Palo Alto officials turned back the zoning clock on an eclectic downtown block Monday night, April 8, when they passed a law requiring property owners to devote ground-floor space to retail.
The City Council voted 6-3, with Vice Mayor Nancy Shepherd and Council members Larry Klein and Gail Price dissenting, to institute ground-floor protections to the 600 block of Emerson Street. Existing tenants on that block, which lies between Hamilton and Forest avenues, include Gordon Biersch, Buca di Beppo and the Empire Grill and Tap Room. Several retailers, most recently Fraiche Yogurt, have moved and the spaces were filled by offices.
The council's vote effectively reverses the trend that the city set out on four years. In 2009, with the downtown economy on the wane and the city concerned about vacancies, the council struck down the retail protection on 13 properties on peripheral downtown blocks to give property owners more flexibility.
These days, with the downtown vacancy rate at about 2 percent and rents at historic highs, the main concern is no longer vacancies but a takeover by offices. Last year, three council members argued in a memo that the Emerson block is particularly likely to change.
Karen Holman, Greg Schmid and Greg Scharff also highlighted the block's critical function as a corridor connecting the heart of downtown at University Avenue and the South of Forest Avenue area.
"We have lost some of the retail and service businesses to office," Holman said Monday. "It's our responsibility as council members to help support to the best extent we can the vitality of the city."
"There's a place for offices, but in these kinds of locations it's not in the best interests of the community."
Schmid agreed and noted that retail not only creates vibrancy but helps the city with the bottom line because of the tax revenues that stores generate.
"The city has a vital and important financial interest in making sure that our downtown retail-serving businesses are effective and widespread," Schmid said.
The three council members who dissented on Monday agreed that retail should be protected but objected to the piece-meal approach. The block, they argued, should be evaluated as part of a broader analysis of downtown development that the city is currently undertaking. Gail Price called the Monday action "premature" and Shepherd argued that certain buildings on the block aren't designed for retail and should not be required to house it.
Downtown developers also urged the council to slow down. Charles "Chop" Keenan, who owns several properties on the 600 block of Emerson, called the change "spot zoning" and asked the council not to make the change. Keenan was one of the stakeholders who worked with the city on the 2009 zone change, which included adding and removing certain properties from the ground-floor-retail protection district. He criticized the proposed ordinance for making it difficult for a property owner on the block to rent to a retailer, knowing he would not be able to go back to an office tenant if the retailer were to fail.
The ordinance allows buildings that currently rent to office tenants to retain the space for office use until there's a vacancy for 12 months, at which point the ground-floor-retail requirement would kick in.
"You wouldn't want to be in a situation where once it's retail, you can't go back to office," Keenan said. "No one is going to take a chance on retail. This spot zoning is not very well thought out."
Roxy Rapp, who owns the property at 644 Emerson St., also advised against the change and told the council that when it comes to downtown Palo Alto, the old maxim "Location, location, location" applies. Stores outside the "downtown core" of University Avenue often have a hard time staying in business. Rapp gave as an example his building, where two successive shoe businesses came and went after brief stints and where Fraiche Yogurt leased space for three years before moving elsewhere (an office now occupies the building).
"Retail is so tough today that it's very tough to make it out of the core," Rapp said.
But the majority on the council agreed that if the city doesn't act soon, more retailers will disappear and more buildings will be taken over by offices, which typically generate higher rent than retail. Planning Director Curtis Williams said that at least two property owners have recently expressed an interest in switching from retail tenants to offices but were dissuaded from taking that action.
The Planning and Transportation Commission had also recommended by a 5-2 vote reinstating the retail requirement for the Emerson block.
Comments
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 9, 2013 at 1:06 am
on Apr 9, 2013 at 1:06 am
...rezoning happy so-and-so's ... grrr ... Alma Plaza ....
Maybe we should make a rule that if city council wants to rezone ANYTHING they should have to get out of their offices and knock on doors in the area. And listen. And actually care about what those affected by the changes think.
NOW they want to save retail? How about putting some high density housing there? isn't that the most important thing of all in Palo Alto, more important than quality of life for existing residents, more important than safety, revenue, open space, daylight, property values, traffic jams, environmental degradation from the traffic jams, keeping services local. I thought the only thing that mattered was foisting higher density anywhere possible. Retail? Why not a whole bunch of 100 square foot apartments where we can shoe-horn in as many people as possible? I know, let's make it a senior development so no one can argue with it! Yes! Go high-density!
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 9, 2013 at 6:33 am
on Apr 9, 2013 at 6:33 am
Retail?
Oh, you mean more ice cream stores and nail salons.
What about some decent affordable retail? What about a decent, full service supermarket in Palo Alto. What about affordable children's clothes and household items? Why do I give most of my sales tax $$$ to Mountain View and elsewhere?
Embarcadero Oaks/Leland
on Apr 9, 2013 at 9:25 am
on Apr 9, 2013 at 9:25 am
Big developers Chop Keenan and Roxy Rapp were against it so of course Klein, Price, and Shepherd were against it too. No surprises there.
Old Palo Alto
on Apr 9, 2013 at 10:38 am
on Apr 9, 2013 at 10:38 am
@Resident, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
what, you want socialism? :)
Professorville
on Apr 9, 2013 at 10:38 am
on Apr 9, 2013 at 10:38 am
City council members Price, Shepard and Klein lick the boots of developers. These three city council members need to be investigated
for possible kickbacks, favors, etc. by developers. Something doesn't smell right. They do not have the best interests of Palo Altans at heart, by virtue of their voting record.
