last year the owners claimed that the pet food store was a warehouse and not retail, so they've completely changed their story.

The weekly should know this.... they covered the story, link:

Web Link

Heres a solution. They can rebuild, but under the retail preservation law they have to retain the present retail space and could add housing above !!! Voila! Problem solved, no waiver needed, community benefits from new housing.

Hey Boyd and Lund, if you'd rent the property at a reasonable rate it would be very viable for retail. How can any retail survive with the crazy high rent? How much more money do the two of you need anyway? You've been raking it in for over 30 years now with your commercial property. If you'd charge a reasonable rent, not just "what the market will bear," you will attract viable retail, beneficial for the neighborhood, and still make a profit - - not the enormous profit you want, but still a profit.

If parking is a problem, why not tear down the building and add an underground parking garage? Isn't that what you have planned anyway if you tear it down and build an office building? We don't need more office buildings. We need to keep retail on El Camino.

I remember when El Camino Real was full of gas stations, fast food, funky shops, garages, restaurants, bowling alleys, etc. Now all retail is being replaced with housing and offices - all so developers can make a huge profit. Palo Alto is becoming such a blah town.

The need for retail is one thing that we want but additionally we want activities also. The idea of a rock climbing place is good because we don't have enough of that type of thing. I would imagine that exempting a rock climbing place from retail zoning would be a plus since it would attract people who just might use the retail next door before or after as well as any food establishment.

We need some common sense when it comes to waivers and exemptions.

So the owners have completely changed their story from one year to the next. Last year, they claimed it was a warehouse that didn't sell items to the public, which made no sense to those of us who shopped there. Now, the same owners are saying Pet Food Depot was a store after all.

Oh, and now they're also saying it didn't have adequate parking to be legal as a store. So why did they rent it out as a store? Apparently, they didn't mind breaking the law. Gosh.

So here's another theory why they can't find a new tenant. Maybe no one wants to rent from owners who have proven to be so dishonest. How could anyone trust them at this point?

I agree with the developers, this is not a good location for retail. Neither is the old Anthropologie building or the former Addison Antiques. But I also don't think the gym on Cal Ave is an appropriate business for that location.

Anthropology did just fine in its former location. I actually preferred that location to its current location at Stanford Shopping Center. Stores in San Francisco where there is only street parking, and parking garages are several blocks away, also survive. Every time I visited Anthropology there was a line at the cash register and a wait for the dressing room. I also never had a problem finding a place to park.

> But I also don't think the gym on Cal Ave is an appropriate business for that location.

There's no way traditional retail would survive in a space with that kind of overhead (likely $20-25K per month). It's a huge, 6,000 square foot space.

If the gym survives (we'll see) it's certainly better than a failing retail store.

The Portage Avenue site is not good for retail. It was sad to see a useful business like Pet Food Depot struggle after its move to that location. With limited visibility, it was obviously difficult to attract new customers.

Perhaps the Portage avenue site should be sold and re-developed, or simply re-developed. Also, why didn't the owners advertise to car shops or mechanics if that is one of the initially intended purposes for the site? Certainly, in Palo Alto, we could use more auto mechanic shops. We lost the one on Park Boulevard due to presumed office building development by Jay, which never has occurred. Now, that site is also a fitness place, which we need more of like a hole in the head. Also, with all due respect to PA councilman Dubois, developers and owners should be able to present exemptions and ask for exemption approvals. This does not mean that every owner with Retail space is going to be asking for exemptions. If a location does not work for retail simply put, the owner should be able to re-visit the issue with the City of Palo Alto. And, as the city staff has pointed out, that location was never actually zoned for retail.

The Smiths got exceptions for their huge building at Alma/Lytton, the so-called Lytton Gateway, like reduced paarking.

They are MAJOR contributors to Greg Tanaka's big $$$ campaign.
(along with developers and supporters Roxy Rapp, Jon Goldman, Jim Baer, Charlie King, King Asset Management, Dan Garber, David Kleiman, David Giannini, Lee Lippert, Richard Karp, Steven Levy, Larry Klein, Vic Ojakian, Betsy Bechtel, Huey Kwik (Palantir), Barbara Gross, Bern Beecham, Gab Layton, Zack Bogue, F. McGrew, and many more.)

