Edgewood Plaza Location Map - City of Palo Alto

1 downloads 116 Views 2MB Size Report
Sep 25, 2013 - Chapter 18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). ...... due to ADA compliance, public safety, buildi
City of Palo Alto

(ID # 4076) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report

Report Type:

Meeting Date: 9/25/2013

Summary Title: Edgewood Plaza PC Amendment Title: 2080 Channing Avenue [13PLN-00197]: Review of a request by Sand Hill Property Company for (1) the certification of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of Overriding Considerations, and (2) an amendment to Planned Community (PC-5150), Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center mixed use project, to allow reconstruction of one of two historic Eichler retail buildings (Building 1). The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report public comment period began May 17 and ended July 20, 2013. From: Elena Lee, Senior Planner Lead Department: Planning & Community Environment PLANNING COMMISSION PURVIEW The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) is requested to review the Edgewood Shopping Center Mixed Use Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and the attached draft Resolution (Attachment A) and amended Planned Community (PC) ordinance (Attachment B) and forward its recommendation to Council regarding the SEIR and proposed Amendment to Planned Community PC-5150. The applicant is proposing the amendment to this PC Zoning because one of the historic retail buildings proposed to be rehabilitated was demolished during the construction process. The project scope required submittal and review of a separate Planned Community Rezone application, because the project is not considered a minor change to a previously approved Planned Community development plan. If it were considered as a minor change, the Architectural Review Board and Historic Resources Board would be allowed to review and recommend the changes to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Attachment A identifies the proposed construction of Building #1 using new materials and a schedule for estimated completion of the project.

City of Palo Alto

Page 1

Planned Community Rezoning PC districts follow a unique set of procedures, standards, and findings, which are described in Chapter 18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Typically, the first step in the PC process is Commission review of the concept plans, development program statement and draft development schedule, and initiation of the rezoning. This application is different in that (1) the Council previously approved a development plan, a development program statement, a schedule, and a PC ordinance for the previous version of the project. The proposed project is a modification of a recent Council approved PC. (2) The application does not require initiation, and (3) the Architectural Review Board (ARB) is not part of this PC review process due to the scope of this amendment; rather, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) has considered the project and has provided a recommendation to Council. Because the only proposed change to the PC development plan is the construction materials of Building #1, and all other components of the PC remain the same, the amendment was not brought to the ARB. However, the ARB subcommittee has been consulted on a periodic basis for minor façade changes in the ARB’s purview throughout the construction process. The approval of the amended PC is still subject to the three PC findings, that: (a)

the site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development; and

(b)

development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district; and

(c)

the use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity.

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City Council: 1) approve the Resolution (Attachment A) certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (previously distributed and available on the City’s website); and 2) adopt an Ordinance (Attachment B) approving the amendment to the Planned Community project to allow the reconstruction of Building #1 with all new materials.

City of Palo Alto

Page 2

BACKGROUND Project Description Planned Community (PC) application 13PLN-00198 submitted on February 6, 2013 requested the rebuilding of Building #1 with all new materials. The applicant is not proposing any other changes to the project. The site area of the PC is 156,175 sq. ft. and is currently developed with two retail buildings having a combined 28,400 sq. ft. non-residential floor area. Building #1 (at 10,000 sq. ft.) would be relocated towards the southeast of the property, such that the nearest street facing wall would be set back approximately 15 feet from the Saint Francis Drive property line (approximately 20 feet from the back of the sidewalk). Building #1 would be reconstructed as originally approved by Council in March 2012. The building would feature the character defining features, such as the turn-down roof, glulam beams and redwood siding. The building would also include a new metal mechanical enclosure on the roof to screen roof- mounted equipment. Building #1 is to be rebuilt in substantial conformance to the elevations approved in March 2012. A Final Map is also pending Council review and action. This PC amendment was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) at the August 21, 2013 public hearing. A summary of the HRB hearing is provided below. The master sign program, grocery store signage and re-facing of the historic monument sign were reviewed and approved by both the ARB and HRB accordingly. Project History Edgewood Plaza is a commercial shopping center built between 1956 and 1958 by Joseph Eichler/Eichler Homes and A. Quincy Jones of Jones and Emmons. The center was originally built with the existing grocery building (1957), two retail buildings (1958), an office building that formerly housed the office of Eichler Homes (1959), and a gas station (1957). The office building and gas station sites are not part of the subject shopping center. Edgewood Plaza is not listed on The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Although this site is not on the City’s inventory, because it has been deemed eligible for both registers, it is considered a historic resource. The site was the subject of a Planned Community (PC) rezoning approved by the City Council on March 19, 2012 to allow the redevelopment of an existing vacant and historic shopping center, including the relocation of one of three retail buildings, the addition of ten homes and a new 9,000 square foot park. Two of the existing commercial buildings, Buildings #1 and #2 have been deemed historic resources and proposed for rehabilitation. Building #3, the former market building, currently occupied by Fresh Market, is not considered a historic resource. Building #1 was approved to be disassembled, relocated on site and rehabilitated. Building #2 was approved to be rehabilitated in place. A tentative map was also approved to subdivide the City of Palo Alto

Page 3

property into one commercial lot, including the public park, and ten single family lots. The primary public benefits for the Edgewood Plaza project consisted of 1) the preservation of historic resources, 2) the construction and operation of the grocery store and 3) 0.20 acre park with an on-site display highlighting Joseph Eichler’s achievements. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and certified by the City Council in March 2012, to provide environmental clearance for the rezoning, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Final EIR for the original project was certified by the City Council, following positive recommendations by the HRB, the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC), and the Architectural Review Board. The original Final EIR analyzed the historic resources and the project’s potential impact on those resources. Four reports regarding the project’s historic resources were prepared for the project’s EIR. An initial report was prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., the applicant’s consultant, with a peer review prepared by Carey & Company. Buildings 1 and 2 were deemed to have retained integrity of design, despite some minor exterior alterations over the past fifty years. Both buildings would have been eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) under Criterion 3, Architecture, as a rare example of commercial development by the noted partnership of Eichler Homes and Jones & Emmons. Because the site had been determined to be eligible for both the NRHP and CRHR, per the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the site would have qualified for the Palo Alto Historic Inventory under Criterion 3 and 4. The Council’s March 19, 2012 certification of the EIR based on the assumption that historic impacts for the relocation of Building #1 would be mitigated to a less than significant impact because the building would be rehabilitated in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation (Standards). This was consistent with the HRB’s recommendation at the October 19, 2011 hearing for the original project. The rehabilitation included retention of the character defining features of the building, such as the wood window frames, glulam beams, concrete block wall, cornice and wood paneling. In September 2012, a stop work order was issued because the historic building (Building #1) that was to be disassembled and reconstructed onsite was illegally demolished. On March 4, 2013, the City Council authorized the continued construction of the grocery store, the remaining historic (Building #2), six of the homes and other onsite and offsite improvements. The City Council also authorized the hiring of Carey & Company, the historic consulting firm that the performed the peer review on the original EIR for the City, to review plans and monitor construction to ensure that Building #2 comply with the PC zoning and all mitigation measures, including the Standards. The monitoring has included multiple walk-throughs and special focus has been placed in the preservation of the building’s signature glulam beams. To date, the applicant has completed the grocery store building, various parking lot improvements and installation of the electric charging stations. The rehabilitation of Building #2 is in process. Following the Council hearing, staff has received multiple emails supporting the continued City of Palo Alto

Page 4

construction of the project.

HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD REVIEW Following the release of the Supplemental EIR, a HRB hearing was held on August 21, 2013 to receive HRB feedback on the Supplemental EIR and rebuilding of Building #1 with all new materials. The shopping center, now more than 50 years old, has been deemed a historic resource even though it is not on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or the Palo Alto Historic Inventor. The HRB had reviewed the original project and EIR. During the hearing, one member of the public spoke regarding the project, recommending that Building #1 not be rebuilt and that the housing approved with the project be replaced with dedicated parkland. The HRB voted unanimously to recommend that City Council certify the Supplemental EIR with a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The HRB also voted unanimously to approve the amendment to the PC Zoning to allow the reconstruction of Building #1 with all new materials, specifying that the replacement materials must follow the materials approved for use in Building #2 and a plaque must be installed on the building recognizing that it is a replica in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Reconstruction. The HRB’s recommendation included staff’s recommendation that a historic consultant be hired to monitor the construction of Building #1, to ensure that it will be similar to the originally approved Building #1. The HRB determined that the project can be supported because the proposed replacement meets the original intent to retain the retail building environment.

