The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2002-11-18 City Council (3)City of Palo Alto CRy Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 18, 2002 CMR:449:02 APPEAL BY ALDEN ROMNEY OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT’S APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION TO ALLOW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMERCIAL RECREATION (FITNESS) FACILITY AT 611, 619, 623 EMERSON STREET RECOMMENDATION The Planning and Transportation Commission and staff recommend that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s original conditional approval of the use permit for a fitness facility 611, 619, 623 Emerson Street. BACKGROUND A Conditional Use Permit was approved on October 2, 2002 by the Director of Planning and Community Environment for a proposed fitness facility, to be called Vivre Studios. This facility would offer a variety of exercise, wellness, and nutrition classes, exercise equipment, and would include a retail component. An appeal was submitted by Alden Romney of Reach Fitness. In the appeal, Mr. Romney stated his concerns regarding the impact the proposed use would have on the availability of parking in the Downtown. This site is located within the Downtown Parking Assessment District. To meet the 27 parking space requirement for this use, six parking spaces are provided on-site and a yearly assessment is paid for the additional 21 .spaces through the Downtown Parking Assessment District. Therefore this project complies with all required parking regulations. CMR:449:02 Page 1 of 3 BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS At the. Planning and Transportation Commission hearing of October 30, 2002, the appellant asserted that the proposed fitness facility will have a detrimental impact to existing businesses in the area, stating that the peak hours of the proposed use will have similar peak hours to the existing restaurants on the block. His concern is that the parking deficiency in the Downtown will be exacerbated to the point that people will no longer patronize the existing businesses. Mr. Romney explained that, based on his experience with Reach Fitness customers, some of them live and work Downtown, but still choose to drive to his facility. -He also stated that the new parking garages currently under construction will not solve the current parking problem. The applicant, Neal Aronson of Vivre .Studios, disagreed with the appellant’s assertion~ He stated that he had spoken to many of the local restaurant owners and they were happy to hear that he was not proposing to locate another restaurarit in this vacant tenant space. Mr. Aronson also submitted letters and a petition in support of the proposed fitness facility (see Attachment C). He noted that other permitted uses within the zone district have a greater parking demand than the proposed use, such as retail and restaurants. Mr. Aronson stated that less than 75 percent of the facility’s classes would be held during those times considered to be peak hours for restaurants, and this facility would draw customers throughout the day rather than at peak hours. Mr. Aronson believes that the increased foot traffiC throughout the day would be a benefit to other local businesses. Four members of the public voiced support for the proposed facility. Five letters from local businesses were submitted in support of the proposed facility, along with a petition with the names of 25 local business and property owners. Three letters were submitted in opposition to the proposed fitness facility, citing the reduction in parking as their concern. Two of these letters were from managers of Reach Fitness facilities. .Two members of the public spoke in general about the parking situation in the Downtown as well as in other areas of town (see Attachment B for Planning and Transportation Commission discussion. The Commission noted that this is not a new building and does not add new square footage or parking demand, but rather is a pre-existing condition with its parking demand already factored into. the blended parking rate for Downtown. The Commission supported the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s original approval and recommends denial of the appeal. POLICY IMPLICATIONS This recommendation does not represent any change to existing City policies. CMR:449:02 Page 2 of 3 ATTACHlVlENTS Attachment A:Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report Attachment B:Excerpt Verbatim Minutes from the September 30, 2002 Planning and Transportation Commission Hearing Attachment C: Letters from the Public Plans (Council Members only) PREPARED BY: RUSS REICH, Associate Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Director Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Assistant City Manager cc~Neal Aronson, 509 Concord Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025 Thoits Bros. Inc., 629 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ken Hayes, 2657 Spring Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 Alden Romney, 937 Bransten Road, San Carlos, CA 94070 CMR:449:02 Page 3 of 3 Attachment A PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT TO:PLANNING & .TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION , FROM:Russ Reich, Associate Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: October 30, 2002 SUBJECT:Appeal by Alden Romney of the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval of a Conditional Use Permit application to allow the establishment of a Commercial Recreation (fitness) Facility at 611, 619, 623 Emerson Street. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council uphold the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s original approval, with conditions, of a use permit for a fitness facility. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City of Palo Alto categorizes a fitness facility as a Commercial Recreation use. In the CD-C (P) Commercial Downtown zone district Commercial Recreation is designated as a Conditional Use. On August 8, 2002 Neal Aronson applied for a Conditional Use Permit to establish, a fitness facility at 611,619, and 623 Emerson Street. The 6,671 square foot building, which is potentially eligible for both the National and the California Registers of Historic Places, includes a 1,558 square foot mezzanine. As a result of the transfer of development rights from 611,619, 623 Emerson Street to 200 Hamilton Avenue, covenants and restrictions have been imposed on the subject property that requires the property to be "maintained in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation." The project proposes to replace a window at the rear of the building with a new door. Staff has reviewed the proposed exterior modification and has determined that it is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for City of Palo Alto Page 1 Rehabilitation. The applicant proposes no modification to the recently restored historic storefront facade. The building is located in the Downtown Parking Assessment District. This use is required to provide 27 parking spaces. This is based on the requirement that all uses in the Downtown Assessment District provide one parldng space per each 250 square feet of gross floor area of the building. This requirement applies to all permitted and conditionally permitted uses in the Assessment District. Six parking spaces are provided on site and the additional 21 spaces are provided through the Downtown .Parldng Assessment District. This facility, to be called Vivre Studios, would include a retail component where a variety of health and wellness products would be sold. These include clothing, nutritional supplements, and other specialized products. This facility would also offer a variety of health services such as personal training, indoor cycling, and other cardio and weight equipment. In addition to these services the facility would offer a variety of exercise, wellness, and nutrition classes. These classes include yoga, pilates, pre/post natal classes, senior classes and various nutritional workshops (see Attachment A, applicant’s submittal letter). The application was heard at the September 19, 2002 Director’s Hearing where the appellant expressed concerns about parldng. On October 2, 2002 the Director of Planning and Community Environment conditionally approved the application with specific conditions addressing parldng. (See approval letter Attacl~nent B). Alden Romney, of Reach Fitness, submitted an appeal of this approval on October 8, 2002. (See letter of appeal Attachment C). POLICY IMPLICATIONS This project does not represent any change to existing city policies and is consistent with Comprehensive Plan policy L-23 that encouragesa mix of uses, including recreation, in the University Avenue Downtown area. .SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES The appellant, Alden Romney of Reach Fitness, is concerned that the proposed use will be detrimental to other businesses and residents in the vicinity because of parldng problems. (See appellant’s letter of October 8, 2002 labeled Attaclnnent C). Alden Romney’s letter assumes that all the customers of the fitness facility would be trying to find parking at the same time. It also assumes that Vivre Studios customers would be driving to this facility only, and would not be patronizing other businesses in the downtown. Mr. Romney states that the proposed use will have ’"a negative impact on sales of the surrounding businesses since their patrons will not be able to find parldng spots and will choose to go elsewhere." City of Pa!o Alto Page 2 The building on the subject property is currently vacant. The property owner is already paying into the assessment district for the required lmmber ofparldng spaces. Any tenant that the property owner is able to lease this space to will increase the demand for parking in the downtown. This is not a new building with new square footage adding to the demand for parldng spaces. This is an existing tenant space where the demand for parldng has already been considered and provided for. The Parking Assessment District was established with a blended rate. This rate takes into account the various permitted and conditionally permitted uses allowed within the District and is based on the premise that people would combine trips. The City has recognized the need for additional parking in the Downtown. This is why two new parking structures are currently under construction within The Downtown Parking Assessment District, one of which is only one block away from the subject property. These parldng structures, anticipated to be completed by the fall of next year, will help to alleviate the scarcity of parldng spaces in the Downtown. A comparison of some uses permitted in this zone district, that would not require a Conditional Use Permit, reveals that the proposed use has only a sligh~tly higher parking demand than some and a lower parking demand than others. This space was recently slated for an office tenant, which is a permitted use. Outside of the Assessment District an office use of this size would require 27 parking spaces. A commercial recreation facility outside the Assessment District would require 30 parking spaces. This is a difference of only three spaces. Other permitted uses in this zone district, such as retail or eating and drinking, would require a significantly greater number of spaces than the proposed useif located outside of the Assessment District. A retail use would require 33 parking spaces and a restaurant tenant using only half of the available square footage within the building for public service area would require 71 parking spaces. All uses in the Downtown Parldng Assessment District are required to provide one parldng space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. This use meets the parking requirement established by the City of Palo Alto and would have a lower parking demand than some uses permitted within the zone. Many of the customers of this proposed business will be people that either live and/or work in the vicinity. Vivre Studio’s intention is to target customers that live and work in the vicinity. Not all of their customers will be driving to this facility as a separate trip~ Many of them may walk from home or from their office in the downtown to use the facility. The fundamental premise of "shared trips" in the downtown applies to this use as it does to all uses allowed or conditionally allowed downtown. The establishment of Vivre Studios in this vacant tenant space will actually increase the pedestrian traffic in the area. City of Palo Alto Page 3 A number of this establishment’s customers are also likely to buy goods and services offered by other businesses in the area. The City does recognize that the nature of this business does pose a special consideration related to parldng and the issue was addressed during the Conditional Use Permit review. Conditions of Approval were applied to the initial approval. This facility will offer fitness classes and other related wellness classes. Due to the fact that these services begin at a specified time, many of the patrons would be coming to the facility at a specified hour. Conditions of Approval address this specific issue. The facility may not have more than 40 people attending classes at any one time. They are required to have at least a 15- minute interval between these classes that have up to 40 people in attendance. The City has also required a condition of approval that grants the authority to hold a Director’s Hearing and reevaluate the Conditions of Approval and modify or add conditions to address parking related issues that may result from this use. It is also anticipated that this new business will not be at full membership right away. The Conditions of Approval will be used to mitigate any parking problems that may arise as the business grows during the next year. When the parking garages are completed next year, scarcity ofparldng spaces should no longer be an issue. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301. NEXT STEPS The appeal is tentatively scheduled to be heard by The City Council on November 18, 2002. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS: Attachment A: Applicant’s submittal letter Attachment B:Approval letter with conditions Attachment C:Appellant’s letter of appeal Attachment D:Excerpt Verbatim Minutes from the September 19, 2002 Director’s Hearing (will send under separate cover) Attachment E: Plans (Planning and Transportation Commission Members only) COURTESY COPIES: Neal Aronson, 509 Concord Drive, Menlo Park, CA 94025 Thoits Bros. Inc., 629 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ken Hayes, 2657 Spring Street, Redwood City, CA 94063 Alden Romney,. 937 Bransten Road, San Carlos, CA 94070 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Prepared by: Russ Reich, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Amy French, Current Planning Manager Department/Division Head Approval: ~Lisa Grote, C nning Official City of Palo Alto Page 5 Attachment A August 1, 2002 Ci.ty of Palo Alto Department of Pla .....ng and Commm~i~ Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Pa!o A!to, CA 94303 Re: Conditional User Permit Application lbr 611 Emerson Street Dear Sir or Madam: We propose to operate a retail and wellness center for both women and men at the above referenced address. The prope.,13: is currently Vacant but is ap.proved for either retail or oitice uses. Our business will ibcus on delivering retail goods and personal services related to health, wellne~s a-nd nut~iion to ihe population of Pa!o Alto.. The business is based on a foundation of three core components: A select set of health, wellness and nutritionally oriented retail goods and services Four SeasonsTM like customer service, delivered by loya!, ’best of breed’ employees committed tO creating long term relationships with their clients A clean, attaadtive.facili~ located close to i~ target market so as to reduce the impact of multiple, inconvenient tt-ips to obtain similar goods and services We will seek to foster a geater sense of balance in the lives of our clients hhrough this .a ~*;-a .....,.. .........,~,~ ° " ’~attractive,’fo mnd~.~..~,~ n of sde._.t .good°, ,~,.~,m~,,, .,ervm,.s and an convement A detailed description of our programs, goods and services is as follows: Retail Our focus on the heatth, wellness and nutrition of clients wiii .begin with providing.them access to the best and Iates!: personai goods inc!uding c!ot~ing Ibr active !ifes .ty!es, nm,~am, supp~cmcnts for healthy lifcsty!cs ane- spcci~dizcd pr~ucts to facilitatc othcr asp~ts ofa ba.!anc~ li~s~le. WSite Pato Alto has many providers .o~ri.~_~g some these pr~ucts, ~’~~ "~ -- ~-~-, "-*"-, --- :." ....to cu{rem,~ ilO StI~gt~ p~oVlU~t mat carries art ’ ~**- "ot mes~ pr~ucts more fiNuo~antiy, t~e ~oMed.ge and understanding as to how health and wellnea~ prod-acts can best be ~ *~ *-~ ~ ~ buw "Silicon v~u,,,,, our program and se~’ice mix is dmigned to~,.~,~, indi~duals of all ages and medicat conditions achieve a more heal, hy and fit lifestyle. Pers’o~al Training: One-on-one sessions will focus on a customer’s specific health or conditioning nccd and can utili-~ vaNous cquipmcnt including frcc weights, ctasscs or wellness programs. ®at personal training pro~am Will cater to the senior/retired appointments, ~nich wilt nqt imeA%re ~th class schedules. Personal kaining sessions will primarily utilize L~e ~.ndoor Cyc!ing: Indoor cycling is conducted in a dedicated room~ which ,.~.dl! have about 25 bikes. Each class is 60 minutes !ong, which includes warm-up and w;arrn-d0wr,. Trained and licensed instructors guide aII indoor cycling classes. We wi!! provide approximately 25 maoor cycling classes per weeK. ~ach cross w’a~t have approximately 10 .participants. and 1 i~structor. Other." In addition to our classZbased Services, we will offer other cardio equipment, such as Treadmills and Elliptical training machines so tha clients can mmze other aspects of our Studio. Wellness Our wellness services provide a blend of physical and mental Challenges for all ages and levels. The core wellness activities of Yoga, and Pilates ~ ~’o ~e~,p~’~s~ze the combination of the physical and mental focus, while massage therapy address the str-~ssors, which cause the physical and mental aches~and pains. Yoga;" Yoga.is desi~ed to enable.~ople to relieve physica! tension, mental and emotional turbmence, establish strength, and ~alance. Yoga helps improve flexlbmty, stres~" managem_ent and re!axaion skills, focus, and awareness oftb~ breath. Our yoga program will be -’--~ ......." " "-~~aes~gnec~ for all amht~e~s. We plan to emphasize our yoga program towards the senior segment of the surrounding area in order to utilize our offpeak hours and f-al!y,~,~,,~-+~-o:~,,,,~ the seNor p~pulation into our service offering. Each yoga class will consist of about 10 participants and I instructor. Pilates: Pilates incorporates many Of the deeper muscles together, improving coordination and balance, ixithout pu~ing undue stress on the hea~ and lungs. We wilt incorporate several techniques Used in Mat Pilates. Our mat Pilates’ program will consist of about t 0 participants a~d 1 instructor. PreiPo.s’t Nc~,ta! Classe.s’;. Pf~!Post Naa! fitness, Yoga. or Pitates helps the mothers to relieve the discomforts of pi-egnancy, increase energs,, tone muscIes and establish an inner stren~h. We :~d!! offer matemi~ classes and training for expecting mothers to help them either stay in shape during or, if necessary, get back in shape following their pregnancy. ’~ Se_~ior C’/as’_~es: Growing old is apart ofe,~e .ry li_~ cycle and being f!