Tanaka should recuse himself from

The retail protection of ground-floor space won't have any effect if we just grant exceptions when someone complains,"

Some council members never cease to amaze me with their poorly right out comments . The last complaint was not granted an exception. So what is the problem, Tom?

Exceptions galore - you are confused we are discussing the new retail protecting ordinance. This has nothing to do with new development. But not surprised someone would use it as a reason to attack tanaka.
Btw, how is that recall effort coming along. I thought maurucio donated big bucks to get it started

I am not sure why pet food depot went out but I thought it was the landlord hiking the rents. I thought it was a great location for what the place was. The antique shop was doing fine until that landlord got greedy and hiked the rent and they could not afford it. They are now wanting to change the rules there. Just because you hike the rent and basically kick out the longtime tenants doesn't mean you can't find the retail

Pet Food Depot closed because the owner wanted to retire. He sounded delighted with retirement when I spoke with him.

It was a fine place and had off-street parking. It was easier to access than their previous location on busy El Camino. I wish a similar business could occupy the space.

Many years ago there was a similar business on Hamilton Ave downtown - where Reposada is now. We could drive thru and pick up our pet food. It was great!

I think it's a bit hypocritical to complain about the developer's desire to make some extra money when that's the exact same reason the City wants to preserve retail. Thanks to Prop 13, cities have spent 40 years developing an unhealthy addiction to retail and the sales tax revenue it provides, and now that addiction is coming back to bite them in an era of online shopping. I used to buy pet food at Pet Food Depot, but why would I bother schlepping over there anymore when I can have the food delivered directly to my door at a cheaper price?

Let's call a spade a spade --- rather than continue to impose an unrealistic burden on developers who want to convert underused properties, the City should allow developers to pay an in lieu fee. The City will get the pound of flesh that it craves, and the developers will get a chance to build something useful.

Memories...ah...sweet memories. We 70, 80, and 90 year olds have them, and we remember what retail meant back in the day...the 60's, 70's, and 80's (last century). I've written stories about my memories of those. And I referred to the 'manly' stores, Bergmans, Harrimans, and Weidemans, where we did a lot of our shopping. Those wonderful family owned shops/stores are gone forever. I've accepted that. And in case CC members haven't been reading the newspapers lately, indoor malls are starting to suffer also. People buy things in a whole different manner now. The outdoor malls seem to be doing okay...Stanford Shopping Center is a good example. They have multitudes of shops, restaurants, big department stores (some high end), jewelry, produce, fast food, and so many others, in a patio like setting, to choose from. Great venue to shop. And adequate parking if you don't mind driving up to the top level.

I followed CC activity leading up to the retail saving ordinance. It was never clear to me if the members, and those running for office, were really serious in thinking they could save it, or whether it was simply a campaign issue that they wanted to be on the right side of, to get us old folks' votes, to get elected. Hmmm! Still wondering! Another election cycle is coming up next year. Anxious to hear what the selling points will be. ADU's are a done deal. Housing, and especially affordable housing, is always popular, but check the record with the current incumbents on how far we've come on that. Pretty disappointing and dismal record. Lots of confusion on how to solve the transportation/transit and parking problems. Stay tuned!! Council had a well deserved vacation...not it's time to go back to work.

Jack, you've got it backwards. Those who advocate for retail are thinking about the convenience of residents and the liveliness and human scale of our business streets. The influx of technical tenants creating blank store fronts has deadened many business streets. (That's where the money is.)

In-lieu fees means zoning is for sale. That happens again and again including Smith's Lytton Gateway.

You are concerned about "an unrealistic burden on developers." My eyes teared up at the image of Billionaires lugging heavy burdens. What you mean to say is, slightly less profit. No burdens involved.

And yes, Tanaka should recuse himself from this item. He received huge donations from the Smiths. Thousand$.

> Gale Johnson wrote:
>
> The outdoor malls seem to be doing okay...Stanford Shopping Center
> is a good example

Their time will eventually come too.