KEY ISSUES Reconstruction versus Retention of Building #1 Building #1 was originally approved to be dismantled and rebuilt to accommodate the redevelopment, and would have retained the character defining features, such as the turndown roof, glue laminated or glulam beams, concrete masonry unit (cmu) block walls, and redwood siding. The walls were defined as a “kit of parts” to be reorganized to maintain the historic character of the buildings, while allowing the modernization of the building to accommodate a successful retail environment. As of September of 2012, the building was demolished and the materials were disposed of, making it not possible to comply with the original approval. The applicant proposes a complete reconstruction of Building #1 with all new materials, but in the same location as previously approved by Council. All other components of the previously approved PC project, including the ten residences and park, would remain the same as City of Palo Alto

Page 5

approved by Council. The building would be substantially consistent with the originally approved design, with a few minor modifications. Building #1 is proposed to be substantially similar to the originally approved design, which was based on the “kit of parts” concept that would ensure the building would retain the character defining features of the Eichler aesthetic. The “kit of parts” consist of the block walls, the storefront glass, redwood siding and the glulam beams. The building would still include a new roof screen to hide roof mounted equipment. The modifications include moving around of the “parts” and modifications of the proportions of each element to accommodate modern tenants and requirements of the Building Code. As illustrated in the elevations shown on plan set pages A3.2 and A3.3 (Attachment D), the new building would consist of the same types of materials in a different configuration. These minor modifications have been carefully reviewed and found acceptable by the City’s Historic Preservation Planner. Similar modifications to Building #2 have been reviewed and approved by the City, also with consultation by the City’s historic consultant, Carey & Company. The applicant will also be required to install a plaque, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, identifying the building as a reconstruction in accordance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Reconstruction. Staff is also recommending that Carey & Company be retained to monitor the building permit process and construction for Building #1. This will also be critical for the installation of the window frames. Storefront Windows The original Council approved PC plan included the installation of new, much simpler wood framed windows. Like Building #2, the original window frames in Building #1 had been replaced over the years with similar, but simpler, wood frames. The approved replacement wood window frames were flat and did not include the projecting moldings. Given that the revised project allows for modifications, replication of the original storefront window system is now possible. Building #1 can now be rebuilt in a design significantly closer to its original appearance than the altered building that was illegally demolished. The original wood window frames of both Eichler buildings were a more complex design that included narrow full-height projecting moldings on either side of the glass which gave the windows a streamline modern look. Because one storefront at the rear of Building #2 was preserved intact since 1957, the City and the applicant’s historic consultant will be able to use that storefront as a model in the reconstruction of Buildings #2 and #1 to its original 1957 design. The rebuilding of Building #1 will provide a much more historically correct design than was found in the building that was demolished, and more correct than the version the Council had approved. The applicant has agreed to install these more complex window frames for both Buildings #1 and #2. Working closely with the City’s historic consultant, the applicant now has custom-made City of Palo Alto

Page 6

replicas for the rehabilitation of Building #2, and will do the same for Building #1, should the amendment be approved. Although the loss of a historic building cannot be mitigated, the historic accuracy of the replacement structure would be increased with the installation of these more complex window frames. Staff has determined that because the storefront glass system was a large part of the original design, this requirement provides a significant historic benefit to the project. This addition, in some ways, will result in a building that is more similar to the original design, although constructed of all new materials. This historic enhancement will improve the historic integrity of the remaining historic building, Building #2.

Public Benefits Original Public Benefits As part of the original PC rezoning, the applicant proposed to provide the following public benefits to satisfy the second PC finding: 1) preservation of a historically significant Eichler designed shopping center, 2) an approximately 20,600 sq. ft. grocery store, 3) an approximately 0.20 acre park with an on-site display highlighting Joseph Eichler’s achievements, and 4) three electric vehicle car chargers Applicant’s Proposed New Public Benefits The applicant will still be able to provide most of the public benefits. However, due to the demolition of Building 1, the character of the preservation benefit will need to be modified. The applicant is also intending on completing the rehabilitation of Building #2 in late September and staff believes that the rehabilitation will conform to the Secretary of Interior Standards and be a good example of mid-century architecture. The City’s historic consultant, Charlie Duncan of Carey & Company, indicated that he has been satisfied with the process and work so far. The applicant has also stated that he would request that the City consider the addition of the three car chargers and the traffic signal upgrade at St. Francis and Embarcadero also be considered public benefits because although those were City requirements, technical modifications have increased the cost significantly. Per the applicant, those items will cost over $200,000. Because the applicant is proposing an amendment to the Planned Community Zoning, the City can consider whether additional public benefits should be required to compensate for the benefits lost by the demolition of Building #1. As noted earlier in this report, the applicant is proposing that the installation of a storefront window system on Buildings #1 and #2 that replicates the original wood window frames of the original Eichler design be considered a public benefit. The window frames feature a more complex three dimensional design that included narrow full-height projecting moldings on either side of the glass. The cost for installing the City of Palo Alto

Page 7

new frames will be over $250,000, excluding the cost required for monitoring by the City’s historic consultant. The installation of the new frames on Building #2 has begun and construction is anticipated to be completed in late September. The City’s consultant has been carefully reviewing the entire process. Although Building #1 has been lost, the project continues to provide the public benefit of the preservation (or recreation) of a historic design, a public park, a grocery store and the rehabilitation of a public sign. Construction of Building #1 will result in a project that more closely resembles the original center than it would without the building. Possible Public Benefits West Bayshore Road Sidewalk During the original public hearings for this project, there were requests to require the construction of sidewalks along West Bayshore Road. Sidewalks were not been required because West Bayshore Road to the north of the site does not have sidewalks and this portion of West Bayshore Road frontage is not designed for pedestrian activity. Construction of sidewalks to the north of the site would have been beyond the scope of the project. However, in response to neighbor comments, the City has incorporated the construction of sidewalks on West Bayshore Road as a future project in the Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (adopted July 2012). Staff has consulted both with Transportation and Public Works staff regarding the feasibility of the construction of sidewalks. The cost estimate for construction of sidewalk on one side of West Bayshore from the project site to the City limits, excluding drainage cost, is approximately $144,000. The City could require the applicant contribute towards the work to be completed by the City as part of its Capital Improvement Program as a public benefit. Historic Rehabilitation Contribution As an alternative, the applicant could make a contribution to the restoration of a publicly owned, historic resource in Palo Alto. For example, the applicant could contribute funding towards improvements of the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Depot, which is the second busiest station for the Caltrain system. The Streamline Modern style station is designated as Category 1 on the City’s historic inventory and is also on the National Registry of Historic Places. This is just one example; however, there are other publicly owned buildings in Palo Alto that could also benefit from rehabilitation funds. If appropriate, these funds could be stored in a reserve account, and be made available when directed by the Council. Penalties

City of Palo Alto

Page 8

City Council also asked staff to provide them with recommendations regarding penalties for the demolition of Building #1. The consideration of penalties should be weighed when determining the cost and benefit of additional required public benefits. The Municipal Code allows the City to fine applicants for a variety of code violations, based on the type of infraction. A common practice among various municipalities is to charge double to triple the building permit fee for code violations. Although the demolition of historic buildings without permits happens rarely, the application of double or triple the building permit fee has been used. The building permit fee is based on the valuation of the construction cost and the scope of work for all trades (i.e. lighting, plumbing, etc.). The building permit fee for the shell that was charged for Building 1 was $9443.17, or about 1.5 percent for a valuation of $600,000. Accordingly, the City could use this rationale to fine the applicant an additional $9,443.17 for the illegal demolition. Additionally, given the special circumstance of the demolition of an historic structure, an additional fine may be warranted. There is a specific fine of $1,000 authorized in the City Code for demolition of a downtown historic structure. If a similar fine were added to the building permit fee, a total of $10,443.17 could be assessed. According to the applicant, the cost of the construction is approximately 25-30% higher, or between $150,000 and $180,000 (based on the original valuation), than expected due to the poor condition of the building materials. This excludes site construction and the additional cost due to the custom made windows. The cost of the custom made windows will add approximately $162,000 to the total construction cost. This also excludes the cost of the electrical vehicle charging stations and the traffic signal modifications discussed above. If the building permit fee were to be evaluated, the valuation would be $912,000 or $942,000. If the cost of the building permit fee was used as a penalty, then a possible fine would be between $13,680 and $28,260. As an alternative, the City could charge a percentage of the construction cost of the project. If ten percent is used, the fine can be between $91,200 and $94,200. Staff has consulted with various cities regarding their approaches for implementing penalties for the illegal demolition of historic resources. Cities consulted included Berkeley, San Jose, Burlingame, Menlo Park, and Los Gatos. Those cities do not have ordinances that identify specific penalty fees for illegal demolition. However, as discussed above, those cities have required payment of double to triple of the building permit fees as a penalty. The applicant has and will continue to incur substantial costs associated with the delay due to the demolition. The costs include the preparation of the Supplemental EIR, hiring of the historic consultant and the fees for the PC Amendment. While it does not appear that the City’s existing penalty structure adequately compensates the community for loss of a historic resource, nevertheless, the City Council may ultimately determine additional compensation is warranted upon review of the amended PC Zoning. Final SEIR and Environmental Impacts

