HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 3574
City of Palo Alto (ID # 3574)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/4/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Edgewood Plaza Update
Title: Update and Direction to Staff Regarding Development Process for
Edgewood Plaza
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation and Draft Motion:
Draft Motion: I move that Council direct staff to:
1. Proceed with preparation of a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) to
address Building #1 historic resources issues (at the applicant’s expense);
2. Return to Council with the SEIR and an amendment to the PC zoning (including
modification to the proposed “public benefits”) following review by the Historic
Resources Board and Planning and Transportation Commission.
3. Prohibit any construction of Building #1 and any development of housing (including site
preparation for the housing) until the SEIR is completed and an amendment to the
approved Planned Community (PC) zone is considered by the Council;
4. Allow continued development of the grocery store (Building #3) as the remainder of the
project moves forward;
5. Allow the rehabilitation of Building #2 to commence subject to a City designated historic
peer review and on-site monitor;
6. Allow offsite improvements to proceed, including off-site traffic improvements; and
7. Allow the installation of the historic sign and other incidental related work.
Executive Summary
The Edgewood Plaza Planned Community (PC) Zoning was approved on March 19, 2012 to allow
the redevelopment of an existing vacant and historic shopping center, including the relocation
of one of the three retail buildings, the addition of ten homes and a new 0.20 acre park. The PC
Zoning required that the two historically significant retail buildings be preserved as a primary
City of Palo Alto Page 2
public benefit: Building #2 was to be rehabilitated in place, while Building #1 was proposed to
be disassembled, relocated on site and rehabilitated. Work also began on the grocery store
building, another key public benefit of the zoning.
Subsequent to the issuance of a permit to disassemble Building #1 and contrary to the
requirements of the PC Zoning and what was shown in the building permit plans, however, the
applicant demolished the building without notifying or receiving approval from the City. The
Planning Director issued a stop work order on September 9, 2012, following complaints of the
unauthorized demolition. Following the issuance of the stop work order, the applicant, Sand Hill
Property Company, initiated discussions with the City regarding next steps. The applicant was
allowed to continue construction on the grocery store in Building #3, the one non-historic
building, and any work related to the operation of the grocery store. Since the project no
longer preserves one of the two historic buildings, however, a Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report (SEIR) must be prepared before Building #1 can be rebuilt, and amendment to
the PC zoning may be required to define adequate “public benefits,” a process that is likely to
take 4 to 6 months. Staff recommends that, in the interim, on-site work be limited to
construction of the grocery store (Building #3), rehabilitation of Building #2 (with additional
limitations and historic resource inspections), and installation of the historic monument sign.
Staff recommends that no work on Building #1 and the housing component of the project move
forward until completion of the SEIR and consideration of an amendment to the Planned
Community zoning, including potential additional public benefits.
Background
This item was continued from the Council’s January 22, 2013 calendar. Responses to questions
submitted by Councilmember Holman are included as Attachment E to the staff report.
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 property is bounded to
the south by Channing Avenue, by West Bayshore Road to the east, Saint Francis Drive to the
west and an office building and gas station to the south. Embarcadero Road is located south of
the site. 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 (Maharishi School of Vedic Science of California/1101
Embarcadero Road) and gas station (A.U. Energy LLC/1161 Embarcadero Road) sites are owned
by different property owners and are not part of this project. The 3.58-acre commercial site is
located at adjacent to the Duveneck/Saint Francis neighborhood, which is part of the Green
Gables subdivision.
Planned Community Zoning and Environmental Review
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The Edgewood Plaza Planned Community Zoning (Attachment A) was approved on March 19,
2012 to allow the redevelopment of an existing vacant and historic shopping center, including
the relocation of one of the three retail buildings, the addition of ten homes and a new 0.20
acre park. The site plan is provided as Attachment D for reference. Two of the existing
commercial buildings, Buildings #1 and #2 have been deemed historic resources. Building 3,
the former market building proposed to house the new 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. The primary public
benefits for the Edgewood Plaza project consist of 1) the preservation of historic resources and
2) the construction and operation of the grocery store. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
was prepared and certified by the City Council to provide environmental clearance in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the rezoning. The EIR was
certified 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 the Interior’s Rehabilitation Standards. Specifically, the
character defining features of the building, such as the wood window frames, glu-lam beams,
concrete block wall, cornice and wood paneling, would be retained. The CEQA findings adopted
by the Council are provided in Attachment B.
Building #1 Demolition and Stop Work
Subsequent to the City Council approval, the applicant submitted building permits to repair
Building #3 (grocery store), disassemble and rehabilitate Building #1 and to rehabilitate Building
#2, in compliance with the PC Zoning. The applicant submitted building permit plan sets that
were prepared under review by the applicant’s historic consultant, Page and Turnbull, following
the requirements of the project’s EIR. The building permit plan sets included specific notes for
a review process to ensure that the disassembly of Building #1 would be completed in
conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Rehabilitation Standards. Shortly after the
building permits were issued, however, Building #1 was completely demolished. Once staff was
notified, a Stop Work Order was issued immediately to stop all virtually all work at the
Edgewood Plaza.
