HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-11-19 City Council (9)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE PALO ALTO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY R2
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: CITY MANAGER
CMR: 426:01
DATE:November 19, 2001
SUBJECT:PRELIMINARY PLAN FORMULATION AND
RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION BY THE PALO ALTO
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AND
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO ACCEPTING THE PRELIMINARY PLAN
FOR THE PROPOSED EDGEWOOD REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AND ~AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
TRANSMITTAL OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND
INFORMATION, AUTHO~ZING THE PREPARATION OF THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND PRELIMINARY
REPORT, AND ESTABLISHING A YEAR OF LAST EQUALIZED
ASSESSMENT ROLL TO BE USED FOR ALLOCATION OF
TAXES
RECOMMENDATION
Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend adoption and
approval of the Edgewood Redevelopment Project Preliminary Plan.
Additionally, staff recommends that the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palo Alto:
Authorize and direct transmittal of certain documents and information to all affected
taxing entities and environmental agencies upon completion of the Draft EIR and
Preliminary Report, authorize the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (ERR)
and Preliminary Report, and establish the 2001-2002 assessment roll as the base year
assessment roll for the purpose of allocation of taxes pursuant to Health and Safety Code
section 33670.
CMR:426:01 Page 1 of 4
BACKGROUND
As a part of the redevelopment plan adoption process, the City is required to prepare a
Preliminary Plan for the redevelopment of each selected Project Area. The Preliminary
Plan is typically a brief document outlining the basic concept for redevelopment of the
selected project area. This plan must include the following information:
¯Description of the project
¯General statement of land uses
¯Layout of principal streets
¯Population densities
¯Building intensities; and
¯Standards proposed as the basis for the redevelopment of the project area
The Planning and Transportation Commission, in the development of the Preliminary
Plan, also specifies:
¯How the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law will be attained
¯How the proposed redevelopment conforms to the general plan of the community; and
¯Generally describes the impact of the project on the residents of the project area and
the surrounding neighborhoods.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Preliminary Plan was submitted to the Planning and Transportation Commission on
November 7, 2001. No changes were made to the Preliminary Plan but the Commission
made several comments about the Plan. Comments included the following:
¯Consider traffic in and around the center because traffic circulation and access,
including the off-ramp from the Bayshore Highway, are difficult and possibly unsafe
¯Consider the addition of a gateway-type entrance to the neighborhood
¯Look at the whole area surrounding the Edgewood Project Area including the market
area served and neighborhoods near the center (including St. Francis/Duveneck,
Crescent Park and East Palo Alto neighborhoods that use the Center)
¯Include representatives from East Palo Alto in the Neighborhood Advisory
Committee and conversations about the Edgewood Project Area
¯Later in the process, as appropriate, reinforce that housing and retail are the preferred
uses at the Center (office at the Edgewood Center will strain parking and traffic
circulation)
CMR:426:01 Page 2 of 4
Meeting notes from the November 7, 2001 Planning and Transportation Commission
meeting are included in this staff report as Attachment 3.
The Planning and Transportation Commission has formulated, reviewed and approved
the Preliminary Plan for the proposed Edgewood Redevelopment Project Area and is
recommending its approval by the Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency.
TIMELINE
In the coming months, several other actions will be presented to the Redevelopment
Agency for its review and approval. The following table highlights the main actions to
be taken in the in the adoption of a Redevelopment Plan for the Edgewood
Redevelopment Project Area:
Planning Commission
Formulates and adopts
Preliminary Plan by
resolution
(November 2001)
Receives and comments
on Draft EIR and Draft
Redevelopment Plan
(December 2001)
..... Adopts Redevelopment
Report and
recommendations
(March-April 2002)
City Council
Adopts Cooperation Agreement
between City and Agency
(November 2001)
Adopts resolution receiving Report
on Redevelopment Plan and sets
hearing date
(April 2002)
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
ADOPTION
Redevelopment Agency
¯ Adopts Cooperation Agreement between
City and Agency
¯Approves Preliminary Plan and sets base
year
(November 2001)
¯Receives and authorizes circulation of
Draft Redevelopment Plan, Draft Owner
Participation Rules and Draft EIR
¯Adopts Preliminary Report and authorizes
circulation of report
( January 2002)
Adopts resolution approving report to Council
and consents to joint hearing
(April 2002)
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN ADOPTION
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1"Resolution of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palo Alto
accepting the Preliminary Plan for the proposed Edgewood
Redevelopment Project and authorizing and directing transmittal of
certain documents and information, authorizing the preparation of
the Environmental Impact Report and Preliminary Report, and
establishing a year of last equalized assessment roll to be used for
allocation of taxes
CMR:426:01 Page 3 of 4
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3"
Staff Report to Planning and Transportation Commission on
November 7, 2001
Minutes from November 7, 2001 Planning and Transportation
Commission Meeting
PREPARED BY:
Susan Arpan, Economic Resources Planning Manager
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: -~~. ~-~
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:426:01 Page 4 of 4
Attachment 1 .....
AGENCY RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF PALO ALTO ACCEPTING THE PRELIMINARY PLAN
FOR THE PROPOSED EDGEWOOD REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING T~NSMITTAL OF
CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION, AUTHORIZING
THE PREPARATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT AND PRELIMINARY REPORT, AND ESTABLISHING
A YEAR OF LAST EQUALIZED ASSESSMENT ROLL TO BE
USED FOR ALLOCATION OF TAXES
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 2001-01, adopted on November
7, 2001, the Planning and Transportation Commission of the City
of Pa!o Alto (".Planning Commission") selected and designated the
boundaries of the territory proposed to be included within the
Redeve!opment Plan ("Redevelopment Plan") for the Edgewood
Redeve!opment Project ("Project Area"), approved a Preliminary
Redevelopment Plan ("Preliminary Plan") including a map of the
Project Area, and has submitted the Preliminary Plan to the Palo
Alto Redevelopment Agency ("Agency"); and
WHEREAS, the Agency is authorized and required to act as
the "Lead Agency", pursuant to the State California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Ca!. Code Regs.,
tit. 14, sections 15050 and 15051, and an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) is required under Public Resources Code section
21151; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section
33344.5 the Agency is required to prepare a Preliminary Report
to assess existing physica! and economic blighting conditions
within the Project Area; and
WHEREAS, upon completion of the Draft EIR and
Preliminary Report and in accordance with the Redevelopment
Plan’s adoption schedule and other lega! requirements, the
Agency must transmit these documents to all affected taxing
entities and environmenta! agencies; and
WHEREAS, in the event the Redevelopment Plan is
approved, the 2001-02 assessment rol! (as equalized on August
20, 2001 shal! be used as the base year assessment rol! for the
purpose of al!ocation of taxes pursuant to Health and Safety
Code section 33670.
011113 sm 0052877
NOW, THEREFORE, THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
PALO ALTO DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION !. The Preliminary Plan for the proposed Plan
as formulated and approved by the Planning and Transportation
Commission, attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this
reference, is hereby approved and accepted by the Agency.
SECTION 2. The Executive Director of the Agency is
hereby authorized and directed to file, or caused to be filed,
the information required by Health and Safety Code section 33327
with the appropriate taxing officials and the State Board of
Equalization.
SECTION 3. The Agency,
pursuant to CEQA, authorizes
Environmenta! Impact Report.
acting as the Lead Agency
the preparation of the
SECTION 4. The Agency authorizes the preparation of the
Preliminary Report.
SECTION 5. The Agency hereby authorizes Agency staff to
transmit the completed Draft EIR and Preliminary Report ~to the
appropriate taxing entities and environmental agencies in
conformance with the Redeve!opment Plan’s adoption schedule and
all lega! requirements.
SECTION 6. The Agency designates the 2001-02 tax
assessment rol! as the tax rol! to be used for al!ocation of
taxes.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
011113 sm 0052877
SECTION 7.
a project under the California Environmental Quality
("CEQA"). Therefore, no environmental assessment is required
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
The Agency finds that this Resolution is not
Act
Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Chairperson
Genera! Counse!
011113 sm 0052877
EXHIBIT ~A"
PRELIMINARY PLAN
Edgewood Redevelopment ProjectArea
Preliminary Plan
November 7, 2001
Redeve!opment Agency of the City of Palo AJto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Paio Alto, California 94301
Edgewood Redevelopment Project
Table of Con ents
Introduction ..........................................................................................................2
Project Area Location and Description ..............................................................3
General Statement of Proposed Planning Elements .......................................4
Land Uses ....................................................................................................4
General Statement of Proposed Layout of Principal Streets .....................4
General Statement of Proposed Population Densities ..............................4
General Statement of Proposed Building Intensities. ................................4
General Statement of Proposed Building Standards .................................5
Attainment Of the Purposes of the Redevelopment Law ..................................5
¯ Conformance to ~e Comprehensive Plan of the Ci.ty ......................................6
General Impact of the Proposed Project on Surrounding Neighborhoods .....7
Exhibit A, Project Area Map
Exhibit B, Project Area Legal Description and Survey Map
Edgewood Redevelopment Project
Edgewood Redevelopment Project Area
Preliminary Plan
This document is the Preliminary Plan ("Plan") for the proposed Edgewood
Redevelopment Project Area ("Project Area") and is prepared in conformance with
Section 33320.1 through Section 33325 of the California Community Redevelopment
Law (Health and Safety Code Section 33300 et seq.) Its purpose is to identify the
boundaries of the proposed Edgewood Redevelopment Project Area (’~Project Area’’),
and to provide a general description of the contemplated redevelopment plans for that
area.
With Planning Commission review and recommendation and Redevelopment Agency.
("Agency") of the City of Palo Alto approval of this Plan, the Agency will commence
the process to prepare and adopt a Redevelopment Plan for the Project Area. The
Project Area is comprised of approximately 4.49 acres. It is generally bound to the
north by Channing Avenue, to the south by Embarcadero Road, to the west by St.
Francis, and to the east by Bayshore Highway 101.