City of Palo Alto

Page 9

A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was originally published and posted on February 1, 2013 and sent to the State Clearinghouse for a 30-day period, from February 1 to March 4, 2013. A Notice of Completion and Availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) was published, posted and mailed announcing that the document was available for a 45day comment period from May 17 through July 20, 2013. Copies of the SEIR were provided to the HRB, P&TC and City Council at the beginning of the circulation period. The document concluded that the revised project would result in two new significant impacts: 1) Significant Impact to the historic resources specific to Building #1 after implementation of mitigation measures and 2) Significant Cumulative Historic Resources Impact. The Supplemental EIR was prepared by David J. Powers and Associates, an environmental consulting firm. The Draft SEIR was the subject of a HRB hearing on August 21, 2013. The HRB found the SEIR adequate and recommended that it be certified by the City Council. The Final SEIR would have included formal responses to all comments received during the public comment period. Since no comments were received regarding the SEIR, a Final SEIR was prepared confirming that no comments were received. The Final SEIR was circulated for public review on September 5, 2013 and will be available to the public a minimum of ten days prior to the EIR certification hearing. The SEIR and project have been tentatively scheduled for an October 2013 City Council hearing, pending the outcome of this PTC hearing. The Draft SEIR and Final SEIR, including source documents, additional background information, and the PTC, HRB, and ARB reports for review dates mentioned above are available on the City’s website at http://goo.gl/PjnreG. Images of project plans are also available with the staff report online, as a link on the PTC September 11, 2013 PTC meeting agenda. SEIR Contents Because the complete loss of Building #1 has been deemed a substantial change to the project, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Supplement to the EIR (SEIR) was prepared to address the changes needed to comply with State law. The supplement contains the information needed to address the change. This SEIR is focused only on the new significant historic impact created by the change to the proposal, the loss of Building #1 and the replacement construction in the same location of new materials. The original Final EIR included a mitigation measure (MMCR-2.3) that required compliance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation to reduce the impact to historic resources to a less than significant level for both Buildings #1 and #2. Loss of Building #1’s materials has made application of the mitigation measure and the Standards of Rehabilitation not possible. The other two mitigation measures to reduce the impact to historic resources to a less than significant level included the preparation of a Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) (MM CR-2.1) and creation of a display illustrating the history of Edgewood Plaza (MM CR-2.2) are still applicable. The HABS survey was completed and has been used to facilitate the preparation of the SEIR and the project implementation. The applicant is working on the design of the historic display.

City of Palo Alto

Page 10

The SEIR concluded that there would be a new significant impact to historic resources due to the loss of Building #1. The Secretary of Interior has established four treatments or guidelines to address the preservation of historic resources: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration and Reconstruction. Because there was a complete loss of materials, only the Reconstruction approach is applicable to address impacts to historic resources. The Reconstruction guidelines have typically been used in very selective situations, such as reconstruction of historic museum, where there is a clear public benefit (usually educational). The guidelines include requirements such as preservation of any remaining historic materials and construction of only the original design. The complete list of Guidelines and Standards for Reconstruction are provided on pages 19-22 of the SEIR. However, application of the guidelines cannot reduce the demolition to a less than significant level because none of the historic fabric would be retained. The SEIR also analyzed the potential impact to the remaining historic building, Building #2. Because the proposed Building #1 is substantially consistent with the originally approved design and in the same location, it was determined that there would not be an impact to the character of Building #2. To address the new impact caused by the loss of Building #1, mitigation measure CR-2.3 has been amended. The mitigation measure as originally written still applies to Building #2. CR-2.3 now states: A new Building 1 will be constructed of new building materials that match the character and one-story form of the commercial buildings of Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, consistent with the previous approved building elevations. As a condition of approval, all facades of Building #1 will be woodframed storefront systems that replicate the detail of the original 1957 window design. The final design and materials to be used in the renovation of Building #2 and reconstruction of Building #1 will be reviewed and approved by the Director and the Historic Preservation Planner of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment. In addition, staff is also proposing to have the City’s historic consultant, Carey & Company, to review and monitor the construction of Building #1 similar to what was required for Building #2. As noted above, application of the revised mitigation measure will not reduce the level of significance because none of the original building has been retained. The SEIR also concluded that there is a significant impact to Cumulative Cultural Resources, in that the loss of Building #1 combined with the recently approved demolition of the Edward Durrell Stone Building Complex (1959) at the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) campus (as part of the SUMC Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project approved in July 2011) has created a cumulatively City of Palo Alto

Page 11

considerable impact to mid-century modern buildings by prominent architects. The Stone Building Complex represents a significant example of the modern design Aesthetic and of a significant architect. The loss of Building #1 combined with the loss of the Stone Building Complex will therefore be a significant impact. Alternatives have been set forth and evaluated in the SEIR to allow the City Council and recommending bodies to consider ways to minimize the significance of the impacts to historic resources. Two alternatives were analyzed in the SEIR: (1) No Project and (2) Building Design. The No Project alternative would be a project without a new Building #1. Because the original building no longer exists, this would not avoid or reduce the historic impact due to the loss. However, the project objectives of creating a new mixed use project with three retail buildings would not be met. The second alternative, Building Design Alternative, would allow for a new building to be constructed in its new location with new materials. However, the building would be constructed in a manner that duplicates the original 1957 design. This may result in a more historically accurate representation, but would still be a new building. Therefore it would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The alternative would also not meet the project objectives because it would not allow the changes originally proposed by the applicant to make the building more suitable for a viable retail building. As noted, the Final SEIR, together with the Draft SEIR, is considered the CEQA clearance document for the amended project. No new environmental impacts were identified following the release of the Draft SEIR. The Final SEIR confirmed that no comments were received for the Draft SEIR and no changes have been made. Certification of Final SEIR Based on the analysis provided in the Final SEIR, consultation with various professional consultants and the recommendation by the HRB, staff recommends that the PTC recommend that the Council find that the demolition of Building #1 is significant, but that Statement of Overriding Considerations be made to allow the reconstruction of Building #1 with all new materials. The reconstruction of Building #1 will result in a building that is compatible to the original and will be more similar to the original building than the approved rehabilitation due to the installation of the more detailed window frames.

RESOURCE IMPACT

City of Palo Alto

Page 12

The applicant has already paid impact fees for the original PC rezoning, which included park, community center and library fees for the project. The redeveloped project site is expected to result in a significant increase in property taxes. The applicant estimates that the project would result in annual sales tax revenue from retail activity of approximately $1,050,000 and annual property tax revenue of approximately $350,000.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed amendment to the PC zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Neighborhood Commercial and associated policies. A table of applicable Comprehensive Plan policies is included as Attachment E.

NEXT STEPS After the Planning and Transportation Commission makes a recommendation regarding the Final SEIR and the PC amendment, the project has been tentatively scheduled for a City Council hearing on October 2013. Attachments: 

Attachment A: Draft Edgewood Plaza CEQA Resolution



Attachment B: Ordinance for Edgewood Plaza PC Amendment

(DOCX)



Attachment C: Approved Ordinance 5150 for Edgewood Plaza

(PDF)



Attachment D: Final SEIR Edgewood Plaza Project (PDF)



Attachment E: Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (DOCX)



Attachment F: Applicant's Development Schedule (PDF)



Attachment G: Project Plans (PDF)

City of Palo Alto

(PDF)

Page 13

Attachment A

***Not Yet Approved*'" * Resolution No Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the Adequacy of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Edgewood Plaza Project Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and Adopting the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding Considerations

----

The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows: SECTION 1.

Introduction and Certification.

