment K ISent:Friday, October 10, 2003 2:33 PM " |To:Riordan, Chris . |Cc:Terry Holzemer (E-mail); Warren Beer (E-mail 2) |Subject:RE: FW: Commercial Association for Zone Change (File # 03-ZACH-060) Mr. Riordan- I concur with the Warren Beer’s thoughts that the residents of Palo Alto Central would probably be best served if the ground floor commercial properties at Palo Alto Central were allowed to convert to office use, but be required to maintain the (P) designation. My understanding is the board of the Palo Alto Central East Residential Association supports Mr. Beer’s comments as wel (Terry, please correct me if I am wrong). I would be very concerned, however, if dropping the ® designation would trigger dropping of the (P) designation as well. What I hope you can answer is this: Are the (P) and ® designations legally paired? Can the (P) zoning designation be maintained for the Palo Alto Central commercial properties, if the ® designation is dropped? I ask because the (P) regulations are set forth in a municipal code chapter entitled, PEDESTRIAN SHOPPING COMBINING DISTRICT, whose purpose in part is to foster continuity of RETAIL STORES AND DISPLAY WINDOWS and to maintain an economically healthy RETAIL district (see below). If it turns out the (P) and ® are legally paired, is there some other mechanism the City could utilize in this unique setting (combined residential/commercial property) to mandate (P)-type conditions (like - ARB review, landscaping, maintenance of window awnings, windows as opposed to blank walls, etc.) be maintained now and in the future by commercial property owners at Palo Alto Central should the ® designation be allowed to drop? ~ Any information you can provide in response to my questions will be greatly appreciated. Judy Glaes Palo Alto Central resident Terry Holzember, President, Palo Alto Central East Residential Homeowners Association Warren Beer, past president, Palo Alto Central East Residential Homeowners Association PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE Chapter 18.47 PEDESTRIAN SHOPPING COMBINING DISTRICT (P) REGULATIONS Sections: 18.47.010 18.47.020 18.47.030 18.47.040 Special purposes ...................... Applicability of regulations. Zoning map designation. Use limitations and site development regulations. 18.47.010 Special purposes. The pedestrian shopping combining district is intended to modify the regulations of the CN neighborhood commercial district, the CC community commercial district and the CD commercial downtown district in locations where it is deemed essential to foster the continuity of retail stores and display windows and to avoid a monotonous pedestrian environment in order to establish and maintain an economically healthy retail district. (Ord. 3792 § 1, 1988: Ord. 3098 § 1, 1978; Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.47.020 Applicability of regulations. The pedestrian shopping combining district may be combined with any CN, CC or CD district, in accord with Chapter 18.08 and Chapter 18.98. Wh ere so combined, the regulations established by this chapter shall apply in lieu of, or in addition to, the provisions established by Chapter 18.41, Chapter 18.43 or Chapter 18.49. (Ord. 3792 § 2, 1988: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.47.030 Zoning map designation. The pedestrian shopping combining district shall apply to any site adjacent to designated pedestrian frontage or pedestrian ways shown on the zoning map. (Ord. 3048 (part), 1978) 18.47.040 Use limitations and site development regulations. (a)Pedestrian Design Features Required. On any site, or portion of a site, adjoining a designated pedestrian sidewalk or pedestrian way, new construction and alterations to existing structures shall be required as determined by the architectural review board, to provide the following design features intended to create pedestrian or shopper interest, to provide weather protection for pedestrians, and to preclude inappropriate or inharmonious building design and siting: (1) Display windows, or retail display areas; (2) Pedestrian arcades, recessed entryways, or covered recessed areas designed for pedestrian use with an area not less than the length of the adjoining frontage times 0.5 meters (1.5 feet); (3)Landscaping or architectural design features intended to preclude blank walls or building faces. The specific nature and requirements of pedestrian design features shall be determined by the architectural review board in accord with design guidelines prepared by that board pursuant to Chapter 16.48. (b)Parking and Vehicular Access Restricted. Vehicular access to sites adjoining designated pedestrian sidewalks or pedestrian ways which requires vehicular movement across such pedestrian sidewalks or pedestrian ways shall be prohibited, except where required by law or as may be authorized by a use permit in accord with Chapter 18.90. (Ord. 3792 § 3, 1988: Ord. 3108 § 18, 1979: Ord. 3098 § 2, 1978: Ord. 3048 (part), 1978). .....Original Message ..... ’ I I Sent:Friday, October 10, 2003 11:20 AM I To:Glaes, Judy I Cc:Riordan, Chris; holz@inreach.com | Subject:Re: FW: Commercial Association for Zone Change Hi Judy-- Thanks for sending me your thoughts regarding the Douglas/Moore request to change the commercial owners’ zoning designation. I agree wholeheartedly that the commercial units should maintain the (P) designation. However, they should have the option to convert to office space. Over the five years when I was President of the Homeowners Association and served as President of the Plaza Committee, I heard numerous residents wish these commercial properties were office rather than retail space. We spoke about it during Board Meetings and once our Association wrote a recommendation to the Planning Commission supporting Laura Rasmussen’s request to convert her restaurant property. I know I’d be very happy to see these commercial owners have the flexibility to convert from retail to office space. If the whole first floor was converted to office space, the property would be more aesthetic than it is now. For example, it appears that Douglas and Moore may now be out of compliance with the ® designationmNina rents office space for her real estate brokerage and they rent out office space to others. However, I don’t view their office properties as eyesores or as any other reason for concern to homeowners. To the contrary, their office space looks much more professional than a couple of the retail activities with tacky advertisements aimed at pedestrians. And, Nina’s brokerage is a service to homeowners who want to sell their properties. In general, I don’t think many of the first floor commercial owners would convert their properties to office space anyway. Even if they did, there are plenty of other retail amenities on California Avenue and homeowners wouldn’t miss much if a handful of owners converted to office space. Also, I think office space would be more