The Agency is considering the Edgewood Redevelopment Project Area for. the
following reasons:
To assist in the retention ~fthe neighborhoodserving retail uses at the Edgewood
Redevelopment Project Area which include a supermarket and 10-12 small
retailers
To assist with design and environmental improvements
To identify and implement any mitigation measures to adjoining neighborhoods
from the addition of possible additional retail square footage and new housing that
may occur as part of mixed use development on the site
To address traffic, parking and circulation issues in the Project Area
To assist in the redevelopment ofthe Project Area to address blighted conditions
including issues of stmcmmI obsolescence, physical deterioration and structural
problems of the current site and buildings
To maximize the potential of the Project Area by addressing issues such as the
configuration, retail mix and general economic health of the Edgewood
Redevelopment Project Area
To provide for the Agency to assist with potential flood plain, traffic
improvements, and circulation.impacts should any Project Area properties require
assistance
To ensure that Project Area revenues are pledged to projects that directly benefit
the area
To assist property o~ers in collaborating on proposed revitalization activities
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Edgewood Redevelopment Project
In accordance with Section 33324 of the California Community Redevelopment Law
("CRL"), this plan must;
¯Describe the boundaries of the Project Area
¯Contain a general statement of land uses and of the layout of principal streets,
population densities, building intensities and standards proposed as the basis for
the redevelopment of the Project Area
¯Show how the purposes of this part would be attained by such redevelopment
¯Show that the proposed redevelopment conforms to the master or general
community plan (Comprehensive Plan)
¯Describe generally, the impact of the project upon residents and upon surrounding
neighborhoods .
City staff t~s initiated and maintained ongoing dialogue with Project Area property
owners, as well as neighboring residents and neighborhood associations. During the
Redeve!opment Plan preparation process, City staff representing the Agency will
continue these discussions as a means to inform the public about the development of
the RedevelopmentPlan, and to solicit input from the community about potential
redevelopment activities. It is anticipated that the City Council and Agency would
consider a final Redevelopment Plan at a joint public hearing in spring 2002.
The Project Area is located entirely within the boundaries of the City of Palo Alto.
The City is located 35 miles south of San Francisco and 14 miles north of San Jose.
Palo Alto is a community of 58,598 residentsaccording to the 2000 census. Part of
the San Francisco Metropolitan Bay Area and the Silicon Valley, Palo Alto is located
within Santa Clara County and borders San Mateo County. The City’s boundaries
extend from San Francisco Bay on the east to the Skyline Ridge of the coastal
mountains on the west, with Men!o Park to the north and Mountain View to the south.
The City encompasses an area of approximately 26square miles, of which one-third is
open space.
The proposed Project Area is located in the eastern part of the City near Bayshore
Highway 101. Channing Avenue is the northern boundary of the Project Area with "
Embarcadero Road to the south, St. Francis Drive to the west and Bayshore Highway
101 to the east.
Project Area land uses include a Shell station, Maharishi Vedic Center office building,
an Albertson’s grocery store and approximately 10-12 small retail businesses in
15,000 square feet. There is currently no housing !ocated at the site. The boundaries
of the Project Area are shown on Exhibit A, Project Area Map, and described in
Exhibit B, Project Area legal de;cription.
Several physical and economic blighting conditions exist in the Project Area. Physical
blighting conditions include substandard design, impaired investments, parcelized
City of Pa!o Alto Page 3
Edgewood Redevelopment Project
ownership, poor signage; and inadequate ]raffic circulation. Economic blighting
conditions at the Edgewood Redeve!opment Project Area include low lease rates and
retail sales which have led to decreased sales revenue to the City of Palo Alto. These
conditions will be further studied and documented over the ensuing months to
determine the type and extent of potential redevelopment activities in the Project Area.
This Plan envisions that planning elements to be contained in the Redevelopment Plan
will be consistent with the applicable provisions of the City of Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan ("Comprehensive Plan") and all otherapplicable state and local
codes and guidelines, as they may be amended from time to time. In Palo Alto, the
Comprehensive Plan is the General Plan for the City. For the purposes of this
document, the General Plan, the planning document that governs planning issues in
most cities, will be referred to herein as the Comprehensive Plan.
Land Uses
Within the proposed Project Area, land uses shall be those permitted by the
Comprehensive Ptan, as they exist today or are hereafter amended.
Currently, the proposed Project Area is zoned as a Planned Community zone
specifically for retail and office use. Itis anticipated that a new planned community
application would include housing and retail components as part of a mixed-use
development
Gener’~ S~erne~ of Prop~ Layout of Principal S~
Exhibit A presents the principal streets within the Project Area; these include
Embarcadero Road, St. Francis Drive, and Channing Avenue. The Redevelopment
Plan adopted for the Project Area would include existing streets within the Project
Area that may be modified and improved including the .Frontage Road (West
Bayshore Road) may be changed as necessary for proper pedestrian and/or vehicular
circulation in conformance with City’s Comprehensive Plan,
If the Redevelopment Plan is adopted, permitted densities within the Project Area will
conform to the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code, as currently adopted or as
hereafter amended, and other applicable codes and ordinances will apply.
Gen~r"d ~=~-err~r~ ~ Pn~ Bu~l~ng
Building intensity sha!l be controlled by limits on the:
[] Percentage of the building site covered by the building (land coverage)
City o~ Palo Alto Page 4
Edgewood Redevelopment Project
¯Size and location of the buildable area on the building site
¯Height of buildings
¯Permitted uses and parking
The limits on building intensity shall be established in accordance with the provisions
of the Comprehensive Plan and Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), as they now exist
or are herea~er amended. In addition, building standards for the Project Area will
conform to the building requirements of applicable state statutes. This Plan and the
Project do not propose any significant changes to City population densities.
General Statement of Proposed Building Standards "
Building standards shall conform to the building requirements Of all applicable codes
and ordinances including the Uniform Building Code and Life and Safety (Fire) Code
as well as the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
The properties included in the proposed Project Area were selected following a
preliminary review of these properties in summer 2000 that indicated the existence of
blight, as defined by the Community Redevelopment Law (CRL). (These conditions
will be more extensively evaluated and documented during the redevelopment plan
adoption process.) Redevelopment of the Project Area will attain the purposes of the
CRL by alleviating bhghting conditions that, relying on the private sector alone, would
not be remedied. Blighting conditions include:
¯Structural deterioration and dilapidation;
¯Substandard design
¯Parcelization
¯Stagnating property values
¯Impaired investments "
¯Flood conditions
Additionally, public infrastructure such as streets, curbs, traffic controls, gutters and
sidewalks wi!l be evaluated to determine if existing capacity is sutNcient.
The purposes of the CRL would be attained by the proposed Project through the
following goals and objectives:
Elimination of blight and deterioration at Edgewood Redevelopment Project Area
and redevelopment of the Project Area in accordance with the City’s
Comprehensive Plan and local codes and ordinances
Re-planning, re-design clearance and rec6nstruction of poorly developed and
unde~ed buildings
Participation of tenants and owners in the revitalization of their properties
Development of modem, integrated pedestrian and vehicular circulation
City of Palo Alto Page
Edgewood Redevelopment Project
¯Strengthening of the econornic base of the Project Area by redevelopment and
rehabilitation of structures and installation of needed site improvements
¯Promotion of new private sector investment within the Project Area Improvement
through improved signage, access and orientation of the site
¯Provision, through new.construction, of increased housing units for-individuals
and/or famih’es of low- to moderate-income
¯Installation of public improvements that will address any current or future
inadequacies at the site
Because land uses, transportation, and other deve!opment standards incorporate
existing ComPrehensiye Plan policies, the Plan conforms to the Comprehensive Plan.
This P!an does not propose to institute additional land use policies not otherwise
permitted by the General Plan, or other applicable codes and guidelines.
It is the intent that the Redevelopment Project will assist the City of Palo Alto to
achieve the goals and objectives of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, The Edgewood
Redevelopment Project Area, is one of four neighborhood centers addressed in the
City’s Comprehensive Plan. Goals and objectives in the Comprehensive Plan that
apply to the Edgewood Redevelopment Project Area include: "
¯Support the upgrading and revitalization of Palo Alto’s four Neighborhood
Commercial Centers.
¯Review the effect of size caps, parking requirements, and other land use
restrictions on the viability and competitiveness of neighborhood centers.
¯Encourage the upgrading and revitalization of selected Centers in a manner that is
compatible with the character of surrounding neighborhoods.
¯Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers.
=Maintain the scale and local-serving-focus of Palo Alto’s four Neighborhood
Centers. Support their continued improvement and vitality.
¯Encourage a mix of land uses in all centers, including housing and an appropriate
mix of small-scale local businesses.-
Preserve and enhance the public gathering spaces within walking distance of
residential neighborhoods. Ensure that each residential neighborhood has such
spaces.
Consider siting small neighborhood-serving retail facilities in existing or new
residential areas.
Facilitate oppommities to improve pedestrian oriented commercial activity within
Neighborhood Centers.
Encourage maximum use of Neighborhood Centers by ensuring that the publicly
maintained areas are clean, well lit and attractively landscaped.
City of Palo Alto
Edgewood Redevelopment Project
Project impacts on neighborhoods adjacent to the proposed Project Area will generally
benefit by improvements in the Project Area. Through improvements in the Project
Area, the Agency desires to facilitate the redevelopment of existing uses .to: better meet
the needs of locaI neighborhoods. The impact of the Project upon business owners
and property owners within the project Area, as well as residents in surrounding
neighborhoods ~ll be positive and will include enhancements such as improved
¯ access, enhanced shopping opportunities, expanded economic development, improved
environmental quality, and new or upgraded public improvements. There may be
temporary disruptions related to construction activities.
The Neighborhood Advisory Committee (not required by CRL) will review the
RedeveloPment Plan and associated documents guiding the development of the site.
There is no residential housing currently within the proposed Project Area site.
Project development and implementation ~ be subject to further review and
approval by the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, Planning Commission,
Neighborhood Advisory Committee, and other non-City.environmental and taxing
agencies. The City and Agency Hill continue to provide community outreach during
the Project formation and implementation phases to facilitate a project that reflects the
values and ne~ds of affected business and property owners, adjoining residents and
other interested parties.
