As the commercial stretch of California Avenue continues its transformation into a fancier business district with fewer driving lanes, wider sidewalks and new plazas for pedestrians, Palo Alto officials are considering restricting chain stores to protect the small businesses in the area.
The topic came up last year as the Planning and Transportation Commission went ahead with its revisions to the Business Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the city’s official guide for land-use planning. At the urging of Commissioner Michael Alcheck, the commission included in the mix a new program:
“Study appropriate commercial diversity in the California Avenue business district to balance a healthy mix of locally owned and chain-type commercial businesses and to prevent proliferation of specific use types,” the policy reads.
The idea is to limit chain stores on California Avenue, an area that has seen an influx of change in recent years with multi-story commercial developments going up around the periphery of the strip. That trend is expected to continue as Palo Alto proceeds with its plan to turn its “second downtown” into the next University Avenue, a renovation that expected to raise property values and put more pressure on small businesses that are already struggling to pay rising rents. (Read California Avenue: Making a new downtown)
These days, even as residents and city officials remain by and large anxious about the recent growth in office space and its impacts on traffic and parking, they are far more amenable to retail. In the commission’s July 9 discussion, Alcheck said he hopes the alternatives under the city’s considerations include one that would limit chain stores, particularly on California Avenue.
San Francisco has chain-store limitations in several areas, he said, including sections of the Mission and Hayes Valley neighborhoods, which prompt people to describe the city as a “retail rainforest.” What the limitations do, Alcheck said, is “change the way an investor or a developer looks at a project.”
“They’re not building it for a Chipotle or a McDonald’s or a Gap. They’re building it potentially for a local business owner,” Alcheck said. “What I’m hoping (that) exploring that idea will do is encourage potentially an alternative that considers growth in, for example, the California Avenue area – mixed-use growth – but does so in a way that alleviates some of the concerns that there won’t be a place for our mom-and-pop businesses.”
At least one California Avenue merchant shares this concern. Jessica Roth of European Cobblery asked the council on Monday to consider limiting chains in the California Avenue area, which already has a Subway, Starbucks and Radio Shack, as well as restaurants from smaller chains such as Chipotle and The Counter.
Roth asked the council to work with the merchants of California Avenue to “keep its charm.”
“I feel strongly that we may have great places in Palo Alto that can offer space to chains and big corporate businesses, and I would like to zone California Avenue to be independently owned and operated businesses only,” Roth said. “There of course are some businesses there, and we won’t want to make anyone leave, but moving forward with all the changes happening on our street, I feel it’s going to be a very desirable location and chains that have overlooked it before may be interested.
“I don’t want California Avenue to change.”
Most recently, longtime thrift store Bargain Box and independently owned Avenue Florist were evicted, after their California Avenue building changed ownership. South Bay chain restaurant Le Boulanger has confirmed it will move in.
Meanwhile, work is proceeding apace on the renovation of the commercial strip, which is set to conclude at the end of the year. The project includes reduction of lanes from four to two, a widening of sidewalks, replacement of all street furniture, a new “flexible” public plaza near Birch Street and a renovated plaza on Park Avenue, near the Caltrain station.
well, why not go back in time a little bit. there were established businesses on this street. it has changed over the years. there is still the same kind of shopping. make it accessible to customers. this is not a bad area. make palo alto more affordable to live in palo alto
Why did California Avenue even need “improving” in the first place? It’s a great local shopping/restaurant area that inevitably will migrate toward chains because that’s who can afford the higher rents that will result. We’ve already lost Cho’s, Printers Inc., Know Knew Books, and more. Why spend millions to pretty up an area that was already charming and useful for locals? The way to “keep the charm” was to keep greedy-developer hands off it. Probably too late now. The money would be better spent on road improvements to deal with worsening gridlock throughout the city.
End of An Era! I’ve shopped on California Avenue for many years and regret to hear about the changes to “transform it into a fancier business district”. We will lose all that is unique, relaxing, and lovable about California Avenue. It will become a rubber stamp of other areas – from South Palo Alto, we can easily go elsewhere to sit in a Boulanger – Main Street Los Altos, for example.