} is important to all ,uwe,e~, it is especially essential for seniors to maintain a level of fitnessage groups, ’-~- ’ " -- ~,elm..ss Our aging ck..n.o will receive customized ...."^-at~cIl~utt and support to address their specific needs and scheduies. Classes offered to the senior population will be conductcd during our’w~.~’,*" ~v_.~,,r’-~-t~’ hours of thc day. }~r.........~12,~,ra~..F. h*o~o,~,, Tharanv at our center will ~-~,,~,~o,~ ..... . --~. - ....~.,u~. _ ~-,~.~ as a core wettness se~ice. Aii massage therapy sessions ~it be scheduled by appointment oNy ~th a ..................... ~ .........w~ m our !...,e~ed Nutrition O,,_~ third and arguably most ~mportant c~mponent is NuNtion. Often times cry nutritional needs get overlooked, w%ich causes our health and wellness components to be thrown off balance. Our center wi!! ott~r nutritional workshops on site and nutritiona! counseling with a certified :n’atritionist.. If the clients nutritional needs expand outside of our scope, we will refer you m a medical professional in our network Classes and worlc_@ops: At the center we will offer workshops of various disciplines and levels to clients. Classes will be conducted on site but during.non-peak hours. For example, we may offer a workshop on a weekend or in the early evening hours. All worksf!~ps witt be he!d in one of our studios. We estimate that a workshop may attract up to i0 participants. Hours of Operation and Staffin~ Approxtma~e " r_ . ~, r_ , Monday.2-,T~ursd~ 6 :O0am - 9:00p:n Satin-day, .00,~,~ - _~ :uvpm Friday 6:00am- 7:00pm ~ :u0am- n :0upmSunday " ~’" ~ ¯ _,a~eu on our ser~¢ice offering, we anticipate on ha;dn~ a~,rox~., ~n 65 chents on site d~ng o~ pe~ ho~s ofo~rafions. O~ ins~ctors and st~f are c~efN]v screened and seIected for their cross ~ctiona! ca~bilities and thus ~.~lt be on site t~ou~out the day heiping with other classes and client se~ices. Thus we only expect to have 3-5 ~1t times~..*o~.,_~m_~m~ ha.rs-on site d~ing peak h~m ....~ mud ~ey wit! remmn on site ~fa~ most of day, Our business wili provide the foiiog~ing benefits to our neighboring vicinit-y and the Ciw’s ~eater public health and welfare: Provide a vibrant retail oi~ented use m a historic!l storeffont building that has been ......." ^-’~aumtt for more tURn six -nlOltl.ltS. Sti*~-lat~ ,,,~V;.. traffic along the Eme ..... n ~n~ M~milto. co~idors d,mn~ uaymne business hours, thereby potentially benefiting other’oubmesses Potentially reduce overall vehicle trips in Palo Al~.o by providing one source goo&~ and service~ currently provided by many separate businesses and by encouraging walking, biking and car~oolin~tcarsharing activities Provide a convenient and cent.rally located som’ce o~’the best_ health an~ wellness services available in mid-peninsula region Encourage the deve!opment of greater ba.Iance between ~r,e.rsonaI, p_rofessionaI and communi~~ weIl-being through f~rsonal, group, corporate and commnnity oriented activities Conduct business in mam’~cr consis~cn~ with all City plarming and rcgula*o~’ ordinances, and in exce~s all busi.ness ethic and customer oriented expectations We appreciate thi s opportuni&.to provide ft~e City with a geater understanding of our business and look ~.-,~=’~-a ",~t~ ....of Palo Alto.~ ~,.a,~ to.being a responsible corporate .’- If yooa have any’. questions regardiv, g this application or description, please don’t hesitate to contact/me directly at 650.954.6335. Sincerely, Neat G. Aronson Vivre Studios, !nc.. Attachment B City or Palo Alto ¯Department of Planning and Community Environment . Application No. 02-UP-20 611 Emerson Street Planning Division Use Permit 02-UP-20 is hereby approved to allow the establishment of a Commercial Recreation facility at 611 Emerson Street. This facility will include a retail component where a variety of health and wellness products will be sold. These include clothing, nutritional supplements, and other specialized products. This facility will offer, a variety of health services such as personal training, indoor cycling, and other cardio and weight equipment. In addition to these services the facility will offer a variety of wellness and nutrition classes. These classes include Yoga, Pilates, pre/post natal classes, senior classes, . and various nutrition workshops. Massage therapy will also be offered. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301. Zone District, CD-C (P), Land Use Designation, Regional!Community Commercial. Project approval is based on the following findings and is subject to conditions listed below. FINDINGS l. The proposed use, at the proposed location, will’not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements tn the vieinity~ and will not be detrimental to the publie health, safety, general welfare or convenience. o All activity associated with the proposed use will be conducted inside the building. The proposed fitness facility (gym) will occupy an existin8 vacant building. The proposed use is located within.:the Downtown Parking Assessment p.i.strict where they are required t° provide 1 p~g"~page for each 250 square feet of~ ~ss floor area This parking ratio is based on ill ti~ potrnfial permitted and conditional~i =-""=~ "~:~iauitted uses allowed within the assessment distfi~L~:-With a total.floor area of 6,6~-~ii~ ~e feet, the facility is required to provide: 27 parkin~: spaces. Six of these required. ~p:g ~ :are provided on site and the addition~ti:2 l: sp~ceS are provided through the pay~ent~,.of in lieu fees to the City of Paio Alto. T-~ ant}~tedI pea.,k hours of operatioi~ i’O~!!~ility are during the non-peak hours o:f Other uses such as offices. Due to its d0~h~hiiocation, it is anticipated that many oi~the patrons of this :facility will live or work. ~r~:~i,q~h~ereby limiting the number ofpe0pte trying to: find parld’ng in the downtown The proposed use will be located and conducted inla.Manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title !8 of:the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Policy L-23 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan encourages a mix of uses, including recreation, in the University Avenue/Downtown area. Title 18.49 of the Pal0 Alto Municipal code allows Commercial Recreation as a Conditional Use. The proposed facility will include a retail component and preserve the historic storefront of the building. This use may also stimulate walking traffic along EmersonStreet and in the downtown during business hours, thereby potentially.benefiting other drwntown businesses. 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650:329.2154 fax 611 Emerson Street October 2, 2002 Page 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PLANNING DMSION The number of participants for scheduled classes, workshops, or other services that have a specified start time shall not exceed 40 people. For example, if two classes are scheduled to begin at 5:00, the total combined number ofpe0ple attending both classes shall not exceed :40 people. If 40 people are in attendances there shall be at least a 15-minute interval between those classes and the next scheduled class, session, workshop, etc. This Condition of Approval shall remain in full force and effect until the new downtown parking garages are open. ¯A schedule.of services shall be provided to the Planning Division on a quarterly basis until the new downtown parking garages are open. If the City of Palo Alto receives excessive complaints due to issues related to parking, the Planning Division reserves the right to schedule a Director’s Hearing to address those issues at a Public Hearing. The City may alter existing Con~ti~ionS of approval or impose additional Conditions of Approval as necessary to resolve those issues. BUILDING DMSION 1.TWO exits from the second floor are required. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT- ELECTRIC PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT .¸ The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work.at the site, the Permittee shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at t-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. The Applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of~cacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been, disconnected and removed. 611 Emerson Street October 2, 2002 Page 3 PRIOR TO SUBMITTAL FOR BUILDING PERMIT A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all building permit applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. This project requires a padmount transformer unless otherwise approved in writing by the Electric Utility Engineering Department. The location of the padmount transformer shall be shown, on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural ReviewBoar& Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16. The developer/owner ~hall provide space for installing padmount equipment (k e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property as required by the City. ~ The c.ust6mer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. All conduits must b.e sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no ½-inch size conduits are permitted. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. The design and installation shall also be according to the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16& #18. 10. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and.any other required equipment shall-be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet asthe intercbnnection point b etween the utility’ s p admount transformer and the customer’s main ~switchgear. The Cabinet design drawings must"be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 611 Emerson Street October 2, 2002 Page 4 11.No more than four 750MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer, secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of transition cabinet will not be required.. 12.The customer is responsible for sizing the service, conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City Standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines must be coordinated with.the Electric Utility. Additional fees may be assessed for the reinforcement of offsite electric facilities. 14. ,. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that. are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20.. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT. 15." The applicant shall comply withall the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. DURING CONSTRUCTION 16.Contractors and developers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 17. 18. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be checked by USA shall be delineated with white paint.. All USA . markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructure (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduitrun. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no ½-inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all-or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructedby the Applicant. Utilities Rule & regulation #16 611 Emerson Street October 2, 2002 Page 5 19. 20. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at a depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. Rule & Regulation # 16. 21.The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. 22.Prior to fabrication of electric switchboards and metering enclosures, the customer must submit switchboard-drawings to the Electric Metering Department at 3201 East Bayshore Road, Pal0 Alto 94303 for approval. The City requires compliance with all applicable EUSERC standards for metering and switchgear. 23.~ new underground electric services shall be inspected argot approved by both the Building Inspection DMsion .and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. Utilities R.ul~ & regulation #t8 AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION 24.The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OCCUPANCY PERMIT 25. 26. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16. ¯All required inspections have been.completed and approved by both the Building -Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 27. All fees must be paid. 28.All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. 611 Emerson Street October 2, 2002 Page 6 ADDITIONAL. COMMENTS Customer’s Engineer should contact Utilities Engineering prior to finalizing the padmount transformer location. Load calculations based on National Electrical Code must be submitted. WATER, GAS & WASTEWATER UTI2LIT]]~S DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL The applicant shall Submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for City of Palo.Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in g.p,m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in g.p.d.): The applican~t shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all Underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer liR stations and any other required utilities. The appli’eant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water sfipply.. ~. The applicant shall be, responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated ¯peak loads. This responsibility. includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation!upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BLULDING PERMIT ¯For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies.of the installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right’of- way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture’s iliterature on the materials to be " used for ,approval by the utilities engineering section. The ¯applicant’s contractor will not be aHi~wed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have. been approved by the water gas and wastewater.engineering section. 611 Emerson Street October 2, 2002 Page 7 o The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated with the installation of the new utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person!entity requesting the relocation. Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water service, gas meter and sewerlateral connection shown on the plans. A separate water meter and backflow preventer shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building, permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA bacldlow preventer device) shall be installed for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative cod~, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed onthe owner’s property and directly behind the ~water meter. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. :Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. An approved detector check valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Double check detector check valves shall be installed on the owner’s property adjacent to the property line. Show the location of the detector check assembly on the plans. Inspection by the utilities c~?oss connection inspector is required for the supply pipe betweenthe City connection and the assembly. DURING CONSTRUCTION 11. 12. The contractor shall contact underground .service alert (800) 227-2600 one week in advance of start’.mg excavation to provide for marking of underground utilities. The applicant ’shall provide protection for utility lines subject to damage.. Utility lines within a pit or trench shall be adequately supported. All exposed water, gas, and sewer lines .shall be inspected by the WGW Utilities Inspector prior to backfilling. 611 Emerson Street October 2, 2002 Page 8 13.The contractor shall maintain 12" dear, above and bdow, from the existing utilities to new underground facilities. The applicant shall be responsible for relocating the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to accommodate new storm drains, with the prior approval of the utility Department. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the relocation of the utility mains and/or services. Sanitary sewer laterals will need to be replaced for the full length of the lateral 0fpossible) per the Utility Standards Sanitary sewer mains can not be relocated. 14.If the Contractor elects to bore new pipes or conduits, the pilot bore hole shall be 24’ clear from any existing utility pipes and ~/11 existing utility crossings shall bb potholed prior to starting work. 15.All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 16. 17. 18. 1.9. Utility service connections will be installed between 30 and 40 days following receipt of full payment. Large deve, lopments must allow sufficient legd time (6 weeks minimum) for utility construction performedby the City of Palo Alto Utilities. All utility work shall be inspected and approved by the WGW utilities inspector. Inspection costs shall be paid by the applicant’s contractor. Schedule WGW utilities inspections at 650/566-4504 five working days before start of constructions. The applicant’s contractor shall immediately notify the Utilities Department (650) 496- 6982 or 650/329-2413 if the existing water or gas mains are disturbed or damaged. All bacldlow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division, inspected by the utilities ;cross connection inspector and tested by a licensed tester prior to activation of the water service. 20. 21. No water valves or other facilities owned by Utilities Department shall be operated for any purpose by the applicant’s contractor. All required operation will only be performed by authorized utilities .department personnel. The applicant’s contractor shall notify the Utilities Department not less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the time that such operation is required. The contractor shall not disconnect any part of the existing water main except by expressed permission of the utilities chief inspector and shall submit a schedule of the estimated shutdown time to obtain said permission. 611 Emerson Street October 2, 2002 Page 9 22 The water main shall not be turned on until the service, installation and the performance of chlorination and bacteriological testing have been completed. The contractor’s testing method shall be in conformance with ANSI/AWWA C65 l-latest edition. 23.All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 24.All improvements to the gas system will be performed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. 