The environmental impact of the Project ~ll be assessed in detait by the
Redevelopment Agency in an Environmental Impact Repo}t prepared in conformance
with the California Environmental Quality Act, which Hill be circulated in draft form
for public comment and will be adopted prior toapproval of the Redevelopment Plan.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
CHAN~IING AVEN
-<
Th~ City or"
Palo Alto
Exhibit A
Edgewood -Redevelopment
Project Area
This map is a product of the
City of Pal~ Alto GIS ’
169’
The description 0fthe land vY’ii1~in P,.ed~lgpment Project Area l’,To, f -Sep I0, 2001
All that certiti real property situated in the City of Palo Alto, County of
Santa Clara,:and the State of California more pirt!cu!ar!y described as
follows: "
I: Beginnin’ g at a point on the Oenterline,ofEdgewood DriVe
t990154,4381 E 6089851,.1248 p~.8181)"which isNorth 00° 3.6’ 47’.;
East 161 feet from the intersection of the centerlines ofEdgewobd Driye
..and ChmmingAvenue (N 1989993,4473 E 6089849140.25 pt# 8083) as
shown on the .Tract Map No, 16.41 recorded in Bbok 66 P~ges 10 .and 11.
6n December 16, 1955.in.the Office of ~e Co,~ty Ree.~der;
Thence.South 89° .2.3’ i!.3.".~Ea~{ 3~ feet,to the:easterly }ight of~ay line of
Edgewo~d Drive (d0,feet. wide) as Shown on said Tract Map No, 1641;
3..Thence alongsaid easterly right of way line of s~id.Edgewood Drive,
South 00° 36’ 47" West 110,00 feet to the beginning of a tangent cm-y.e,
concave northeasterly andhaving a ~a~us of 20 feet with a long chord of
.28.28 feet~ ..
Thence ~ong saidcurve through a central angle of 90~ an ~rc distance .of
31.42 feet to a line tangent also being on the northerly.right of way line
of ChUg Avenue as shown.on said Trict Map No. 1641;
Thence along said no .rtherlyri’ght of way.line of Chamaing Avenue, South
89° 23’ 13" East 65.00 fe.et to the.be ’ .gfmi~g of a tangent curve, concave
’northwesterly and having a radius of 20 feet with a long chord of 28.28
feet;
Thence along said cm-Ve through a central angle of 90° an arc distance of.
31.42 feet to aline tangentalso being on the westerly fight of way.line’ of
West, Baysho#e as shown oit saidTract 1641;
7.Thence North 00.~ 36’ 4~7’’ East 130.00 feet along the Westerly fight of
way of West Bayshore Road;
Thence leaving the westerly right of way of s~iid West Bayshore Road
"°’ 3" ""’.Sg_u_th_892_23j_l_ o. Eas.t..~4_6_fe.et _(peLighto f_w_~_y_m ap_2 2-4_-2_1_0_I-,0.0 3)-to
~e easterly !ie of said West Bayshor.e Road (46 feet wide) as shown on
E~Aaibit B
The description, of ~he innd. within ~¢d~veio~men~ P~o].~ct A~¢a No, 1 -.Sep 10, 2001
the map fried with the City of Palo Alto Public Works Eng’meering office
titled "Division of Highways District IV- " Relinquishment to the City of
.PMo Alto No, 22095" file number 224-2101~003;.
Thence South 00° 36’ 47" West 369.00fee.t ~ong the easterly right of
way line Of West Bays!agre Road to the beginning of a tangent curvej
- c0ncav.e northwesterly :and having a radius of 206,01 feet With a long
chord of 206.72 fee{;. ..
d0,Thence along SMd curve through a central angle of 60° 13".37:: an arc
distance of 216.55 feet to a line .tangent;
11.Thence South 60°50, 24" West 67.53 feet to the beginning of atangent
.. curve, concave, southeasterly and having a.radius of. 194.01 feet with a
longchord of 85.52 feet; "
¯ 12.Thende along said curve through a eentrai angle.of25° 27’ 51’! anarc
dist.~ee of 86.22 ¯feet to the be’ginning of a compound curve, .concave
easterlyand.having a r, adius of 19 feet with a.long chord Of i 6.97 feet;
13.Thence along said curve i.hr0ugh a central.angle of 535 03’ 29":an arc
d~stance of 17.59feet; . .-
14,Thence leaving said e .aster!y right of way of Said W~st Bayshore Road
- South 72° 19’ 12" West 63.00 feet;..
15.Thence Sou~ 17° 40’ 56" Eas.t 22.76 feet (22,70feet) to the beginning
of a tangent-curve, concave, w.es.terlyand having a radius of 13.91 feet
(14feet) with a long chord ofi3.12 .feet; .
16,Thence a~ong said curve through a central~angle of 56° 17"33" an arc
distance of 13..66 feet to the beginning of a comI~ound curve, concave
northwesterly and having aradius of 184.01 fee~ with a tong cord of¯-71. l’0 ’feet; ,
17.Thence along said curve through a central angle of 22° i6’ 47" a~.arc
dista-.n-c-e-oT-7-1-:5-5-fe-~t-to a line tangent;
18.Thence So~.th 60° 53: 24" West 202:32 feet;
The description of the land within Redeveldpmerit Proje~ A#ea No. 1- S.ep 10, 2001
19,Thence South 18°. 45! 51" East 68.02 feet to the so{itherlyright.0fway
of EmtJarcadero ¯Road;
20.Thence N0ngsaid SOutlierly $ight of way of Embarcadero Road as sh.own
on Tract 282 recorded inBook 10Pages.43 a~d 44, South 71°. 14’ 09’"
West 24.50 feet to the beginning of a tangent cur~e,concave
southeasterly and ha .v/in. g a radius of 15 feet with a long chord of 21.21
2 llThence along said cur~.e through a.central, angle,of 90° an arc distance of
¯ 23.56 feet t.o a line tangen.t;
22.Theade al0ng the. easterty right of way Of St, Francis Drive (60 feet wide)
as shown on s.aid.Ttact Map No. 282, South 18° 45"51" East"75.00feet;
23.Th~.~ce.leaving said easterl.y righ.t of way of said St, Frincis Dri4e South
71° .t4’ 09 WeSt 60 feet tO the westerly ri .ght.ofway o~f said StFrancis.
Drive; "
24.Theace n~rtherly along said westerly right of way of st. Francis Drive.
N.ortti 18° 45’ 51" West 75 feet to the beginningof tangent carve,
concave southwesterly and having a radius of15 feet with a long cSQrd
of~l ~2t feet;
25.Thence a!ong said curve through a central angle of 90°an.arcdistance of
23.56 feet to a linetangent also. being onthe southerly right of wa~ of
Embm’cadero Road as shown on said Tract Map No. 282;
26.Thence along.the southerly right ofwa.~ of Said EmbarcaderoRoad South
.. 71° 14’. 09" West 130.86 feet;
27.Thence leavingsaid the .south.erly right of way of said Embarcadero Road
North 1.8° 45’ 51" West .88:00 feet to the northerly right.ofway line of
Embarcadero Road as shown on the said Tract Map Nol 1641;
2-8,~he~c~-e~sterty-t-ongth-e-safd-n-o-~h-eriyr~.-t-of wa ofEN~dero
Road as sho.w~i on Tract Map N.o. 1641 recorded in Boo_~ 66 Pages ! 0
and !!, North 71°. 14’ 09" East 169.81 feet to the berg of a tangent
The descnpt on. of the land w~thin Redev.elopment Project Are~No:. 1 . Sep 10, 2001
" ’ cUrv% concave, northwesterly and .having a radius Of 20 feet.with.a long
chord of 23.07 feet;. "
29.Thencealong saidcurve through a centralangle of 70° 25’ 44" an arc"¯distance of 24,5.8 feet to aline tangent also. berg the westerly fight of
way .lixie of St Francis Drive (62 feet wide) as shown.on said Tract Map
¯ No. 1.641i.
30,Thence al0ng the Westerly right of way line of said St. Francis Drive
North 00° 48’ 25" East 433.85 feet to the begin~g of a tangent c .m’ve,.
concave southerly and having a radius of 20 feet.with along Chord 29.77
feet; .. ..
3I.Thence along said curve fl~rougfi.a. central:angle of.96° 10; 21" an are.
distance of 33,57 feet to the begriming of a tangent reverse curve,
doncave northerly and having a radius 166.00 feet :with a.long Chord
17.87 feet, point also be’.mg the southerly right.of way line of Chamaing.
.Averiue .(62 feet wide) as shown on Tract Map No. 1641; ..
32: Thence along the southerly righi Of Way line. said Channing Avenue,
alo’ng said curve ~rough a centrkl angle of6° 10’ 21" aurar0 d~ ~tance of
1~7:88 feet to.a line tangent;
’ 33.Thence along saidsoutherlyright of wayline of said ChafiN.ug Avenue
North 89° 11’ 35" West 60 feet; "
34.Thenc~ leaVing s ’ . " ’ . - .aid. southerly right of way line. elf Channing Avenue
North00° 48’ 25" East 62feet to the northerly right ofwayline.of
Channing Avenue (62 feet wide) a; Shownon said Tract Map No, 164!;
35.Thence along said northerly fight of way of s~id Channing Avenue South
¯ ’ 89° 11’ 35" East 60 feetto the begima~..g.ofa.tafigent cubve, concave
norther!y and having a radius of 104 feet with a long chdrd of 83.77 feet ;
36.Thence along said curve through a central angle .of 47°.30, 00" .an arc
distance of 86.22 feet to a line tangent;
Pag~ 4 of 6
The description 0~,the land within Rede~.elopment Project Area NO.- I Sep I0:2001
37.Thence North 43 ° 18’ 25" East. 95,16 feet t~ the be.gim~g of a tangent
cUrve, concave westerly and t~aving a radiusof 20feetwith a long chord
of 23.08 feet; ...