(a) The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council"), in the exercise of its independent judgment, makes and adopts the following findings to comply with the requirements ofthe California Environmental Quality Act ("CECA"; Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.), and Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 ofthe CECA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs., § 15000 et seq.). All statements set forth in this Resolution constitute formal findings of the City Council, including the statements set forth in this paragraph. These findings are made relative to the conclusions of the City of Palo Alto Edgewood Plaza Project Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030) (the "Final SEIR"), which includes the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (,tDraft SEIRIt ). The Final SEIR addresses the environmental Impacts ofthe implementation ofthe Edgewood Plaza Project (the "Project", as further defined in Section 2(b) below) and is incorporated herein by reference. These findings are based upon the entire record of proceedings for the Project. (b) Mitigation measures associated with the potentially significant impacts of the Project will be implemented through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program described below, which is the responsibility of the City. (c) The City of Palo Alto is the Lead Agency pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21067 as It has the principal responsibility to approve and regulate the Project. Sand Hill Property Company is the Project applicant. (d) The City exercised its independent judgment in accordance with Public Resources Code section 20182.1(c), in retaining the independent consulting firm David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. ("Powers & Associates") to prepare the Final SEIR, and Powers & Associates prepared the Final SEIR under the supervision and at the direction of the CitYs Director of Planning and Community Environment. (e) The City, through Powers & Associates, initially prepared the Draft SEIR and circulated it for review by responsible and trustee agencies and the public and submitted it to the State Clearinghouse for review and comment by state agencies, for a comment period which ran from May 1, through July 20,2013. As noted above, the Final SEIR includes the Draft SEIR. No comments were received and no changes were made in the Final SEIR.

130920 dm 0131134

1

....... Not Yet Approved .... • (f) The Citys Planning and Transportation Committee has reviewed the Final SEIR and a draft of these findings and has provided its recommendations to the City Council regarding certification ofthe Final SEIR. The City Council has independently reviewed the Final SEIR and has considered the Planning and Transportation Committee's recommendations in making these findings. (g) Based upon review and consideration of the information contained therein, the City Council hereby certi'fies that the Final EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA, and reflects the City of Palo Alto's independent judgment and analysis. The City Council has considered evidence and arguments presented during consideration of the Project and the Final EIR. In determining whether the Project may have a significant impact on the environment, and in adopting the findings set forth below, the City Council certifies that it has complied with Public Resources Code sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21082.2. (h) Section 6 of the Final SEIR shows all revisions which the Final SEIR made to the Draft SEIR. All references to the Draft SEIR in these findings include references to all revisions to the Draft SEIR made in the Final SEIR. Having reviewed this section and the Final SEIR as a whole, the City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that no significant new information has been added to the Final SEIR so as to warrant recirculation of all or a portion of the Draft SEIR. Likewise, the City Council has considered all public comments and other information submitted into the record since publication of the Final SEIR, and further finds that none of that additional information constitutes significant new information requiring recirculation of the Final SEIR. SECTION 2.

Project Information.

The following Project information is supplied to provide context for the discussion and findings that follow, but is Intended as a summary and not a replacement for the information contained in the Draft SEIR, Final SEIR, or Project approvals. (a)

Project Objectives

The Project Objectives of the Project applicant are set forth in Section 2.4 of the Draft EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference. (b)

Project Description

The proposed Project is an amendment to the approved project that consisted of the renovation of three existing commercial buildings at the Edgewood Shopping Center containing approximately 38;400 square feet of retail uses, and the redevelopment of the northern portion of the site with ten Single-family residences and an approximately 10,000 square-foot park. The amendment would be to allow the reconstruction of one of the two historic Eichler retail buildings (Building #1) in the already approved location and configuration. Building #1 was approved to be dismantled and rehabilitated onslte as one of the primary public benefits, but

130920 dm 0131134

2

·**Not Yet Approved·** was demolished instead. A conceptual site plan of the proposed Project is shown on Figure 4. A breakdown of the proposed development areas and building square footage are shown in Table 2.3-1. Conceptual elevations ofthe commercial buildings are shown on Figures 5-10, and conceptual residential elevations are shown on Figure 11. (All references to figures and tables are to those appearing in the Draft SEIR, as modified where applicable in the Final SEIR.) A complete description of the Project as proposed by the Project applicant is set forth in Section 2.3 of the Draft SEIR, as modified in the Final SEIR. (c)

Required Approvals

The approvals required by the City as lead agency for implementation of the Project include: A.

Planned Community Zoning

B.

Final Subdivision Map

C.

Tree Removal Permits

SECTION 3.

Record of Proceedings.

(a) For purposes of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines section 15091(e), and these findings, the Record of Proceedings for the Project includes, but is not limited to, the following documents: (1)

The Final SEIR, which consists of the Edgewood Plaza Project Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, published and circulated for public review and comment by the City from May 17 through July 20, 2013 (the "Draft SEIR"), and the Edgewood Plaza Project Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report, published and made available on September 5,2013, and all appendices, reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, testimony, and other materials related theretoj

(2)

All public notices issued by the City in connection with the Project and the preparation ofthe Draft SEIR.and the Final SEIR, including but not limited to public notices for all public workshops held to seek public comments and input on the Project and the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Completion, Notice of Availabilityi

(3)

All written and oral communications submitted by agencies or interested members of the general public during the public review period for the Draft EIR,

130920 dm 0131134

3

***Not Yet Approved*** including oral communications made at public hearings or meetings held on the Project approvals; (4)

The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;

(5)

All findings and resolutions adopted by the City Council in connection with the Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein;

(6)

All final reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Project prepared by the City of Palo Alto and consultants with respect to the City of Palo Alto's compliance with the requirements of CEQA, and with respect to the City of Palo Alto's actions on the Project, Including all staff reports and attachments to all staff reports for all public meetings held by the City;

(7)

Minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all public meetings and/or public hearings held by the City of Palo Alto in connection with the Project;

(8)

Matters of common knowledge to the City of Palo Alto, including, but not limited to, federal, state, and local laws and regulations;

(9)

Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and

(10)

Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6(e).

(b) The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is the Director of Planning and Community Environment, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California, 94301. (c) Copies of all of the above-referenced documents, which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City of Palo Alto's decision on the Project Is based, are and have been available upon request at the offices of the Planning and Community Environment Department, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California, 94301, and other locations in the City of Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto has relied upon all of the documents, materials, and (d) evidence listed above in reaching its decision on the Project. The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the above(e) referenced documents, materials, and evidence constitute substantial evidence (as that term is defined by section 15384 of the CEQA Guidelines) to support each of the findings contained herein.

130920 dm 0131134

4

"'''''''Not Yet Approved"''' SECTION 4.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

(a) CEQA requires the lead agency approving a project to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the changes made to the project that it has adopted In order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. An MMRP has been prepared and is recommended for adoption by the City Council concurrently with the adoption of these findings to ensure compliance with mitigation measures during Project implementation. As required by Public Resources Code section 21081.6, the MMRP designates responsibility and anticipated timing for the implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR. The MMRP will remain available for public review during the compliance period. (b) "rhe City Council hereby adopts the MMRP for the Project attached hereto and incorporated by reference, and finds, determines, and declares that adoption of the MMRP will ensure enforcement and continued imposition ofthe mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR, and set forth in the MMRP, in order to mitigate or avoid significant impacts on the environment. SECTION 5.

Significant and Unavoidable Impacts.

The Draft SEIR and the Final SEIR documented that the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts which cannot be adequately mitigated through the adoption and implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Those impacts, along with mitigation measures to mitigate them to the extent feasible, are listed below as referenced in the Draft SEIR. 3.1 Cultural Resources Impact CR: Demolition of Building 1 represents a substantial adverse alteration of the physical characteristics of a historical resource and a change in the significant ofthe resource. Reconstruction of the proposed replacement building would not reduce the adverse impacts to the physical characteristics of the former building that conveyed its historical Significance and eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources and the National Register of Historic Places. a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in Section 3.1.3 of the Draft SEIR. b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and as further described in the remainder of these findings: Mitigation Measures CR-2.2 and CR-2.3. MM CR-2.2: The applicant shall create a display illustrating the history of the Edgewood

130920 dm 0131134

5

***Not Yet Approved*** Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, prior to approval of final occupancy. MM CR-2.3: Distinctive materials and defining architectural features, finishes, and construction techniques of Building 2 including windows, frames, and eaves will be retained to the extent possible, as the building elements will require some alterations due to ADA compliance, public safety, building code compliance, or deteriorated condition. The existing building components may be constructed out of new building materials that match the character and form of the existing, if reuse of existing building components is not feasible. Prior to the rehabilitation of Building 2, a qualified historic preservation architect shall review the plans for the remodeled buildings and verify that the work on these buildings is in keeping with the buildings' original design and applicable Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation, such as Standards #5, 6, 7, and 9. A new Building 1 will be constructed of new building materials that match the character and one-story form of the commercial buildings of Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, consistent with the previously approved building elevations. As a condition of approval, all facades of Building 1 will be wood-framed storefront systems that replicate the detail of the original 195 7 window design. The final design and materials to be used in the renovation of Building 2 and reconstruction of Building 1 will be reviewed and approved by the Director and the Historic Preservation Planner of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department. c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this potentially significant impact by: (I) creating a display illustrating the history of the Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes prior to approval of final occupancy; (Ii) requiring that the distinctive and defining architectural features, finishes and construction techniques of Buildings #1, including windows, frames, and eaves, be retained to the extent feasible during the reconstruction of Building #1, subject to verification by qualified professionals that work on these resources is completed in conformance with applicable federal standards; and (iii) requiring review and approval of the final design and materials to be used in the renovation of these buildings by the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Departmentj thereby ensuring that this Impact is mitigated to the extent feasible. However, these measures would not fully mitigate this Impact to a less-than-significant level. d) Remaining Impacts. There are no other feasible mitigation measures available to mitigate this impact to a less-than-signlficant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR- 2.2 and 2.3 would lessen the Project's impacts on the described historical resources by reconstructing Building #1 as originally approvedand documenting the significant historical characteristics of Buildings #1. However, the reconstruction of Building #1 would not result in reversing the demolition, and therefore this reconstruction would still result in a Significant impact to historic resources.