Shortly after the issuance of the Stop Work Order, the applicant met with City staff to discuss
the situation. Staff also requested a written explanation of the unauthorized demolition. A
copy of the applicant’s explanation has been provided to the Council in Section II of Attachment
C. The explanation, written by the applicant’s historic consultant, stated that the building
materials were in a condition that was not salvageable. However, the applicant failed to follow
the approved review process and disposed of the building material without notifying the City or
obtaining City approval. Staff observed that although significant site improvement work had
commenced, Building #2 remained largely untouched. Improvements to Building #3 (grocery
store) were in process.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Other Work on Site
Although all work had stopped, the applicant requested the ability to proceed with other
components of the project. The key component was the ability to proceed with the
construction of the grocery building, which was one of the primary public benefits of the PC
adopted by Council. The Planning Director allowed the grocery store and any related work
needed to make the site operational for Fresh Market to move forward since a) the new market
was a public benefit and there were no environmental impacts identified with its development,
b) the building was not a historic resource, c) there were no violations identified for this part of
the project and d) the commercial portion of the project was subject to an earlier lot merger
and was consistent with both the earlier PC zone and the new PC zone. The applicant
submitted a phasing plan that showed that this work could be completed without affecting the
site of Building #1, Building #2 or the location where the ten homes would be located. The
grocery store work complies with the PC zoning requirements. The related work included
parking lot improvements and utilities and was allowed to proceed. Staff also permitted a few
other incidental activities that were allowed. Staff allowed the foundation to be poured at the
new location of Building #1 to protect work that already had been done prior to the issuance of
the Stop Work Order. The applicant was made to understand that any work on Building #1
would be subject to future review and requirements, and that the foundation pour was allowed
at the applicant’s risk that a final resolution may require a modified location for Building #1
(though staff doesn’t believe that’s likely). Staff also allowed temporary roof protection to be
installed on Building #2 to protect the interior. The applicant is targeting May as a grand
opening date for the grocery store.
PC Amendment
The applicant has filed an amendment to the original PC application to permit the
reconstruction of Building #1 in accordance with a modified Secretary of Interior Standards for
Reconstruction. The modified standards would closely comport to the building plans previously
approved by the City. It is also expected that the project would contain additional historic
enhancements that would further unify the three Eichler commercial buildings.
Discussion
Staff has brought the Edgewood Plaza project forward to assure that Council is supportive of
the direction of the process of rectifying the project violations of Building #1 and the associated
environmental review (EIR). Staff anticipates that the components of the subsequent action
will include: 1) an amendment to the Planned Community Zoning, 2) preparation of a
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), and 3) determination as to which elements
(if any) of the project may proceed in the interim, pending final Council actions.
Planned Community Zoning Amendment
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The original Planned Community Zoning approval included the relocation and rehabilitation of
Building #1, with the retention of the character defining features of the Eichler building. The
rehabilitation of the building was considered a “public benefit” of the project justifying the
rezoning. Since Building #1 has been demolished and will need to be completely reconstructed,
the Planned Community Zoning must be amended before work may commence on Building #1.
The applicant has submitted a letter request to amend the zoning. The applicant proposes to
rebuild Building #1 as approved, but with all new material rather than retaining some portion of
the prior building materials. The revised application will be required to be reviewed by the
Historic Resources Board (HRB) and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC).
Subsequent to the HRB and PTC recommendations, the application would be brought back to
the City Council for final approval. Architectural Review Board review will be required if
significant changes to the elevations are proposed. However, the applicant has indicated that
such changes are unlikely. Staff has informed the applicant that the rebuilding of Building #1 is
likely to require certain enhancements in response to the loss of the historic building. The
enhancements may include the requirement for the exact reproduction of the wood windows
found in Building #2 or better replications of other components that had previously been
altered over the years. The PC amendment will address the “public benefits” issue to define
whether comparable historic benefits may be provided or whether additional benefits may be
required to compensate for those lost by the demolition of Building #1.
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR)
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for Edgewood Plaza was prepared to serve as a disclosure document to provide
information to the public and decision making bodies as they consider pending applications.
Specifically CEQA requires agencies to not only disclose the significant environmental effects of
proposed projects, but the feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that could help avoid or
reduce the environmental impacts. The site has been determined to be a historic resource in
accordance with CEQA.
The project’s EIR was certified 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 the Interior’s Rehabilitation Standards.
Because Building 1 has been demolished, the Rehabilitation Standards are no longer applicable
and a substituted mitigation measure or a statement of overriding considerations is required.