Registered user
Mountain View
on Apr 9, 2013 at 12:05 pm
Registered user
on Apr 9, 2013 at 12:05 pm
It's high time to have an independent auditor examine the backgrounds and ALL ( not just reported ) income of Price, Shepard and Klein.
If improper income or behavior is found, THEY get the bill for the audit.
A grand " experiment " has failed and the zoning should reflect the wants of RESIDENTS and not profiteers.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 9, 2013 at 4:00 pm
on Apr 9, 2013 at 4:00 pm
Rapp and Keenan are generals in the War on Residents. Anything those guys oppose has to have some merit.
One maybe-less-obvious problem with the explosion of office space in Palo Alto is: it makes it harder to argue with ABAG (a train wreck in its own right) about overdevelopment in housing, at the same we're overdeveloping ourselves in office space.
As for Price and Shepard ... what would those two do if we ever had an issue pitting developers against public-employee unions?
Midtown
on Apr 9, 2013 at 6:40 pm
on Apr 9, 2013 at 6:40 pm
It often appears like there is an ulterior motive to turn Palo Alto into one big urban center, rather than a nice residential suburb.
It is becoming less and less appealing as a place to live, as it gets more and more urbanized. far more people now work here than live here. More and more of the people who live here are crammed into undesirable high-density condos, townhomes, and apartments. Even the single family detached dwellings are on teeny tiny lots. New commercial and residential buildings get more and more drab, ugly, and in your face, for that closed-in canyon-like feeling. Less landscape and green space, more concrete and steel.
Not a place to raise children, or even walk a dog.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 9, 2013 at 6:51 pm
on Apr 9, 2013 at 6:51 pm
Roxy Rapp's Cheesecake Factory on University Ave is nearing it's 10-year anniversary. Almost exclusively found in malls it found its way unfettered onto University Ave, agendized originally by the staff as a "facade remodel" for ARB review and approval.That pretty much sums it up. It replaced a retail use, Copeland's Sports in the "downtown core".
Downtown North
on Apr 9, 2013 at 7:40 pm
on Apr 9, 2013 at 7:40 pm
It's laughable that Chop Keenan and Roxy Rapp are complaining about "spot zoning" when they are the major beneficiaries from that form of "spot zoning" known as "planned community". As usual follow the money, the truth is that they can get more dollars from an office building and stick residents with the increased traffic, parking and overall lower quality of living in Palo Alto.
another community
on Apr 9, 2013 at 7:41 pm
on Apr 9, 2013 at 7:41 pm
@Whassup
I know right? Its almost like Palo Alto is smack dab in the middle of a large urban center. And clearly nobody wants to live in high density housing, that's why it never gets built, because it will just sit empty.
Crescent Park
on Apr 10, 2013 at 9:59 am
on Apr 10, 2013 at 9:59 am
I don't enjoy walking around Palo Alto downtown anymore, it's so much traffic, construction, hectic....... Los Altos downtown is much nicer for lunch & walk around instead.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 10, 2013 at 11:16 am
on Apr 10, 2013 at 11:16 am
@Whassup:
I don't think there's anything ulterior at all about the motive.
Planning Department officials have consistently been open about their vision to "urbanize" (their word) Palo Alto, with high density housing, higher-rise development, and "new urban" style projects unencumbered by parking and sidewalks.
Never mind this is completely contrary to the vision of Palo Alto residents and voters, to zoning laws, as well as to that annoying "Comprehensive Plan" thingy.
The City Staff thinks they've outgrown Palo Alto, and are Regional people now. Besides, it looks better on their resume that they put up an Arillaga-plex, as opposed to fixing potholes in the streets.
another community
on Apr 10, 2013 at 12:01 pm
on Apr 10, 2013 at 12:01 pm
Right now office space is hot, the need for office space is huge, yes controls are needed. Can't have everything turn into office space, but can't have empty buildings waiting for retail tenants. Unless you want nail shops, check cashing, tanning salons. I have been some strip malls where those 3 kinds of stores are popular.
Only allow a percentage of offices to fill up space on any given retail block. Ground Floor.
If retail shops want to relocate to the 2nd floor, allow that to happen too.
Old Palo Alto
on Apr 10, 2013 at 4:29 pm
on Apr 10, 2013 at 4:29 pm
Oh Well.....The City Council, City Manager, and Senior Management staff have long ago sold out to developers and commercial land owners with "their" vision of an "urbanized " Palo Alto. This council action will surely follow what the city manager calls "a need for a blue ribbon committee action" with months and months of outsourced contractor studies to examine what other cities are enforcing and followed by more studies and inaction. Maybe the only real purpose of city management and city council is to decide which flag to fly at city hall or if we should use plastic bags. We currently have a city manager with no leadership skills and a city council oblivious to resident needs. What a pity!
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Apr 10, 2013 at 4:42 pm
on Apr 10, 2013 at 4:42 pm
That's not completely true. Karen Holman gets it. The rest ...
University South
on Apr 10, 2013 at 8:05 pm
on Apr 10, 2013 at 8:05 pm
Isn't Anna Eshoo's office on the ground floor of that block?
I think Karen Holman should let her know that "There's a place for offices, but in these kinds of locations it's not in the best interests of the community."