130920 dm 0131134

6

***Not Yet Approved"""*

e) OVerriding Considerations. The environmental, social, economic and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project relating to historical resources as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below. Section 4.0 Cumulative Impacts

f)

Impact Cumulative Impact: The Edgewood Plaza site is considered historically .significant under federal, state and City of Palo Alto criteria. The demolition of Building #1 and reconstruction with all new materials would result in a significant impact to cumulative cultural resources. As with all historic structures of a particular design or time period, there are a finite number of representative structures that exist. Of the two Eichler commercial buildings within the City of Palo Alto deemed historically significant, one has now been demolished. As a result, Building #2 is the only remaining representative Eichler commercial building within Palo Alto. As discussed in the Edgewood Plaza Final EIR, the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) project would result in the loss of the Stone Building Complex, which was designed by E.D. Stone and constructed in 1959. The SUMC project has been identified as resulting In a significant cumulative historic resources impact due to the small body of E.D. Stone/s work in Palo Alto that retains sufficient integrity to be eligible as historic resources. The Stone Building Complex and Building #1 are of a similar time period, both represent a modern design aesthetic, and both are significant examples of their respective architects. Therefore, the loss of Building 1 combined with the loss of the Stone Building Complex is a cumulatively considerable impact relative to mid-century modern buildings by prominent architects in Palo Alto. g)

Potential Impact. The impact Identified above is described and discussed in Section 3.1.3 ofthe Draft SEIR.

h) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and as further described in the remainder of these findings: Mitigation Measures CR-2.2 and CR-2.3. MM CR-Z.Z: The applicant shall create a display illustrating the history ofthe Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, prior to approval of final occupancy. MM CR-Z.3: Distinctive materials and defining architectural features, finishes, and construction techniques of Building 2 including windows, frames, and eaves will be retained to the extent possible, as the building elements will require some alterations due to ADA compliance, public safety, building code compliance, or deteriorated condition. The existing building components may be constructed out of new building

130920 dm 0131134

7

"·Not Yet Approved·" materials that match the character and form of the existing, if reuse of existing building components is not feasible. Prior to the rehabilitation of Building 2, a qualified historic preservation architect shall review the plans for the remodeled buildings and verify that the work on these buildings is in keeping with the buildings' original design and applicable Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation, such as Standards #5, 6, 7, and 9. A new Building 1 will be constructed of new building materials that match the character and one-story form of the commercial buildings of Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, consistent with the previously approved building elevations. As a condition of approval, all facades of Building 1 will be wood-framed storefront systems that replicate the detail of the original 1957 window design. The final design and materials to be used in the renovation of Building 2 and reconstruction of Building 1 will be reviewed and approved by the Director and the Historic Preservation Planner of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department. i) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this potentially significant impact by: (i) creating a display illustrating the history of the Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes prior to approval of final occupancy; (ii) requiring that the distinctive and defining architectural features, finishes and construction techniques of Buildings #1, including windows, frames, and eaves, be retained to the extent feasible during the reconstruction of Building #1, subject to verification by qualified professionals that work on these resources is completed in conformance with applicable federal standards; and (iii) requiring review and approval of the final design and materials to be used in the renovation of these buildings by the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department; thereby ensuring that this Impact is mitigated to the extent feasible. However, these measures would not fully mitigate this Impact to a less-than-signlficant level.

j) Remaining Impacts. There are no other feasible mitigation measures available to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR- 2.2 and 2.3 would lessen the Project's impacts on the described historical resources by reconstructing Building #1 as originally approved and documenting the significant historical characteristics of Buildings #1. However, the reconstruction of Building #1 would not result in reversing the demolition, and therefore this reconstruction would still result in a significant impact to cumulative historic resources. k) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, social, economic and other benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project relating to historical resources as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations below.

130920 dm 0131134

8

"*Not Yet Approved*"

SECTION 6.

Findings Regarding Project Alternatives.

Public Resources Code section 21002 prohibits a public agency from approving a project if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the project. When a lead agency finds, even after the adoption of all feasible mitigation measures, that a project will still cause one or more significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided, it must, prior to approving the project as mitigated, first determine whether there are any

project alternatives that are feasible and that would substantially lessen or avoid the project's significant impacts. Under CECA, "feasibility" includes "desirability" to the extent that it is based on a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and technological factors, and an alternative may be deemed by the lead agency to be "infeasible" if it fails to adequately promote the project applicant's and/or the lead agency's primary underlying goals and objectives for the project. Thus, a lead agency may reject an alternative, even if it would avoid or substantially lessen one or more significant environmental effects of the project, if it finds that the alternative's failure to adequately achieve the objectives forthe project, or other specific and identifiable considerations, make the alternative infeasible. "rhe City Council certifies that the Final SEIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, and that the City Council has evaluated the comparative merits of the alternatives. As described below, the City Council has decided to approve the Project as proposed, and to reject the remainder of the alternatives, as summarized below. Sections 2.3 ofthe Draft SEIR set forth the Project applicant's objectives for the Project. That list is incorporated herein by reference. In light of the applicant's objectives for the Project, and given that the Project is expected to result in certain significant environmental effects even after the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, as identified above, the City hereby makes the following findings with respect to whether one or more of the alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIR could feasibly accomplish most of the goals and objectives for the Project and substantially lessen or avoid one or more of its potentially significant effects. No Project Alternative The No Project Alternative - Current Conditions Scenario is discussed at Section 7.2 of the Draft SEIR. The No Project - Current Conditions Scenario is hereby rejected as infeasible because it would not achieve the Project objectives, as explained in Sections 7.3.2, 7.3.3 and 7.3.4 ofthe Draft SEIR.

130920 dm 0131134

9

·"Not Yet Approved"· BUilding Design Alternative The Building Design Alternative is discussed in Section 7.4.1 ofthe Draft SEIR. The Building Design Alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible because it would not achieve most ofthe Project objectives, as explained in Sections 7.4.3, 7.4.4 and 7.5 ofthe Draft SEIR. SECTION 7.

Statement of Overriding Considerations

Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, this City Council adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the remaining significant unavoidable impacts of the Project, as discussed above, and the anticipated economic, social and other benefits ofthe Project. The City finds that: (i) the majority of the significant impacts of the Project will be reduced to lessthan-significant and acceptable levels by the mitigation measures described in the Final EIR and approved and adopted by these Findings; (Ii) the City's approval of the Project will result in certain significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided even with the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into the Project; and (iii) there are no other feasible mitigation measures or feasible Project alternatives that would further mitigate or avoid the remaining significant environmental effects. The significant effects that have not been mitigated to a less-than-significant level and are therefore considered significant and unavoidable are identified in Section 6 above. Despite these potentially significant impacts, it is the City's considered judgment that the benefits offered by the Project outweigh the potentially adverse effects of these significant impacts. The substantial evidence supporting the following described benefits of the Project can be found in the preceding findings and in the record of proceedings. The benefits of the Project which the City Council finds serve as "overriding considerations" justifying its approval include the following:

LRehabilitation of Building #2 and reconstruction of Building #1 in a design significantly closer to its original appearance with the inclusion of custom made windows in the original deSign, with narrow full height frames and projecting moldings. Rehabilitation of the original historic monument sign for the shopping center. ~_2._Redevelopment

of a very underutilized shopping center currently suffering from significant urban decay and in jeopardy of becoming a vacant eyesore with a mix of economically viable commercial and residential uses. Reconstruction of

~_3._Building

130920 dm 0131134

#1 will enable the complete redevelopment ofthe shopping center.