38,Thence a!.gng said curve thro~agh a central .angle Of 70° 29’ 48" an arc
.distance of 24,6I feet io the be. ’.~g of reverse .curve, concave
inortheasterly and having a radius of 132,76 feet with .a 10ng chord of
63.79 feet to a point on the Westerly r~ght.Qf way line ef Sandalwood
Court as shown on said Tract Map No. 1641;
39,Thence along said curve fl:trough a central angle of 27° 48’ 10" an arc
distance .of 64.42 feet toa line t.angent; . "
40,Thence leaving s.aid .westerly line of said Sandalwob~l0urt South 89 °
23’ i3" East ’50,00 feet t.othe easterly rigtit of Way of said Sandalwood
CoUrt and .the. beginning of a non-tangent ~.urve; concave, easterly and
ha-ging a radius of 82,76 feet with a long Chord of 10,42 feet and a iadial
bearhag of North 89° 23’ 13" Wes.t; ’ ..
41.Thence along said ~urve through a Central an. gle 7; 12’ 58". an arc
.distance Of 10:42 feet to the beginning of a compound curve, concave
northeasterly and havinga radius of 20 feet with a long chord of 32.76
feet;.
42,The.ncealong said curve through,a central angle of 1090 59’ 34" an arc
distance of 38.39 fe~t to the beginning of a tangent reverde curve,
concave southerly and having a radius of. !53,87 feet with a 10ng chord of
72.39 feet, said point also being on the northerly right of way line of
Channing Avenue;
43.Thence alongsaid curve thr. ou~ a central a~gle of 27 ° 12’ 32" an arc
distance of 73.07 feet to line tangent; ’
44.Thence South 89° 23’. 13" East 105.00feet to ~e be~nnlng of a tangent
curve, concave northwesterly.and having a radius of 20 feet with a long
chord of 28.28 feet;
¯ Th~ descr~pi[on of th~ land.within ~edewloprn"ent Project Ar~ N0,~I - Sop .10, 2001
45.Theno~ albng said curve tkr..ough.a 0entrai angle 90° a~ arc distan~ of31.42 feet io a line.tangent, also being on the w~s~;~rly right of way line
of EdgewoSa. Drive (6 0 feet Wide) assho- said Traot . ap No 164
46 Thence. along Said w~sterly right.of Wayline o:f said Edgewood.Drise,
North 00°- 36’ 47". East 110.00 .feet;.
47.Thence. leaving said westerly right, of way line of Said Edgewood Drive
¯ " South 89° 23" 13 East 30 fe~t to the POINT oF BEGINNING; ¯
Said described lands contain 344,829 square.feet (7192 acres) more or less.
Requested by: Bill Fellman
Checked by; JayE. Remle.y, Sr. ......
Checked by: James.T. Bourquin.
Approved / CreatedBy: Jam~s David Kiehl.LS 7152
Notes / References/Index:
A, ()Tract No, t641 Book 66 Page 10 and 111D~cember Ig,.1955
B. [ ] Tract No.282 Book 10 Page 43 and 44; April 26, 1946-.
C... { } Right.of Way Map Rec.0rd Map File No: 224-2101-014 and 224-2101-
003, FetJr~ary 1959.On file with Public Works Engineering.City of Palo
Alto.
D I Record Of Survey.. Book ~563 page 26 - 29, March 1, .t995 ¯
E. Values shown to the aco~acy as stated on record and ftled maps,
F.Basis o. fBear~g is North 00° 48’. 25" East along the cen’terline of St.
Francis Drive as cent~rlhte is shQwn on said Tract.No. ! 641
-.Assessors Parcel Number
003-018~016
003-018-021
003-018~022
003°018-023
Title Rep’ortOrder Number
2633595.3.
26335954
26335955.
26335956"
Date
May 17s 2001
May 17, 2001
May 17, 2001
-May 17, 2001
BLOC
~L~
BLOCK
///
/
/
////////
//~//////
///////
11’1ft’//~
11III
/// ///
/////
////
///
///
////
////
/
/
~LOC~ 3
I///// /I///
///
///
///
/////
//////
/////
/////
/////
////
///
/.///
////
.////
/////
////
////
//~///
//////~/ ~//
////// ///~//
~,t/ii~’/i.It
~’I //~I I1 1 1 1
~//~..~ilfldll
IDIIItlItll
iftl~lilli’tililill
lilltlfllfl
illtflllfi
/ltiliflf"
IIII/II1
liil
/
.I//
I
I
I.
I
I
I
/
/
I
/
/
13° 37"
Lo~; 23
~)et’t~ : 25" 27’
Mo.p
Attachment 2
1
Office of the City Manager
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Frank Benest DEPARTMENT: City Manager
AGENDA DATE: November 7, 2001
SUBJECT: 1..
Preliminary Pla~. Formulation and Recommendationf0r" Adoption by
the Palo Alto Redevelopment Agency
Resolution of the Planning and Transportation Commission of the
City. of Palo Alto selecting the boundaries of the Edgewood
Redevelopment Project Area within the Edgewood Redevel0pment
Survey Area and approving a Preliminary Planfor redevelopment of
the Project Area
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission select the
boundaries of the Edgewood Redevelopment ProjectArea and approve and submit the
Preliminary Plan for the Edgewood Redevelopment Area for adoption by the Palo Alto
Redevelopment Agency (PARDA)..
BACKGROUND
On July 9, 2001, the Palo Alto City Council adopted an ordinance declaring the need for
a redevelopment agency to function .in Palo Alto. City Council also declared the City
Council tO -be the redevelopment agency and made .the finding that the formation of a
redevelopment agency "will serve.the public interest and promote the public safety and
¯ welfare in an effective manner" in accordance with the Health and Safety Code section
33200.
City of Palo Alto Page
Staffthen returned to City Council with documents and actions necessary to organize and
operate the Agency. On September-19,-2001, the Edgewo0d Redevelopment Project
Area was designated as a Surve:y Area and the procedures for adoption of the
.Redevelopment Plan~were initiated. An informal Neighborhood Advisory Committee,
appointed by the City. Manager, was also .formed. The Neighborhood Advisor3’
Committee is-comprised of retail tenants, property owners and neighborhood
representatives in or near the Project Area who will provide input to the City Manage~ on
the Preliminary Plan, Draft EI~ Preliminary Report and Redevelopment Plan.for the
¯ Edgewood Redevelopment Project Area.
The first.meeting of the RedevelopmentAgency was held .on October 9, 2001. The
Agency adopted various .organizational documents needed for ongoing operation.
ANALYSIS
As a part of the redevelopment plan adoption process, the City is required to p~epare a
preliminary plan for the redevelopment of each selected Project Area. The Preliminary
Plan is typically a brief document outlining the basic concept for redevelopment of the
selected Project Area. This plan must include the following information:
¯Description of the project
¯General statement of land uses
¯Layout 0fprincipal streets
¯Population densities
¯Building intensities and
¯Standards proposed as the basis for the redevelopment of the Project Area
The Planning and Transportation Commission, in the development of the Preliminary
Plan, als0 indicates how the purposes of the Community Redevelopment Law will be
attained, how the proposed redevelopment conforms to the general plan. of the
community, and generally describes the impact of the project on the residents of the
Project Area and the surrounding neighborhoods:
The NeighborhOod Advisory Committee (NAC) for the proposed Edgewo0d
Redevelopment Area received draft copies of the Preliminary Plan and .formally
commented at its meeting on November 1~ 2001. Those comments are reflected in the
attachedPreliminary Plan.
The Preliminary Plan being submitted for approval to the Planning and Transportation
City Of Palo Alto Page 2
Committee is for the proposed Edgewood Redevelopment Project Area. Following
. approval of thePreliminary Plan by the Planning and Transportation Committee, it will
be reviewed for adoption by the City Council acting as the Redevelopment AgenCy.
In the coming months, several other actions will be presented to the Planning and
Transportation Committee for its review and approval~ The following table highlights the
main actions ,to be taken in the in the adoption of a Redeve.lopment Plan for the
Edgew0od Redevelopment Project Area:
Redevelopment Plan Adoption
Proposed Timeline
Planning Commission
Formulates and adopts
Preliminary Plan by
resolution
(November 2001)
Receives and comments
on Draft EIR and Draft
Redevelopment Plan.
(December 2001)
Adopts Redevelopment "
Report and
recommendations
(March-April 2002)
City Council .
Adopts Cooperatio~ Agreement
between City and Agency
(November 200!)
Adopts resolution receiving Report
on Redevelopment Plan and sets
hearing date
(April 2002)
ADOPTS REDEVELOPMENT
PLAN ADOPTION
Redevelopment Agency
¯ Adopts Cooperation Agreement between
City and Agency
¯ " Approves Preliminary Plan and sets base
year .
(November, 2001)¯Receives and authorizes circulation Draft
Plan, Draft OP Rules and Draft ElK
¯Adopts Preliminary Report and authorizes
circulation of Report
( Januar: 2002)
Adopts resolution approving Report to Council
and consents to joint hearing
(April 2002)
ADOPTS REDEVELOPMENT PLAN
ADOPTION
POLICY IMPLICATIONS.
The Preliminary Plan conforms to the .Comprehensive Plan. Goals and objectives in the
Comprehensive Plan that. apply to the Edgewood Redevelopment Project Area include:
¯Support the.upgrading and revitalization of Palo Alto’s four Neighborhood
Commercial Centers.
¯Review the effect of size caps, parking requirements, and other land rise
restrictions on the viability and competitiveness of neighborh0od centers.
¯Encourage the upgrading and revitalization of selected Centers in a manner
that is compatible with the character of surrounding neighborhoods
¯Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers.
Cityof Palo Alto Page 3
.,Maintain the scale and local-serving focus of.Palo Alto’s four
Neighborhood Centersi Support ~eir continued improvement and vitality.
¯Encourage a mix of land .uses in allCenters, including.housing and an
appropriate mix of small-scale local businesses
¯ -Preserve and erLhance the public gathering .spaces within walking distance
-of residential neighborhoods.. Ensure that each resid6ntial neighborhood
has such spaces.
¯Consider siting small neighborhood-serving retail facilities in existing or
new residential .areas.
¯Facilitateopportuni.’ties to improve-pedestrian oriented commercial activity.
within Neighborhood Centers.