complementary to homeowners interests and lifestyles. Residents and offices work during the day and at night, when people are home, the offices would be empty. It’d be more quiet and there might be fewer conflicts between commercial owners and residents. The Residential and Commercial Associations might realize a savings in their Liability Policy if some businesses converted. I’d think that offices would be less risky than restaurants and a tanning salon, which are potential fire and health hazards. There’d likely be less foot traffic from people walking in and out of the courtyard area. Also, if one or both of the restaurants converted, there’d certainly be far less garbage, noise and odors. Probably,. the Association would spend a lot less money for garbage pick-ups. And, there would be fewer concerns expressed to the State Alcohol Beverage Control Board about possible violations of one Of the restaurants’ Conditional Use Permit. Members of the Planning Commission might feel differently if they lived at Palo Alto Central. Chances are they live in residential neighborhoods, such as Midtown, and don’t live in a mixed use area. As multi-use properties become more commonplace in the California Avenue neighborhood, the Planning Commission needs to understand the real-world issues faced by residents in our community. Anyway, thanks again for keeping me in the loop. I left a phone message with Chris Riordan telling him my opinions. Warren Warren K. Beer Manager, Computer Operations U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Attachment L City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment California Environmental Quality Act NEGATIVE DECLARATION DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT Date: Application Nos.: Address of Project: Assessor’s Parcel Number: Applicant: April 6, 2004 03-ZC-06, 03-EIA- 13 2401, 2409, 2417 Park Blvd. & 101 California Avenue #D 101 124-37-22,25 28,29 Richard & Sharon Reyes, Eldad & Charlotte Matityahu, Donald Douglas & Nina Moore, and Nortman Weintraub & Deborah London Property Owner:Palo Alto Central c/o Nina Moore 101 California Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 Project Description and Location: The application for zone change applies to property constructed in 1983 as a portion of the mixed-use (commercial/residential) project known as Palo Alto Central, in the California Avenue business district. The CC(2)(R)(P) designation was applied to this property in 1984 as a result of the California Avenue Study. Three of the units, 2401, 2409, and 2417 front on Park Boulevard are occupied by a nail salon, title company, and tanning salon, respectively, and 101 California Avenue #D 101 is occupied by both a real estate office and a restaurant. The existing business offices are not permitted on the ground floor under current zoning. All 0f the units are relatively isolated from the main retail-shopping district California Avenue making it difficult for retail businesses to succeed in these locations due to lack of pedestrian traffic. The commercial condominium owners have experienced hardship due to difficulty of attracting retail tenants and are prohibited from renting their spaces to office uses due to the existing zoning. The project would modifyPAMC Section 18.43 (Community Commercial Zone District) to include offices at Palo Ak0 Central as a permitted use within the rear 50% of each Building C&D and within all of Building E. SAPLAN~LADIVkCurrent Planning~EIAkNeg.Dec~2401, 2409 Park Blvd(modified).doe II.DETERMINATION In accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s procedures for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the proposed project located at 2401, 2409, 2417 Park Blvd. & 101 California Avenue #D101 may have a significant effect on the environment. On the basis of that study, the City makes the following determination: X The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. Although the project, as proposed, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect on the environment in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project and, therefore, a MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION is hereby adopted. The attached initial study incorporates all relevant information regarding the potential environmental effects of the project and confirms the determination that an EIR is not required for the project. Project lanner Date Current Wanning Manager \\CC-TERRA\Shared~PLAN~PLADIVXCurrent Planning~EIA~Neg.DecX240 t, 2409 Park Blvd(modified).doc ENVIRONMENTAL CHECI IS T FORM City of Palo Alto De artment o Plannin and Communi Environment 1.Project Title:2401, 2409, 2417 Park Boulevard & 101 California Avenue #D101 2.Lead Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto - Planning Division 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 3.Contact Person and Phone Number: 4.Project Location: 5.Application Numbers: Chris Riordan, Planner (650) 329-2149 2401, 2409, 2417 Park Blvd. & 101 California Avenue #D 101 03-ZC-06, 03-EIA-13 6.Project Sponsors’ Names and Addresses: 7.General Plan Designation: Richard & Sharon Reyes, Eldad & Charlotte Matityahu, Donald Douglas & Nina Moore, and Nortman Weintmub & Deborah London on behalf of Palo Alto Central Regional/Community Commercial 8.Zoning District(s): 9.Description of the Project: CC(2)(R)(P) Community Commercial Combining District, Retail Shopping Combining District, Pedestrian Shopping Combining District. Application to modify PAMC Section 18.43.030 to allow office as a permitted use on the ground floor in the rear 50 °A of Building C & D and within all of Building E of Palo Alto Central. 10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The commercial condominiums are located, in the Palo Alto Central mixed-use project at the intersection of Park Boulevard and California Avenue. Commercial uses on the ground floor include restaurants, offices, and retail stores. Residential uses are located on the upper floors. Commercial uses are located across the street of both Park Boulevard and California Avenue. 11.Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g. permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). None ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation/Traffic Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not he a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required~ but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Pro Current Planning Manager Date Date ~//’~/ X EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) 2) 3) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4)"Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5)Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering; program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section15063 © (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: e) 6) a) b) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are availabie for review. Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8)This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a)The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b)The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Issues and Supporting Information Sources I.AESTHETICS. Would the project: Sources Potentially Significant Issues ¯ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact a)Have a substantial adverse affect on a scenic vista? b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1 1 1 X X X X II.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) b) c) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 1,3 1,3 1,3 X X X IIL AIR QUALITY, Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) b) c) d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? . Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X X X X e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number Xof people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) b) c) e) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state conservation plan? 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) b) c) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuant to 15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1,3 1,3 1,3 X X X X X X X X X 5 Issues and Supporting Information Sources d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) i) ii) iii) iv) b) c) d) e) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or d~ath involving: Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Landslides? Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Sources 1,3 see below 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 Potentially Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Significant Issues VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project? a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routing transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X X X X X X X X X X Issues and Supporting Information Sources b) c) d) e) g) h) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Sources 1,3 N/A " N/A Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than No Significant Impact Impact X X X X X X X VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1 X requirements? b)1 X 1c) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? X 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? h) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involve flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Sources NA NA Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1 1,2 No Impact X X X X X X X X X c) ConfliCt with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 1 X natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 1 X resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Issues and Supporting Information Sources ,b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Sources Potentially Significant Issues ¯ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) b) e) d) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1,3 1,3 1,3 1,3 NA NA XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact X X X X X X X X X Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Issues an~! Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigated XIII.PUBLIC SERVICES. a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire Protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other Public facilities? see below 1 1 1 1 1 X X X X X XIV. RECREATION 1a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a)Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c)Result in change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 1 X X X X 10 Issues and Supporting Information Sources d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Sources 1 1 1 Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Less Than Significant Impact XVI, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) b) c) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1 No Impact X X X X X X X X X 11 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) b) c) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate.a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X X X SOURCE REFERENCES (Memoranda, analyses, reports, and assessments, noted below, pertain to project site): 2. 3. 4. Project Planner’s knowledge of the site and the proposed project. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance). Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Adopted July 20, 1998 Project Description and Environmental Assessment Worksheet and project-specific documentation, dated June 24, 2003 EXPLANATION FOR CHECKLIST RESPONSES: No environmental impacts are associated with this project. Land Use and Planning is addressed as follows: The proposed change to allow office as a permitted ground floor use in the rear 50% of the buildings would apply to property constructed in 1983 as a portion of the mixed-use (commercial/residential) proj ect known as Palo Alto Central, in the California Avenue business district. The CC(2)(R)(P) Community Commercial Combining District, Retail Shopping Combining District, Pedestrian Shopping Combining District designation. was applied to this property in 1984 as a result of the California Avenue Study. The proposed project would retain the existing CC(2)(R)(P) for the ground floor units in the Palo Alto Central Commercial Condominium project. Three of the units, 2401, 2409, and 2417 front on Park BouleVard are occupied by a naii salon, title company, and tanning salon, respectively, and 101 California Avenue #D 101 is occupied by a real estate office and has both street and courtyard frontage. The existing business offices are not permitted on the ground floor under current zoning. All of the units are relatively isolated from the main retail-shopping district California Avenue making it difficult for retail businesses within the courtyard to succeed in these locations due to the lack of pedestrian traffic. The commercial condominium owners have experienced hardship due to difficulty of attracting retail tenants and are prohibited from renting their spaces to office uses due to the existing zoning. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for this property is Regional/Co .n’)_munity Commercial. The proposed project would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan use designation and the underlying zoning designation. 12 The Palo Alto Central Commercial Condominiums provides a significant amount of on-site parking and is located in the California Avenue Parking Assessment District. A change in the allowable permitted uses to allow office uses on the ground floor in the rear 50% of these units will not have an impact on parking in the area. The assessment distinct allows all existing square footage in the District to be utilized in any manner allowed by the zoning regulations. Office uses generally generate significantly less parking demand than retail uses. 13