10

***Not Yet Approved***

;"~Redevelopment

and rehabilitation of a high-quality shopping and commercial area on the Edgewood Plaza site that will serve the community, including the provision of a new grocery store for the local neighborhood, in a manner that reflects the mid-century aesthetic and design of the existing buildings and surrounding Duveneck/Saint Francis (Edgewood and Green Gables) neighborhood. Reconstruction of Building #1 will enable to complete restoration of the shopping center.

4:L-Provision of a grocery store in the 20,600 sq. ft. building; ~~Provision

of 0.20 acre public park,via public access easements in perpetuity. The park would be maintained by the commercial property owner and shall not be used for seating/activities associated with the retail uses.

&L-..[Placeholder for additional public benefits as deSignated by Council.]

INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: AITEST:

City Clerk

Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

APPROVED:

Senior Assistant City Attorney

City Manager Director of Planning and Community Envirorunent

130920 dm 0131134

11

MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM

EDGEWOOD PLAZA PROJECT SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Palo Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10PLN-00198/13PLN-00197 State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030

CITY OF PALO ALTO

JULy 2013

130920 dm 0131134

12

PREFACE Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a Lead Agency to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program whenever it approves a project for which measures have been required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The purpose of the monitoring or reporting program is to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report concluded that the implementation of the project could result in significant effects on the environment and mitigation measures were incorporated into the proposed project. This Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program addresses those measures in tenns of how and when they will be implemented. The previously approved project included three mitigation measures to reduce impacts to historic resources on the site. Mitigation Measure (MM) :MM CR-2.1, completion of a Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation of Building 1 and Building 2 has been completed and is not referenced further. MA4 CR-2.2, creation of a display illustrating the history of the Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, will be completed prior to approval of fmal occupancy and is included below. The third mitigation measure, MM CR-2.3 is included in its entirety, and has been revised to reflect the demolition of Building 1 and proposed changes in the project. The changes affect the reconstruction of Building 1 only. No changes have been made to the approved mitigation for rehabilitation of Building 2.

130920 dm 0131134

13

M1T1GATJON MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM Pili

Mitigation Measures

Environmental Imparts

Impact: Demolition of Building I represents II substantial adversc alh:ralion of the physical characteristics of a hiSlOrical resource and a changc in the significant of Ihe resource Reconstruction olthc proposed rcplaecment building would not reduce thc advcrse impacts to lhe physical characteristics of the fonncr building Ihat conveyed its historical sign ilicancc and cligibility for the California Kegister of Historical Resources and the National RcgisterofHistonc Placcs ISigni ficant

rm pact)

: The applicant shal l creatc a display illustrating the history of [he Edgewood Plaza 35 buil[ by Eichler Homes, prior to approval of linal occupancy. MM CR-2 .3: Distinctive materials and defining architectural tcaturcs, finishes , and construction techniques of Building 2 including windows. fromes, and eaves will be rctained to the extent possible, as the building elemcll\s will require some alterations duc to ADA compliance, public safety, building code compliance, or dcteriOr.Jted condition. nle existing building components may be cOflstructcd out of ncw building matcrials that m~teh the character and fonn of thc existing, if reuse of e.'(isting building components is not feasible. Prior 10 the rehabilitalion of Building 2, a qualilied historic preservation aIchitect shall review the plans for the remodeled building~ and verify (hatlhe work on these buildings is in keeping with Ihe bu ildings' original design and applicable Secrelary oj the Interior's Stal/dards for RelUlbilirarion, such as Standards 115, 6, 7. and 9. /I. new Building I will be constructed oruew building materials Ihal m~teh the character and onc-story form uf tlIe commercial buildings of Edgewood Plaza as buill by Eichler Homes, consistent with the previously approved bllilding. elevations As a condition ofapproval, all facades of Building I will bc wood framed storefront systems thaI replicate the delail of thc original 1957 window design .

The final design and malerials to be used in the renovation of Duilding 2 and reconStruclion of Building I will be re\'iewcd and approved by the Direclor and the Historic Preservalion Planner of the Cil)" of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department. (Signilicant Impacl After the fmplementation of Mitig~tion l\I

130920 dm 0131134

14

Project applicant and consulting historic prc',;erv3t ion architect.

All measures will be required as part of dcvelopment pennits, and will be pri nled on all construction documents, contracLS, and project plans prior 10 issuant(: of development pl:nnits. O"ersigilt of implementation hy the Cit)' ofP~lo Alto Direclor of Planning and Communiry Environmcn! and the City's Historic Resourccs Plan

demolition and l:onstruclion. as specilied.

*NOT YET APPROVED*

Attachment B

Ordinance No.________ Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo Alto Amending Ordinance 5150 (amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code [The Zoning Map] to Change the Classification of Property Located at 2080 Channing Avenue [Edgewood Plaza] to PC Planned Community Zone (PC 5150)) to Allow the Reconstruction of Building #1 with All New Materials. The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. (a) On April 9, 2012, the City Council granted Planned Community (PC) Zoning Ordinance 5150 (“Project”) to permit the redevelopment of the property commonly known as the Edgewood Shopping Center located at 2080 Channing Avenue (the “Subject Property”). A copy of Ordinance 5150 is attached as Exhibit C and incorporated by reference. As part of that PC, the applicant Sand Hill Property Company (Applicant) was required to rehabilitate Building 1, identified as a historic resource, in accordance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. (b) On XX, the Applicant without permission of the City, demolished Building 1 rendering reconstruction infeasible. The City immediately put a Stop Work Order on the remaining portion of the Project. Subsequently, the City permitted certain aspects of the Project to move forward. (c) On February 26, 2013, the Applicant applied to the City for an amendment to Planned Community Zoning (PC) 5150 to substitute the reconstruction of Building 1 for the rehabilitation of Building 1 to accommodate the uses set forth below. (d) The Historic Resources Board, at its meeting of August 21, 2013, reviewed the Project and recommended the City Council approve the amendment with associated draft conditions of approval ‘Exhibit B.’ (e) The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held September 11, 2013, reviewed, considered, and recommended certification of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, then reviewed the Planned Community, and recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to rezone the Subject Property to a new Planned Community zone for the proposed project depicted on ‘Exhibit A,’ (the “Project”), consistent with conditions included in the Planned Community zone related to allowable land uses and required development standards, and subject to provision of the public benefits outlined in this ordinance. Draft conditions of project approval “Exhibit B” attached to this document and incorporated by reference were presented to the PTC for review and comments.

030920 dm 0131135

1

*NOT YET APPROVED* (f) The Palo Alto City Council, after due consideration of the proposed Project, the analysis of the City staff, and the conditions recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission, certified the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program, concurred with the recommendations from the PTC and the HRB, and found that the proposed project and this Ordinance is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. (g) The Council finds that the findings made in Ordinance 5150 justifying the granting of Planned Community 5150 still apply to the Subject Property in that the Project will incorporate the modified community benefits described in Section (3)(f) hereof. SECTION 2. Ordinance 5150 amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the “Zoning Map,” is hereby amended as follows: The project is as depicted on the Development Plans dated February 2, 2012 and amended in Development Plans dated September 11, 2013, incorporated by reference, including the following new component: (a) Reconstruction of Building #1 with all new materials in the originally approved location and configuration. Except as herein modified, all other provisions of Ordinance 5150, including any exhibits and conditions, shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 3. Section 4 of Ordinance 5150 is amended to additionally require compliance with (i) the February 29, 2012 Development Plans as amended on September 11, 2013, (ii) the conditions of project approval attached as Exhibit B, and (iii) any approved supplemental materials for the Subject Property, as submitted by the applicant pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC §18.38.090). In addition, Sections (f), (g) and (h) shall be amended as follows: (f)

Public Benefits: Development of the site under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. The Project includes the following public benefits that are inherent to the Project and in excess of those required by City zoning districts.

030920 dm 0131135

2

*NOT YET APPROVED* (1)

Rehabilitation of Building #2 and reconstruction of Building #1 in a design significantly closer to its original appearance with the inclusion of custom made windows in the original design, with narrow full height frames and projecting moldings. Describe existing historic benefits,such as renovation of Building 2, upgraded windows, Eichler signage. Rehabilitation of the original historic monument sign for the shopping center.

(2)

Redevelopment of a very underutilized shopping center currently suffering from significant urban decay and in jeopardy of becoming a vacant eyesore with a mix of economically viable commercial and residential uses. Reconstruction of Building #1 will enable the complete redevelopment of the shopping center.