25.All customer gas piping shall be inspected-and approved by the building inspection division before gas service is instituted. Gas meters will be installed within five working days after the building piping passes final inspection and the building inspection division sends the set tag to the Utilities Department provided that the customer’s piping conforms to the Utility Standards. Changes from the utility standards or approved submittals will require new submittals, as specified above, showing the .changes. The new submittals must be approved by the utilities engine,,ering section before .making any change. Advanced Planning Manager October 2, 2002 NOTE This Use Permit is granted in accordance with and subject to the provisions of Chapter 18.90 of the City of Palo Alt0 Municipal Code. This permit will become effective ten days following the date of this letter, unless an appeal is filed as provided by Chapter 18.92 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. A copy of this letter shall accompany all future requests for City permits relating to this approval. In the event that this approval is appealed, an additional letter will be mailed with information regarding the scheduled he~ring dates before the Planning Commission and the City Council. " In any case in which the conditions to the granting of a Use Permit have not been complied with, the Current Planning Manager shall give notice to the permittee of intention to revoke such permit at least ten (10) days prior to a hearing thereon. Following such hearing.and if good cause exists therefore, the Current Planning Manager may revoke the Use Permit. " 611 Emerson Street October 2, 2002 Page 10 A Use Permit which has not been used within one (1) year after the date of granting becomes void, although the Zoning Administrator may, without a hearing, extend the time for an additional year if an application to this effect is filed before the expiration of the first year. Applicant:Neal Aronson 509 Concord Drive Menlo Park, CA 94025 Property Owner:Thoits Bros., Inc. 629~Emerson stree~ Palo Alto, CA 94301 Attachment C CITY OF PALO ALTO Office of the City Clerk CITY OF PALO ALTO, CAAPPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF P~N?’~I~6R.[I’S OFFICE AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT 02 0CT,-8 PM 1,: 23To be filed in duplicate within 15 days from the date o£ decision o£ the Director of Planning and Community Environmgnt Application No. Name of Appellant Receipt No. ~,1~) ~ A 1.9 ~4 [~4~- y Phone( Address " Street City ~ZIP LOCATION OF PROPERTY: Assessor’s Parcel No. Street Address ~ff. ~C¢~SoM ~~ Zone District Name of Property Owner (if other than appe!la~t) Property Owner’s address (if other than appellant) Street City ~ Zip The decision of the Director Of Planning and Community. Environment dated Oerv~ ~"~- "Z ~ whereby the application of Nc~ l~ ~-~v$oN for a (original applicant) (o~O¢Do~a’C gift- I’~T- . Wa’s " /tPP~*~vffO , is hereby appeaied for the reasons stated in the attached (parcel map/subdibision) (approved/denied) letter (in duplicate).’ Date ~ 0 ~Sigrmture of Appellant PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL: Date "Approved DeNed Remarks and/or Conditions: CITY, COUNCIL DECISION: Date Remarks and/or Conditions: Approved Denied SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS SA;FISFIED: 1.Plans (Applicant) 2,Labels (Applicant). 3.Appeal Application Forms -. ~4.Letter ~-. 5.Fee ~- To~ From: Date: Re: City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and the Palo Alto City Council Alden Romney October 8, ~002 Conditional Use Permit for 611 Emerson, Application No. 02-UP-20 Dear City of Palo Alto Planning Department and City Council, I am writing to appeal the decision to provide a fitness center with a conditional use permit to operate at611 Emerson. I respectfully disagree with the October 2, 2002 findings by the Planning Department and request that the matter be explored further. Specifically, I would like to see f~rther research that may confirm that this particular use at 611 Emerson Will be: 1. Detrimental and injurious to property and businesses in the vicinity 2. Detrimental to the convenience of Palo Alto residents I believe that this particular use will be found to be both of the"above, given the nature of this specific use that is proposed at 611 Emerson and the parldng issues that will be createdbecause of this use. The Parldng Issues This particular use will be detrimental to local businesses and the con~venience of Palo Alto residents b’ecauie, of the signifi’cant demand for parking that this particular use will create at peak hours. Although Vivre Studios’ proposal to the city highlights many off- peak uses the business hopes to develop, the organization is a high-end fitness center that also is targeting client visits at peak hours. Many clients will visit the fitness center at lunch and after-work, which are also the peak hours of many businesses surrounding the location at 611 Emerson. Specifically, Vivre Studios’ application of August 1, 2002 states that they expect to have between 50-65 people on site during peal; hours of operation. Following work, thenl the company exl~ects 50-65 people to go to classes and work out at 611 Emerson. These 50- 65 people will be looking for parking spaces and will take them away fromindividuals currently frequenting other local businesses, like the many restaurants on the same street. C.onsequently~ there will be a negative impact on the sales of the surrounding businesses s~nce their patrons will not be able to find parking spots and will choose to go elsewhere. Concerns Although I understand the rationale for the decision made by the Planning Commission on October 2, 2002, I believe that further research will show that their decision to approve the cortditional use should be overturned. This particular use will have a negative and detrimental impact on the local businesses surrounding 611 Emerson and to the convenience of Palo Alto residents. The following should be considered: ®The Transportation Department was not asked to do any significant analysis to determine whether the pr.oposed conditional use would have a detrimental impact on other local businesses. This type of use would undoubtedly be a "more intensive" one than a general retail use, said one Transportation official, but the department was heir.her a~ked to nor provided with information with which to determine the actual impact. With 50-65 mo~e people seeking parking spots, there could be a spill-over effect into " local residential areas given the lack of available parking. This will negatively impact local residents. This particular offering is not unique and should be given no special consideration. Within blocks of 611 .Emerson, there is a yoga studio, Pilates studio, spa, personal training studio, fitness center, and nutritional and supplement store. Even when the proposed parking garages are completed, this particular use will still have a significant and detrimental impact on othe~ local businesses and resident convenience. It is theduty of the Pla~:mi.ng Commission and City Council to determine if this ~s, in fact, the ca~e, .anc~ to respoh_d accordingly. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, o0 City of Palo Alto September 19, 2002 Director’s Hearing Agenda 611/619/623 Emerson Street Attachment D i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 io Ii 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 .24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 Speakers:Julie Caporgno Russ Reich Steven Turner M/F: Male or Female unidentified speakers Questionable words/phrases in [brackets] Julie Caporgno: We will move on to Item 2, which is 611,619, 623 Emerson Street, 02-CUP-20, an application by Neal Aronson for a Conditional Use Permit to establish a Commercial Recreation facility at 611,619, 623 Emerson Street. This establishment is to provide retail apparel, nutrition and wellness services for both women and men. The Environmental Assessment: the project was found to be exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act£ per Section 15301. It is in Zone District: CD-C(P). Russ, do you want to give us the Staff Report? Staff Reich: To begin with, I did receive a couple of phone inquiries about the application. Mr. [Alden Romney] did call and voiced concerns about the impact on parking that this proposed use will have in the downtown area. A second call th~it I received from Mr. Tom Ashton did raise a question about the number of these types of uses existing in the downtown area. Staff recommends approval of this application to allow the establishment of this facility in the CD-C Zone District. The proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience, based on the fact that all activity associated with the proposed use will be conducted inside the building. The proposed use will provide a retail component and preserve the Historic storefront of the building. And most importantly, the proposed use is located within the downtown parking assessment district and does provide for the required number of parking spaces for that site. Finding number 2 is that the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accordance with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and purposes of Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Policy L-23 of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan encourages a Mix of Uses, including recreation in the University Avenue downtown area, as well as Title 18.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code that does allow for commercial recreation as a Conditional Use. Ms. Caporgno: Thank you. Is the applicant here? You can come to the table. Neal Aronson, Applicant: My name is Neal Aronson and I’m the applicant for the Commercial Recreation Use. We’ve proposed to operate a locally owned and operated, Wellness Center with retail and some personal services related to the health nutrition and fitness for the men and women of Palo Alto. Our goal is to provide the residents and a narrow focus on the residents of City of Palo Alto September 19, 2002 Director’s Hearing Agenda 611/619/623 Emerson Street 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 i0 II 12 13 14 15 16 17 ~8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Palo Alto in an attractive, clean and convenient place where they can focus on developing greater balance between their work, health in their community: We believe that our complete balance approach to the Wellness will provide residents with a better alternative to the existing market offerings and lay the City of Palo Alto in this quest to mitigate the impact for an existing and new development while seeking to maintain the vibrant balanced community that is Palo Alto. We feel that our offerings and our hours of operation won’t have any detrimental effect on any of the parking or traffic or other issues that potentially had been raised by some of the people who’ve called on it. The hours of operation are pretty standard for this type of center. Typically, and these are estimates at this point from Monday through Thursday about 6:00 to 9:00, Friday 6:00 to 7:00, and Saturdays and Sundays 8:00 to 4:00 or something like that. So, we appreciate your consideration and will be available for any questions. Ms. Caporgno: I’m going to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak to this particular item? Come forward and state your name. While the gentleman is filling out the card, if anybody else w_ho wants to speak, please make sure that you fill out a card and then present it to me at the time I announce the item. Mr. Romney: I happened to call in to Russ and we talked about it a little bit. I just wanted to highlight some detail around nay concerns for the Conditional Use at 611 Emerson. First off, I think the conceptis great. I’m into health and fitness and wellness and also as a business but my greatest concern is that it could be detrimental to the surrounding business citizens in downtown Palo Alto, specifically, regarding parking. They’ve positioned the Wellness Center as a sort of a personalized service primarily focused on their offering at off-peak hours. However, specifically in the documentation that they’ve submitted to the City, they talked about the fact that during peak hours, they will have 50 to 66 people and only 3 to 5 full-time staff at that time. So that doesn’t sound very personalized to me. It sounds more like a fitness center. Specifically why I think that’s going to be a concern is that currently in the downtown area, specifically around Emerson, parking is a major issue. People that I lcnow and myself choose not to go down there because parldng is a problem. I think the surrounding businesses like the Creamery, Gordon Birsch and The Empire Tap Room where people come to after work will be negatively affected by having an additional 50 to 65 people seeking parking in that specific area. There are only 6 parking spots affiliated with the lot, which means that there will be 46 to 59 individuals more than there are now, seeking parking spots in that area. I would like to submit to the City that some sort of a more potential thing that I would like to see is an assessment on the parldng and the traffic that would occur if this were to be approved and this use to occur in a particular location. I think an additional 50 people is going to be extremely detrimental to these other businesses. We have a business one block away and currently, our customers complain about the parking. We do have a lot and individuals and customers from City of Palo Alto September 19, 2002 Director’s Hearing Agenda 611/619/623 Emerson Street 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 io ii 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 other companies, in other retail locations that use our lot and it’s already a problem. So, with additional 50 or 60 people, it would be even more of an issue for us. The second thing I want to bring up in regards to this is that if this were, in fact, a unique offering, I could see the City kind of overlooking the fact that it could be detrimental to the surrounding businesses. But within a number of blocks from this particular location, there’s a Yoga Studio, a Spa, a store that sells nutritional supplements and other retail stores that sells supplements and herbs, a Karate studio, and a personal training studio, and another one a few blocks away. So, in fact, this isn’t a unique offering. I’m not sure one can argue.whether it!s a saturated market but it’s not unique. It’s not a business that’s needed there but I think that I’m concerned about the potential detrimental effect. I’d like the City to explore what that effect would be. Thank you. Ms. Caporgno: Thank you. Staff, can you explain how we have concluded that the parldng, is sufficient for the use? Staff Reich: The parking for this particular location is in the downtown parking assessment district and within that district, parldng studies were conducted and that number, one space for every 250 square feet of gross floor area was arrived at based on the understanding of a variety of different uses that would take place throughout the downtown, talcing into account that certain uses would be intensive for parldng during different times of the day, that this particular use is more intensive in the evening when a lot of the office uses that maybe in the downtown area wouldn’t be there. So, the parking assessment district has blended parking ratio and it’s for that reason that thi~ use was felt appropriate because the number of spaces required for the square footage of the building has been met. And based on the fact that their use in the intensive time of the day, there would be potentially parking spaces available, not to mention the fact that two new parldng garages will be built in the downtown to alleviate some of the current parking problems that are experienced in the downtown area. Mr. Aronson: Can I ask a question and respond? Ms. Caporgno: Yes, you may. Mr. Aronson: I just wanted to reiterate that the peak hours is the major concern which is going to be lunch time, the other fitness center, which is 5:30 and beyond that that the off-peak I think is not an issue. It’s the peak hours, which are those two. And one thing to consider is when these parking garages are going to be up and if it’s going to be two years from now, we’re going to have a year and a half of [actually] 50 to 60 people on the street. So I’d like to conside~ maybe, the use could be conditional on these parking structures being constructed. City of Palo Alto September 19, 2002 Director’s Hearing Agenda 611/619/623 Emerson Street 1 2 3 6 7 8 9 io ii 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 Ms. Capor~no: If you’d like to speak to the item, do you have a card? L_5~n Ciapella: I don’t have a card. I just have a question. This application came up in a previous one when they said they were going to have a medical office. And it turned into a fitness center and I would hope that there are some kind of control so that what it seems to be a personal service doesn’t become just a general fitness center with walks and runs and lots of people gathering for classes and things, because this is what happened on the Middlefield site. Ms. Caporgno: Could you tell me your name, please? Lyrm Ciapella, 631 Colorado Avenue: Just as somehow a condition that this could not happen again. Ms. Caporgno: Does the applicant want to address any of the issues heard? Mr. Aronson: Thank you. I just want to respond to some comments from the gentleman. So there are two points I think you made. The peak hours will impact, well, I think as Staff has pointed out, the peak hours will may actually have 50 or 60 people on site or really do not correspond with when the peak parldng impact seems to be in the City. Also, our focus on local population, both workers within the downtown area and people within the walldng or bildng or carpooling range of residents of Palo Alto, those are really going to mitigate the parking problem as you painted pretty much. We’re not going to have a lot of people coming downtown in their single vehicle to park. They’re either going to walk from their place of work or they’re going to walk from their place of residence or so forth. Another thing I wanted to point out is that our membership growth, assuming we get permitted and we’re able to open in probably early next year, my understanding is that the parldng garages which will add another 700 or 800 new spotsto Palo Alto will be open by October of next year. Our pro forma, the way we’re kind of planning the business is that from the point when we open to where the garage is open, we’re not going to be at full membership and so we won’t have 50 or 60 people or whatever that number is on site at any one time. So it actually syncs very well with the garage schedule. Our membership growth syncs very well with it, it shouldn’t impact the downtown at that time. A couple of other things I wanted to point out is that there are seemingly a lot of other providers of similar services in the downtown area, but ultimately, if you think about it, people who patronize those types of places currently do so effectively on one off trips. They go from their residence to their work to that place and then back. And then they go to another place and then back. In fact, one of the reasons we’ve decided to pursue this business concept in Palo Alto is that a lot of people were telling us they don’t like going to 3 or 4 providers. They have to get in City of Palo Alto September 19, 2002 Director’s Hearing Agenda 611/619/623 Emerson Street 5 1 2 3 6’ 7 8 9 io II 12 13 14 15 ~6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 their car every time, find a parking spot every time and it creates a lot of parking impact and a lot of traffic. Our service which is effectively an umbrella of a lot of these other things and then additional personal services on top of that will reduce that number, that impact on traffic and parldng by allowing these people to come to one location, park once, take care of all of their wellness and fitness and health needs and then return home. So they won’t be malting multiple trips to achieve all of their wellness and fitness needs. And the other thing I wanted to point out is that when we located this site, we did take a look at parking. I’m a long-time Palo Alto resident, most of the people who participated in this are long- time Palo Alto residents, we know ther.e’s potentially an issue with parldng. So when we did our research, we took a look, we found a site that was within the pai~king assessment, the land owner in our business, we already paid for 27 parking spaces to date. There are 6 on site and so we pay into the Assessment District for the additional 21. Any way you do the City’s calculations to reach the parldng impact, we are underneath the current impact load. By all the City’s calculations, we will not create any additional impact on parking. The fact that we do pay in has helped build these additional facilities. And I think if you look at some of the providers outside of the Assessment District, for example, [Reach], they don’t pay into these parking [funds] and they do create an impact already. So the fact that we do, I think should be noted in and it should be a plus for us. So, I think that’s about all I have to say. Thank you very much, again. Ms. Caporgno: Is there anyone else who would like to speak to this issue? With that, I will close the public hearing. Again, I want to remind you, ! have 10 days to make a decision on this and that will occur. Then if anyone here wishes to appeal that decision, they will have 10 days subsequent to my decision to appeal that. Attachment 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 October 30, 2002 DRAFT EXCERPT NEW BUSINESS. Public Hearings: 611~ 619, 623 Emerson Street* [02-UP-20]: Appeal of the Director of Planning and Conmaunity Environment’s approval for a Conditional Use Permit application by Neal Aronson to allow the establishment of a Commercial Recreation facility at 611,619, 623 Emerson Street. This establishment will provide retail apparel, nutrition and wellness services for both men and women. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Section 15301 Zone District CD-C(P). Ms. Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official: Thank you Chair Bialson and Commissioners. This is an appeal of a conditional use permit for a commercial recreational facility which is a fitness facility in the CD-C(P) district. The CD-C(P) district is our Downtown zoning district and it is stands for Commercial Downtown zone. Within that zoning district a commercial re recreational facility or a fitness facility is a conditionally permitted use. There are outright permitted uses, which do not go through a special review or a discretionary review, and then there are conditionally permitted uses that go through a discretionary review. This is one of those uses. It is a use that is considered to have a potential for additional impacts on surrounding land uses that would not otherwise result from other typically permitted uses in the zoning district. Those additional impacts are physical in nature. In other words they may generate additional noise. They may have unusually long hours of operation which would keep lights on longer than ordinarily expected, might produce light and glare issues. They have other physical consequences that need to be considered as part of a public review especially within the context with which they being proposed. The conditional uses or the findings for the conditional uses are two in number. The first is that the use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, that it is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Then the second finding is that is not detrimental to the surrounding land Uses. Again, we look at the physical impacts when determining whether a use is detrimental. That would be again things such as extended hours of operation, unusually noisy conditions, perhaps hazardous materials, sometimes parking. I will get into the parking discussion in a bit. We do not look at economic impacts on surrounding land uses or the number of the same or similar types of uses in a defined area. So we are not evaluating the economics of the situation. We are evaluating the physical consequences of a land use. The two findings that we use are fairly typical for all conditional use permits, meaning that other cities use similar findings. They are not state mandated findings such as variance findings but they are fairly standard within the 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 Bay Area and within the State of California. You will find minor differences between varying cities but they are not great differences. In this particular situation we did hold a Director’ s Hearing and the issue of parking was raised, there was concern by the owner of another fitness facility that this use would generate an usual amount of parking for the use and for the area. This site is located within the Downtown parking Assessment District which means that all uses are considered to generate the same or similar amount of parking need and that trips would be shared meaning that one trip would be made and a number of activities would be accomplished. Someone might drive in in the morning to go to work, they would also go shopping, they would eat lunch, they would exercise, perhaps they would eat dinner and they would go home. So they have generated one trip but accomplished a number of different activities. For that reason the parking rate in the Downtown Assessment District is calculated on one parking space for every 250 square feet of square footage in the building. That is different than how we calculate parking in other parts of town, which is based on use and square footage.~ So in this particular area a restaurant, in the Downtown Assessment District, a restaurant is determined to have the same amount of parking need as a retail business, as an office business, as a commercial recreation facility, as any other type of business again, because of the combined or shared nature of the trips. What we provided for you in the Staff Report is an analysis of how much parking would be required for this square footage of building and use based on different types of uses. So for this square footage of building in an area that is not in the assessment district, a retail use would generate a need for about 33 parking spaces, a commercial recreation facility would generate a need for about 30 parking spaces, an office would generate the need about 27 parking spaces and a restaurant would generate the need for about 71 parking spaces. So if you were to look at this just in terms of other types of uses it falls within the same range as a retail use and as an office use. It is far less than a restaurant use. Restaurants are permitted in the Downtown Zoning District and in the Assessment District as a permitted use. Retail uses are permitted uses. So those two uses, which generate more parking than this use are permitted uses and do not require a conditional use permit. So this use actually requires less parking than an outright permitted use. For that reason, that being one of the reasons but for that reason the Director did approve, after the public hearing in September, the conditional use permit in October and specifically addressed the parking need with conditions of approval and stated that there should be at least a 15 minute interval between the end of one class and the beginning of another so that people would have an opportunity to get to their car and leave so that someone else could use that parking space. Also limited the number of people in a class to about 40 so that there would never be a excess of that. So there was an attempt to address the special parldng needs that might occur as a result of this use. Again, it is in a district that accounts for all uses in the same manner. The conditional use permit now has been appealed based on the parking concern. It is Staff’s recommendation that the appeal be denied because the parking issue has been addressed both by the Assessment District itself and then further by the conditions of 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 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 approval on the conditional use permit. So we are recommending that you recommend to the City Council to deny the appeal and uphold the Director’s initial approval. With that I will close the Staff Report. I do want to introduce Re~ch, sitting at the end of the table, I think this is the first time he has appeared before you. He is the Project Planner and we are both available to answer questions. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Are there any questions by Commissioners at this time? Commissioner Griffin: Yes. Chair Bialson: Go ahead, Michael. Commissioner Griffin: Lisa, on Attachment B, page 2 of Attachment B, paragraph number three says, "If the City of Palo Alto receives excessive complaints due to issues related to parking the Planning Division reserves the right to schedule a Director’s Hearing to address, etc., etc." I am wondering, do you have a definition of what is "excessive complaints" and how do we measure it or is there a measurement or is it just a subjective sort of thing? I am just looking for clarification as to what you might be looking at there. Ms. Grote: If we received more than probably four or five complaints a month we would start to consider that to be excessive. If we received a couple of Complaints we wouldn’t consider that to be excessive. We don’t have a specific number but if they were starting to come in regularly from a number of sources we would also look at that. It would not just be from one source. So if we started to receive four and five complaints a month from four and five different sources we would start to look at that seriously and say yes this is starting to be excessive. Chair Bialson: Any other questions? Karen. Commissioner Holman: To follow up on that it says that the City may alter existing conditions of approval to impose additional conditions of approval as necessary to resolve those issues. It is kind of a silly question in a way, if there are other means that you might have at your ready to address some of the parking issues then could they not just be brought forward now or do you think that those means would be extreme enough that it would be unreasonable to bring them forward now? Ms. Grote: I think there are some other things that could be considered but we don’t know what the nature of those complaints might be so it might be handled by putting limited parking in other parts of the Downtown that would relieve some issue there. Or it might be changing hours of operation or class times for this particular use. We would need to know what the nature of the complaints are before we could specifically look at what some solutions might be. So that is why we didn’t assign additional conditions now. 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 Ms. Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney: The purpose of a provision like this paragraph number three on page two is to make explicit that the City is retaining jurisdiction to look into the operation of this conditional use permit at a time in the future. The City does have a general power to review conditional use permits but we think it is a good idea to be explicit. If you are concerned about the definition of excessive complaints we can just make it clear that the Planning Division reserves the right to hold such a heating in the future without specifying the conditions. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Any other questions? AT this time we will have the applicant speak to us. You will have 15 minutes and the Appellant will then have 15 minutes and you will each have five minutes to wrap up. Please give your name and address when you begin. Mr. Neil Aronson, Applicant, 509 Concord Drive, Menlo Park: Good evening Chairwoman Bialson, Members of the Commissiom For what it is worth I am a Palo Alto native son, born and bred and lived about 30 years in town. Not that that buys me anything special, I understand. I have a prepared statement I would like to read through. It is about ten minutes. I would like to allocate about five minutes of my time to our project architect, Ken Hayes, and if you don’t hold me to the 15 minutes I would welcome you to ask questions as I go through this or we can wait until the end. So here we go. My partners and I appreciate the opportunity to introduce to you our proposed business Vivre, which means life in French, and to explain why we believe our approved application, approved by the Director’s Hearing, for a commercial recreation business is the best possible use for the currently vacant Downtown building and why Mr. Romney a management representative for the Palo Alto based Reach Fitness we feel is abusing this -permit process for anti-competitive means. We would like to start by highlighting a few pieces of information that we believe are relevant to your consideration tonight and we will conclude by directly addressing a few ’of Reach’s alleged concerns. When reviewing this application I would ask you to consider the following information. First that our proposed use is permitted as was stated under the CD-C(P) zoning designation as a conditional use. We are not asking you to go above and beyond the current plan or anything that is not permitted. So I think that is. important. The City and Staff has a long history of accumulated knowledge regarding parking in the Downtown based on years of research, analysis, public hearings, ordinances and I believe this all started 20 years ago or so. For example, the creation of the Parking Assessment District, which I couldn’t even find an accurate date as to when that one was put in place. The 1986 creation of the Commercial Downtown District which as you know is the zoning district that we are functioning under here. The 1994 adoption of the in lieu fee alternative program, the 1998 adoption of the current Comprehensive Plan with its extensive transportation element, which guides all the parking in Downtown and throughout the City and most recently the 2000-2001 authorization for the new parking structures. So it is safe to assume that the analysis that Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Staff has done is based on some pretty sound and extensive lcnowledge. I don’t think I need to tell you all that here. During our lease negotiations I think it is relevant to point out that the other parties interested in this space were all restaurants, which as you have heard have a larger impact on parking than we do as well as the timing of that parking. It is exactly corresponding to the peak hours of Downtown parking, lunch and after work at the dinner hour. Our business intends to fill a void in the Downtown Palo Alto fitness and wellness market and that is the need for a convenient, clean, modern full service facility. Our market research over about the last 12 to 18 months has shown that pretty clearly. Our market focus is two-fold, Palo Alto residents within a two to three mile radius and then Downtown employees and professionals. This is very important I will get to it a little later, but that we believe that focus will help us address some of the concerns that are being raised. Our staffing model is heavily rated to class based services, which have a one to many instructor to student ratio. This would limit the impact parking may have through our own staff. This is as opposed to a one-to-one ratio which personal training and other personal services, which by the way are not conditional and can open up pretty much anywhere, those types of ratios potentially have a higher parking impact. As well our full time staff will all have multiple skill sets such as class instruction, nutrition and training so as to reduce the need for specialists or additional staff. So we are looking for people with multiple skill sets who will help us leverage their own skills and keep our staff requirements down and ultimately keep the trips that our own staff will create down. Finally, understanding the challenge of being a new Downtown business we intend to provide our clients with the information and potentially the incentive to successfully navigate busy Downtown core. These could include for example the publication and communication of maps locating the new parking structures as well as existing parking structures and telling people how the best way to get from those parking structures to our facility are. For example the alleyway that is right out of the building here, past the old Bagel Works restaurant down through that alley out to Emerson Street is a great way to get that alley used for people parking underneath Civic Center. Another potential example could be an incentive program that we could design for our members, say they bike or they walk to a class we could provide them with some Vivre points, if you will, they accumulate enough of these points and they get a discount on a personal service. Something like that to encourage them to not drive, not park and utilize the convenience of Downtown. So with that said I will address some of the issues that have been raised. Regarding the appeal of the approved application Reach is asking the Commission to deny this permit because they believe it is detrimental to local businesses and residents due to the Significant demand it could create on peak hour parking in Downtown. In response to this argument we have conducted some research which when overlaid with our business expectations prove their assertion to the false. I would like to go through that quickly. Initially we utilized the City’s own Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study of January 16, 1997 to determine the actual peak hours of Downtown parking. We found these hours to be around the lunch hour, 12:30 to 1:30, and again around the dinner hours 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 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 from 6:30 to approximately 8:30. Then we analyzed our most current class schedule and identified any of the staggered starts that may potentially overlap with these peak hours. We found that only 14% or nine of our classes will commence during the peak lunch hour and only 11% or seven of our classes will commence during the peak dinner hours. So that means that 75% of our classes will fall outside of the peak Downtown parking hours. Moreover the largest block of these peak hours, those during the noon hour, will actually draw from the Downtown employee and professional worl~er base. Those who have already parked and thus won’t require a new parking spot or associated traffic trip. So if you pull out that 14% we are talking about slightly more than ten percent of our classes that will have some impact on the peak parking hours. So I think it is pretty clear that the overlap that Reach is claiming doesn’t exist. Our last point with regard to Reach’s parking concern is to highlight Staff’s own written comments within the report before you. First the Transportation Department’s written comment and I quote, it is possible that the previous use, which [ believe was office for the Chronicle, had a parking