News

Palo Alto to consider phasing out commercial tenants in Ventura

City looks to limit commercial uses at former Fry's site, which is zoned for housing

The departure of Fry's Electronics from its longtime location at 340 Portage Ave. has left Palo Alto with a dilemma about future uses of the site, which is zoned for housing. Embarcadero Media file photo by Veronica Weber.

When Fry's Electronics officially closed its Palo Alto location in December 2019, it left behind both a giant vacancy and a thorny zoning dilemma that continues to befuddle city leaders.

For decades, the electronics store occupied a site at 340 Portage Ave. that the city's zoning code designates for housing. Because of the RM-30 zoning designation and the unusually large size of the parcel, the city's Housing Element lists the site as one with a realistic capacity of 221 dwellings.

The former site of Fry's Electronics in Palo Alto is part of a 60-acre area bounded by El Camino Real, Lambert Avenue, Page Mill Road and the Caltrain tracks, where Palo Alto is working to craft a new vision. Map by Kristin Brown.

Yet despite the underlying zoning, the city has for decades been loath to actually build housing at the Fry's site. Worried about losing the tax revenues that Fry's generated, the City Council voted in 2006 to eliminate a zoning provision that would have ultimately required requiring housing at site and agreed to allow Fry's to operate as a "nonconforming" use. The council also agreed in 2006 that the property must maintain the "ratio of nonconforming uses in the building" that existed at that time. And, somewhat confusingly, it limited the retail use at the site to 60,000 square feet, notwithstanding the fact that Fry's occupied about 84,000 square feet of the broader campus that includes 3200 Park Blvd., 340 Portage Road and a portion of Olive Avenue.

The city's zoning laws also specify that a "noncomforming" designation gets discontinued if the use is abandoned and not re-established within a year — as is the case with Fry's. Since no retail reoccupied the former Fry's space, a new report from the Department of Planning and Development Services notes, "that portion of the building can now only be occupied by a conforming RM-30 land use.

The 2006 decision paved the way for the quandary: With Fry's now out of the picture, what should the city do about the rest of the tenants in the former cannery building? That question will resurface on Monday, as the council considers whether to require the property owner, The Sobrato Organization, to reshuffle its leases to ensure that the mix — and proportion — of uses at the broader site remains the same as it did in 2006, even without the vacancy in place.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Palo Alto Online for as little as $5/month.

Join

Under the interpretation that the council favored at its last discussion of the topic, on June 14, at least 41% of the site (minus the former Fry's space) would need to be occupied by retail, while 54% would be designated research-and-development and 5% by warehouse uses.

Sobrato, for its part, has pushed back against the city's determination that the retail space formerly occupied by Fry's has been "discontinued" or "abandoned." It cited its efforts to find a new retail tenant, including its protracted and ultimately unsuccessful negotiations with Target, which concluded in September 2020.

Tim Steele, Sobrato's senior vice president for real estate, wrote in the letter that Sobrato has "remained diligent, active and continuous in our efforts to re-tenant the vacant space during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has created enormous challenges and affected retail even more than most other types of land uses."

"We believe the facts and circumstances, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, confirm there has been no abandonment or discontinuance," Sobrato wrote.

While the council did not take any formal actions on June 14, council members and planning staff rejected Sobrato's arguments that the retail use has not been discontinued. Mayor Tom DuBois suggested at the meeting that it may be time to amortize the nonconforming uses at the site and require compliance with the underlying RM-30 zoning. He pointed to the city's regional housing allocation, which under the latest Regional Housing Needs Assessment requires Palo Alto to plan for more than 6,000 new housing units between 2023 and 2031.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

"It was paused for Fry's, which is no longer there," DuBois said of the amortization plan. "And we have this large RHNA allocation."

Vice Mayor Pat Burt also said he supports reinstating amortization, which would require Fry's to phase out existing uses over a period of time so that the site can revert to the underlying zoning. He pointed to the city's broader planning effort for a 60-acre portion of the Ventura neighborhood, which includes the Portage Avenue property. Known as the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP), the effort seeks to bring new community amenities, including parks, retail and affordable housing to an area long seen as underserved.

"I think it was a mistake that the council made in 2006, to go from extending (amortization) on a deliberate basis to dropping it," Burt said. "We wouldn't be in a position we've been in over the last couple of years if that had been the case, and the ability to have all parties come up with a consensus plan on NVCAP would have been facilitated by then."

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Stay informed on important city government news. Sign up for our FREE daily Express newsletter.

Palo Alto to consider phasing out commercial tenants in Ventura

City looks to limit commercial uses at former Fry's site, which is zoned for housing

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Thu, Sep 9, 2021, 12:55 pm

When Fry's Electronics officially closed its Palo Alto location in December 2019, it left behind both a giant vacancy and a thorny zoning dilemma that continues to befuddle city leaders.

For decades, the electronics store occupied a site at 340 Portage Ave. that the city's zoning code designates for housing. Because of the RM-30 zoning designation and the unusually large size of the parcel, the city's Housing Element lists the site as one with a realistic capacity of 221 dwellings.