Another example that City Hall does not care at all about South Paly. (Meaning CA Ave and Southward) NB – The
way that public works (sneakily) cut down all the trees on California Avenue Overnight. And the repulsive high density housing build right up to the sidewalk on El Camino where Ricky’s Hyatt used to be — And the removal of a much loved, much used, and valued community recreation resource: Palo Alto Bowling — that is being replaced by a similar high priced housing structure. I realize Palo Alto is no longer the sleepy little university town it was in the last century, but it would be nice if we can retain some of the charm of days past.
Disappointed with changes to CA Ave.
“San Francisco has chain-store limitations in several areas, he said, including sections of the Mission and Hayes Valley, which prompts people to describe the city as a “retail rainforest.” What the limitation does, Alcheck said, is “change the way an investor or a developer looks at a project.”
Limitations are necessary to force re-thinking, but we need a diversity of developer and investors. As long as the same ole same ole developers, architects, and office landlords are working the system, it will never change.
I heard of a downtown Mt. View landlord who wants unique small retail, and makes it attractive for these tenants. One of the small vintage shops from dt palo alto went there. This same thing has happened with small startups. The big already funded giants are sucking the air out of downtown, and the unique companies have no place here.
This topic needs to be expanded to all uses (offices, housing, and retail). What is the point of mixed-use if it’s the same users controlling everything?
@Disappointed…
“And the removal of a much loved, much used, and valued community recreation resource: Palo Alto Bowling — that is being replaced by a similar high priced housing structure.”
That’s not a “housing structure” – that will be Hilton Hotel, paired with the other new Hilton being built across from the old Rickey’s site. (one Hilton is supposed to be aimed at business travelers, the other at vacationers.) They’re joining the two Marriotts already there along the stretch between Charleston and San Antonio.
What business is it of Palo Alto whether or not people prefer to transact with chain stores or local boutiques? Answer: none whatsoever.
No chains. I’m so tired of the proliferation of chains and Palo Alto doing everything it can to kill small business.
How do we define “chain”? If Philz, or Piazzas opened, would they be called chains? What about Su Hongs?
On a separate note, chains tend to be the anchors that bring in business. Well known brands are known, tried and tested, by the clientele. It takes a while for an unknown store to find its niche. A chain can be recognized for what it is straight away.
I have nothing against chains. Some I like, some I don’t. We already have chains on Cal Ave. Chains are often franchises and they bring jobs and economic vitality to what may be a hard to understand retail area. I used to find lots of useful shopping on Cal Ave, now it is much harder to find. Without a couple of chains I am not sure I would know what to find on Cal Ave. I rarely go there unless I have a lunch appointment, mainly because of parking. When I do, I park off Alma and walk through the tunnel.
Banning chains may just be the wrong move for all retail apart from restaurants.
California Avenue was charming BEFORE the city cut down the trees. Then it was ugly. The city wants the area to be more like downtown? It will be exactly like University Avenue with the traffic crawling along two lanes.
To all the critics who bemoan things ain’t what they were 30, 50, 80 years ago … well, in addition to “duh,” come on, it’s great that there might be some restrictions on chain stores, since otherwise, it would become almost all chains, like University Ave downtown has. And you know what? University Ave is still great. We still have downtown walking areas, let’s treasure them and encourage the powers that be to follow this good path. –Marianne, “Grow More Sunflowers for World Peace, that’s my motto!”
This is a bad idea. More of the CC trying to interfere with the free market. They tried that once before, with protecting JJ&F from competition, and PA ended up with lousy grocery shopping choices. What constitutes a chain?? What about the “ chain” stores already on California? Are thee chain shoe stores planning to open on California? Then why the worry from European cobblers? Independent stores seem to be doing well, as are the independent restaurants. In general, mom and pop stores cost more. I suggest not trying to,tamper with landlord rights and the free market.
Talk with someone who runs a Mom and Pop store about their costs and consider the large multinational chains have a “size” advantage. They buy and sell in bulk, in some cases avoid sales tax, etc.
I think the proprietors of Mom & Pop stores reflect the cost of living in this area. The chains reflect (partly) the cost of poverty living in Malaysia, China, etc. OK, off topic, but part of the reality. I won’t speak again to this topic unless someone wants to write me at mrm@sonic.net and bear in mind I might not answer. Marianne
Please, No more chains on California Avenue!
Excellent idea–please pursue it.
Did not realize that there was a problem. The majority of restaurants are independent. Country sun, Keble and suchat and other retail store seem to be doing okay. There have always been chain store on California anyway. Seems like this is a solution in search of a real problem.