demand similar to the proposed use, end quote. We believe this clearly dispels any concern that Reach claims to have heard and I quote them, "one transportation official." The second comment that I.think is relevant and you have heard it is the Planning Department’s Parking Comparison Analysis as described on page three of the report. Ken Hayes will speak more specifically to this one. The last issue we would like to address is Reach’s contention that our business offering is not unique. We think this is important because uniqueness has a value in town. We have a preponderance of similar businesses around and I won’t go through them all but you all know from walking around Downtown there are a lot of businesses that are the same. Having a unique business adds vibrancy and a dynamism that is valuable in a Downtown core. So very briefly I would like to share some of these with you. We propose the only full service center in Downtown to include retail, fitness and wellness classes, equipment, training and nutrition. We propose to be the first full service center to pay into the City’ s offsite parking in lieu fund which we believe directly contributes to the parking structures under construction now. We propose to be completely handicap accessible. We propose to provide a clean and modern facility. We propose to provide clean and comfortable locker rooms, which is important for the Downtown workers to come and go. And finally we are one of very few fitness or wellness facilities in the Downtown to accurately represent itself, diligently sought all of the appropriate City permits, in what has been a fairly onerous experience with due process. So after reviewing Reach’s appeal letter and addressing their concerns as we have just done we now ask ourselves is Reach really interested in parking? We did a little research before we answer this question. What we found was that Reach between 2000 and today we found five CUP applications for restaurants in the Downtown area and arguably these have significant impact on parking at peak hours. Restaurants have one of the highest parking requirements as you know and generate most of their business during peak parking hours, lunch and dinner. It is no surprise that we found no evidence of Reach or anyone else for that matter in opposition to any of these CUPs. Today, all five restaurants operate in Downtown and add to the dynamic vibrant community that is Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Downtown. Moreover our research failed to turn up any comments from Reach on any other parking related matter over the last two years. So after this last attempt to find some honor in Reach’s appeal we must conclude that Reach does not in fact care about parking but instead they are using this issue and this forum as a rouse wasting City time, taxpayer resources, in a transparent attempt to prevent a new competitor from operating in their backyard. One last consideration I would like to leave you with is a packet of 30 to 35 signatures of Downtown businesses and property owners in support of our project, So based on this support, our analysis of Reach’ s concerns and the initial description I provided to you we ask that you deny Reach’s disingenuous appeal, honor the recommendation of City Staff, uphold the decision of the CUP Hearing Director and recommend approval to the City Council of our application for the conditional use permit without additional conditions and let Vivre bring some balance to the community. Thank you very much. Chair Bialson: There is only about two and one-half minutes left but certainly we would like to hear from Ken. Mr. Ken Hayes, Project Architect: Good evening Chair Bialson, Members of the Commission. I think I only need 30 seconds. I wanted to just underscore what Staff did an excellent job depicting in the comparison between the parking. Here I have a column that shows Vivre Studio, office restaurant and retail. The purpose here is to show you that if I take Chapter 1883, the parking chapter out of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and use the square footage of the building and if I assume that we are not in the parking assessment district, this would be what I calculate as the required number of parking spaces. It says 29. So under 1883 29 spaces would be required for this kind of a commercial recreation facility. Twenty-seven would be required if it was an office. If it was a restaurant using a 40:60 ratio and one per 60 in the dining room, one car per 60 square feet, we would need 82 parking spaces. Retail would require about 34 parking spaces at a ratio of 1:200 square feet. as Staff and Nell pointed out office, restaurant and retail would not require a use permit unless their restaurant was serving alcohol but the commercial recreation is required. So I think this can depict fairly clearly that our use, the impact on parking, is much less than it would be if it were a restaurant or retail. Then lastly, this is from Palo Alto’s Parking Assessment District and it shows the Downtown garages, the completed garages are in the open circles, the gray circles are the planned garages right now at Lot R and Lot S/L. Our site is right here on Emerson and what is important to understand here is that we are o.ne of the few areas in the Downtown that is actually inscribed in three circles. The City Hall garage certainly covers us and with that alley connection City Hall would be a great place for parking I think. The Ramona garage or lot covers us and then the new Lot R garage overlaps a portion of the building there and is within two blocks of the facility. So I think this graphic illustrates real clearly that there is plenty of parldng nearby. Thank you. Chair Bialson: I have a question for you. Could you put that last item up? There is an alleyway between the City Hall parking lot and that parking lot, is that correct? Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 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. Hayes: Correct. That alleyway is shown right here. Then it turns that way and it comes out onto Emerson there. We have a back entrance behind the building. There are also six parking places behind the building. Chair Bialson: There is a back entrance? Mr. Hayes: Yes. Chair Bialson: That would be available for use by your members or people who are coming into your facility, is that correct? Mr. Hayes: Correct. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Now we would have the Appellant who has 15 minutes to speak. Mr. Alden Romney, Appellant, 937 Bransten Road, San Carlos: Good evening. I work for Reach Fitness. This is not about competition. This is about our members and the fact that our members to our businesses, we have two businesses within one to two blocks of this particular location, that their experience will be negatively affected by this particular use going in. If the applicant had a parking lot in the back of their space I would not be here. If the applicant was moving in on the other side of City Hall, two blocks away, I would not be here. However, if the applicant did not compete with our business directly at all but was moving in on the same block as us and anticipated having 65 people come in at the same time as our peak hour I would be here. It is not about competition it is about the negative impact that this particular use will have on the local businesses in the surrounding direct local area, like the two that we operate in. I ask you to focus on the relevant question that I pose to Council, is this particular use going to be detrimental to the local businesses and residents in the direct surrounding area? That is the question that I feel has not yet been answered. Is there going to be a negative impact and a detrimental impact to 50 to 65 people coming in at peak hour on this particular location, which is specified in their application? This is different than the question of what the parking allocation has been required within the local assessment district. Whether the blended rate was 4:1000 or 5:1000 or 6:1000 is irrelevant to this question of whether this particular use will be detrimental. A decision that .for uses that are in this assessment district simply what they are allocated to and the cost of paying into this of approximately $200 per month is something that is decided after. So the question again that I want you to focus on is is this use going to be detrimental, whichis what the requirement is that it is not detrimental for businesses that are approved a conditional use permit. So let’s take a look at that business and the local area, the streets specifically that this particular use will be on. First let’s examine what the use is. It is a fitness center. Peak hours for a fitness center are lunchtime and after work. Peak hours for a restaurant are Page 8 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 2 3 4 5 lunchtime and after work. They are the same. On this particular street, on this one block of Emerson that we are talking about, Gordon Biersch, Bucca de Beppo, Hygashi West, Empire Tap Room, Peninsula Creamery are all restaurants that operate on this particular street and have the same peak hours as this particular use. In addition the two businesses that we operate are within a block and one-half, Reach Pilate’s Studio and Reach Fitness Center. They also have the same peak hours. We have operated in the l~cation on High Street around the comer for 20 years and we have experienced a significant number of complaints from our customers about parking through that period. We have a lot on our space and we still have a lot of questions and a lot of problems with customers complaining about parking. In one of the letters that was included today that was not included in the Staff Report is from our Manager, at the location specifies that. The issue then is that this particular use is going to cause parking problems at precisely the same peak hours as these other restaurants and the businesses that we operate. The data of an office tenant requiring 27 parking spots versus a commercial recreation facility of 30 is again irrelevant to the question of whether this particular use would be detrimental. Specifically in comparing an office tenant use of 27 versus a commercial recreation of 30 there are complexities to that that were not addressed in the Staff Report, which was logical but viewed in a very simplistic way. The office tenant has people coming for the full day that will use the space and park for a full day during daytime hours. This particular use will have people coming in at peak hours of lunchtime and after work. In addition the profile of the user is very, very different, somebody that is using a fitness center versus somebody that is going to an office all day. Having had experience with this in terms of why also this parking issue is aggravated, although the concept that people living and working nearby being customers is a nice one and the concept that parking will not be as much of a problem because won’t drive, we have had experience for 20 years with people that are customers that live and work nearby that still choose to drive. We are in California, e~erybody has a car and everybody drives. That is something that we have faced for many, many years and thus this is why it is a problem that 65 more people are going to be looking to come in within a block or block and one- half of our businesses and the businesses that have similar peak hours of operation as this particular use. In regards to the parking garages, the parking garages will help to mitigate this parking problem specifically on Emerson Street but they will not solve it. That is clear. There is a website up through the Transportation Department that specified the number of the need and the number of parking spots that were needed within the Downtown area. This website for some reason has now been down so unfortunately I do not have the numbers but I am very curious as to what those numbers were and why it was pulled down. From what I remember after the parking garages were built there was still going to be a need and a demand far outweighing the supply of hundreds and hundreds of cars. So the parking garages will help but they will not solve this problem. So the statement in the Staff Report that once the parking garages are built and I quote, When the parking garages are completed next year, on page four of Appendix B, scarcity of parking.spaces should no longer be an issue. I think that is blatantly not true. 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 4o 41 42 43 44 45 46 Both individuals within the Planning Department and the Transportation Department have acknowledged that this use will have a negative impact on the parking as any use would. More people coming in is going to have an impact on parking because more people are looking for spaces. However, this particular use, given the similar peak hours of the restaurants and the other fitness centers in the area will have a much greater negative impact on these local businesses, this was also acknowledged by people within the City. The question then is at what point is the negative impact, that 65 more people looking for spaces, at what point is the negative impact of that become detrimental to the other local businesses? Please do not oversimplify this. Do not take this lightly and examine the data that is there. I ask that you overturn the permit approval or at the least do a reasonable study of the impact of this particular use and what it will have on the parking and the traffic flow in the area. Carl Stoffel in the Transportation Department was asked his opinion but was not given any specific numbers of what parking or use requirements would be from this particular use and thus no reasonable independent study has been done to assess the impact, the negative impact, the potential detrimental impact of this particular use. This will be much harder to change once the location is there and the problems are there. Do not make a decision in haste. Thank you for your time. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Now the Applicant has five minutes to respond if you wish. Just a second Neil, there is some question as to whether or not we should have the public hearing and hear from the public first or not. Mr. Aronson: I would welcome that. Chair Bialson: Fine, then we will do it that way. We have a question here for the Appellant. Commissioner Burt: Actually, a couple of questions. You referred several times to 65 people that would have parking requirements at a given time. Did I understand you correctly? Mr. Romne¥: Correct. Sixty-five is the number of people that are expected to be in this location at peak hour. Obviously all 65 of those people will not be looking for parking spaces so the requirement is not 65 but the number, there is some sort of - if you assume a certain portion of people that are going to a location would be looking for spaces and you assume that that percentage is fixed. Whether 30 people are using a location or 65 clearly there is a magnitude of difference of the number of spots that will be required. Does that make sense? Commissioner Burt: No. I will ask a follow up question. How did you come up with the 65 number? Where did that come from? Up to 65, is that what you are referring to? Mr. Romney: Yes, 50 to 65 at peak hour. Page lO 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: Okay, if you are meaning that is the range as opposed to 65 being the number then I understand what you are saying. Just a follow up question. You had emphasized that your appeal was not based upon the use being a competitive use to your own. A few doors away from this toward your facility is Beppo’s restaurant which went in a few years ago. Did you have any objection to that use at the time? Mr. Romney: I was not with the company at the time. From my understanding we did not. If I might add, there were other organizations such as Yoga Source, which is a block from our location, Hectagon which is a personal training studio that do directly compete with our operation as well but the demand for those particular uses in those locations were not to the degree that this one is and thus nothing was said from us about that. As I mentioned if there was another use on our block that would come up today I would be standing here in front of you. Commissioner Burr: Thank you. Chair Bialson: I see no other questions so we will go to the public. Each speaker, I have three speaker cards, will have five minutes. The first will be Laurie Harden to be followed by Michael Specter. Ms. Laurie Harden, 981 Lincoln Avenue, Palo Alto: Hi. I am here representing the Home Goddess version of the workout person, the after school drop-off. I work out at 8:30-9:30 in the morning after I take care of my kids or at 4:00 in the afternoon when they are home safe. We are all bombarded by the bleak news that 60% of Americans are overweight, actually obese is what we have been hearing. I wonder perhaps Palo Altoans buck that trend but can we really deny the needYor a quality workout studio right Downtown within walking distance of all the high density development that is happening Downtown? My husband, Jim Sacerman, and I love outdoor exercise, we like to bike and hike, but when we need an indoor exercise option we drive to the Pacific Athletic Club. We are really looking forward to having a quality in~toor option that is walkable when the weather is good and bike-able when we are in a hurry that is right Downtown. I really encourage you to approve this option. I think it is going to be a great business for Downtown. Mr. Jim Sacerman, 981 Lincoln Avenue, Palo Alto: Just one short thing to add. I think with all the vacancies that we have Downtown right now due to the economy this is a wonderful opportunity for Palo Alto to fill up some of that space and bring back some of what we have lost in Downtown over the last year. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Next is Michael Specter to be followed by Shelly Jones. Mr. Michael Specter, 2228 Santa Ana Street, Palo Alto: Hi I have been a resident for 30 years and currently am a principal in a financial services company in the California Avenue area of Palo Alto. I am not sure there is that much value I can add after what I have heard. It seems pretty compelling to me. I am here supporting the health club. I actually can say that fitness is very important to me, so much so that part of the 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4o 41 42 43 44 45 compensation package for a lot of my employees is that we pay for their membership for clubs. I can honestly say there is nothing in Palo Alto for me. I also go to the Pacific Athletic Club. I live in Palo Alto. I work in Palo Alto. I commute a terrible commute to the Pacific Athletic Club, by choice, and my employees do as well. So this is something that absolutely makes sense to me. There is no other option in Palo Alto in the Downtown area, which we are considering relocating our business to since the rates have dropped quite a bit. I guess the last thing I would like to add is I hear everyone saying parking is a problem and clearly it is and I guess I just want to echo that there is nothing you couldn’t put in this space that wouldn’t create more parking need. This is one of the lesser of the needs. So does Palo Alto want to send the message to business owners and real estate owners that Downtown is not friendly to businesses because we are all filled up on parking? I just think it is a terrible message especially as mentioned before with the way I am sure you have all seen there are a lot of vacancies that have come up and there may be more coming. That is all I have to say, thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Next is Shelly Jones to be followed by Elaine Meyer. Ms. Shelly Jones, 786 Melville Avenue, Palo Alt0: Hi, I am a Palo Alto resident and I am here to voice my support for the Vivre Fitness Center. I believe that the unique combination of goods and services and health education offered under one roof is a great contribution to our Palo Alto community. Furthermore surrounding businesses should benefit from the foot traffic coming and going from Vivre. I for one am always tying in my morning route, my morning workout, with grabbing a cup of coffee at a local coffee shop and running to the grocery store, the dry cleaners, all of these things are within a block or two of Vivre. I just think that is a wonderful thing for the surrounding businesses. I think your supporting this is the right thing for palo Alto and for our Downtown business area. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Elaine Meyer to be followed by Joy Ogawa. Ms. Elaine Meyer, 609 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto: I occurred to me in listening to the folks here that big fish sometimes often eat smaller fish but I don’t know that it is the Planning Commission’s job to help that happen. I wanted to say a couple of words about parking. The parking shortage is very obvious in town. Residents complain about parking in front of their homes, they can’t find any place to park when they get home, the folks who live near Downtown in particular. Business people complain that they even have to move away from the Downtown are because there isn’t enough parking for their customers. So that is pretty obvious. Then the City approved two monster parlcing garages that are being built now, of course you know. Even when the plans were being discussed it was said that those garages wouldn’t handle the parking problem, wouldn’t take care of it. So these numbers are very strange and I think somewhat fictitious because of course the need for parking varies very much during the time of the day and time of the year. Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 On the SOFA Working Group, I know this project is not in the SOFA area, we needed to address the parking problem and of course like everybody else we couldn’t solve it. The way I looked at it was by keeping the size of the buildings that were being built to a reasonable size you would also control the amount of traffic and parking that would come into the area. The odd thing that happened on the Working Group was that the developers were asking for reduced parking requirements while at the same time being concerned that there was a parking shortage. I don’t have any answer to it but there is something really wrong with this picture. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you. The last speaker is Joy Ogawa. Ms. Joy Ogawa, 2305 Yale Street, Palo Alto: First I notice that the Applicant said that this is a permitted use but I understand that this is a conditional use not a permitted use. I am sure you all know there is a significant difference and conditional uses require that certain findings need to be made before a conditional use permit is approved. I have read the Staff Report and I am here just to share with you story that will date me because it is a 20-year ago. story. I think I should tell it because I don’t know if anybody in Staff actually was here at that time to remember this. When I first moved to Palo Alto I joined the Grecian Health Spa at Park Boulevard and E1 Camino. So I used to go there after work to workout, the usual after work hours, 5:30 or 6:00. There was never any parking onsite so I would go park along Park Boulevard or in the neighborhood. The neighbors just hated that health spa. There were complaints all the time about all the customers of Grecian Health Spa are parking in our neighborhood. I remember once going back to my.car and there was a note on my windshield saying pleas don’t park here because you are keeping us from being able to park in front of our house. At that time my reaction was I had every right to park here. I am parking legally. But at this point I certainly understand what their problem was. That use has changed. It has been many years and probably most people don’t even remember the Grecian Health Spa. It has been many years and it has changed to an office use. That has completely changed that entire intersection. As far as I can tell there is no overflow into the neighborhood anymore, that office use can entirely contain onsite the parking demand. So I hate to admit it but this is one instance where actually the neighborhood was very happy that they got an office use that took over this other use. You could say it was a neighborhood serving use but in fact the impact was so bad that it really wasn’t neighborhood serving. The neighborhood did not perceive it as neighborhood serving. So I am just relaying this story to remind you that, and Grecian Health Spa didn’t have classes, people just went and worked out. People go and work out after work, during peak hours, and I am looking at the Staff Report and it says we are having conditions here to limit die class size but I also see that they are going to have equipment and facilities and keeping the class size down to 40, which they say is not going to be at peak hours anyway so it is not going to make any difference, I don’t really see that that is going to address the problem. One last little anecdote. The last two times I have tried to shop at Whole Foods I haven’t found parking. I have driven around the parking lot, I have driven around the streets, I haven’t found parking. I have left. I decided I am not going to shop at Whole Foods Page 13 1 anymore regularly. I don’t want to spend my time driving around looking for parking. 2 So I will walk to Country Sun and I am going to order from mail order catalogs for some 3 things. Gee, Palo Alto is not going to get my sales tax for that but too bad, I am not 4 going to drive around looking for parking at Whole Foods. I know there is a parking 5 problem and it has changed my purchasing habits now. As far as this application is 6 concerned I am not going to take a position on whether to support the appeal or not but 7 just from my personal experience there is a basis for concern here. I don’t really think 8 the Staff Report with the conditions have really addressed the problem. Thanks. 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 Bialson: Thank you, Joy. The next speaker is Julie O’Grady and I do not have any other card~ after that. Ms. Julie O’Grady, 1229 Hopkins Avenue, Palo Alto: Hi I have been in Palo Alto all my life, born and raised. When I first heard about this new facility I was thrilled because I too wanted to work out at Pacific Athletic Club however, I was even working across the street from there and I didn,t have the time because I was too busy in the dot.corn boom. Now, given more time and a little bit more balance in my life I would cherish looldng at a new facility that would almost bring the level of facilities to the level of restaurant criteria in Palo Alto. I feel although some of the other facilities are convenient it would be nice to not have to go out of the City or not go to a neighboring town to have a truly nice fitness experience. One that I think that was brought to light in this whole parking arena is the fact that today I learned that there is going to be so much more parking in Downtown Palo Alto and ways to get to it that I never knew existed and I have lived here all my life. So I just think that this would be beneficial for the Downtown community and beneficial being a resident. I feel that in any location at any time peak hours are going to be challenging whether you are going to a grocery store, whether you are going on the freeway or whether you are going out to dinner. This type of facility, given the opportunities with the additional parking structures, I think is not going to have as great an impact as everyone has thought it would. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. I see nobody else and I have no other cards So I will close the public portion. That allows us now to go back to the Applicant for five minutes if you wish to speak. Mr. Aronson: Yes, thank you. Ijust want to address a couple of quick things and I will try not to be too scattered here. The Appellant made a couple of comments that I wanted to address, first that the use would be detrimental to his business, which we know and other businesses in the vicinity. I wanted to share a few anecdotes. In assembling the petition that that we put forward to you we had some conversations with some local businesses within the vicinity and I want to share those with you. Specifically, you will see Peninsula Creamery has signed our petition. They support our use. Generally what we heard from the other restaurants is literally the first thing out of their mouth is, are you another restaurant. They don’t want other restaurants. There is a lot of competition in the restaurant business in Palo Alto. It has a direct parking competition as well for their clients. So, when they heard we weren’t another restaurant most of them were very excited. A lot of them tend to be chains and the corporate policies tend to restrict them Page14 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 from supporting either side. So while we don’t have the written support of Gordon Biersch or Empire Tap Room or Beppo the bottom line is they all had smiles on their faces when we told them what we were doing. A couple of other notes, the florist and the legal services firms that are directly across the street from us are actually very excited to see us andi’ll tell you why. Restaurants have very predictable customer flows, lunchtime and dinnertime and that’ s it. The rest of the time they are closed or they are pretty quiet. Well, for businesses that are not restaurants that share a street with a number of restaurants that is a problem if they are open during the day, they don’t get a lot of foot traffic. Well, we address that because we have activity all day long. As I mentioned to you we don’t have a lot of peak hour activity. I think it is less than 25% of our classes. So that non-peak hour activity that we are going to have would directly benefit the non- restaurant uses on street because of the walk around traffic that we are going to create. So the florist specifically, I saw her tonight, she was ecstatic. I tried to get her here to come and say this but she had other plans. I just wanted to share that with you. What else can I tell you? Reach was sharing their experience with the DowntQwn workforce - and that it hasn’t really yielded to them a lot o business and I’ll address by telling you what our business has that theirs doesn’t. That is clean modem facilities including locker rooms. The Downtown workforce is a professional workforce, they dress in ties and suites, cleaner than me, come to work out, need to shower clean up and get back.to work quickly and easily. We have a modem accessible facility with multiple showers, multiple vanities, lockers and a lot of space to get in and get out quickly. Reach doesn’t. That’s a probtem and I am not knocking their facility just generally speaking you can’t get in and out of that place very quickly and easily. So we believe we have the answer to the Downtown professional worker problem. It is not by accident. We have planned it this way. I just want to echo Qn the parking concern we all know it. As I have said I’m a native son, I have seen it all my life. As you have already started to do with the construction of the new lots you need to address this from a supply point of view and not from a demand point of view. It is really hard for new businesses to get started especially in this economic climate that we are in now. You witness it by all the vacancies. We are trying to start a dynamic new business in town. It is locally owned, all the partners live in Palo Alto, are native to Palo Alto for the most part. The management team, half of the full time staff lives within walking/biking distance of Downtown..We are going to be a. good neighbor. We hope to provide a business that the City can be proud of. So again I urge you to deny the appeal and approve us without any additional conditions. Thank you very much. Chair Bialson: Thank you. The Appellant will also have five minutes. Mr. Romney: I come back to the question that I originally stated. Will this particular use at this location have a detrimental impact to the businesses on the street and the surrounding area? Clearly any business that comes in will have a negative impact due to increased traffic and parking. This particular use will have a greater negative impact to the point where I feel it is going to have a detrimental impact on our business speciflcally because of the parking and on other local businesses. Neil and I had very different experiences when we spoke the owners and managers of the restaurants on that particular street. I would recommend that you go and speak to them and ask their opinions because 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 I will tell you a different story than Neil will. We probably did hear different things because nobody like confrontation. There are pros and cons to it and that is the assessment that you need tomake. As an example, I am not sure after a hour long treadmill or spinning class people are going to want to go and have a beer at Gordon Biersch and have a heavy meal. Something to ponder. The other question I want to ask is where will the people go? So these 50 to 65 people that are coming in and taking parking spots, as the woman who spoke earlier and decided to take here business elsewhere to other cities, this is something that we have found from our customers because of the parking issues that are already in place within Downtown Palo Alto, people have problems parking for our gym and our Pilate’s Studio as was noted in the letters and have chosen to take their business elsewhere to Los Altos, Menlo Park or the YMCA in Midtown. This is something that will only be aggravated if this particular use is brought into this particular location. Also in response to Neil’ s comments about our particular business, we do have locker rooms, we do have showers and we do have clients that work Downtown. This is not a unique offering to what already exists here. Thank you. Chair Bialson: Thank you very much. Does Staff have anything additional to say? No. Commissioners, any comments or questions? Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I have questions. This particular use is using both retail use as well as commercial recreation use, can we put a condition on this requiring the retail space that they are requesting? Ms. Grote: There is a retail component to the proposed use. They w{ll be selling related athletic equipment of certain types. The Applicant can probably give you more detail but yes, there is a related retail component. As to whether or not you could condition that to always remain part of the business I suppose that yes you can as part of a conditional use permit. You are fairly free to do that if there appears to be a reason to put that kind of condition on it. Chair Bialson: Pat. Commissioner Burt: Is the retail component of this proposed establishment intended to be primarily to serve the patrons of the fitness area or is it intended to be a walk-in component? Ms. Grote: I would anticipate again the Applicant might be able to give you more detail but I would anticipate it would be open to anyone to walk in and buy certain items. Chair Bialson: Neil. Mr. Aronson: Yes, that is true. It is not going to be limited to members only. It is absolutely going to be front and center of the windows. There is a beautiful storefront 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 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 window in this wonderful historic space. We are going to take advantage of it. People can come off the street and buy whatever it is that we are going be providing. Our focus is primarily on fitness, wellness products, potentially some clothing or nutritional supplements or prepackaged foods or beverages. Absolutely we hope that they will come off the street even if they are not members and participate. Chair Bialson: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I should say that I met with the Applicant this morning and he indicated that there would be about 500 square feet of space put to that use. This use goes with site not with the owner. So if the owner leaves or even if the business changes the proportion of what is within that site could change and is not restricted to the exact layout that this owner is presenting us with. Ms. Grote: That is correct. Chair Bialson: Bonnie. Commissioner Packer: I would like to just sort of rephrase a little bit what Phyllis said. If the conditional use is approved and the it is approved to be commercial/recreation and that goes with the site until there is another application that would in effect prevent a restaurant from going in there or would it not? Ms. Grote: It would not. This use could change to any other permitted use. A restaurant is a permitted use. It could change to a complete or all retail use. So all of the square footage could become retail. It could all become personal service. There are a number of other permitted uses in the district that this could become. Once that conditional use permit is abandoned then someone who wanted to put another type of conditionally permitted use in would need to reapply and go through the conditional use permit process. Chair Bialson: Karen. Commissioner Holman: One little piece of business. I also need to disclose that I met Monday, early evening, with the Applicant. Commissioner Packer: I also met with Applicant I believe it was yesterday. Commissioner Burt: I met at the site with the Applicant this evening. Commissioner Griffin: I met with the Applicant this morning. Chair Bialson: evening. Mr. Aronson: Not to be outdone, I met with the Applicant I believe it was yesterday We appreciated all of your time. 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 30 31 32 33 34 35 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Bialson: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have a couple of questions probably for the Applicant and the Appellant. Would there be any advantage to working together and coordinating class start times among Reach, the Pilate’s and Vivre? Would there be any advantage to staggered start times in a coordinated effort? Mr. Aronson: We haven’t discussed it. Obviously we are still kind of at odds over this. I don’t see any obstacles to such a cooperation. The Pilate’s Studio specifically has a lot of synergies with what we are doing. We are not offering what is called reformer Pilate’s. They look like the rack and you get out there and do similar types of things. So we are not offering that at least not out of the gate so there is certainly potential for a referral program. I am not sure they are going to want anything to do us after this but it is possible. Commissioner Holman: So my question isn’t really would there be any difficulty in trying to coordinate, would there an advantage from a parking perspective to doing some kind of coordination like that? Mr. Aronson: I would have to believe we could find something but I would probably defer to Staff’s opinion on that. I haven’t really given it any thought. This is an angle that I haven’t spend a lot of time considering. 