Business Insider: Warren Buffett just confirmed the death of retail as we know it

Web Link

I'm all for strict enforcement of the code so that the vision for an area is realized. Granting exceptions because land owners don't feel like doing what's required is bad policy.

In this case, the council has caused a significant problem for itself in that it has zoned the relevant district specifically for non-retail commercial use. That actually makes sense in that part and is an appropriate vision. Applying the retail-preservation ordinance in a zone that discourages retail does not make sense. It is up to the council to resolve this conflict so that development in the neighborhood can be consistent with the intended vision. Mutually exclusive requirements won't work.

So at 537 Hamilton the Smiths got a Design Exception, density bonuses with TDR's requiring only 19 parking spaces instead of 58 spaces
using mechanical lifts for 10 of the spaces. The
staff has never answered the question of whether the lifts are practical and are actually being used. In light of the severe and growing impacts of of all the office overdevelopment, which is overwhelming the City, which is apparent to everybody,it's time for the developers in this
town to give back, not ask for more. But that doesn't seem to be part of their mindset.

Aren't these the developers who brought us the giant ugly "Survey Monkey" or "Gateway" building on Lytton and Alma. What an ugly disaster.

I dare say they could find someone to rent the place if they stopped charging rates that only the tech sector will pay. Why not charge a retail oriented rate.

The city council needs to support residents needs for retail and recreation. Do not change the zoning to appease developers, enforce the zoning and down size all development.

We are overcrowded and do not need anymore office or tech space. Only allow resident useful retail.

Retail in Palo Alto is in the pits. We have lost many retail sites. Those that are now gone were among the best and they have been replaced either with yet another chain restaurant or retail that does not fit the area needs or wants.
This site must be replaced with another retail unit. It might require the owner of provide some upgrades. That would be welcome.
There are too many exercise/fitness places in Palo Alto now. Such places should be placed on side streets, not in retail areas. Main downtown areas should have retail that encourages shoppers to come in. I certainly do not want to watch people sweat through the large plate glass windows. I want to see interesting retail items.
Palo Alto has consistently discouraged retail--art, book, household supply stores and many related enterprises to leave the city. The City should work to bring these back to California Ave, El Camino, and University Ave. The Exercise places and professional offices should be located on the side streets or in small shopping centers. Similarly, restaurants should be on the second floor or a side street.
The site under discussion needs another full service pet supply place, similar to Pet Depot. I now must drive to Mt View to purchase what I need for my cat.

Don't beat your heads against the wall...arguing for retail in that location. Why spend so much time and effort supporting retail that is destined to fail there? Another pet store? @sunshine...you must not know about the store at Charleston Center right here in PA. Check it out. You don't have to drive to MV. Approve the request on the 'consent calendar' and move on to the many more important and pressing issues in our town. Wow! That was a long recess. We only got 15 minutes when I went to school. lol! I hope CC members had good vacations and are well rested to tackle all the problems ahead. But, beware...I'll be watching and listening! Another election cycle is coming up.

I like the climbing gym idea. With a kids section. We need more indoor stuff like that especially since the parks are getting overcrowded. And when the weather is bad there's not place to do indoors around here or it's just overcrowded. The town is becoming very unfamily friendly. CLIMBING GYM! CLIMBING GYM!

> at 537 Hamilton the Smiths got a Design Exception, density bonuses with TDR's requiring only 19 parking spaces instead of 58 spaces using mechanical lifts for 10 of the spaces. The staff has never answered the question of whether the lifts are practical and are actually being used. <

At the Planning Commission it was mentioned that the lifts don't work for parking. We can hope they will eliminate that subterfuge.

19 spaces where 58 were required for that glass box. Cool move, Mr Smith.

For a *partial* glimpse of Boyd Smith's enormous wealth, he is asking for exceptions to zoning, see Web Link
-scroll to the bottom of the page.

Not to mention his holdings in billion dollar WSJ Properties, 3201 Ash St.
WSJ owns many properties around Fry's Electronics.

It will be interesting to watch which council members vote to give zoning exceptions to billionaires at the Aug. 14 meeting.