Send this story Print this story

Adjust text size

Uploaded: Wednesday, July 8, 2009, 9:49 AM

JJ&F agreement details released
Deal between developer, popular grocer to be scrutinized before City Council decision Monday night

by Gennady Sheyner
Palo Alto Weekly Staff

Posted by Larry Kavinoky, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Jul 8, 2009 at 10:26 am

Lets hope the Palo Alto process can give the developer clear guidelines now so we can have a long term viable neighborhood grocery store without making the disastrous parking and traffic in the area worse. The developer is getting much more that he could without the zoning change and I believe a formula for a viable grocery store forever is enough public benefit for one project. Then the staff will have to work out the details. How can the private agreement between the current landlord and tenant be a basis for a lasting neighborhood grocery store?

Those details need to be spelled out in the final documents so we have a legally binding contract with the current and any future owners of the property. Most of us hope it will be JJ&F but the council needs to frame the documents generically as "grocery store".

Posted by Jo Ann, a resident of the Embarcadero Oaks/Leland neighborhood, on Jul 8, 2009 at 10:47 am

This has taken five years and Palo Alto still isn't sure what's going to happen to JJ&F but Mountain View's already managed to get its act together to offer JJ&F a place there! Shame on Palo Alto if it loses JJ&F.

And why the rush for more office buildings? Has anyone bothered to drive around and see all the "For Lease" signs?

Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Jul 8, 2009 at 10:50 am

The Planning Commission was unable to give clear guidelines back in May:

Web Link

"On Thursday, developer Patrick Smailey of Twenty One Hundred Ventures blasted the decision, and JJ&F co-owner John Garcia said his family is "profoundly disappointed."

"This project has been in the works for five years, and this is the kind of dysfunctional process that drives business and tax revenue out of Palo Alto," Smailey said.

He said the seven commissioners suggested numerous changes that would, in effect, cancel each other out.

"It becomes a very expensive visit to the theater of the absurd," he said."

Posted by reine, a resident of the Barron Park neighborhood, on Jul 8, 2009 at 11:31 am

This is a clear chance to save having a customer friendly grocery store in the area,please support it. The College terrace students who come on bike, the elderly people who walk, the housewives who like special orders of meat or fish, they all want this store to stay. The big families who want to shop at Safeway or fill their car to the top with merchandise can STILL go to safeway somewhere else (Don't we have a Safeway on Middlefield?), so please don't try to kill a neighborhood place because it is not "your store".

A number of years ago we had the closure of All American Market on el camino x Los Robles, it was a big loss for some of the Barron Park, Ventura area. One very old and very independant resident who was coming on her electric scooter died shortly after that and it is my opinion this came because she could no longer go buy food on her own for her and for her cats.

Posted by Karen, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Jul 8, 2009 at 11:36 am

Why is welfare housing part of this project? The original plan was to have a public plaza.

Posted by Neighbor, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Jul 8, 2009 at 11:37 am

Quoting the developer without having watched the actual discussion or following the project over time is like quoting the defendant in a trial and ignoring what else happened or what was said.

Just another exercise in bias with no substance. We need higher quality opinions so we can think about an issue.

Posted by Marvin, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Jul 8, 2009 at 11:49 am

Neighbor--you can go back though all the Weekly stories concerning this matter. Don't you think 5+ years is a long time? This is also not the first time commissioners in PA give contradictary requirements--these commissioners love to play their power games to the detriment of the city.

Also, mr Garcia was not too happy with the outcome. I remember him commenting about the commission second guessing him on how much space he needed for a "successful" grocery store.

Posted by Etaion Shrdlu, a resident of another community, on Jul 8, 2009 at 11:58 am

Two willing parties have agreed on an arrangement that suits them and the community. It harms no one. Perhaps the City Council could spend its precious time more constructively, like grabbing shovels and filling pot holes, rather than sticking its collective nose where it doesn't belong. On the other hand, they would probably hire a pot hole consultant, or maybe try to extort some pot hole money from Stanford.

Posted by Louise, a resident of the Evergreen Park neighborhood, on Jul 8, 2009 at 1:27 pm

Regarding the uninformed comment above about "welfare housing" replacing the public plaza:

1. What is being proposed for this project is not the ultra low income housing where government housing subsidies are available and most of the recipients are either eligible for child assistance programs or disability payments. This type of housing usually is constructed with government funding, which I do not believe is available to a private developer.

Instead, the tiny units are designed for people who are working but whose income does not stretch to pay typical Palo Alto rents -- young people or those who teach, have service jobs or other stable employment.