¯Encourage maximum use of Neighborhood Centers by ensuring that the
publicly maintained areas are dean, well litand attractively, landscaped.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
David J. Powers AssoCiates is preparing the environmental impact report (ELK) for the
proposed Edgewood Redevelopment Project Area. This ELK will include a traffic study
and Phase 1 HAZMAT report.
NEXT STEPS
If the Planning and Transportation Committee approves the Preliminary Plan, it will go to
th~ Redevelopment Agehcy on November-19, 200t, for adoption by resolution.
Subsequent steps are outlined in the table in the Analysis section of this staff.report.
Prepared by:Susan Arparg Manager of Economic Resources Planning
Reviewed by:
Department!Division Head Approval:
Behest, City Manager
Cily.of Palo Alto Page 4
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-01
RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO SELECTING
THE BOUNDARIES OF THE EDGEWOOD REDEVELOPMENT
PROJECT AREA WITHIN THE EDGEWOOD REDEVELOPMENT
SURVEY AREA AND APPROVING A PRELIMINARY PLAN FOR
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT AREA
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 8081, adopted on September
19, 2001, the City Council designated the Edgewood Redeve!opment
Survey area (the "Redevelopment Survey Area") and found that the
area required study to determine if a redevelopment project or
projects would be feasible; and
WHEREAS, Health & Safety Code section 33322 authorizes
the Planning Commission to select one or more project areas
comprised of all or part of a redeve!opment survey area; and
WHEREAS, Health & Safety Code section 33322 authorizes
and requires the Planning Commission to formulate and submit a
preliminary plan for the redeve!opment of each selected project
area.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Palo Alto does RESOLVE as fol!ows:
SECTION i. The Planning Commission hereby selects and
designates as the project area for the Edgewood Redevelopment
Plan the entirety of the area within the Edgewood Redevelopment
Survey Area described in the legal description, attached as
Exhibit ~’ and incorporated by this reference, and shown on the
Map of the Edgewood Redevelopment Survey Area, attached as
Exhibit "B" and incorporated by this reference. In the event
that it is necessary to make minor technica!, changes for
clarification purposes, which changes do not add or subtract
area, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that
minor technical changes for clarification purposes to the
boundaries described and shown in Exhibits "A" and "B,"
respectively, if any are necessary, do not materially affect the
boundaries selected and designated for the preparation of an
official redevelopment plan for the proposed project.
SECTION 2. The Planning Commission formulates, approves
and submits the Preliminary Plan for the Edgewood Redeve!opment
O11114 sm 0052867
Project, attached as Exhibit ~C"
reference.
and incorporated by this
SECTION 3. The Secretary of the Planning Commission is
authorized and directed to submit the Preliminary Plan to the
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palo Alto for the
preparation of an official redevelopment plan for the proposed
project.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: November 7, 2001
AYES: HOLMAN, CASSEL, BIALSON, BURT, PACKER
NOES:
ABSENT: GRIFFIN, SCHMIDT,
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM:APPROVED:
City Attorney Chairperson
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
O11114 sm 0052867 2
The description ofthe land within Edgewood Redevelopment Survey Area
All that certain real property situated in the City of Pale Alto, Co..unty of
Santa C1ara,.and the State of California more particularly described as
follows:
Parcel 1 "
1. Beginningat a point on.the centei’line of Edgewood Drive (’N
1990154.4381 E 6089851.1248 pt-# 818t) Which is North 00° 36’ 47"
East 161 feet from the intersection of the centerlines of. Edgewood Drive
and Charming Avenue (N !989993.4473 E 6089849.4025 pf# 8083) as
shown on the Tract Map .No. 1641 recorded in Book 66 Pages 10 and 11
on December 16, 1955 in the Office of the County Recorder;
2.Thence South 89° 23’ 13" East 30 feet to the easterly tightof way line of
Edgewood Dr~ve (60 feet ~4de) as sho,,~e, on said Tract Map No. !64!;
Thence along said easterly fight of way line of said Edgewood Drive,
South 00° 36’ 47" West 110.00 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve,
concave northeasterly and having.a.radius of 20 .feet with a long chord of
28.28 feet; ..
Thence along said curve through a central angle of 90° an arc distance of
31.42 feet to a line tangent als’o being onthe northerly right of way line
of Channing Avenue as shown on said Tract Map No. 1641;
5.Thence along/aid northerly right of Way line of Channing Avenue, South
89° 23’ 13" East 65.00 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave
¯ northwesterly and-having a radius of 20 feet with a long chord of 28.28
feet;
Thence along said curve through a central angle of 90° an arc distance of
¯ 31:42 feet to a line tangent also being on the westerly right of way line of
¯ West B~iyshore as sh0wri off Said Tract 1641
Thence North 00° 36’ 47" East 130.00 feet along the westerly right.of
way of West Bayshore Road;
Thence leaving the westerly ri.ght of way of said West Bayshore Road
South 89° 23’ 13" East 46 fee~ (per right of way’map 224-2101-003) to
the easterly lirie of said West Bayshore Road (46 feet wide) as shown on
Exhibit A Page 1 of 6 ~ile name; redm0t.~vora
The description of the land within Edgewood Redevelopment Survey Area.
the.map filed with the City of Palo Alto PuNic Works Engineering office
titled °’Division of Highways District IV - Relinquishment to the City of
Palo Alto No, 22095" file number 224-2101-003;
Thence South 00° 36’ 47" West 369.00 feetalong the easterly right of
way line of West Bayshore Road to the beginning of a tangent curve,
concave northwesterly and having a radius ~of 206.01 feet with a !ong
chord of 206.72 .feet;
10.Thence along said curve through a central angle of 60° 13’ 37’! .an arc
distance of 216.55 feet to a line tangent;
11.Thence South 60° 50’. 24" West 67.53 feet to the beginning of a tangent
~urve, concave southeasterly and having a radius of 194.01 feet with a
long chord of 85.52 feet;
12.Thence along said curve through.a central angle of 25° 27’ 5t" an arc
distance of 86.22 feet to the beginning of a compound curve, concave
easterly and having a radius of 19 feet with a long chord of t6.97 feet;
13.Thence along said curve through a central angle of 53° 03’ 29" an arc
distance of 17.59 feet;
14.Thence leaving said easterly right.of way of said West Bayshore Road
South 72° 19’ 12" West 63.00feet;
15.Thence South 17° 40’ 56" East 22.76 feet (22.70feeO to the beginning
of a tangent curve, concave westerly and having a radius of 13.91 feet
(14feet) with a long chord of 13.12 feet;
16.Thence along said curve through a central angle of 56° 17’ 33" an arc
digtance of 13.66 feet to the be~g ~f a compound curve, concave
northwesterly and having a radius of 184.01 feet with a long cord of
71.10 feet;
!7.Thence along said curve through a central angle of 22° 16’ 47" an arc
distance of 71..55 feet to aline tangent;
18.Thence South 60° 53’ 24" West 202.32 feet;
Page 2 of 6 me name; r~dev01.worfl
The description of the land within Edgewood Redevelopment Survey Area
19.Thence South 18° 45’ 51" East 68.02 feet to the southerly right of way
of Embarcadero Road;
20.Thence along said southerly right of way of Embarcadero Road as shown
on Tract 282 recorded in Book 10 Pages.43 and 44, South 71° 14’ 09"
West 24.50 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave
southeasterly and having a radius of 15 feet with a long chord of 21.21
feet;
21.Thence along said curve through a central angle of 90° an arc distance of
23.56 feet to a line tangent;
22:Thence along the easterly right of way of St. Francis Drive (60 feet wide)
¯ as shown on said Tract Map No. 282, South 18° 45’ ¯51" East 75.00 feet;
23.Thence leaving said easterly right of way of said St. Francis Drive South
71°. 14’ 09 West 60 feet te the westerly right of way of said St Francis
Drive~
24.Thence northerly along said.westerly right of way of St Francis Drive
North 18° 45’ 51" West 75 feet to the beginning of tangent curve,
concave southwesterly and having a.radius of 15 feet with a long chord
of 21.21 feet;
25.Thence along said curve through a central ~gle of 90° an arc distance of
23.56 feet to a linetangent also being on the southerly right of way of.
Embarcadero Road as sho..wn on said Tract Map No. 282;
26.Thence along the southerly right of way of said Embarcadero Road South
71° 14’ 09" West t30.86 feet;
27.Thence leaving said the southerly right of way of said Embarcadero Road
North t8° 45’ 5!".West 88.00 feet to the northerly right 0fway line of-
Embarcadero Road as shown on the said Tract Map No..164!;
28.Thence easterly long the said northerly right of way of Embarcadero
Road as shown on Tract Map No. !641 recorded in Book 66 Pages 10
and ! 1, North 71° 14’ 09" East i69.81 feet to the beginning of a tangent
Page 3 of 6 m~ name’., redevOl.word
The description of the la.ad with~ Edgewood Redevelopment Survey Area
curve, concave northwesterly and having a radius.of 20 feet with a long¯ ’
chord of 23.07 feet;
29.Thence along said curve through a dentral angle of 70° 25’ 44" an arc.
distance of 24.58 feet to a line tangent also being the.westerly right of
¯way line of.St. Francis Drive (6-2 feet wide) as shown on said Tract Map
No: 1641;
30.Thence along thewesterly right of way i~e of said St. Francis Drive
North 00° 48’ 25" East 433.85 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve,..
concave southerly and having a radius of 20 feet with a long chord .29177
feet;
¯ 31.Thence along said curve through a central angle of 96° 10: 21" an arc
distance of 33.57 feet to the beginning of a tartgent reverse curve,
concave northerly and having a radius 166.00 feet with a long chord
17.87feet, point also being the southerly right of Way line of Channing
Avenue (62 feet wide) as shown on Tract Map No. 1641;
32.Thence along the southerly right of way line said Channing Avenue,
along said curve through a central angle of 6° 10°’ 21" an arc distance of
17.88 feet to a line tangent;
33.Thence along said southerly right of way Iine0f said Channing Avenue
North 89° 11’ 35" West 60 feet;
34,Thence. leaving said southerly right of way line of Channing Avenue
North 00° 48’ 25" East 62 feet to the northerly right ofwayline of
Charming Avenue (62 feet wide)as shown on said Tract Map No. 164 !;
35.Thence along Said northerly right of way of said Channing Avenue South
890 11’ 35" East 60 feet to the beginning of a tangent curve, concave
northerly and having a radius of 104 feet with a long chord.of 83.77 feet ;
36.Thence along said curve through a central angle of 47° 30’ 00" an arc
distance of 86.22 feet to a line tangent;
Page 4 of 6 ~e name; redev01.word
The ’description of the land within Edgewood Redevelopment S .m’vey Area.
