text: Yes, it could be, but without better data, it can't be.  Note that the "note" tag on the multipolygon says "All uses permitted in the “C-1" zone plus veterinary clinics (without overnight boarding), offices, indoor theaters, and retail sales involving large areas such as appliance showrooms, automobile supply stores, department stores, and garden supply stores."
  
  So, as this blends both what OSM calls landuse=commercial and landuse=retail into a single datum, only "local on the ground" knowledge would allow this "split" to happen.  And it wouldn't necessarily be contiguous between one and the other, that is, all "professional" (for example) commercial landuse are not in a zone separated from strictly retail landuse (as they are, for example, in Santa Cruz, along Mission Street's "Professional Corridor" distinct from a retail district further west).
  
  Additionally, the buildings (and concomitant zone) along Pine Street (1311 - 13185) ARE zoned commercial, whether or not they are being lived in (exclusively), used commercially (exclusively) or both.
  
  I myself have lived in a residence which is also active commercially as a small business which straddled a residential / commercial-professional zoning boundary (in Santa Cruz).  These do not have a specific tag in OSM (such as landuse=residential_commercial_combined), similar to how there are many landuse=farmland tagged on "Zoning=RA" polygons:  these are "live-on family farms," and there is no specific tag in OSM for this).  These have and do sometimes vacillate between landuse=farmland and landuse=residential (both are correct), though similar to "commercial vs. residential" (here in Boulder Creek), these predominantly "tip towards" being tagged landuse=farmland rather than residential.
  
  Hence, I'm closing this as "no better data are currently known."
  
  Of course, if you visit and provide on-the-ground, parcel-by-parcel data and mapping skills that improve data as you describe, you are welcome to do so.