Given that the project condition for Building #1 has changed, a Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report (SEIR) is required to analyze the historic impacts of the demolition and to
identify substitute mitigation measures for the loss of Building #1. Staff has engaged the
original environmental consultant, David J. Powers and Associates, to prepare the SEIR, at the
applicant’s expense. The SEIR will focus on the range of potential substituted mitigation
measures for the loss of Building #1. The applicant is proposing to reconstruct Building #1 with
all new material, but to replicate the prior approved design. A Notice of Preparation for the
City of Palo Alto Page 6
SEIR has been published and mailed to responsible agencies requesting comments by March 4,
2013. A draft SEIR will be prepared to outline potential mitigation measures or alternatives
and/or findings that would be required to allow for the loss of a significant historic resource.
The draft SEIR will be available to the public and will be reviewed by the Planning and
Transportation Commission prior to consideration of the amendment to the PC zoning and any
modification of “public benefits” for the project. The Council will then consider the Final SEIR
and the PC amendment following recommendations from the HRB and PTC. Staff expects that
the EIR and PC amendment process will take approximately 4-6 months.
Next Steps and Staff Recommendation
The applicant understands that work on Building #1 cannot commence without Council
approval of a PC Zoning amendment or a certified SEIR. However, the applicant has requested
permission to proceed with the rest of the project. Staff recommends allowing the applicant to
proceed with the commercial aspects of the development that comply with the prior PC
ordinance as well as the contemplated PC ordinance. However, staff does not recommend
allowing the housing to proceed as the status of the existing PC ordinance is in flux given the
removal of a key community “public benefit.”
Work on Commercial Buildings #2 and #3
The applicant has requested to continue work on the grocery store (Building #3) and to begin
work on Building #2, the one remaining historic building, because he believes it will be possible
to rehabilitate the building in place as previously approved. Staff’s primary concern with these
requests is to ensure that unauthorized work will not be an issue and that staff will be fully
aware of any potential issue or change. To address the concern, staff has requested that the
applicant’s historic consultant, Page and Turnbull, provide an explanation of the previous
events that led to the unauthorized demolition and how the applicant intends to comply with
the requirements for the rehabilitation of Building #2. Page and Turnbull has prepared and
provided a narrative (Attachment C) explaining the process that led to the demolition of
Building #1 and a protocol for Building #2 to ensure compliance with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Rehabilitation Standards.
The protocol, which has been reviewed by the City’s Historic Preservation Planner, establishes a
procedure for the documentation, notification, salvage, protection and approval needed for the
successful rehabilitation of the historic building. Staff believes the protocol establishes a clear
process to ensure compliance to supplement the process identified in the original building
permit plans submitted for Building #1. However, the protocol will likely need to be refined as
more information is discovered through the construction process. To further aid in the
assessment of Building #2, the City authorized limited reconnaissance (with City staff on hand)
to assess the building’s condition. Very small spot openings were created in the non-historically
significant interior walls to allow viewing of the exterior walls. Although it was discovered that
City of Palo Alto Page 7
much of the building has been replaced over time, the historic integrity of the building is still
intact because the character-defining features that establish the historic fabric of the building
were maintained. To ensure compliance throughout the entire construction process, staff
recommends that the applicant also pay for a City-hired consultant to provide a historic peer
review of the plans and construction site observation to ensure that the project is implemented
as required.
Staff also believes that the relocation and rehabilitation of the historic sign can be done in a
way that will not further damage the historic integrity of the site. An Architectural Review
permit would be required for the historic sign and would be reviewed by both the Historic
Resources Board and the Architectural Review Board. Additionally, staff would also like the
applicant to proceed with the following transportation related improvements required in the
PC zoning as they directly relate to pedestrian and vehicular safety: a) median island
modifications at Embarcadero Rd. and West Bayshore Road, b) signal modification at
Embarcadero Road and St. Francis Drive, and c) two-way left turn restriping on Embarcadero
Road from St. Francis Drive to Wildwood Lane. The goal would be to have these improvements
in place when the grocery store opens. A team of City staff for the Edgewood Plaza project has
been created and engaged to ensure regular communication and monitoring of the project. City
staff has also been communicating with neighborhood resident groups to keep the
neighborhood informed.
Residential Development
The applicant has also expressed interest in being allowed to process the Final Subdivision Map
and at least prepare the housing sites and possibly construct a few model homes of the ten
approved home sites, while the SEIR is prepared and the PC amendment is reviewed. Staff has
objected to that approach, as the loss of the community benefit puts the current PC in flux and
staff is not able to make the necessary findings to subdivide the residential lots at this time.
Alternatives
Council may, in lieu of staff’s recommendation, choose any of the following alternatives (or
others):
1. Stop all work, including the grocery store, until the SEIR and PC amendment are
presented to Council.