3 7.Thence North 43 ° 18’ 25" East 95116 feet to the beginning of a tangent
curve, concave Westerly and h~iving a radius of 20 feet with a long chord
of23.08 feet;
38.Thence along said curve through a central angle of 70° 29’ 48" an arc
distance.0f 24.61 feet to the begin~g of reverse curve, concave
northeasterly aind having a radius of 132.76 feet with a long chordof
63.79 feet to a point on the westerly right 0f way line of Sandalwood
Court as shown on said Tract Map No. 1641;
39.Thence along said curve through a central angle of 27° 48’ 10" an arc
distance of 64.42 feet tO a line tangent;
40.Thence leaving said westerly line of said Sandalwood Court South 89°
23’ 13" East 50.00 feet to the easterly right of way of said Sandalwood
Court and the begirming, of a non-tangent curve; concave easterly and
having a radius of 82.76 feet with a long chord of 10.42 feet and a radial
bearing of North 89° 23’ 13" West;
41.Thence along.said curve through a central angle 7° 12’ 58" an arc
distance of 10.42 feet ~o the beginning of a compound curve, concave
northeasterly and having a radius of 20 feet with a Iong chord of 32.76
feet;
42.Thence along said curve through a central angle of-109° 59’ 34" an arc
distance of 38.39 feet to the beginning of a tangent reverse curve,
concave southerly and having a radius of 153.87 feet with a long chord of
72.39 feet, .said point also being .on thenorthe#ly right of way line of
Channing Avenue;
43.Thence along said. curve through a central angle of 27 ° 12’ 32;’ an arc
distance of 73.07 feet to line tangent;
44.Thence South 89° 23’ 13" East 105.00 feet to the beginning of a tangent
curve, concave northwesterly and having a radius of 20 feet with a long
chord of 28.28 feet;
Exhibit A Page 5 of 6 PAe name; r~d~vOl.word
The desGrii~tion of the lmad within Edgewood Redevelopment Survey Area
45.Thence along said curve through a central angle 900 an arc distance of
31.42 feet to a line tangent, also being on the westerly right of way line
of Edgewood Drive (60 feet wide) as .shown on .said Tract Map No 1641;
46.Thence along said westerly right of way line of said Edgewood Drive,
North 00° 36’ 47" East 110.00 feet;
~47.Thence le~viiag .said westerly right Of way line of said Edgewood Drive.
South 895 23:13 East 30 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING;
Said described lands contain 344,829 square feet( 7.92 acies) more orless.
Requested by: Bill Fellman
Checked by:Jay E. Remley,
Checked by: James T. Bourquin
Approved / Created By: James David Kiehl LS 71.52
Revision 9212-2001
Notes / References/Index:
A. ( )Tract No. 1641 Book66 Page 10 and 11, December !6, 1955
B. [ ] Tract No 282 Book 10 Page 43 and 44,. April 26, 1946
C. { } Right of Way Map Record Map File No 224-2101-014 and 224-2101-
003, February 1959. On file with Public Works Engineering, City of Palo
Alto.
D.Record 0fSurvey Book 663 page 26 - 29, March 1, 1995
E.Values shown to the accuracy as stated on record and filed maps.
F.Basis of Bear~g is North 00° 48’ 25" East. along the Centerline of St.
Francis Drive as centerline is shown on said Tract No. 1641
Assessors ParcelNumb~
003-018-016
003-018-021
003-018-022
003-018-023
TRle Repo~ OrderNumber
26335953
26335954
26335955
26335956
Dae
May l7,2001
May l7,2001
May l7, 200!
May!7,2001
¯ Page .6 of 6 ¯fi.te name; redevOLword
BLOC
BLOCK BLOCK 3
///
/
////////
//~//////
////////
//////~
II///
//
/////
////
///
////
///
////////ff~
/
IIIIIIII III
IIIIIII
//////
~/// ~////
//////
///////
/////////
/////////
///////////
//////////
//////////
////////
/////
/////
/
///~.
////I/,
///]/.
/////
//////
/////
////
////
./////
icon. 873/
/////
////
////
Lot 23
d
36i
Exhibit B
Edgewood Redevelopment ProjectArea
Preliminary Plan
November 7, 2001
Redevelopment Agency of the City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
PaloAito, California 94301
Duplicates Exhibit A, Preliminary Plan (of Attachment 1, Resolution Of The Redevelopment Agency Of
The City Of Pato Alto Accepting The Preliminary Plan For The Proposed Edgewood Redevelopment
Project And Authorizing And Directing Transmittal Of Certain Documents And Information, Authorizing The
Preparation Of The Environmental Impact Report And Preliminary Report, And Establishing A Year Of Last
Equalized Assessment Roll To Be Used For Allocation Of Taxes)
Exhibit C
Excerpt of the
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
November 7, 2001
NEW B USINESS. ¯
Public Hearings:
Attachment 3
Adoption of Redevelopment Agency Preliminary. Plan by Resolution
Mr. Frank Behest, Ci_ty Manager: Good evening. I’m here personally as the City Manager
because I’d like to demonstrate how important we feel the Edgewood Redevelopment Project
Area is, we feel, not only to our organization, but to the community at large. First I’d like to
apologize for several typos in our cover report referring to the Commission as a committee. So I
apologize for that. This came out of my office as opposed to the Planning Department.
Lee and I talked about the first step in this process which is the preliminary plan for the
Edgewood Redevelopment Project Area. Staff is recommending tonight that the Planning and
Transportation Commission officially select the official boundaries of the Edgewood
Redevelopment Project Area and approve and submit the preliminary plan, which I’ll talk about
in a second, for the Edgewood Redevelopment Airea for adoption by the Palo Alto
Redevelopment Agency. As you know, the City Council serves as the Agency Board.
Let me bring you up to date in terms of some of the actions that have occurred to date. First of
all the City Council, after quite a bit of discussion, approved the creation of a Redevelopment
Agency. Then it designated the Edgewood Center as a project survey area. That is to study and
explore to see if first of all that Edgewood Center meets all the legal criteria in terms of physical
and economic blight and then to determine if it is appropriate to use redevelopment as one tool to
assist in the revitalization of that center. The Council also authorized the City Manager to form a
Neighborhood Advisory Committee. We’ve met twice, it is a very good group of retail tenants,
property owners, neighbors, a Chamber representative, and the Planning Commission is also
represented on that Neighborhood Advisory Committee. By the way, we should make sure that
all the Planning Commissioners get summaries of the meetings. They are very good meetings.
Now we are here with the preliminary plan which is sort of the ftrst step in this process.
I want to emphasize right at the beginning that the purpose in exploring the Edgewood Center is
not for any financial motive. We would always like it to be a more vital center and it would
generate more sales tax and what have you. The primary focus is to see if redevelopment can be
used as one tool, again among a variety of tools, to help in preserving and revitalizing Edgewood
as a neighborhood serving retail center. That is our primary motivation. We have just gone
through an incredibly robust economy where the marketplace really did not revitalize that center.
Now we are in a downturn so it is even more unlikely that we’ll see market forces revitalizing
that center.
The preliminary plan in front of you basically does a variety of things as shown on page 2 of the
staff report. It describes the project, a general statement of land uses, the layout of the street, the
population density, building intensities and development standards proposed as a basis for the
redevelopment of the project area. In the preliminary plan we want to very much follow some of
the policies of the Comp Plan. On page 3 and 4 we identify a variety of policies from the Comp
Plan. I’d like to highlight two of them which are central. One is supporting the upgrading and
revitalization of Palo Alto’s four neighborhood commercial centers, again neighborhood serving
retail is the emphasis here. Then on the second page, encouraging mix of land uses in all our
centers including housing and an appropriate mix of small-scale local businesses.. The
Neighborhood Advisory Committee has been discussing how housing can perhaps help in
making a redevelopment project there which promotes the neighborhood serving retai! more
economically viable.
There are a number of obstacles that we have identified initially in terms of revitalizing this
center which helps us understand why the marketplace has not mined this center around. First of
all there are four parcels and there are multiple owners. There is also a parking strain. The
office has a parking easement that requires currently about 16 parking spaces in that center to be
set aside for the office development on the comer. Should the center revitalize as a retail center
it could very well be under-parked. There is incredibly poor visibility of that center, poor access,
poor circulation. In terms of modem design of that shopping center a lot of that parking is in the
back and on the sides instead of in front, p.articularly in front of the anchor store. Albertson’s is
a key to redeveloping that center, upgrading and perhaps expanding that anchor store. The
problem it only has 16 years left on its lease. Either it has to purchase the property or renegotiate
a much !onger lease or there really is not much likelihood that it will revitalize and become the
kind of anchor we need at that center. Then since we want to maintain a neighborhood serving
retail which is currently 15,000 square feet that just doesn’t pencil out. We feel that
redevelopment can help in terms of with some private sector partners, property owners, etc.
helping us revitalize this center. We will be coming back with a redevelopment plan but that’s
down the road a bit.
There are some upcoming actions, just to let you know what you will be seeing as part oft_he
process. If you go to page 3 of the staff report, where here again is the preliminary plan which
goes on to the Redevelopment Agency. Then in December/January you will receive the Draft
EIR and the Draft Redevelopment Plans and you can make your recommendations to the
Redevelopment Agency so it can receive the Draft Plan and the Draft Owner Participation Rules
and the Draft EIR so we can circulate those. There is also a preliminary report at that point.
Finally, this Spring you -will get the final Redevelopment Report and recommendations and
you’ll be sending that on so that there can be a public hearing. There will also be a meeting that
the Neighborhood Advisory Committee will hold prior to it coming back to the Commission.