Yet despite the underlying zoning, the city has for decades been loath to actually build housing at the Fry's site. Worried about losing the tax revenues that Fry's generated, the City Council voted in 2006 to eliminate a zoning provision that would have ultimately required requiring housing at site and agreed to allow Fry's to operate as a "nonconforming" use. The council also agreed in 2006 that the property must maintain the "ratio of nonconforming uses in the building" that existed at that time. And, somewhat confusingly, it limited the retail use at the site to 60,000 square feet, notwithstanding the fact that Fry's occupied about 84,000 square feet of the broader campus that includes 3200 Park Blvd., 340 Portage Road and a portion of Olive Avenue.

The city's zoning laws also specify that a "noncomforming" designation gets discontinued if the use is abandoned and not re-established within a year — as is the case with Fry's. Since no retail reoccupied the former Fry's space, a new report from the Department of Planning and Development Services notes, "that portion of the building can now only be occupied by a conforming RM-30 land use.

The 2006 decision paved the way for the quandary: With Fry's now out of the picture, what should the city do about the rest of the tenants in the former cannery building? That question will resurface on Monday, as the council considers whether to require the property owner, The Sobrato Organization, to reshuffle its leases to ensure that the mix — and proportion — of uses at the broader site remains the same as it did in 2006, even without the vacancy in place.

Under the interpretation that the council favored at its last discussion of the topic, on June 14, at least 41% of the site (minus the former Fry's space) would need to be occupied by retail, while 54% would be designated research-and-development and 5% by warehouse uses.

Sobrato, for its part, has pushed back against the city's determination that the retail space formerly occupied by Fry's has been "discontinued" or "abandoned." It cited its efforts to find a new retail tenant, including its protracted and ultimately unsuccessful negotiations with Target, which concluded in September 2020.

Tim Steele, Sobrato's senior vice president for real estate, wrote in the letter that Sobrato has "remained diligent, active and continuous in our efforts to re-tenant the vacant space during the COVID-19 pandemic, which has created enormous challenges and affected retail even more than most other types of land uses."

"We believe the facts and circumstances, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, confirm there has been no abandonment or discontinuance," Sobrato wrote.

While the council did not take any formal actions on June 14, council members and planning staff rejected Sobrato's arguments that the retail use has not been discontinued. Mayor Tom DuBois suggested at the meeting that it may be time to amortize the nonconforming uses at the site and require compliance with the underlying RM-30 zoning. He pointed to the city's regional housing allocation, which under the latest Regional Housing Needs Assessment requires Palo Alto to plan for more than 6,000 new housing units between 2023 and 2031.

"It was paused for Fry's, which is no longer there," DuBois said of the amortization plan. "And we have this large RHNA allocation."

Vice Mayor Pat Burt also said he supports reinstating amortization, which would require Fry's to phase out existing uses over a period of time so that the site can revert to the underlying zoning. He pointed to the city's broader planning effort for a 60-acre portion of the Ventura neighborhood, which includes the Portage Avenue property. Known as the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP), the effort seeks to bring new community amenities, including parks, retail and affordable housing to an area long seen as underserved.

"I think it was a mistake that the council made in 2006, to go from extending (amortization) on a deliberate basis to dropping it," Burt said. "We wouldn't be in a position we've been in over the last couple of years if that had been the case, and the ability to have all parties come up with a consensus plan on NVCAP would have been facilitated by then."

Comments

Becky Sanders
Registered user
Ventura
on Sep 10, 2021 at 4:56 pm
Becky Sanders, Ventura
Registered user
on Sep 10, 2021 at 4:56 pm

It is time to bid adieu to commercial use at the Fry's sight. This doesn't mean we won't have retail and some office there ever, but it means that the principal use will revert to housing which previous administrations had in mind when they rezoned this area for housing. They knew we'd need housing and not more office.

And Council should also take into account the historic value of this site - the site of one of three canneries owned and operated by the first bonafide Chinese American millionaire Thomas Foon Chew. He made it big during the Chinese Exclusion Act, and this site is the last vestige of Palo Alto's rich agricultural history as well as an important site in Pacific Rim history. I'd hate to see that history and the two monitor buildings ignored, pulled down and erased. Looking for a use that serves the greatest good, sounds like housing and a park and a museum/community center are in order. We can do it if we have the will!

Thanks for reporting on this Gennady!


Andy
Registered user
Stanford
on Sep 11, 2021 at 3:33 am
Andy, Stanford
Registered user
on Sep 11, 2021 at 3:33 am

This is a large enough property where developers could build a LOT more housing, mixed use and enclosed parking if Palo Alto insisted on much higher buildings.

I'm not saying a 75 story building (although that would awesome) but two towers of 20 stories each would be very feasible.


Tecsi
Registered user
Mountain View
on Sep 15, 2021 at 4:16 pm
Tecsi, Mountain View
Registered user
on Sep 15, 2021 at 4:16 pm

Seems like housing is our biggest need. But if we just build more market-rate housing, who will live there? Yet more Facebook/tech employees newly recruited to Silicon Valley?

And what does that achieve? No affordable housing. More traffic. Longer commutes.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.