I doubt they would be a blight on the neighborhood, particularly if the developer demands that the city close the loophole that allows the non-residential portions of Oxford and Cambridge that allows vans and jalopies owned/lived in by the "unhoused" to play parking games with the PAPD but never to be ticketed or towed.

2. The public plaza was roundly criticized when it was proposed more than a year ago; the change to the "moderate" income affordable housing has been on the table since last fall I think. This is the type of housing that Palo Alto has the biggest deficit in.

None of which is to say that I am pro or con about the proposal for a Planned Community zone for this project. But I'm hoping that the NIMBY contingent at least takes the time to become informed about what is and is not on the table and why.

Posted by JC, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Jul 8, 2009 at 1:28 pm

Having followed the process since the Developer completed his first application to the City on January 14, 2006, I cannot quite figure out where the 5-year time line comes from. The City went through the process involving hours of staff time, a full Staff Report for the Planning and Transport Commission to read, and then days before the scheduled hearing on April 5, 2006 pulled the application. What a waste of City money.

On August 4, 2006 the Property Owners filed a lawsuite against JJ&F Market in Superior Court, which among other things filed for the eviction of JJ&F. This is all part of the public record. On August 30, 2007 the court action was dismissed because the parties had reached a settlement. Although the details of this settlement are private and not part of the public record, it is customary to include a clause that prevents either party for making any public comment.

On October 18, 2007, filed a completely changed proposal with the City and that evening had a presentation to a small group of neighbors at Scott's Seafood in Town and Country Village of what plans were.

The Developer requested that the Planning and Transport Commission have a preliminary non-binding hearing. On April 15 there was a well-noticed and well attended presentation for the community at Ananda Church, with the Developer Team, Traffic Consultants, Architect's Team, The Garcia's, and the property owners present. Many questions were asked and many diverse opinions of what

each speaker wanted to see or not see were expressed.

A third plan was presented to the community at the neighborhood's board meeting on September 17, 2008, and then also filed with the City for a second preliminary non-binding review by the Planning and Transport Commission.

Finally, on January 14, 2009, the Developer filed a very slightly modified plan with the request that it go before the Planning and Transport Commission for a formal INITIAL review by the Planning and Transport Committee.

So five years may be the time the Developer has been working on this, but he did not file a request for the City to initiate the process until January 14, 2009.

Posted by Karen, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Jul 8, 2009 at 1:33 pm

JC,

At what point did welfare housing get injected into the equation. Who injected it?

Posted by Resident, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 8, 2009 at 2:12 pm

According to the Daily Post Mountain View is offering the Garcia family a prized piece of real estate in Downtown MV to move JJ&F Market to; and become part of a new development just one block off Castro. According to Garcia Mountain View is "rolling out the red carpet" to get them to move.

After everything Palo Alto has put the Garcia family through, I wouldn't blame them for moving to Mountain View.

Posted by LM, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Jul 8, 2009 at 8:21 pm

I certainly would miss JJ&F if they were to go away. I really don't want to see any new development on the site. In fact I'd like to see the city move to stop non-conforming projects. Development just adds cars which add heat and are dangerous. We don't need more people. Let's try to keep JJ&F as it is, a great neighborhood grocery.

Posted by JC, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Jul 9, 2009 at 12:27 am

My previous post was incomplete. Here's the proper version:

Posted by JC, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, 4 hours ago

Since there seems to be a lot of confusion about how the proposed development of the 2180 block of El Camino Real in Palo Alto (the JJ&F block), here is brief timetable of how events have unfolded.

The Developer of the 2180 El Camino Real property completed his first application to the City on January 14, 2006. The City went through the process involving hours of staff time, a full Staff Report for the Planning and Transport Commission to read, and then days before the scheduled hearing on April 5, 2006, the Developer WITHDREW the application. A lot of City time and money.

On August 4, 2006, the property owners filed a LAW SUITE against JJ&F Market in Superior Court, which among other things filed for the eviction of JJ&F. This is all part of the public record. On August 30, 2007, the court action was dismissed because the parties had reached a settlement. Although the details of this settlement are private and not part of the public record, it is customary to include a clause that prevents either party for making any public comment.

On October 18, 2007, the Developer filed a completely new proposal with the City for a Preliminary "non-binding" Hearing by the Planning and Transport Commission. That same evening the Developer hosted a dinner followed by a presentation of these plans which was attended by a small group of College Terrace residents.

A second Staff Report was prepared for the Planning and Transport Commission's February 13, 2008 meeting. As requested by the Developer, feedback was given, but no vote on the project since this was not yet a formal application. But more City time and money was expended on his behalf.