(3)

Redevelopment and rehabilitation of a high-quality shopping and commercial area on the Edgewood Plaza site that will serve the community, including the provision of a new grocery store for the local neighborhood, in a manner that reflects the mid-century aesthetic and design of the existing buildings and surrounding Duveneck/Saint Francis (Edgewood and Green Gables) neighborhood. Reconstruction of Building #1 will enable to complete restoration of the shopping center.

(4)

Provision of a grocery store in the 20,600 sq. ft. building;

(5)

Provision of 0.20 acre public park, via public access easements in perpetuity. The park would be maintained by the commercial property owner and shall not be used for seating/activities associated with the retail uses.

(6)

[Placeholder for other community benefits designated by Council]

(g) Development Schedule: The project is required to include a Development Schedule pursuant to PAMC §18.38.100. The approved Development Schedule is set forth below: Construction of the Project shall commence immediately following the adoption of the PC zone, unless a change in the development schedule is approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, not

030920 dm 0131135

3

*NOT YET APPROVED* to exceed a one year extension in time and only one such extension without a hearing, pursuant to PAMC §18.38.130. The total time for the project construction and occupancy of tenant spaces is expected to be 24 months following adoption of the PC zone, or by September 2015, unless extended by the Director for up to one additional year. (h)

Placeholder for continued existence of Grocery Store.

SECTION 4. A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for this project was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council certified the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program and adopted a resolution at its meeting of xxxx. SECTION 5. The plans referenced consist of plans titled “Edgewood Shopping Center” prepared by Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Burton Architecture, Sandis and the Guzzardo Partnership, dated February 29, 2012, including the Tentative Map for Edgewood Plaza, prepared by Sandis, dated September 11, 2013. //

//

//

//

//

//

030920 dm 0131135

4

*NOT YET APPROVED* SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption (second reading). INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:

APPROVED:

__________________________ City Clerk

_________________________ Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

_________________________ City Manager

__________________________ Assistant City Attorney __________________________ Director of Planning Community Environment

030920 dm 0131135

and

5

*NOT YET APPROVED* Exhibit A

[Insert Map]

030920 dm 0131135

6

*NOT YET APPROVED* Exhibit B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2080 Channing Avenue – Edgewood Plaza/ File No. 13PLN-00197

DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT Planning and Transportation Divisions 1. The plans submitted to obtain all permits through the Building Inspection Division shall be in substantial conformance with the revised plans, project details and materials received on March 22, 2012 and as modified in plans received on September 11, 2013, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval. 2.

All conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted to obtain any permit through the Building Inspection Division.

3.

Construction details, colors, materials, and placement of the shopping center signs and roof mounted equipment shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review prior to submittal of the building permit.

4.

All conditions required in PC-5150, including mitigation measures, are still applicable unless specifically amended by the document.

5.

Prior to the submittal of a building permit application, a historic consultant shall be hired by the City and paid for the applicant to review the building permit submittal and construction of Building #1 to confirm compliance with this approval and mitigation requirements of the project’s Supplement Environmental Impact Report.

6.

Building #1 shall be constructed of materials that were approved for use in Building #2 to the satisfaction of the Director of the Planning and Community Environment Department.

7.

A plaque identifying Building #1 as a reconstructed building shall be installed on Building #1 to the satisfaction of the Director of the Planning and Community Environment Department EIR Mitigation Measures

8.

MM CR-2.2: The applicant shall create a display illustrating the history of the Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, prior to approval of final occupancy.

030920 dm 0131135

7

*NOT YET APPROVED* 9.

MM CR-2.3: Distinctive materials and defining architectural features, finishes, and construction techniques of Building 2 including windows, frames, and eaves will be retained to the extent possible to the satisfaction of the Director of the Planning and Community Environment Department, as the building elements will require some alterations due to ADA compliance, public safety, building code compliance, or deteriorated condition. The existing building components, to the satisfaction of the Planning Director, may be constructed out of new building materials that match the character and form of the existing, if reuse of existing building components is not feasible. Prior to the rehabilitation of Building 2, a qualified historic preservation architect shall review the plans for the remodeled buildings and verify that the work on these buildings is in keeping with the buildings’ original design and applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, such as Standards #5, 6, 7, and 9.

10. A new Building 1 will be constructed of new building materials that match the character and one-story form of the commercial buildings of Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, consistent with the previously approved building elevations. As a condition of approval, all facades of Building 1 will be woodframed storefront systems that replicate the detail of the original 1957 window design. 11. The final design and materials to be used in the renovation of Building #2 and reconstruction of Building #1 will be reviewed and approved by the Director and the Historic Preservation Planner of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department. 12. Government Code Section 66020 provides that project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR TO FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. 13. This matter is subject to the Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5, and the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.

030920 dm 0131135

8

*NOT YET APPROVED*

Exhibit C PC 5150 [To be inserted]

030920 dm 0131135

9

Attachment C

Ordinance No. 5150 Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Located at 2080 Channing Avenue (Edgewood Plaza) from Planned Community (PC-1643) to PC Planned Community Zone (PC-5l50) for the Renovation of the Three Existing Eichler Retail Structures, On-Site Relocation of One of the Retail Structures, Construction ofTen New Single-Family Homes, and Creation of a 0.20 Acre Park The Council ofthe City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. (a) Sand Hill Property Company, (''the Applicant") applied on June 1,2010 to the City for approval of (1) a rezoning application (the "Project") for a new Planned Community (PC) district for a property located at 2080 Channing Avenue (the "Subject Property") to accommodate the uses set forth below and (2) a Tentative Map to subdivide the 3.58 site into one commercial lot, including a 0.20 acre park, dedicated to the City with public access easements and maintained by the commercial property owner, and ten single family residential lots. (b) The Tentative Map plan set, dated February 15, 2012, and last revised on March 19, 2012 includes information on the existing parcels, onsite conditions, and the layout of the proposed new lots. These drawings are in compliance with the applicable provisions of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. These plans contain all information and notations required to be shown on a Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.13), as well as the design requirements concerning the creation of lots, streets, walkways, and similar features (PAMC 21.20). (c) , The Planning and Transportation Commission, at its meeting of April 27, 2011, acted favorably on the applicant's request for initiation of the Planned Community Zone process for the establishment of Planned Community Zone District No. PC-5150. (d) The Architectural Review Board, at its meeting of February 2, 2012, reviewed the Project design and recommended the City Council approve the project with associated draft conditions of approval 'Exhibit B.' (e) The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held February 29,2012, reviewed, considered, and recommended certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report, then reviewed the Planned Community and Tentative Map and this ordinance, and recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to rezone the Subject Property to a new Planned Community zone for the proposed project depicted on 'Exhibit A,' (the "Project"), consistent with conditions included in the Planned Community zone related to

120313 dm 0120529

1

· '\ ':\

I

allowable land uses and required development standards, and subject to provision of the public benefits outlined in this ordinance and recommended approval of the Tentative Map. Draft conditions of project approval "Exhibit B" attached to this document and incorporated by reference were presented to the PTC for review and comments. (f) The Palo Alto City Council, after due consideration of the proposed Project, the analysis of the City staff, and the conditions recommended by the Planning and Transportation Commission, certified the Final Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program, concurred with the recommendations from the PTC and the ARB, and found that the proposed project and this Ordinance is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth.

(g) The Council finds that (1) the Subject Property is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow for the Project; (2) development of the Subject Property under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts, as set forth in Section (4)( c) hereof; and (3) the use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the proposed district are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Goals, Policies, and proposed designation of Mixed Use for the Subject Property) and are compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of Subject Property from Planned Community (PC1643) to "PC Planned Community Zone 5150". SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the Subject Property that the project (the "Project") comprises the following uses included in this ordinance and a mixed use development, depicted on the Development Plans dated February 2, 2012, incorporated by reference, including the following components: (a) Renovation of an existing 37,965 sq. ft. shopping center, including relocation and renovation of the 10,000 sq. ft. retail building, renovation of the 7,800 sq. ft. retail building in place, and renovation of the 20,600 sq. ft. building in place for use as a grocery store, deletion of the outer parking lots and expansion of the remaining parking lot, and associated site improvements (b) Construction of ten detached residential units on fee simple lots along Channing Avenue, including five surface parking stalls and ten two-car garages. (c) Construction of a 0.20 acre park at the comer of Channing Avenue and St. Francis Drive. The park shall include public access easement so that it would be a public

120313 dm 0120529

2

park to be maintained by the commercial property owner in perpetuity. There shall not be any use of the park for the purposes of the retail tenants. (d) A Tentative Map to subdivide the 3.58 acre site into eleven parcels. The first parcel (2.73 acres) would contain the existing grocery building, the other two retail buildings ("Buildings 1 and 2") and the new 0.20 acre park. The park would include a public access easement allowing use as a public park, and would be maintained by the owner of the commercial parcel. The remaining ten parcels (ranging from 3,376 to 4,026 sq. ft.) would be created for the ten residences. Private easements would be provided for the driveways and walkways. SECTION 4. The Development Plan for the Subject Property dated February 29,2012, and any approved supplemental materials for the Subject Property, as submitted by the applicant pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC §18.38.090), shall be subject to the following permitted and conditional land uses and special limitations on land uses, development standards, parking and loading requirements, modifications to the development plans and provisions of public benefits outlined below, and conditions of project approval, attached and incorporated as "Exhibit B".