I still miss those beautiful trees. What possessed the city to do that–I only remember a vague explanation that some were diseased, which I do not buy. And what is happening with the fountain? Instead of cutting the trees they should have replaced the fountain with something really special. Oh, well.
Please no more looming buildings and high density. Someone described University as a food court for yuppies now, and it’s not far from truth. That’s the influence of this CC.
Cal Ave is a real place to go shopping, art supplies, photography supplies, bagels, radio shack for batteries for the alarm system (at all hours of the night), Country Sun for supplements and bulk organic, Molly Stones, Keeble and Shuchat (pro lens rentals, ever since I realized they match internet prices on the consumer side, I run down there when I need something, got my last 2 camera purchases there), Blossom Birth for baby classes. The loss of Printers Inc, Cho’s, the used treasures…awful. We don’t need another yuppie food court, we need unique retail to serve residents so we don’t have to drive to big box stores in mountain view.
I can’t take the tree huggers too seriously because it seems like the same ones who screamed about the trees on Cal Ave which are being replaced anyway were out with their bulldozers at Maybell, where there are 100 established trees that don’t even need watering. The City estimated the orchard (after selling off the ranch houses on the periphery) was $6.8million, hardly more than they’re spending to beautify city hall, and they had the right to buy the orchard without competition. Would have been a nice gesture since the orchard sits across from a school and rehab center for very disabled kids. Oh well.
When the city quietly changed the zoning for California a couple of years ago to allow and encourage taller, denser office buildings, there wasn’t a property owner on California Avenue who wasn’t rubbing their hands with glee. Property values increased significantly with that one zoning change.
Those on the city council who have advocated for density and “vibrancy,” which seems to be the latest buzzword, will particularly enjoy the new California Avenue. Greg Scharf, a strong and vocal proponent of bringing “vibrancy” to Palo Alto, will be particularly pleased to see his vision for California Avenue (and all of Palo Alto for that matter) being realized with the first of the new tall buildings currently under construction between Birch Street and the train station.
In ten years there will almost certainly be wall to wall tall buildings lining California Avenue. With the high cost of building, first floor retail rents will have to increase significantly. As one after another of the existing one and two story buildings are torn down and replaced with dense building to the new height maximum, fewer and fewer individual store owners will be able to afford these new rents. In the face of the economics, I don’t believe it is possible for the city to restrict property owners from leasing to chain stores, who can afford the much higher rents.
Me, I miss the open feeling we are losing in Palo Alto, seeing the sky and the mountains, as we are increasingly hemmed in with taller buildings along California Avenue. Property owners and developers, laughing all the way to the bank. As would I if I were them.
I’m a big fan of this porposed restriction on chains. It’s not that I’m afraid of change, in fact I’d welcome a bunch of new restraurants, shops, bars, whatever, I just really dont want them to be the same places I can get at any mall across America. Please give the local merchants a chance to keep Califorinia Ave unique & special.
Come on Larry Paige, put Cho’s in Googleplex, at least back on Cal Ave.. After thirty years, Homeboy did not deserve to get kicked to the curb.
Thirty years, (+ or – )of paying rent on that property, and he got kicked to the curb. If that is not evil, than what is? Think about it.
Colin, How can the city stop building owners from tearing down and rebuilding to the max if they keep within the building code? If they build within the code the city can’t prevent them.
Now they decide this? Palo Alto City government certainly ignored the petition against the Starbucks that went in on Cal Ave. It was argued that the one at Stanford and El Camino was sufficient, but, no…. There have been neighborhoods in San Fran and other areas that have been successful in stopping over-proliferation of chains. I’m not anti-chain, but Palo Alto has a perceived history of favoring them. Usually chains can survive the insanely long permit process to begin remodels while the small businesses are broke before their permit to remodel even comes through. There’s not much in PA that favors small business, so let this be on tiny step for small-business-kind.
The fight is not over.
We have enough people that want to keep the ‘early era Palo Alto/Mayfield’ architecture.
Why do we need a duplicate or mini University avenue??
Have we polled the residents by College Terrace + others?
Why is every thing so hard?
Why don’t we listen to the community?
On Sundays it looks so beautiful and old worldly when we have the farmers market and we interact with our friends/family and neighbors with these 60-70 booths with organic food etc.,
All we are missing is artists like Elvis Presley, Don Henley of Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, Jazz Music etc., I like the California Hotel there too. Do not screw it up please; keep it the way it is and let us enjoy the 30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s..
Respectfuly
As a long time (37 years) customer of CalAv businesses I have always appreciated the local ambiance of the street compared to crowded “sophisticated” University Ave. As a participant in the high-tech community I’ve also enjoyed the development of west of El Camino space such as that on Page Mill Road, so I’m not against progress. Having my home appreciate in value is certainly a plus as well.
The problem is, how much progress is enough?
Frankly, I’ve had enough.
I’m at the point that I value livability way more than the progress of high-rise buildings and high density housing.
We DO need change.
The major change we need is to rid the city of the current city planning staff.
The path to this change is to rid the city of the current city council.
I’M ALL FOR CHANGE!
If the City can ban “chains” on Cal Ave—then it can ban chains all over Palo Alto. So—where does it get the power to selectively deny the right to do trade to companies that have a national presence? Seems a little more than discriminatory, doesn’t it?
And does that mean that a banks are to be considered as members of a Chain? So, that would preclude all of the large banks. And what about fueling stations? Are there any local refineries that could service just Palo Alto? Pharmacies, and package stores, like Walgreens and CVS would have to go. And certainly Safeway would be forced to shutdown, if a City-wide ban on “chains” were to be passed into law. That ban would also impact a nation-wide book store, or video store, being located on Cal. Ave., and perhaps anywhere in Palo Alto, wouldn’t it?
So—just were does the City get the power to ban some stores/businesses, because they have grown to be successfully across California, and the US?
Government Code Section 65302 lists seven elements cities and counties must include in their general plans:
land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, and safety.
Why do we even friggin have a business element to the comp plan (not required) when we don’t even bother to have a distinct safety one? Sure, we could roll it into another element, kind of like you might roll some cigarette ash into a rug and stuff it in the attic.
Just a rhetorical question here. How much time and staff effort have gone into revising and updating the circulation or the noise or the safety elements, when the city has changed and densified so much in recent years, and the state mandated purpose of the safety element is to deal with things like evacuation in event of earthquakes? Have we looked at egress networks? How well the infrastructure would handle evacuation in event of a pipeline rupture?
Which is more important, how to make sure the kids at the local elementary can be evacuated in a safety emergency, especially given changes in circulation, or whether Chop Keenan can blot out more of the sun on Cal Ave if he wants? Now tell me which one absorbs all of our staff time and attention? Which effort, safety or development, has resulted in staff, including the City attorney, to make, um, incorrect statements to the public in order to further a development agenda in the last year?
We need a moratorium on new development until we citizens can be assured that rules are in place to literally keep development in its place, and that city employees are honestly and mostly spending their time on the real priorities if a city government, not acting as a publicly funded arm of a developer’s company. We really deserve an ethics investigation of city hall, esoecially given the grand jury report.
I get the distinct feeling that the city wants everyone making less than $1 million a year to leave. Soon there will be absolutely nothing, other than Grocery Outlet, in Palo Alto that isn’t ultra-upscale.
Does anyone at City Hall care that there are hundreds of people working in the Cal Ave area, especially on Park Ave, who would LOVE some affordable eateries?
@ Wassup
You finally figured that out? This has been going on for years.
You can thank Gregg Scharff and company for spearheading Cal Ave. project. We know who we will not be voting for.
jh,
“Greg Scharf, a strong and vocal proponent of bringing “vibrancy” to Palo Alto, will be particularly pleased to see his vision for California Avenue (and all of Palo Alto for that matter) being realized with the first of the new tall buildings currently under construction between Birch Street and the train station.”
Neighbor
“You can thank Gregg Scharff and company for spearheading Cal Ave. project. We know who we will not be voting for.”
Scharff who thinks, the building itself is a public benefit, on Lytton “Gateway”
Has anyone seen the entrance lobby of the gateway? The lighting is white twisted inner tubes hanging by strings. They’re not pretty at all. Scharff who now can’t stop talking about residential interests.
Why does Scharff even bother to run?
Gregg Scharff is a real estate attorney, his office is near Cal. Ave.
How the heck did this guy get elected to City Council ?
The last thing Palo Alto needs to do is imitate San Francisco, unless Palo Alto likes to have empty storefronts because the city has restricted zoning so tightly for retail.
This is ridiculous.