3/h’. Romney: We have in operation for 20 years so our schedule is pretty established as to what our class are and our members have a certain expectation. It would be I think difficult for two competing businesses to coordinate on scheduling. But to answer your question directly would there be a benefit to parking if the schedules were staggered, I would say yes. If one business had classes that started on the hour and the other business had classes start at the half hour, clearly that would be different than having 120 people coming in at the same time. Chair Biaison: Pat. Commissioner Burr: How many clients do you have at a time, typically? Mr. Romney: I would say we could have upwards of 50 but probably closer to 40, 40 to 50 at peak. Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Chair Bialson: Michael. Commissidner Griffin: Neil, in your Attachment A of letter discussing the scope of your operation you talk about personal trainers and you describe that as one-on-one sessions. Could you give us a feel for the importance of personal training, this one-on-one session Page18 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 type of activity in your business plan? The reason that I am asking the question is that I have some experience with a few fitness clubs. The personal trainers that I am familiar with in fact do have an impact on the quantity of people that are in the building. I am asking a very leading question, you probably, know where I am going with this but let’ s hear your take on it, please. Mr. Aronson: Your concerned with the parking impact of additional trainers coming in I would assume. As I think I have mentioned personal training is a component of what we are looking to do, nota big one. There are a lot of good personal training studios in Downtown and the outside, Menlo Park specifically and Mountain View. So in designing our business model we tried to find some niches that don’t compete directly with some pretty well established businesses. I won’t tell you we are not going to offer it because we do intend to offer it. I don’t see it being a significantpart. For example let’s say, and please don’t quote me on this or condition me on this, I would say it will probably make up five to ten percent of our business. I will quickly point out that as I mentioned our staff, our hiring process and practices are focused on people who have multiple skills. For example the General Manager that we have hired is a certified personal trainer and a very good one at that. Part of his role is to provide personal training services in addition to his general management role. So he will be onsite the whole time. He, by the way, lives Downtown so he will not have to park to come to work. He will be there all day long providing general management and personal training activities. With that focus we really don’t see the personal trainer impact to be significant. As I mentioned earlier, .our focus is class based services and we have set the studio up like that, we have a main focus in terms of business practices on that, and that is the one-to-many type of ratio. So I think to answer your question quickly it is not going to be a big part of what we are doing. Commissioner Griffin: Then I will ask a brief question here of Staff. If Vivre Studios decides to change their concept in relation to the number of these personal trainers, these contract employees that they bring onsite, if they decide that they wanted to up the ante and intensify the use there is nothing here in the granting of this conditional use permit that would prohibit that, am I correct in saying that? Ms. Grote: That is right. There isn’t anything here that would prohibit that. We do have a general clause in the use permit section of the ordinance that says an intensification or a significant change to a conditional use permit requires an amendment to that permit but we would be relying on the Applicant to come forward and say weare going to change the nature of the classes or the type of facility that we have so we are coming in for an amendment. I think Wynne had mentioned earlier that there is way to perhaps reword condition three that would say that the Planning Division reserves the right to review this conditional use permit should there be changes made to the services or concerns about parking or other aspects of the use. So that might be a potential way to amend the way the condition is worded. Mr. Aronson: Chairwoman Bialson, may I make a comment? I think it is relevant to point out that personal training is considered a personal service and a permitted use on 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 the site. If we wanted to be personal training we wouldn’t be here today, we would be operating. So I think it would be difficult to say we can’t then change to a permitted use. Is that correct? Ms. Grote: That is correct in terms of personal training being a personal service because it is one-on-one. It is something that somebody comes .in like getting your hair done or your haircut or anything like that. So personal training is a personal service and permitted. MOTION Commissioner Griffin: That being the case I would like to make a motion. I would like to move that we deny the appeal and approve the Staff recommendation that we support the Director of Planning’ s approval with conditions of a use permit for a fitness facility. SECOND Commissioner Packer: I’ll second that. Chair Bialson: Does the maker wish to speak to the motion? Commissioner Griffin: I think the findings in the Staff Report are correct and compelling. I specifically will say that the property owner is now and has been paying into the Downtown Parking Assessment District. Secondly, this is not a new building and does not add new square footage nor parking demand but rather is a preexisting condition with its parking demand already factored into the blended parking rate for the Downtown. Thirdly, the conditional use permit process adequgtely addresses the parking concerns relating to the fitness center use. Chair Bialson: Bonnie, do you want to speak to the motion? Commissioner Packer: I agree with everything that Michael said and I would like to add that I can nothing in this conditional use that is injurious to the neighboring businesses in a physical sense. I also want to add anecdotally my experience with the Palo Alto Family YMCA is that this kind of use people adjust their schedules and come to use treadmills at times when it is not going to be busy and that kind of smoothes out over the day the time when people will such a facility. So I think some of the statements about the peak use, I think after people adjust their schedules that peak will spread and it won’t be so sharp a rise. So that is another reason in addition to all statements about parking. Chair Bialson: Thank you, Bonnie. Karen. Commissioner Holman: Clarification on a couple of things. Michael, did your motion include the revised language that Staff was recommending for the condition number three? 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 3o 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Chair Bialson: Was there a recommendation by Staff? Ms. Grote: No, we had started to talk about one but then it was pointed out that the training is a personal service use and so we didn’t go any further with that recommendation. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Commissioner Holman: I meant in terms of the Planning Department reserved the right to review the application and that was separate I thought from the personal training issue. Ms. Grote: No, we weren’t recommending that the Staff or that the Planning Division retain that ability to review it. It would remain the way it is written right now, that would be our recommendation. Commissioner Holman: I misunderstood that then. The other one is a clarification on condition number one. I think the intention of this is to keep the number of attendees for classes down to 40 at one given time. The way it is worded in condition number one it says that classes beginning at the same time, for instance if you had two classes scheduled to begin at 5:00 then the total number of attendees couldn’t be 40 but the intention is to not have more than 40 onsite at once. So if you had a class that started at 5:00 and a class that started at 5:30 you could still have more than 40 at a time. I am wondering if the maker and seconder of the motion understands what I am getting at and wants to address that. Chair Bialson: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I asked Staff about that this afternoon and my understanding is, that there is not a limit to 40. I also found this a little confusing. The intent is to keep more than 40 to start at any one time and was not designed to limit the number of people onsite to 40 people in a class. Chair Bialson: Is that correct, Staff? Ms. Grote: That is correct. This was attempting to address how many people would be coming and looking for parking at any given time. So it is correct the way you stated it. Chair Bialson: Thank you. Commissioner Holman: That kind of takes care of the other thing I was going mention. I was going to ask as a condition of approval that the Applicant and the Appellant work together as far as scheduling but that sounds it is probably not something that is going to work. If this is to get them to stagger their schedules it doesn’t seem appropriate anyway so I will not suggest that. Chair Bialson: Pat. Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: A couple questions and a few comments. What are the current fee structures for parking permits in the public garages? Does Staff recall? We actually have Transportation Officials here, if they kmow. Mr. Russ Reich, Associate Planner: The fee is $105 per quarter in the Downtown Parking Assessment District if an employer was to buy a parking permit for an employee. Commissioner Burt: One of the things that I would like to see not only with this application but in the future is an encouragement or even on a conditional use perhaps a condition that employees who do not use public transit be provided with permit parking passes by their employers as part of a conditional use so that the street level parking would be available for the patrons and not compete with other businesses or only to a minimal degree. That is such a fairly nominal cost that I think it would not be a undue burden on the employers. I am not asking that that necessarily be an amendment to this motion but I think that would be an appropriate action in the future. Secondly, Iwould like to look at whether we can have some additional bike parking associated, with this site and any other site that we can find appropriate use for it. It’s wide sidewalk in front and I think it would also help discourage competition for the parking spaces. Then just a couple of comments. As I thought about the Empire Tap Room, Gordon Biersch, Beppo’s and several other restaurants just on this section of Emerson Street there must be at peak hour 400 customers that go to those restaurant establishments. I was really bothered by elements of this appeal. It did seem to be targeted not at an issue that could have been raised any numbers of times in recent periods where these other establishments looked for conditional uses but it seemed to be based to some degree upon a competitive relationship. I would hope that future appellants would focus on the issues that are objective and appropriate. I concur with the Staff’s Position on this use especially given that the permitted uses would allow comparable or in the case of restaurants considerably more demand on parking than with this conditional use. So I think for all of those reasons and more I support the motion. Chair Bials.on: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: We have a continuous misunderstanding about what detrimental and injurious use is. It is not uncommon to have people ask us this question. I receive repeated questions about why we are going to have a new drug store in Palo Alto Midtown without and understand that we do not make decisions on competitive issues. So I am not surprised that this has come before us. Although we can’t do that and we can’t make our decision based on that I think we have to understand that people will misunderstand that issue. I will support the motion. Chair Bialson: Karen. Commissioner Holman: I have one last thing. I believe it is the Applicant’s intention anyway to have the retail component of this function at the street face. So I would ask if Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 the maker and seconder of the motion would agree to making that a condition of approval that the retail be at [he front, in other words so that we don’t have a closed off or blank face at the street. Commissioner Griffin: Let me rephrase that. You want to specify that the retail would be in the front as opposed to? Commissioner Holman: As opposed to interior, in other words, So that the street facing facade is interactive with the public. This is a retail and service corridor and there is a synergy that happens when that interactive aspect stays in place rather than having blinds drawn or something of that nature. So I am wondering to retain that interactive street facing fagade. Commissioner Cassel: The reason you might do that is for the nextbusiness that might move in. Say this person decides in two years to sell the business to another person with the same business component then they may not wish to put it in the same location. That would be the reason for doing it. Chair Bialson: Thoughts of the maker, please. Commissioner Griffin: Alright, I’ll accept it. Chair Bialson: Seconder? Commissioner Packer: Yes. Ms. Furth: If your intention is to require that the windows be open to the street and that they not be blocked then we would, suggest that that’ s what you focus on. If you want to have people on bicycles in the front of the window I presume that is also interactive but your intention is that it be a pedestrian oriented window that is not screened and shuttered. Commissioner Holman: Exactly. Chair Bialson: It seems as if we are getting very involved in the individual’s business. I assume that is why you are bringing that point up, Wynne. Ms. Furth: We do have zoning districts and requirements that businesses address the street and that they not shutter and obscure their windows. We can certainly do that. We do that elsewhere. Commissioner Cassel: This isn’t a P district so that would happen anyway, right? Ms. Grote: This is a P district so those are physical requirements for the inset for the windows, which this meets. It is an historic building and there are no changes being proposed to that. So ]t has that pedestrian interaction. As Wynne said, if you want to Page 23 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 make sure that it keeps that interaction you might want to consider a condition that limits window treatment, requires the windows to remain visible or transparent, but not limit where they can put certain functions within the floor plan. It is not typical that we go into the interior of a business and start to require where certain aspects of that business be placed. So you might want to keep the windows open and transparent rather than limiting what can happen within the inside of the building. Commissioner Holman: That would be fine with me, that is my intention. The Applicant had just mentioned that they were going to have the retail at the front anyway. So that is where that came from. So I am fine with just the transparent aspect of the windows. Chair Bialson: I understand that when you are saying that the Applicant should they have sun shining in the window then is unable to have blinds on the window, is that correct? I have a concern here about the level of control and enforcement and police powers we are exercising here. Ms. Grote: You may want to let the Applicant speak to whether or not that might be a problem. There are awnings that can be placed on the exterior of a window to limit the amount of sun that comes in. Certainly in a retail business we expect it to be a transparent situation. How you want to regulate that is up to you. If you don’t want to regulate that then don’t change the condition. Commissioner Cassel: This is a P district, isn’t it? Ms. Grote: This is a P district. There are certain physical requirements for a P district. They don’t address window treatment. If you would rather not get into window treatment, don’t. Commissioner Packer: Annette, I am not going to second it. I think that would be a condition that isn’t necessary. It doesn’t address the subject matter of the appeal and the reasons that the conditional use was drawn up for and because it is in a P district I really don’t think it is necessary. MOTION PASSED Chair Bialson: So that suggestion is not accepted. We will vote on the motion. I for one am going to support the motion for all the reasons that have been raised. I would like to call for the motion so let’s have a vote. All those in favor of the motion made by Michael and seconded by Bonnie please say aye. (ayes) All those against? That is unanimous with Commissioner Bellomo not in attendance. We close this matter. Thank you very much. Page 24 FITNESS CLUB 707 High Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-949-3730 . Palo Alto Planning Commission:10/28/02 I have been the manager at Reach Palo Alto On High St. for the last 6 years. As you may or may not know we have limited onsite parking, but we do depend on street parking also. I feel that another business that has the same demands (times) for the same street parking will be detrimental to our facility. We have lost numerous members (customers) over the years due to the fact of limited parking in and around High St. Most people don’t want to spend 20 minutes looking for a parking space for a 1-hour class. They find another facility! I would like to invite you to .come down to Reach for a day or two to look over the use and parking situation. You will gain a bit of knowledge and understanding about the flow and demands of a fitness center and what the impact of the new facility will be on parking. Something to consider: what is the capacity of the street? How many parking spaces are there (on the street) around that 3-block radius? Now calculate that it’s 5:30pro (on a weekday) with all the restaurants (100 spots), Reach (50 spots), the new place (50 spots), and Misc. (50 spots) and we are all at are peak times. Wl’mre do these customers park? They don’t. They leave. Sincerely, Eddie Pratt Reach Fitness Center 707 High Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 October 24, 2002 Dear Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission, Please do not allow Vivre Studios