The applicant would be required to cease all work immediately. The grocery store and
related work would be placed on hold, perhaps jeopardizing the lease with the grocery
tenant and substantially delaying the rehabilitation of the center. The site would remain
completely vacant until the SEIR and PC Amendment are brought before the Council. The
deferral of the housing provides some financial consequence and leverage to encourage
City of Palo Alto Page 8
the applicant to move expeditiously on other components of the project, particularly
relative to Building #1.
2. Stop all work other than the grocery store, until the SEIR and PC amendment are
presented to Council.
The applicant would be allowed to complete work only on the grocery store and related
site work, as currently allowed. This would include the parking lot, utility, signage and
traffic improvements. The remainder of the site, including Building 2 and the housing,
would have to remain untouched and fenced off until the SEIR and PC Amendment are
brought to the Council for a decision. This would result in construction adjacent to the
grocery store after the store opens, which would be disruptive to the store, and would
delay somewhat the rehabilitation of the center. Deferral of the housing again serves as
leverage to assure compliance throughout the remainder of the construction.
3. Allow the housing or a portion of the housing to proceed at applicant’s risk while the
SEIR and PC amendment are under development, and assess a fine for the demolition of
Building #1. This would also allow for approval of the final map.
This alternative would allow the applicant to proceed with the construction of Building #2
and some or all of the housing. If the housing moves forward, staff believes the City has
somewhat reduced leverage to assure compliance and cooperation for the construction of
the remainder of the project. If Council determines to allow the housing to proceed, staff
recommends two additional provisions: a) no final inspection and issuance of a certificate
of occupancy should be permitted until Council certification of the SEIR and approval of
the PC amendment; b) applicant proceeds at his own risk in the event the amended
project is not approved by the Council; and c) a penalty should be assessed for the
unpermitted demolition of Building #1. Staff recommends a fine of $10,443.17 if such a
penalty is levied (see discussion below).
In order to construct the housing units, the applicant must comply with the PC Ordinance and
EIR mitigation measures. Because the rehabilitation of Building #1, which was a major public
benefit of the original PC approval and a required mitigation measure in the EIR, is no longer
possible, construction of housing would not be in compliance with the PC conditions of
approval and the EIR mitigation measures. Amending the PC ordinance and substituting a
mitigation measure is a discretionary action which triggers a SEIR. Staff believes that options
that avoid preparation of an SEIR and PC amendment are not legally viable. However,
alternatives #1 and #2 would allow construction of the project components that are still in
compliance with the PC Zoningand therefore do not require a SEIR and PC amendment.
Penalties for Non-Compliance
The project applicant has violated the conditions of approval for the PC zoning and the historic
resources mitigation measures required. The City could impose financial penalties related to
the violation. The applicant, however, has cooperated with staff’s subsequent direction, admits
City of Palo Alto Page 9
culpability (though not intent) and concurs with staff’s recommendations in this report. The
applicant will (and has to some extent already) incur substantial costs associated with a) delay
in construction of the various components of the project, b) costs for the additional
environmental review and staff work, c) additional onsite monitoring and peer review of the
historic building (Building 2), and d) modifications to the project “public benefits,” to be
determined subsequently by Council. Of particular note, staff believes that deferral of the
housing component of the project is a substantial penalty for the developer and provides
significant leverage for the City to assure the project complies fully as it moves forward.
Nevertheless, the City Council may ultimately determine a penalty is required upon review of
the amended PC zoning or presently.
The Municipal Code allows the City to fine applicants for a variety of code violations. The Code
provides that, for construction without a permit, an amount equal to the building permit fee
(“double permit fees”) may be assessed. 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 that was charged for Building 1 was $9443.17. 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. Given the discretionary nature of the
Planned Community consideration, Council may assess a lesser or greater penalty.
Resource Impacts
The cost of additional review and preparation of the Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report will be borne by the applicant. The resource impacts of the Planned Community zoning
are not likely to change given the project modifications and the amended zoning. The grocery
store is proceeding with construction, so that its economic benefits should be realized in a
timely manner.
Environmental Review
Environmental review is addressed earlier in the report, as a Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report (SEIR) will be required and is under preparation.
Attachments:
Attachment A: PC Ordinance #5150 (Edgewood Plaza) (PDF)
Attachment B: CEQA Resolution for Edgewood Plaza (PDF)
Attachment C: February 4, 2013 Page and Turnbull Letter re: Historic Resources (PDF)
Attachment D: Site Plan (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Attachment E: Response to Council Questions (DOCX)
Attachment F: Public Correspondence (PDF)
· Resolution No. 9239
Resolution Of The Council Of The City Of Palo Alto Certifying
The Adequacy Of The Final Environmental Impact Report For The
Edgewood Plaza Project Pursuant To The California Environmental
Quality Act And Adopting The Mitigation Monitoring And
Reporting Program
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE 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 ("CEQA"; Pub. Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.),
and Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 of the CEQA 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 Environmental Impact Report
(State Cleari11ghouse No. 2011022030) (the "Final EIR") , which includes the Draft
Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR"), Public Comments, and Responses to Comments.