Following the February meeting, on April 15, the Developer and his team held a well noticed and well attended community meeting at the Ananda Church on El Camino Real on April 15, 2008. After their presentation there was an opportunity for questions and many random opinions of what each speaker wanted, or did not want, were expressed.

On September 17, 2008, the public were presented with another completely new design by the Developer and his team, this time at the Lutheran Church on Bowdoin. This plan was then filed with the City requesting another preliminary non-binding review. Another Staff Report was prepared for the Commission's agenda on October 1, 2008. Once again, as requested, feedback was given but no vote taken. Even more City time and money.

Finally, on January 14, 2009, the Developer filed an application with the request to initialize the City's formal review process. A new Staff Report was prepared for the Planning and Transport Commission's meeting which took place on April 29, 2009.

Less than four months elapsed between the time the Developer filed his formal application with the City and the Commissioner's meeting. So why is he saying it is five years? The Developer may have taken five years, but don't blame the city for that.

Posted by mj, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Jul 9, 2009 at 12:31 am

After everything the Developer, has put the Garcia family through, I wouldn't blame them for moving to Mountain View

Posted by Fred Balin, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Jul 9, 2009 at 9:15 am

A heads-up to the "PA Weekly/Online" staff and a caution to readers of the "The Daily News/SJ Mercury"

The article today on "The JJ&F Story" in The Daily and with verbatim text in The Mercury completely misrepresents the essence of the action at last night's CTRA Board meeting.

I am not on the Board, but I was there, and the reporter was not. The Board did not agree "to continue backing the controversial College Terrace project ahead of a key city council vote on Monday."

In neither the Board's statement of April 22 provided to the Planning & Transportation Commission, nor its actions at the Board meeting in June nor the one last night, has the Board "endorsed the project." Far from it.

I leave it to the Board to officially and accurately report its own actions and statements at last night's meeting and to correct the record.

Posted by Irv, a resident of the University South neighborhood, on Jul 9, 2009 at 11:51 am

Responding to "And why the rush for more office buildings? ".

Note in the article: "Having an open-air market should bring a lot of people in," Garcia said. "Plus, I'm going to have many people right up here on top of us in the office space who, hopefully, will be shopping on their way home."

This will be a vibrant, mixed-use, compact development - a boon for the neighborhood AND the city. This project appears to have many of the smart growth elements that will bring PA into the 21st century....

Posted by JO, a resident of the College Terrace neighborhood, on Jul 9, 2009 at 12:04 pm

Isn't this the same "letter of intent" that was revealed at a prior Planning Commission hearing? If so, then it is inaccurate to say that this is an agreement "that the two parties had previously refused to make public." I also note that the dollar amounts for the lease rates in the letter of intent have been obscured. It is very difficult to gauge what the extent of the subsidy is (and therefore the extent of the "public benefit" being provided) without knowing the dollar amounts involved.

What about revealing the terms of the settlement agreement over the lawsuit the landlord brought against JJ&F? What about revealing the terms of the agreement to compensate JJ&F during the 2-year construction period during which they would have to vacate, i.e., how are the landlords "make[ing] sure [the Garcias are] taken care of during the period of time the store is closed"?

I hope JJ&F chooses to stay for the long term. However, I'm sure that they will make their decision based on a number of different factors to determine what is best for their business and their families, regardless of whether or not the PC project is approved as proposed. The City needs to plan for the possibility that JJ&F will not return, and ensure that the overall project is in keeping with the zoning, the Comprehensive Plan and the neighborhood.

Posted by Sharon, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Jul 9, 2009 at 5:16 pm

We liked JJF when we were students and lived close,one of they few places to get sweetbreads.

However,We feel JJF should consider taking the MV offer if they want to remain a going concern. Trader Joes will take most of their customers

When TJ opens in Town and Country it will change the competitive landscape for grocery stores in PA.

A great many people who shop at Whole Paycheck Foods as well as JJF will move to TJ.

WF has corporate deep pockets and will subsidize the coming sales loss to TJ.

JJF does not have such a corporate Trust Fund.

When does TJ open for business?

Posted by anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Aug 26, 2009 at 5:30 pm

Yeah, lots of people who are or were Whole Foods customers are not happy about their CEOs loudmouthed comments on health care. Of all the moronic things to do in his position, even if his ideas were great - which most of them were not - how could he be a good CEO without any clue to shoot off his mouth in this issue. Hilarious?

Lots of those customers will be fine, and maybe even happier at Trader Joe's.