a permit to operate at 611 Emerson. I manage a business less than a block away. I feel that the proposed use will have a detrimental impact on my business due to the parking issue it will create, particularly during prime time fitnesshours. These are the hours before (Tam-9am) and after traditional office hours (Spin-Spin), as well as lunchtime (1 lain-lpm). Customers already complain about the parking situation on and around Emerson Street, especially during these hours. As a matter of fact, many have told me that parking is so challenging in the area that they are skeptical that the proposed parking garages in the area will relieve the problem. Some customers spend upwards of fifteen minutes searching for parking. Of course, this is very frustrating for them, especially since they had to leave extra early to make their class on time and then they have to compete with all the other drivers circling for parking. It has gotten to the point that customers have told me they will choose to go elsewhere, like studios in Los Altos and Menlo Park, for their classes if the parking situation gets much worse. This would most certainly negatively affect my business, as well as other businesses in the area because our customers will then do their shopping and elTands in those other cities as well. Again, I ask tl-iat you do not allow this type of business in this particular location. It will have the effect of driving our customers away from Palo Alto due to the already difficult parking conundrum, and will a detrimental impact on my business as well as the other businesses on this street. Sincerely, Leigh Manager I._) Reach Pilates Studio 737 Emerson Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 10-30-2002 To Whom It May Concern, I run a locksmith business on Emerson Street and am concerned about the fitness company coming in across the street at 611 Emerson. Customers come to me during the day for short periods of time to get keys made and do other things. If my customers do not have parking spots nearby they are not going to keep coming to me. They are going to go somewhere else. If this fitness center comes in and takes up all the spots my business is going to get hurt. BAY AREA LOCK DOCTOR 644 EMERSON ST., SUITE 2PALO ALTO, CA 94301FAX 650-329.0565TEL 650-329-8117 Grote, Lisa From: Sent: To: Subject: Tom Ashton [tomashton@worldnet,att.net] Monday, October 28, 2002 2:13 PM BemusBurt@peoplepc.com; phycassel@aol.com; bbpacker@macol.net; abialson@yahoo.com; kcholman@earthlink.net; jazzbuff@sbcglobal.net . Alden Romney; julie_caporgno@city.palo-alto.ca.us; Steve_Emslie@city.palo-alto.ca.us; Lisa_Grote@city. palo-alto.ca.us; city_co u ncil@city, palo~alto.ca, us Appeal at 611 Emerson for a recreation facility in 6671 sq ft Dear Commissioners, You should make a favorable recommendation on this appeal to the City Council. The City staff hasfailed to make a convincing argument to allow this business on a conditional use permit (CUP). My main objection to the approval order dated October 2, 2002 is that under finding #1, the City staff only considered the single issue of ’parking’ in determining whether the proposed use would be "detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity". Of far greater. consequence to other businesses in the area will be the adverse economic impacts this very large 6671 sq ft facility will have on the already established businesses. Last Friday, I made a walking tour to observe how existing locations would be affected in the mainstream (physical fitness) and ancillary products (clothing, nutritional supplements, vitamins, etc.): The surrounding residential areas are already well served in both categories and this new facility should locate in another part of town. In the primary offerings by these businesses, I found Reach Fitness Center at 707 High St, Watercourse Way at 165 Channing, Reach Pilates Studio at 732 Emerson, Yoga Source at 150 Hamilton, and Hexagon Personal Training at 131 Lytton. Also, no more than 3 blocks away from the proposed location are secondary competitors Whole Foods at 774 Emerson, GNC at 376 University, as well as. Walgreens and Longs on University. The P&TC needs to take a more comprehensive look at this location beyond just the parking matter. The economic issues are of greater impact and ultimately will not serve either the needs of the businesses or residents. Now there is a wide diversity of offerings for the residents, and I fear this very large competitor will cause closings by some of the present players. I recommend that you urge Council to approve the appeal. Thanks. Tom Ashton 650-321-1280 o~OCT, ~0, 2002011:23AM Chairwoman Annette Bialson Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: October 30Is CUP Hearing Dear Chairwomen Bialson and Members of the Commis:~io , [ am writing in support of Neal Aronson, the CUP ap recreation business proposal for 611 Emerson. As a downtown Palo Alto, I strongly believe that new businesses area to maintain the Vibrant, dynamic mix of people and e for businesses that are not the typic.al restaurant or office its, :.l.~.~aat, and the commercial ,,):~gtime business owner in :r_",: required in the downtown ,~:.!.Vy’. This is especially true I understand this application has been approved with condi i o::,~ by staff but appealed by Mr. Alden R,omney Of Reach Fitness on the basis of all .!~;~:1 negative impact on the downtown-parking situation. While I understand their c¢ ~t,-~rn about parking, I don’t believe denying this new and dynamic business the rigt.t ,:~ ~perate in downtown will resolve any of the current issues. More appropriately, park ,’t.!~ should b~ addressed from a supply perspective, as the City is now currently doings’ .’i:h the construction of new parking lots, and not by Iimiting demand for parking th ’,~’Hgh restrictions on which business can operate in the downtown a~ea, In defense of this new business, I believe the Commission h,:,uld consider that fact that they-will not just attract clients in the evening as restaura~ Is ,:1o, but instead will bring Palo Alto residents downtown during the slower morrdn, I.otlrs and early aftervaoort hours, both times that would benefit neighboring busines.,~;s .;t :,:h as mine. By approving this type of business use the Commission would faci.litale - :~nore balanced downtown business district. And lastly, I think it is important Io consk ::r 1he most likely alternative use for the sit~ another restaurant, which would do notbi~ , !,ut further the peak hour parking situation. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to address thi~ ~,,.e, [ urge you to deny the appeal and approve this CUP application. Sincerely, Jay Hoag Techhology Crossover Ventures 528 Ramona St. Chalrwoman Annette Bialson Plannin£ & Trm~.soportation ~ ommission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: October 30th. CUP Hearln,~ Dear Chairwoman Bialson an~[ Members of the Commission, I am writing in support of Nea] Aronson, the CUP applicant and the commercial recreation bus: hess propo~d for 611 Emerson. A~ a longtime resident and but ~Iness owner in downtow~ Palo Alto,. I strongly, believe that new bus.nesses are required in the downtown area to maintaJa the vibrant, d ynamic mix of people and energy. this is especially true for busin esses that are not the typical restaurant or office use. I understand this applicant hm~ been approved with conditions by staff, but appealed by Mr.Alden Rom hey of Reach Fitness. on the ba~Is of alleged negative impact on the downto ¢n-parking situation. While I understand their concern about pau’klng, I ¢lon’t believe denying this new and dynamic business the right to operate ~ downtown will resolve any of the current issues. More appropriately parl~ tng should be addressed from a supply perspective, as the City is now ;urrenfly doing with the construction of’ new parking lots, and not by li~ ~Iting demand for parking through restrictions on which busLness :an operate in the downtown area. In defense of this new business I believe the Commission should consider the fact that they will not attra,:t clients in the evenings as retaurants do, ¯ but instead will bring Palo Alto residents downtown during the slower morning and early afternoon hcurs, both times that would benefit neighborlng businesses. By app roving this type of business use the Commission would facilitate a r~ore balanced downtown business district. And lastly, I think it is Importa~it to consider that most likely the alternative use for the slte, another restau~ ant, would do nothing but further the peak hour parking situation. Thankyou for allowing me to ad~ bess this issue, I urge you to deny the appeal and approve this CUP application. ’ Bgan Group, Inc. (dba Uamie Donla) l ’ a m i 530 Bryant Stree¢ A Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tel 6 50 323 7614 ¯ Fax 650 323 6139 October 25, 2002 JEWELERS Chairwoman Annette Bialson Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Rei October 30th CUP Nearing Dear Chairwomen Bialson and Members of the Commission; I am writing in support of Neal Aronson, the CUP applicant, .and the commercial recreatioia business proposal for 611 Emerson. As a longtime business owner, in downtown Palo Alto, I strongly believe that new businesses are required in the downtown area .to maintain the vibrant, dynamic mix of people and energy. This is especially true for businesses that are not the typical restaurant or office use. I understand this application has been approved with conditions by staff but appealed by Mr. Alden Ronmey of Reach Fitness on the basis of alleged negative impact on the downtown parking situation. While I understand their concern about parking, I don’t beiieve denying this new and dynamic business the right to operate in downtown will resolve any of the. current issues. More appropriately, parking should be addressed from a supply, perspective, as the City is now currently doing with the construction of new parking lots, and not by limiting d~mand fo! parking through restrictions on which business can operate in the downtown area.. In defense .of this new business, I believe the Commission Should consider that fact that they will not just attract clients in the evening as restaurants do, but instead will bring Palo Alto residents downtown during the slower morning hours and early afternoon hours, both times that would benefit neighboring businesses such as mine. .By approving this type of business use the Commission would facilitate a more balanced downtown business district. And lastly, I think it is important to consider the most likely alternative use for the site ’ another restaurant, which would do nothing but further the peak hour parking situation. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to address this issue. and approve t CUP application. 7 /Sincerely, I urge you to deny the appeal Julie Gore Owner g~0 530 Ramona ° Palo Alto, California 94301 ¯ Telephone (~lq.g.) 327-5667 532 RAMONA STREET PALO ALTO CA 94301 650 327 2997 Chairwoman Annette Bialson Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: October 30th CUP Hearing Dear Chairwomen Bialson and Members of the Commission; I am writing in support of Neal Aronson, the CUP applicant, and the commercial recreation business proposal for 611 Emerson. As a longtime business owner in downtown Palo Alto, I strongly believe that new businesses are required in the downtown area to maintain the vibrant, dynamic mix of people and energy. This is especially true for businesses that are not the typica! restaurant or office use. I understand this application has been approved with conditions by staff but appealed by Mr. Alden Romney of Reach Fitness on the basis of alleged negative impact on the downtown-parking situation. While I underst~.nd their concern about parking, I don’t believe denying this new and dynamic business the right to operate in downtown will resolve any of the current issues. More appropriately, parking should be addressed from a supply perspective, as the City is now currently doing with the construction of new parking lots, and not by limiting demand for parking through restrictions on which business can operate in the downtown area. In defense of this new business, I believe the Commission should consider that fact that they will not just attract clients, in the evening as restaurants do, but instead will bring Palo Alto residents downtown during the slower morning hours and early afternoon hours, both times that would benefit neighboring businesses such as mine. By approving this type of business use the Commission would facilitate a more balanced downtown business district. And lastly, I think it is important to consider the most likely alternative use for the site ....another restaurant, which would do nothing but further the peakhour parking situation. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to address this issue. I urge you to deny the appeal and approve this CUP application. October 27, 2002 Chairwoman: Annette Bialson Planning and Transportation Commission .City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto,CA 94311 Re: October 30th CUP Hearing Dear Chairwoman Bialson and Members of the Commission: I would like to express my support for the proposed new fitness club, Vivre, in downtown Palo Alto, located at 611 Emerson Street,. to exist in our downtown area. Iknow that Reach Fitness Club has protested its existence as it has concerns of increased traffic. No doubt that Vivre would bring more traffic to downtown Palo Alto just as restaurants, banks, and other businesses do -- just as Reach does. 1 am actually a long time member of Reach. I have belonged to Reach for over 16 years. And yet I believe that competition isalways good. Why do we have restaurants located in close proximity? Why do we have car dealerships on the same street? That is what our free market economy is all about -- competition -- businesses improving due to competition. Members of the new Vivrejust like members of Reach would find places to park. There are new parking structures in downtown Palo Alto, but perhaps they might even have to walk a bit farther to find a place --all the better for healthy, active living. Lastly, I speak as a nutritionist. Obesity is higher in this country than ever before. There are a multitude of reasons for this increase, but one of them is lack of exercise. According to the U. of California, Berkeley, Welln,ess Letter, October 2002, nearly 40% of Americans are completely sedentary in their leisure time. If anything can be done to decrease this percentage,’ such as the arrival of a new fitness club in our progressive Palo Alto, Vivre should be welcomed to our downtown area. Sincerely, Karen Ross, MA, RD 1770 Fulton Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 Vivre- 611 Emerson Street I am signing this petition in support of Neal Aronson, the CUP applicant, and the commercial recreation business proposal for 611 Emerson Street. As a longtime business owner in downtown Palo Alto, I strongly believe that new businesses are required in the downtown area to maintain the vibrant, dynamic mix of people and energy. This is especially true for businesses that are not the typical restatlrant or office use. By approving this type of business use the Commission would facilitate a more balanced downtown business district. And lastly, I think it is important to consider the most likely alternative use for the site - another restaurant, which would do nothing but further the peak hour parking situation. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to address this issue. I urge you to deny the appeal and approve this CUP application. 2 9 Business Name Business Address Date // // Vivre - 611 Emerson Street I am si~ing this petition in support of Neal Aronson, ttle CUP applicaut, and tlae commercial recreation business proposal for 6 t i Emerson Street. As a lon~ime business owner in dmw~town Palo Alto, I stron~y believe fl~at new businesses m’e requi~’ed in file downtown area to maintain the ,Abrant, dynamic mix of people and energy. This is especially tree for businesses that are not the typical restaurat~t or.office use. By approving tkis ~ of business use the Commission would facilitate, a more.balanced downtown business district. And lastly, I think it is important to considerthe most likely akemative use for the site - another restaurant, which would do nothing but fu~her the peak hour parking situa.don. Thar~ you for allowing me -t~his .opportm:dty to address figs issue. I urge you to deny tl~e appea! and approve this CUP application. Business Name Busiaess Address Date Vivre- 611 Emerson Street I am signing this petition in support of Neal Aronson, the CUP applicant, and the commercia! recreation business proposal for 611 Emerson S~reet. As a longtime business owner in downtown Palo Alto, I strongly believe that new businesses are required in the downtown area to maintain the vibrant, dynamic mix of people and energy. This is especially true for businesses that are not the typical restaurant or office use. By approving this type of business use the Commission would facilitate a more balanced downtown business district. And lastly, I thiN,: it is important to Consider the most likely alternative use for the site - another restaurant, which would do nothing but further the peak hour parking situation. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to address this issue. I urge you to deny the appeal and approve this CUP application. Business Name Business Address Date 25. Vivre - 611 Emerson Street I am signing this petition in support of Neal Aronson, the CUP applicant, and the commercial recreation business proposal for 611 Emerson Street. As a longtime business owner in downtown Palo Alto, I strongly believe that new businesses are required in the downtown area to maintain the vibrant, dynamic mix of people and energy. This is especially tree for businesses that are not the typical restaurant or office use. By approving this type of business use the Cornmission would facilitate a more balanced downtown business district. And lastly, I think it is important to consider the most likely alternative use for the site - another restaurant, which would do nothing but further the peak hour parking situation. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to address this issue. I urge you to deny the appeal and approve this CUP application. Business Name Business Address Date Vivre - 611 Emerson Street I am signing this petition in support of Neal Aronso.~, ~1,.:: CUP applicator, and the comnlercial revreation business proposal for 611 Emerso:a tr:.et. As ~ longtime resident of Pain Alto, 1 strongly believe in ~he notion of bdr~8 L~ new businesses into the downtown area. This i,s especially true for businesse:;, .;~icl~ are not typical to the downtown area. Pain Alto certainly has a fair lmour~t (:,f 1~...,’~esses such as restauranls, offices or additional retail use. While Palo Allo has several i.ndependent fitness and x.;~ ~;,::s,~ providers, the iden of providing a convenient, clean and fun place to workoul Ib~ 2 : Pain Alto community, is still a much-needed business opportunity for the downtown "::~ and it’s resldeats, Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to address th..s ..;::~:e. I urge you to deny the appeal and approve this CUP application. PAGE !~Ldress Date