The Final EIR addresses the environmental impacts of the implementation of the 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 assist with preparation of the Final EIR under the
supervision and at the direction of the City's Director of Planning and Community Environment.
(e) The City, with assistance from David J. Powers & Associates, initially prepared
the Draft EIR 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 September 30, 2011, through November 14, 2011. As noted above, the
Final EIR includes the Draft EIR, copies of all comments on the Draft EIR submitted during the
comment period, the City's responses to those comments, and changes made to the Draft EIR
following its public circulation.
120402 dm 0120533 1
(f) The City's Planning and Transportation Commission has reviewed the Final EIR
and a draft of these findings and has provided its recommendations to the City Council regarding
certification of the Final EIR. The City Council has independently reviewed the Final EIR and
has considered the Planning and Transportation Commission's recommendations in making these
findings.
(g) Based upon review and consideration of the inforn1ation contained therein, the
City Council hereby certifies 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 environn1ent, 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 EIR and the First Amendment to the Final EIR shows all
revisions which the Final EIR made to the Draft EIR. All references to the Draft EIR in these
findings include references to all revisions to the Draft EIR made in the Final EIR (as amended).
Having reviewed this section and the Final EIR as a whole, the City Council hereby finds,
determines, and declares that no significant new information has been added to the Final EIR so
as to warrant recirculation of all or a portion of the Draft EIR. Likewise, the City· Council has
considered all public comments and other information submitted into the record since publication
of the Final EIR, and further finds that none of that additional information constitutes significant
new information requiring recirculation of the Final EIR.
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 EIR, Final EIR, 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 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 0.20 acre park.
The three buildings currently on site are arranged in an L-shaped plan, with the grocery
store to the east, and the two one-story retail buildings to the west. The grocery store and the
retail buildings are wood-framed with elements of stucco and concrete block, and have flat roofs.
One of the existing retail buildings (Building 1) would be relocated to the north and west
of its current location on the site to allow for a modified configuration of parking for the grocery
store. This building and the other building to remain in place (Building 2) would be renovated
120402 dm 0120533 2
for continued retail use. Building 1 would be disassembled, and significant elements with
distinctive design qualities, such as the walls and walkway overhangs would be retained. The
building would be reconstructed to the north and west of the current Building 1 location, and
visible historic building elements from the existing building would be rehabilitated and installed
on a new building structure.
The grocery building would remain in place and be renovated to allow for use as a small
scale grocery store.
A conceptual site plan ofthe proposed Project is shown on Figure 4. A breakdown ofthe
proposed development areas and building square footage are shown in Table 2.3-1. Conceptual
elevations of the 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 ErR, as modified where applicable in the Final ElR.)
A complete description of the Project as proposed by the Project applicant is set forth
in Section 2.3 of the Draft ErR, as modified in the Final ErR.
( c) Required Approvals
The approvals required by the City as lead agency for implementation of the Project
include:
A. Planned Community Zoning
B. Tentative Subdivision Map
C. Final Subdivision Map
D. Lot Line Adjustments
E. Tree Removal Permits
SECTION 3. Record of Proceedings.
(a) For purposes of CEQ A, 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 ErR, which consists of the Edgewood Plaza Project Draft
Environmental Impact Report, published and circulated for public review and
comment by the City from September 30, 2011 through November 14,2011 (the
"Draft EIR") , and the Edgewood Plaza Project Final Environmental Impact
Report, published and made available on February 17, 2012, a First Amendment
to the Final ElR and made available on February 29, 2012 and all appendices,
reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, testimony, and other materials
related thereto;
(2) All public notices issued by the City in connection with the Project and the
120402 dm 0120533 3
preparation of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, 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
Availability;
(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, including
oral communications made at public hearings or meetings held on the Proj ect
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 CEQ A, 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.
(d) The City of Palo Alto has relied upon all of the documents, materials, and
evidence listed above in reaching its decision on the Project.
(e) The City Council hereby finds, determines and declares that the above-referenced
documents, materials, and evidence constitute substantial evidence (as that term is defined by
120402 dm 0120533 4
section 15384 of the CEQA Guidelines) to support each ofthe findings contained herein.
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) The 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 of the 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. Potentially Significant Impacts.
By these Findings, the City Council ratifies and adopts the Final EIR' s conclusions for
the following significant environmental impacts which, based on the analyses in the Final EIR,
this City Council determines will be less than significant after the implementation of the
mitigation measures described below. All citations to the Draft EIR chapters and sections below
include reference to all revisions to those chapters and sections contained in the Final EIR.
Section 3.2.5.3 Historic Resources Impacts in the Draft EIR included summaries of the expert
opinion of two qualified historic resources consultants, Page &Turnbull and Carey & Company.