(a) as follows:

Permitted, Conditionally Permitted land uses shall be allowed and limited

Permitted Uses (subject to the limitations below under Section 4(b)): (1) Ten residential units;

(2) Retail Services (excluding liquor stores); (3) Eating and Drinking Services (excluding drive-in services); (4) Personal Services; (5) Neighborhood Business Services; (6) Financial Services (excluding drive-up services); (7) A 0.20 acre public park, via public access easements; (8) Accessory facilities and activities customarily associated with or essential to permitted uses, and operated incidental to the principal use. Conditionally Permitted Uses: (1) Small tutoring center or afterschool program center;

120313 dm 0120529

3

(2) Limited commercial recreation; (3) Farmer's Markets or similar. (b)

Special limitations on land uses include the following: (1) The 20,600 sq. ft. building shall be primarily used for grocery uses only; (2) No medical office shall be permitted within the development; (3) No administrative office use shall be permitted within the development; (4) The "Retail" space as identified on the Development Plan shall be occupied by retail uses, personal service uses, eating and drinking services or customer serving financial services only, except where a conditional use permit is required in accordance with 4(a).

(c)

Development Standards: Development Standards for the site shall comply with the standards prescribed for the Planned Community (PC) Zone District (pAMC Chapter 18.38) and as described in Section Three and Section Four herein and in the Approved Development Plans.

(d)

Parking and Loading Requirements: In addition to the parking and loading requirements specified in PAMC §§18.52 and 18.54, a Transportation Demand Management Plan ("TDM") Program shall be developed for the Project in accordance with PAMC §18.52.050(d) for employees of the Project. The TDM plan shall include bicycle, pedestrian and public transportation functions. The TDM plan shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment prior to issuance of building permits for the site and shall include, at a minimum, offer for parking cash out, bike facilities, transportation information kiosks, and the designation of a transportation demand coordinator for the building. The TDM program will include monitoring reports, which shall be submitted to the Director not later than two years after building occupancy and again not later than five years after building occupancy, noting the effectiveness of the proposed measures as compared to the initial performance targets, and suggestions for modifications if necessary to enhance parking and/or trip reductions. Where the monitoring reports indicate that performance measures are not met, the director may require further program modifications.

120313 dm0120529

4

(e)

Modifications to the Development Plan and Site Development Regulations: Once the project has been constructed consistent with the approved Development Plan, any modifications to the exterior design of the Development Plan or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or the site development regulations contained in Section 4 (a) - (c) above shall require an amendment to this Planned Community zone, unless the modification is a minor change as described in PAMC §18.76.050 (b) (3) (e), in which case the modification may be approved through the minor Architectural Review process. Any use not specifically permitted by this ordinance shall require an amendment to the PC ordinance.

(f)

Public Benefits: Development of the site under the provlSlons of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. The Project includes the following public benefits that are inherent to the Project and in excess of those required by City zoning districts.

(g)

(1)

Preservation and renovation of an existing historically significant shopping center developed by Eichler Homes, eligible for federal, state and local historic registries;

(2)

Provision of a grocery store in the 20,600 sq. ft. building;

(3)

Provision of a 0.20 acre public park, via public access easements, in perpetuity. (Land is dedicated for the ten units, plus an additional 5,000 sq. ft., where an in-lieu fee could also be proposed. The park would be maintained by the commercial property owner.) The park shall not be used for seating/activities associated with the retail uses.

(4)

Provision of three (3) electrical vehicle (EY) charging stations installed onsite, subject to final City approval. The applicant shall incur all costs of the installation.

Development Schedule: The project is required to include a Development Schedule pursuant to PAMC §18.38.100. The approved Development Schedule is set forth below: Construction of the Project shall commence immediately following the adoption of the PC zone, unless a change in the development schedule is approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, not

120313 dm 0120529

5

\

\

j

)

to exceed a one year extension in time and only one such extension without a hearing, pursuant to PAMC §18.38.130. The total time for the project construction and occupancy of tenant spaces is expected to be 24 months following adoption of the PC zone, or by March 2014, unless extended by the Director for up to one additional year. (h)

No building permit shall be approved (other than for model homes with no more than one model home per plan type) for residential development prior to submittal to the Director of a lease agreement or other legally binding commitment from a grocery operator to occupy 20,600 square feet in the Grocery Building. The Lease Agreement shall require that Occupancy of the grocery store shall occur not later than 15 months after the issuance of the first building permit for the Grocery Building or 15 months after issuance of the first building permit for the residential development (other than a model home). Final inspection and occupancy shall be allowed for not more than 5 homes (including model homes) prior to final inspection and occupancy approval for the grocery store. Bonding or other financial security may be considered in lieu of these requirements only upon review and approval by the City Council as an amendment to this PC ordinance.

SECTION 5. Tentative Map Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Tentative Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474): 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451:

This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The site does not lie within a specific plan area and is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. The land use designation in the area of the subdivision is Neighborhood Commercial and the zoning designation is Planned Community (PC) District. The proposed development of the commercial and residential mixed use development is consistent with the land use and zoning designations of the site. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans:

This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The map is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, particularly including: (1) Policy L-l Limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area; (2) Policy L-4 - Maintain Palo Alto's varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto's desirable qualities; (3) Policy L-9 - Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to

120313 dm 0120529

6

\

j

create opportunities for new mixed use development; and (4) Policy B-27 - Support the upgrading and revitalization of Palo Alto's four Neighborhood Commercial Centers. 3.

That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development:

This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The site can accommodate the proposed subdivision, as it is currently vacant, flat, and absent any significant vegetation. The lots conform to the width, depth, and area requirements of this Planned Community Zoning District. The design of the mixed use, commercial and residential buildings require Architectural Review approval. The proposed development was recommended for approval by the City Council from the Architectural Review Board on February 2,2012. 4.

That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development:

This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision would be consistent with the site development regulations of this Planned Community Zoning District and would not affect the location of the existing property lines at the perimeter of the site. 5.

That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision would not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat, as the site is currently fully developed with a vacant commercial development. An Environmental Impact Report was adopted certifying that there will be no significant unmitigated environmental impacts.

6.

That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems:

This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision of the existing parcel for a commercial and residential mixed use development will not cause serious public health problems. 7.

120313 dm 0120529

That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has

7

\

)

acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision of the existing parcel will not conflict with easements of any type, in that the subdivision is compatible with adequate emergency vehicle access and any utility easements that would be required to serve the proposed developments. SECTION 6. Indenmification. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice SECTION 7. Monitoring of Conditions and Public Benefits. Not later than three (3) years following the approval of building occupancy by the City and every three (3) years thereafter, the applicant shall request that the City review the project to assure that conditions of approval and public benefits remain in effect as provided in the original approval. The applicant shall provide adequate funding to reimburse the City for these costs. If conditions or benefits are found deficient by staff, the applicant shall correct such conditions in not more than 90 days from notice by the City. If correction is not made within the prescribed timeframe, the Director of Planning and Community Environment will schedule review of the project before the Planning and Transportation Commission and Council to determine appropriate remedies, fines or other actions. SECTION 8. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project was prepared in

accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council certified theEIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program and adopted a resolution at its meeting of March 19,2012. SECTION 9. The plans referenced consist of plans titled "Edgewood Shopping Center" prepared by Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Burton Architecture, Sandis and the Guzzardo Partnership, dated February 29, 2012, including the Tentative Map for Edgewood Plaza, prepared by Sandis, dated February 15,2012. SECTION 10.

120313 dm0120529

8

This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption (second reading). INTRODUCED:

March 19,2012

PASSED:

April 9, 2012

AYES:

Burt, Espinosa, Klein, Price, Schmid, Shepherd, Yeh

NOES:

Holman

ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT:

Scharff

ATTEST: