PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY

Transcription

1 Meeting Date: February 1, 2018 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY Subject: Prepared by: 400 Main Street, Proposed Real Estate Office Jon Biggs, Community Development Director Attachment(s): A. Revised Resolution of Approval Initiated by: Property Owner Environmental Review: This project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section (c) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended. Summary: Continued review of Staff s interpretation that the conditional uses listed at Los Altos Municipal Code Section are allowed in an existing vacant ground floor lease space, which was previously occupied, with approval of a conditional use permit because they would not displace an existing retail business. If the Commission agrees with this interpretation, it will consider a conditional use permit that would allow an office-administrative use (real estate office) in a lease space that is now vacant, but was previously occupied by Pharmaca, a retail pharmacy. Background The subject property, 400 Main Street, is a corner site located at the intersection of Main and First Streets and is in the CRS, Commercial Retail Sales, Zone District. Construction of the existing building was completed in 2014, and most of the lease spaces within the building have been occupied by a variety of tenants including a restaurant, retail, and office uses. The subject space had been occupied until last year by Pharmaca, which was a retail pharmacy establishment. The subject lease space is now vacant and the property owner is seeking consideration of a use permit that would allow the space to be occupied. The Planning Commission last considered this project at its meeting of January 18, 2018 and voted to continue the item to its February 1, 2018 meeting to allow staff an opportunity to address several items, which include: Providing language that appropriately supports the interpretation that a use permit can be considered for a real estate office use because a retail business is not being displaced.

2 Subject: 400 Main, Vacant Lease Space and Use Permit Application Clarification of the term displacement and if there are any time frames or thresholds that guide its implementation. Providing information about how long the subject space has been vacant. The following is intended to address each of these INTERPRETATION SUPPORT In staff s opinion, the best way to document supporting language for the interpretation is to include appropriate Whereas statements in the resolution. In support of the interpretation, staff is suggesting the following Whereas statements, which have been added to the attached resolution (highlighted for ease of identification). WHEREAS, the location of the proposed use is a vacant lease space at 400 Main Street that has frontage on the First Street corridor, which contains a mix of uses and is not the principal retail/restaurant corridors that are found on the Main and State Street frontages of the Downtown; and WHEREAS, land use regulations encouraging retail and restaurant uses at the street level along the First Street corridor were adopted in 2010 to encourage these uses; however, recent trends in the retail industry have made the retail environment challenging especially along mixed-use corridors; and WHEREAS, the proposed use will not displace a retail business and this interpretation and subject use permit is specific to the proposed use and the subject space; and The addition of these to the resolution are intended to support the interpretation by documenting the unique circumstances of this area of the Downtown and make it clear this approval/interpretation are specific to this site/space and the proposed use. DISPLACEMENT Staff has conducted a search of the definitions in the Municipal Code and Glossary of the Los Altos General Plan. Neither provides a definition for the term displacement or guidance on how to best to apply the term. February 1, 2018 Planning Commission Page 2

3 Subject: 400 Main, Vacant Lease Space and Use Permit Application The City Attorney s office has advised that generally, cities enjoy wide latitude as to how they interpret their own land use regulations vis-à-vis particular applications. If the city wants to define displace as taking the place of an existing use (and thus not applying to situations where a vacancy is being filled), there does not seem to be a legal basis for challenging that interpretation. By way of illustration, in a 2001 case (Save Our Peninsula Committee v. County of Monterey (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 142), the Court of Appeal found that [w]hen we review an agency s decision for consistency with its own general plan, we accord great deference to the agency s determination. This is because the body which adopted the general plan policies in its legislative capacity has unique competence to interpret those policies when applying them in its adjudicatory capacity. Although the subject term is from the zoning code and not a general plan policy, the same logic can be applied here and the same deference can be afforded. Given this, staff respectfully suggests that the Commission concur with its recommended interpretation. SPACE VACANCY The applicant has provided that the subject space has been vacant since August of 2017, when Pharmaca closed its doors and vacated the space. Discussion/Analysis The CRS zoning regulations allow for a variety of uses, some that are permitted by right and others that require a conditional use permit. A requirement of the zoning code for conditional uses notes that these uses are allowed with use permit approval except when they displace a retail business located in a ground floor building space that fronts on First Street. (Note this condition applies to Main and State Streets as well) In staff s opinion, a conditionally permitted use would not displace a retail business because this lease area has been vacant since Pharmaca closed its doors in Last year the Planning Commission agreed with a staff interpretation that a use permit for a lease space that had been vacant since completion of the building could be considered since a retail business was not being displaced. The Commission queried if a similar interpretation could apply to a vacant space previously occupied by a retail use. Staff believes, with the concurrence of the Planning Commission, that it could. Parking for 400 Main is located on site in locations at grade and in a parking structure below grade. Access to this parking is by way of a vehicle entrance to the site located where State Street ends at February 1, 2018 Planning Commission Page 3

4 Subject: 400 Main, Vacant Lease Space and Use Permit Application First Street. This vehicle entrance provides access to both the Safeway Store and the Commercial Building at 400 Main. The parking required for the first floor of this building was based on the retail parking ratio, which requires that one on-site parking space be provided for each 200 square of floor space. An office space requires one parking space for each 300 square feet of floor space and given this, the on-site parking (134 spaces), provides the on-site parking required by the code. At 3,000 square feet, the subject lease space needed 15 on-site parking spaces for the retail use, and would need 10 on-site parking spaces for the office use. If granted, this use permit would allow the space to be occupied by a Keller Williams Real Estate office, filling this vacancy, which would achieve 100% occupancy of the building, and with its employees and clients, help activate this portion of the Downtown. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission agree with its interpretation that since the vacant lease area is not occupied by a retail business, a use permit can be appropriately considered and staff recommends adoption of the revised resolution containing new Whereas language and suggested findings and recommended conditions of approval for the use permit. February 1, 2018 Planning Commission Page 4

5 ATTACHMENT A RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS GRANTING A USE PERMIT FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING AT 400 MAIN STREET WHEREAS, the property owner submitted Use Permit Application No. 17-UP-03 for an administrative office use (real estate office) at 400 Main Street; and WHEREAS, this project is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section (c) of the State Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA), as amended; and WHEREAS, the location of the proposed use is a vacant lease space at 400 Main Street that has frontage on the First Street corridor, which contains a mix of uses and is not the principal retail/restaurant corridors that are found on the Main and State Street frontages of the Downtown; and WHEREAS, land use regulations encouraging retail and restaurant uses at the street level along the First Street corridor were adopted in 2010 to encourage these uses; however, recent trends in the retail industry have made the retail environment challenging especially along mixed-use corridors; and WHEREAS, the proposed use will not displace a retail business and this interpretation and subject use permit is specific to the proposed use and the subject space; and WHEREAS, the Use Permit application was processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and the Los Altos Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the conditional use permit on January 18, 2018 and evaluated the application again on February 1, 2018 and considered the written record and all public comment NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Los Altos hereby grants the appeal and approves Use Permit Application No. 17-UP-03, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in Attachment A, for an administrative office based on the following findings of approval: 1. That the proposed location of the conditional use is desirable for the prosperity and welfare of the downtown in that it activates a vacant lease space and the tenants of the lease space can include those that avail themselves of commercial services in the downtown. Resolution No XX Page 1 ATTACHMENT A

6 2. That the proposed location of the conditional use is in accordance with the objectives of the zoning plan as stated in Chapter of this title because it is in a building that was planned and considered in line with guidelines and policies for community growth, as an administrative office it is expected to have a harmonious and convenient relationship to other land uses in the area, the building was reviewed and conditionally approved to provide for safe interaction with the existing circulation system, it is an appropriate business activity in that is does not include elements of its operation that generate excessive noise, fumes, odors, or have other activities that would be detrimental to surrounding businesses or residents and given these it is not expected to have a negative impact on property values within the City and because it is within an existing building it is not anticipated to detract from the city s natural beauty or negatively impact the City s distinctive physical character. 3. That the proposed location the administrative office, under the circumstances of the particular case, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, comfort, convenience, prosperity, or welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity in that this office use is not one that has been identified as having operational features that will have negative impacts on the area. 4. That the proposed administrative office use will comply with the regulations prescribed for the district in which the site is located and the general provisions of Chapter of the Los Altos Municipal Code. 5. That the proposed administrative office use is in scale with the existing development of the downtown and it enhances the unique village character of the CRS District by occupying a tenant space that has been vacant to date and it is expected that those working in or visiting the administrative office will avail themselves of the commercial services in the downtown which helps support the downtown economy; and 6. That the proposed administrative office use will not cause degradation in the level of service of the streets and intersections within the CRS District, because the activity of this office use is not anticipated to be at levels that would cause such degradation. Resolution No XX Page 2 ATTACHMENT A

7 ATTACHMENT A TO RESOLUTION No XX for Conditions of Approval for Use Permit Application No. 17-UP-03, 400 Main Street 1. All businesses, services, and processes shall be conducted within a completely enclosed structure, except for parking and loading spaces, outdoor eating areas operated incidental to permitted eating and drinking services, and as otherwise allowed upon the issuance of an outdoor display permit. Exterior storage is prohibited. 2. No use shall be permitted and no process, equipment, or materials shall be employed which are found by the commission to be objectionable by reason of odor, dust, noise, vibration, illumination, glare, unsightliness or electrical disturbances which are manifested beyond the premises in which the permitted use is located. 3. The property owner, business owner and/or tenant shall not permit or allow operation of a business which violates the required conditions of this chapter, including the following general criteria: a. Refuse collection. Each use and development, including applications for tenant improvements, shall provide suitable space for solid waste separation, collection, and storage and shall verify the existing sites on the property are located to facilitate collection and minimize any negative impact on persons occupying the development site, neighboring properties, or public rights-ofway. Refuse collection areas are encouraged to be shared, centralized, facilities whenever possible. b. Lighting. Lighting within the site that unnecessarily illuminates any other lot and/or substantially interferes with the use or enjoyment of such other lot is prohibited. Lighting unnecessarily illuminates another lot if: (i) it clearly exceeds the minimum illumination necessary to provide for security of Resolution No XX Page 3 ATTACHMENT A

8 property and the safety of persons using such roads, driveways, sidewalks, parking lots, and other common areas and facilities, or (ii) if the illumination could reasonably be achieved in a manner that would not substantially interfere with the use or enjoyment of neighboring properties. c. Air pollution. Any use that emits any "air contaminant" as defined by the Bay Area air quality management district shall comply with applicable state standards concerning air pollution. d. Maintenance of common areas, improvements, and facilities. Maintenance of all common areas, improvements, facilities, and public sidewalks adjacent to the subject property is required. In the case of public sidewalks, maintenance shall be limited to keeping the sidewalk clean and free of debris, markings, and food and drink stains by means of sweeping, cleaning with water and/or steam cleaning. e. Odors. No use may generate any odor that may be found reasonably objectionable as determined by an appropriate agency such as the Santa Clara County health department and the Bay Area air quality management district beyond the boundary occupied by the enterprise generating the odor. f. Noise. No person shall operate, or cause to be operated, any source of sound at the subject space or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property either incorporated or unincorporated, to exceed standards as set forth in Chapter 6.16 of the Los Altos Municipal Code. Resolution No XX Page 4 ATTACHMENT A