The City Council finds the opinion of Page & Turnbull to be valid and agrees with their
conclusions regarding the significance of project impacts on historic resources. The significance
conclusions for Impact CR-2 and Impact CR-3 below reflect a revision of the impact statements
in the Final EIR made available on February 17, 2012, based upon the City Council's
independent judgment of the two analyses by experts presented in the EIR.
5.1 Cultural Resources
Impact CR-l: Unknown subsurface archeological or paleontological resources could be
present on the site, and could be disturbed during Project construction.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.5.2 of the Draft EIR.
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-1.1 and CR-1.2.
120402 dm 0120533 5
c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this
potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by: (i) requiring that all
construction activities be halted within a radius of fifty (50) feet of any potentially significant
archeological or paleontological resources encountered during construction; (ii) requiring that
such resources be examined by qualified professionals; and (iii) following the recommendation
of the qualified professional to preserve, collect, record and/or analyze the resources, thereby
ensuring that significant archeological and paleontological resources are not inadvertently
destroyed and are appropriately preserved and/or recorded. The above-noted measures will also
reduce the severity of this potentially impact to a less-than-significant level by: (i) requiring that
all construction activities be halted in the event that any human remains are encountered during
construction; (ii) requiring that such remains be examined by the County Coroner to determine
whether or not the remains are Native American; (iii) to contact the California Native American
Heritage Commission and COlmty Coordinator of Native American Affairs if the remains are
determined to be Native American; and (iv) by prohibiting any further disturbance of the site
except as authorized by the County Coordinator as provided by state law, thereby ensuring that
any Native American remains encountered are not inadvertently destroyed and handled
appropriately.
Based upon the expert opinion of Page & Turnbull presented in the Draft EIR, the City Council
finds that the following impact statement (Impact CR-2) regarding impacts to historic resources
reflects its independent judgment.
Impact CR-2: The Edgewood Plaza site is considered historically significant under
federal, state and City of Palo Alto criteria. Although relocation of Building 1 on the site would
alter the site design and characteristics of Edgewood Plaza, this change in spatial relationship
would not result in a significant impact to the historic character of the buildings. The physical
relocation of Building 1 and renovation of Buildings 1 and 2, however, could result in
modifications to the historic design and integrity of the buildings.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.2.5.3 of the Draft EIR.
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-2.1, CR-2.2 and CR-2.3.
c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this
potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by: (i) documenting the exterior of
Buildings 1 and 2 and their settings in accordance with Historic American Buildings Survey
Level III docunlentation requirements, as described in greater detail in Section 6 of the Final
EIR, and preserving such documentation with the Palo Alto Historic Resources Preservation
Officer; (ii) creating a display illustrating the history of the Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler
Homes prior to approval of final occupancy; (iii) requiring that the distinctive and defining
architectural features, finishes and construction techniques of Buildings 1 and 2, including
windows, frames, and eaves, be retained to the extent feasible during the relocation and
reconstruction of Building 1 and the rehabilitation of Building 2, subject to verification by
qualified professionals that work on these resources is completed in conformance with applicable
120402 dm 0120533 6
federal standards; and (iv) 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 a less-than-significant
level. While the Draft and Final EIRs conservatively identified this impact as significant and
unavoidable based upon conflicting expert opinion, the City Council agrees with the conclusions
of the experts, as reflected in the record, that this impact can, in fact, be mitigated.
Based upon the expert opinion of Page & Turnbull presented in the Draft EIR, the City Council
finds that the following impact statement (Impact CR-3) regarding impacts to historic resources
reflects its independent judgment.
Impact CR-3: The Edgewood Plaza site is considered historically significant under
federal, state and City of Palo Alto criteria. While construction of ten new single-family houses
on the site would alter the overall site design and characteristics of Edgewood Plaza, this
construction would not result in a significant impact to historic resources.
5.2 Air Quality
Impact AQ-l: Construction of the proposed Project could result in temporary air quality
impacts associated with dust and particulate matter generation at nearby residential uses.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 4.3.2.3 of Appendix C the Draft EIR.
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 ofthese findings:
Mitigation Measure AQ-l.l.
c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this
potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the applicant to
implement numerous construction practices determined by the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District to significantly reduce the adverse air quality effects of construction
activities. These practices include watering all exposed surfaces, covering all haul trucks,
regularly removing all mud, dirt and debris from public roads, limiting vehicle speeds on the
construction site, paving all appropriate surfaces as soon as possible, limiting idling times of
construction vehicles and equipment, properly maintaining all construction equipment, and
publicly posting contact information for public complaints regarding construction activities, all
as described in greater detail in Section 4.3.2.3 of the Appendix C of the Draft EIR.
Implementing these measures will minimize the extent to which dust and particulate matter
generated by Project construction activities is dispersed to nearby residential uses and other
sensitive receptors.
5.3 Biological Resources
Impact BIO-l: Excavation during construction of the proposed Project could result in
disturbance to active rapt or nests.