This is a very preliminary report sort of setting out the basics. Any questions?
Chair Burr: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: Have we had any discussions with regard to the configuration of the
streets being such that they might conform to what the round-about street plan for Embarcadero
had? The main concern as I recall was the exit from the freeway onto the Embarcadero from that
area essentially accelerating traffic.
Mr. Benest: One essential to be looking at as part of the EIR are several things, one is you are
right, we have to be careful particularly by Frontage Road which is a major issue for this center.
The accelerating traffic off the freeway and then if you are coming off that Frontage Road is a
major issue. So we will be looking, and that could be one of the areas of assistance for the
Redevelopment Agency is to look at if we want that Frontage Road, a lot of people in the
neighborhood suggest, why have a frontage road there? So either one, do away with the
Frontage Road or number two, do something in terms of traffic control. I assume we are going
to keep thetraffic light at St. Francis. You can’t really put a traffic light there it is much too
close to the intersection. So we are going to be taking a look at that issue when we do the EIR.
Commissioner Bialson: Just to follow up on that. One of the discussion points I and I’m sure
other Commissioners also went to the series of workshops was perhaps going to Cal Trans and
getting them to somehow change that shoot-like effect from the freeway onto Embarcadero and
make that more of a direct or a 90 degree sort of access onto Embarcadero rather than shoot out
there. When we were looking at that whole area there was also a discussion of a creation of
some sort of gateway to demark the fact that you are now-entering a residential area.
Mr. Behest: That will be in the program.
Commissioner Bialson: That would further the Comp Plan.
Mr. Benest: Absolutely, we could look at that as another area for redevelopment assistance in
terms of the project. In the Neighborhood Advisory Committee there has been a lot of
discussion about the traffic issues and circulation issues. Then what is the best access and how
do we create more visibility because unless you are very familiar with that area you don’t know
the center is there at all. You can pass by several times and not know it is there.
Commissioner Bialson: I think that whole area needs to be looked at and that’s why I’m
emphasizing the road study that was done that looked at reconfiguring that, some of which would
require Cal Trans agreement.
Mr. Behest: We could do a little more study work session with our Transportation people. They
have done a look-see of that area.
Commissioner Bialson: Onething I want to ask about is the boundaries and that’s why I was
perhaps looking at expanding the boundaries somewhat.
Mr. Benest: It is my impression that we do not need to expand the boundaries to deal with traffic
control issues that are adjacent to the area.
Commissioner Bialson:
Trans?
Okay, so you don’t need them for purposes of some leverage with Cal
Mr. Behest: No. The key thing with Cal Trans is getting them to agree to something. Unless
they agree then we are going to have to pay for it.
Commissioner Bialson: Even if it involves the freeway?
Mr. Behest: Oh yes. So if it is a Cal Trans project you want Cal Trans to pay for it you can wait
until your grandchildren or great grandchildren before that proj ect moves up on the list. If you
really want to do something about it you need to get Cal Trans to approve the project, work with
you to design something and then figure out a way of paying for it. Again, a Redevelopment
Agency will help do that.
Commissioner Bialson: I have some other comments but I’ll hold them for later.
Chair Burt: Okay. Other Commissioners? Bonnie.
Commissioner Packer: My question may be going beyond the scope of Plarming and
Transportation. What is the neighborhood that this center will eventually serve? Right now it
serves across boundaries. It caught me here that there were tenants who were part of the
Neighborhood Advisory Committee. I don’t know how to deal with this. I was looking at a
Comp Plan about being "regional leaders." How do we relate with East Palo Alto on this whole
process?
Mr. Benest: Well, several ways. One is that we have, as you said tenants who their customers
come from a radius including East Palo Alto, and East Palo Alto uses that center as well as Palo
Alto. Number two, at a top official level we have meetings every couple months with Menlo
Park and East Palo Alto and Palo Alto where the City Manager and the Mayor and the
appropriate Staff get together. That is another way of raising those issues so that we can take
advantage of oppommities in East Palo Alto and they can take advantage of opportunities here in
Palo Alto. In terms of circulation and other kinds of issues we will be sensitive to making sure
that we maintain our linkages there.
Chair Burt: Phyllis.
-Commissioner Cassel: I have a question in the definitions here. One of the definitions of a
blighted area was a low lease rate. Does that mean that’s what get paid for their leases and why
is that necessarily the .case, and the main question is how are the people who are currently there
going to afford to be there if you raise the rates?
Mr. Benest: Let me start at the beginning here. First of all, blight and I want to emphasize this
for the audience and the community at large, blight is a very legal term. It is not our common
sense notion of blight. It is basically physical blight and that could be the condition of the stores,
it could be the design, it could be the layout, it could be circulation problems and all kinds of
issues. There is also economic blight and there are a whole bunch of factors including low lease
rates which is an indicator that the center is not economically vital. There are low lease rates
now at that center because it is a very poorly performing center. Undoubtedly when that center
redevelops some of the tenants will want to stay there for any number of reasons. Some of the
tenants will be able to afford to stay there. Some of them may not. So the question is in terms of
the tenant mix, a good tenant mix which is what you strive for in a shopping area, you want to
balance the need for maintaining some of the tenants who have been committed to that center,
some of them that have had a good response from their customers with certain economic realities
which is if you revitalize the center the lease rates are going to go up. So it is pretty much a
balancing act. One of the good things about redevelopment is that even though you are not the
owner of the center and you don’t control the center, you are a parmer in trying to revitalize the
center, you are going to stress certain kinds of policy preferences because you are putting dollars
into the mix to make sure that center works. So you are going to try to discourage anybody who
tries to throw that balance out of whack. If that center is revitalized the lease rates will go up.
So how do you maintain that small neighborhood serving retail sector as far as that center with a
balance of the older, committed retail tenants with some new tenants? We are going to struggle
to keep the existing retail to be very honest with you, because it just doesn’t pencil out at all but
that is our primary goal. You need to expand and modernize the anchor, you need to preserve
the neighborhood serving retail. How do you do it so it all pencils out? That is why you need
some redevelopment help.
Commissioner Packer:
retail space?
As a follow up question, has there ever been a concept of BMR with
Mr. Behest: Well, what you do is hopefully you provide not only some economic value through,
in this case we will probably have some housing there, which will have the economic value to
support some of the retail and then you provide some assistance through redevelopment and
that’s going to fill the gap so that you can maintain something that is not economically viable
which is the neighborhood serving retail.
Commissioner Packer: What I meant was having leases that were below market rate. You are
saying that we have housing.
Mr. Benest: I imagine some redevelopment agencies have done something like that. Jerry or
Les are you aware of that?
Mr. Les White: I’m not aware of it in a direct fashion like that. I am more aware of it in the
context that you describe where you try to have an anchor that can carry it and you might be able
to keep some of the other uses going.
Mr. Behest: Yes, by having some of the housing and some of the agency assistance in a variety
of ways you are basically going to create a subsidy for the neighborhood serving retail. Where if
you just left it to the marketplace it would never happen.
Chair Burt: Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I need clarification on something. I’m confused about, on page 4 of the
Plan, it talks about other land uses and then it refers to under General Statement of Proposed
Population Densities. This is planned redevelopment area but yet it refers to the currently
proposed project area zone is a Planned Community and it is anticipated that a new planned
community application. So I am confused how a planned community interfaces with...
Mr. Behest: The Planning people need to help me out but my very lay understanding of this is
that we have a Plalmed Community now which is very much tailored to that center where you
have the uses of the anchor grocery store, the neighborhood retail and an office and a gas station.
So if you come in with an application for let’s say a mixed-use project it would probably be
another PC Zone which would include uses that are somewhat different from what exists there.
The one striking one would be housing. So you would come in and it would have to go through
a regular PC process.
Commissioner Holman: So the Redevelopment Plan isn’t an umbrella that determines all of the
Mr. Benest: No, in fact what we are suggesting, and again correct me if I’m wrong, is that we
conform to basically the development standards of a typical retail center as envisioned by our
Comp Plan. But let’s say that it’s a mixed-use project you may have to have some flexibility in
terms of some parking ratios or this or that.
Ms. Wvnne Furth. Senior Assistant City Attorney: Basically when the City makes land.use
decisions they have to be consistent with the development plan. So if you look at the
Redevelopment Plan in this case it is basically designed to continue to use the Comprehensive
Plan and the zoning as it now exists or as the City may change it in the future as the
Redevelopment Plan. So basically it is restoring, it sets a big box within Which the furore zoning
and Comp Plan actions must occur, but this is written to give the emphasis to the Comp Plan and
the zoning. So it is very deferential to the City’s Planning Process.
Chair Butt: Thank you.
Commissioner Holman: This is a real short one. On page 3 of the staff report in regards to the
EIR under Planning Commission is says the Planning Commission receives and comments on
Draft EIR and Draft Redevelopment Plan. Then I don’t see any place where the Draft EIR goes
to the City Council.
Mr. Behest: It does not. Under Redevelopment Law it goes to the Redevelopment Agency and
which again is the City Council. Then the Agency has a responsibility of circulating that. Then
once that Redevelopment Report and recommendation come back to the Planning Commission
then it goes to the Council and the Agency and I assume we are going to have a joint public
hearing at that point. That’s what most cities do. So we will have a joint public hearing with the
Agency and the City.
Commissioner Packer: So is this Commission now also advisory to the Redevelopment Agency?
Mr. Benest: Absolutely.
Chair Burt: Frank, you mentioned a Neighborhood Advisory Group and there are in essence
three residential neighborhoods that immediately surround this center, theSt. Francis/Duveneck,
Crescent Park and the Woodland neighborhood in East Palo Alto. Is there an intention to include
residents from the Woodland neighborhood in the Advisory Group? Is that permissible?
Mr. Behest: In fact, I invited somebody the other day. I talked to somebody who had a concern
from East Palo Alto that was from that neighborhood. I invited that person to sit on the
Neighborhood Advisory Committee. I said, if they couldn’t sit on it maybe they would suggest
somebody who had a interest and would represent the viewpoints of that area.
Chair Burt: Have we also asked representatives from East Palo Alto Planning Commission or
Council?
Mr. Behest: I think the best idea is I’m meeting next week with our three city group, the Mayor
and City Manager for East Palo Alto and I’ll ask for a few recommendations.
Chair Burr: Great. Any other questions or comments?
Commissioner Bialson: One further question. There are 16 years left on the lease with
Albertson’s. Have you been in discussions with Albertson’s in terms of their willingness to
participate?
Mr. Behest: They are open to expanding and upgrading given a whole variety of issues. I
believe that putting together a mixed-use plan with the appropriate assistance of the
Redevelopment Agency they could expand as an anchor. We are fortunate in that center that
there is an anchor. Some cities decide to revitalize a center and spend 10 years looking for an
anchor. We have an anchor now but there are always obstacles, a lot of obstacles. We believe
that redevelopment can help deal with some of those obstacles and we have a willing anchor we
just have to solve a variety of problems.
Commissioner Bialson: I just want to make one comment based on a personal experience. I find
that there are quite a few other people other than myself who use that Albertson’s and that
shopping center because it is not necessarily a "neighborhood" one but when one comes off the
101 and you need to do some shopping before you get home that is where I do my shopping. So
as you consider these things and again I would consider the access and various other things if
you could keep in mind that other set of users, or whole set of people from other parts of Palo
Alto that use that area.
Chair Burr: Frankly, with the closure of Co-Op there has been some additional potential
clientele for that shopping center.
Mr. Benest: The demographics if you look at a zoning map of the City and the one we use in the
conference room upstairs shows pink for neighborhood centers, there is this one pink spot and
there is no other pink for a long way. So if you look at the demographics it will support that kind
of center it is just that we have to deal with a whole bunch of obstacles. We are pretty optimistic
actually.
Chair Burt: I guess it is the only center in the City that has also the potential to serve traffic that
just comes off the freeway and drops into shopping and you can get back on the freeway.
Mr. Behest: Yes.
Chair Burr: Is that it?
Mr. Behest: We will be back again but we wanted an opportunity just to come by and answer
any initial questions about it. We will come back several times and we look forward to dialogue
about this.
Chair Burt: Thank you Frank. Are there any members of the public who wish to comment on
this item? Seeming none, we have before us a recommendation from the Staff. Do we have a
discussion or a motion? Wyrme, can you help us here?
Ms. Furth: I just wanted to tell you that you have before you a resolution. We had to go back to
1963 to find our last resolution to the Planning Commission. Ordinarily you just act by minute
motion and that’s how you go forward. In the case of the Redevelopment Plan you actually need
.to adopt the resolution. So if you want to adopt Staff’s recommendation then the action would
be to move adoption of the resolution and you should read it by title.
Chair Burr: Thank you. Annette? Karen:
Commissioner Holman: I have a question about the resolution. I want to make sure I’ve this
fight. Does the Planning Commission, could we at this point or maybe not at this point but some
future point, because the Redevelopment Plan follows the Comp Plan but there will probably be
PCs applied for...
Mr. Behest: Down the line.
adopted, yes.
Sometime after the Redevelopment Plan or this envelope is
Commissioner Holman: Right. So as a part of that envelope and our recommendation could we
recommend that say for example the definition of mixed-use be changed not to include office or
it be only second floor or we could set quotas for numbers, it is a small place, I don’t think
you’re going to end up with 15 hair and nail salons for instance but could we do that sort of
thing? Require salvage of anything or demolished buildings and require open space, can we do
any 0f that?
Mr. Benest: There will be some mention of amenities I think in the plan but we would have to
look at that. I would assume that’s best when you have an actual application in front of you.
Ms. Furth: You can propose more restrictions in the plan itself to the City Council at this point if
you want to do so. The approach that Staff is recommending is that you leave those issues as
broadly stated as they are now at this time but certainly it makes sense to explain as these things
go forward, if they go forward, what other issues you think are important because those that you
believe are important can be included in the Disposition and Development Agreements (DDAs)
which are agreements with property owners about how these things are developed or they can be
included in the PC Zones.
Mr. Benest: For instance as one example, it is quite clear in the Comp Plan that for
neighborhood serving retail you want ground floor retail. So you can make sure that the plan
emphasizes that as one example.
our neighborhood serving retail.
In the Comp Plan there is a discussion about public spaces in
So you can emphasize as we go through the process, and figure
out where the best place is to insert that, that there be appropriate public spaces, green spaces,
etc. So we will figure it out, we are learning as we go along.
Ms. Furth: Also, another way to answer your question is that if the sense of your
question/comment is that you believe that it would be valuable to havethe Planning
Commission, if the Council decides to go forward with this project, look at that the site again
soon before there is a particular proposal on the table to raise the kind of issues that you think
should be addressed.
Commissioner Holman: That is where I was going because I didn’t think it would be fair to an
applicant to come in and not think that we had other interests in policy and programs that we
thought were better land use and they might come in with something else.
Mr. Behest: The only thing I would caution as the City Manager is that this is a center that has
so many obstacles that it will no.t redevelop. So what we are trying to do with the community,
with you, with the Council and with the Redevelopment Agency is balance certain kinds of
interests that we have in such a way that they are economically viable as we try to piece together
a plan to revitalize this center. So what we are going to be straggling with is the same thing you
are going to be struggling with which is going to be what applicants are going to be struggling
with. How do we generate enough economic value with the assistance of the Redevelopment
Agency so this thing pencils out so we can reach what we believe is the primary goal. The
primary-goal is maintaining the neighborhood serving retail. I’ll leave that as a challenge both
for us and for you folks.
Chair Burr: Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: To sort of pound home the point I was making it says here in the
Resolution that in the event that it is necessary to make minor technical changes for clarification
for the purposes of the boundary, that is the only room you leave yourself. I assume what you
mean by the boundary of the Redevelopment Area is the private property owned portion not the
access roads or any of the other spaces.
Mr. Benest: Yes. All the information that we have is that you can, if there are issues adjacent to
the project area that you need to fix up, you can easily do that.
Commissioner Bialson:
offthe subject.
I am looking at this as a great opportunity for traffic calming. I’ll get
MOTION
I’ll move the Resolution that is contained in the staff report for adoption by the Planning and
Transportation Commission.
Chair Burt: Do we have a second?
SECOND
Commissioner Cassel: Second.
Chair Burt: Would you like to speak to your motion?
Commissioner Bialson: I think we have had enough discussion.
Ms. Grote: You could just read the top of it.
Commissioner Bialson: Resolution Number 2001-01, Resolution of the Planning and
Transportation Commission of the City of Palo Alto selecting the boundaries of the Edgewood
Redevelopment Project Area within the Edgewood Redevelopment Survey Area and approving a
preliminary plan for redevelopment of the Project Area.
We’d like to move that.
Chair Burr: Annette, did you want to speak to your motion?
Commissioner Bialson: No, I think we have discussed it enough.
Chair Burt: Phyllis.
Commissioner Cassel: I think I should speak a little bit as Second. This is a very broad
envelope within which to work. Presuming that all of the advisory committees and others will be
working to develop a program that is going to come back to us. So we may have some
comments that have been made in other discussions about other issues that I’d like to see what
may develop and what interests those neighbors have.
Mr. Benest: Actually we had two meetings that we will send you the summaries of, I apologize
we didn’t think of this earlier. In the first meeting the neighborhood as well as the tenants and
¯ other folks listed the hopes and aspirations for that center. When you see that first summary,
which we will give to you this week or early next week, you’ll see what the hopes and
aspirations are. That’s where we started.
meeting we got to obstacles.
we started with hopes and aspirations.In the second
I want to thank Susan Arpan from our Staff and Economic Resources Planning as well as Amy
French from the Planning Division Staff who are working with us on this project. It is a
collaborative effort with our legal staff also.
Michae! Griffin from the Planning Commission sits on the Neighborhood Advisory Committee
because obviously we want to have a strong liaison with the Commission.
Chair Burr: Great. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I will support the motion and I also look forward to seeing what the
Neighborhood Committee is coming forward with. I’m not sure if the best way to address this
would be with an amendment to the motion or just make it as a comment in addition to this. It
would seem to me that housing at this site in addition to retail would support the retail that is
there. I’m sure you’ve had discussions about that. It would seem to me also that office is really
not appropriate there at all for a number of reasons including traffic intensity and all kinds of
things.
Mr. Benest: Parking and all kinds of issues.
Commissioner Holman: So I’m wondering if we could add that to the motion or if that is
something that we should just deal with later. I don’t know what the best way to deal with that is
but it should be on the table earlier rather than later.
Mr. Behest: We will note thai. We are going to come back and we will find the best way to
insert that. There is no suggestion that we add office, in fact we are concerned with the existing
office. So you can rest assured we will deal with that.
Commissioner Holman: Given that, and given that it is on the record, I’m satisfied.
Commissioner Packer: I’ll support the motion too. This is in response to Karen’s concerns, on
page 6 of the preliminary plan it give great detail on how it will comply with the Comprehensive
Plan and mentions some of the items you brought up such as public open spaces and that kind of
thing. Another comment on office, looking at the definitions and the current zoning ordinance
and how office is used I think sometimes when one person says office that’s one person’s vision
of what it is and other times it is another person’s vision. Like a travel agency could be an office
that could be appropriate in a neighborhood serving area. So I think we need to be caref~ before
we say no office. I think we have to be more specific about kinds of uses before we make these
blanket statements. That was my comment on the office issue.
Commissioner Holman: Just point of clarification. What I am referring to is offices. I think
offices would not include neighborhood serving commercial for instance like travel agencies and
such.
Commissioner Packer: But there are definitions that preclude that perception.
Chair Butt: My only comment would be that when we reviewed the Midtown and Charleston
Centers one of the discussions was at what point in time we need to update the definitions of
neighborhood serving retail and retail in general. We have the moratorium on retail conversion
that is currently in existence and now this. I would hope that we would move sooner rather than
later to address the definitions issue.
MOTION PASSES
Given that, all in favor of the motion? (ayes) Opposed?
That passes unanimously. Thank you very much Mr. City Manager.