120402 elm 0120533 7
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 4.4.2.1 of Appendix C of the Draft EIR.
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 Measure BIO-l.I.
c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this
potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring the applicant to
implement numerous several measures, pursuant to the requirements of the federal Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and the California Department of Fish and Game, designed to reduce adverse
effects on raptors and their nests. These measures include having a qualified ornithologist
complete pre-construction surveys to identify active nests that might be disturbed by Project
activities, postponing all tree removal and pruning activities for trees containing active raptor
nests and establishing buffer or exclusion zones around such trees, and monitoring such trees and
nests and prohibiting construction activities within the buffer/exclusion zones until the young
raptors have fledged from the nests. Implementing these measures will ensure that active raptor
nests are not unduly disturbed by construction activities, thereby avoiding and reducing the
potential adverse effects of the Project on raptors and their nests to less-than-significant levels.
5.4 Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-l:
construction workers and
soil and groundwater.
Construction of the proposed Project could expose
others to residual hazardous materials contamination III
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 4.8.3.2 of Appendix C ofthe Draft EIR.
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 HAZ-1.l, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1. 5.
c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this
potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by: (i) requiring the applicant to
prepare and implement a Soil Management Plan, to be reviewed and approved by the City of
Palo Alto and in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local regulations and in
conformance with applicable industry standards, to govern the handling of contaminated soil and
other hazardous materials encountered during Project construction activities; (ii) requiring each
contractor working on the site to prepare a health and safety plan that addresses the health and
safety hazards that may affect each phase site operations due to potential exposures to hazardous
materials, which plan includes requirements and procedures to ensure protection for each
contractor's employees, in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local regulations and
in conformance with applicable industry standards,; and (iii) requiring soil and groundwater
sampling and, if appropriate, soil vapor sampling, from under 2125 st. Francis Drive to ensure
120402 dm 0120533 8
that soil exceeding applicable tetrachloroethene levels (PCE-affected soils) is not present within
five (5) feet of the ground surface, requiring removal and disposal of any PCE-affected soils by
qualified professionals using appropriate protective gear in accordance with applicable federal,
state and local requirements, requiring an excavation base confirmation sample to confirm that
sufficient PCE-affected soils have been removed, and requiring that documentation of all PCE
affected soils be provided to the City of Palo Alto and appropriate oversight agencies prior to
installation of pavement in the parking lot area; (iv) requiring characterization of all excavated
soils prior to off-site disposal or on-site reuse; requiring that contaminated soils be disposed of at
a licensed facility in accordance with all applicable local, state and federal regulations; (v)
requiring that all excavated soil characterizations, storage, transportation and disposal be in
conformance with all applicable federal, state and local procedures and requirements; and
(vi) requiring the applicant to prepare a contingency plan prior to the beginning of Project
construction to address any previously unknown sumps, hydraulic hoists, or tanks that may be
present in the work area. Implementation of these measures will ensure that the risks associated
with exposure to contaminated soils and other hazardous materials are reduced to a less-than
significant level.
Impact HAZ-2: Renovation and relocation of Project buildings could expose
construction workers and sensitive receptors, including the surrounding residential uses, to lead
based paint and/or asbestos-containing materials (ACMs).
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 4.8.3.2 of Appendix C ofthe Draft ElR.
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 HAZ-2.1, 2.2 and 2.3.
c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this
potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by: (i) requiring surveys by
qualified professionals of all structures proposed for renovation on the site to determine the
presence of asbestos and lead-based paint, prior to commencing any work on such structures; (ii)
requiring that a registered asbestos abatement contractor by retained to remove and dispose of all
potential friable asbestos-containing materials, in accordance with applicable federal and state
laws, regulations, guidelines and requirements, prior to any relocation or renovation activities
that may disturb such materials; and (iii) requiring that all building materials containing lead
based paint be removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable federal, state and local
standards, which include requirements relating to employee training, air monitoring and dust
control. Implementation of these measures will reduce the risks associated with potential
exposures to asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint to less-than-significant levels.
5.5 Hydrology and Water Quality.
Impact HYDRO-I: Construction of the proposed residential units on the Project site
may expose people or structures to flooding risks.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
120402 dm 0120533 9
Section 4.9.3.1 of Appendix C ofthe Draft EIR.
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 HYDRO-I. 1 and 1.2.
c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this
potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by: (i) requiring that all
construction activities on the site comply with the City of Palo Alto Flood Hazard Ordinance,
including elevation of habitable spaces above anticipated flood levels; (ii) requiring that all
Project plans show the base flood elevations on all applicable elevations, sections, and details,
and otherwise comply with all other requirements listed in the Ordinance; and (iii) requiring that
all construction activities on the site also comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency for flood hazard areas. Implementation of these measures will
ensure that structures on the site are constructed to minimize to the extent feasible risks
associated with flooding on the site and that this potentially significant impact is reduced to a
less-than-significant level.
Impact HYDRO-2: Construction activities could temporarily increase pollutant loads in
storm water runoff.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 4.9.3.5 of Appendix C ofthe Draft EIR.
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 HYDRO-2.l and 2.2.
c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this
potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by: (i) requiring the implementation
of certain erosion and sediment control measures based upon Best Management Practices
recommended by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), including installing
stormwater inlet protection around all storm drain inlets, watering all exposed surfaces,
suspending all dust-producing activities during periods of high winds, covering and watering
stockpiles of soil and other materials, covering all haul trucks, regularly sweeping and removing
all mud, dirt and debris from all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas, and
replanting all vegetation in disturbed areas as soon as possible, as described in greater detail in
Section 4.9.3.5 of the Appendix C of the Draft EIR; (ii) requiring that an erosion and
sedimentation control plan be submitted to the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department for
review and approval prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits; and (iii) requiring
certain post-construction measures based on RWQCB Best Management Practices, including
providing roofs on all trash enclosures on site, providing onsite treatment of stormwater runoff
from the site prior to discharge to the City of Palo Alto stormwater system, preparing and
submitting to the City of Palo Alto Public Works Department an annual post-construction
maintenance agreement prior to the Issuance of grading or building permits, requiring
120402 dm 0120533 10
commercial development on the site to implement regular maintenance activities to prevent soil
and litter from accumulating on the site, and requiring that landscaping and landscape
maintenance on the site employ minimal pesticide use. Implementation of these measures will
mitigate the Project's potential impacts relating to pollutant loads in stormwater runoff to less
than-significant levels.
5.6 Noise
Impact NOISE-I: Future residential uses on the site could be exposed to noise levels
above City of Palo Alto standards for residential uses.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 4.12.2.2 of Appendix C ofthe Draft EIR.
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 NOISE-I. 1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5.
c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this
potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by: (i) requiring that sound-rated
windows, doors, and exterior wall assemblies be used in residential buildings; (ii) requiring
acoustical test reports of all sound-rated windows and doors, to be reviewed by a qualified
professional and compared with traffic noise spectrums, prior to approval; (iii) requiring
ventilation or air conditioning systems in all residential units that provide habitable interior
environments, so that windows need not be relied upon to provide ventilation; (iv) requiring six
(6) foot tall noise barriers in specific locations; (v) requiring that residential mechanical
equipment be selected and located to meet the properly line limits in the City of Palo Alto Noise
Ordinance, and additional measures such as equipment barriers and enclosures if determined to
be necessary by the acoustical test and review described above, all as described in greater detail
in Section 4.12.2.2 of Appendix C of the Draft EIR. Implementation of these measures will
reduce the severity of potential noise impacts on future residents on the Project site to less-than
significant levels.
Impact NOISE-2: Commercial activities on the site could result in significant noise
impact at the proposed residential units.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 4.12.2.4 of Appendix C of the Draft EIR.
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 NOISE-2.1 and 2.2.
c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this
potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by: (i) requiring that measures be
120402 dm 0120533 11
included in the renovation of the commercial buildings on the site to reduce noise impacts at
nearby residences, in conformance with the City of Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, which measures
may include installing solid noise barriers along the north and east sides of the loading dock
combined with a shed roof, and lining roofs and walls with sound absorbing materials; and (ii)
limiting all truck deliveries to the site to daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.), communicating to
vendors that their drivers will be operating close to residences so that they will limit noise, and
providing a full disclosure statement to the owners of residential Lots Nos. 9 and 10 regarding
potential truck noise, which statement shall be incorporated into the deeds for these residential
properties. Implementation of these measures would reduce the severity of this potential Impact
to a less-than-significant level.
Impact NOISE-3: Noise from rooftop mechanical equipment for the retail buildings
may exceed the noise standards at adjacent residential properties on the Edgewood Plaza site.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 4.12.2.4 of Appendix C ofthe Draft EIR.
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 Measure NOISE-3 .1.
c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this
potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by: (i) requiring that mechanical
equipment to be installed and used on the Project site be selected, designed and located to
minimize noise impacts on adjacent and nearby residential uses; (ii) using solid rooftop screens
or noise barriers as determined by a qualified professional to be necessary to meet applicable
City of Palo Alto noise standards at the residential property lines; and (iii) providing for review
and approval of mechanical equipment plans by the City of Palo Alto Building Department prior
to the issuance of building permits; all as described in greater detail in Section 4.12.2.4 of
Appendix C of the Draft EIR. Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the
severity of this Impact to a less-than-significant level.
5.7 Transportation
Impact TRANS-1: Project traffic would cause a significant impact at the Wildwood
Land-North California Avenue and Embarcadero Road unsignalized intersection.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 4.16.2.2 of Appendix C of the Draft EIR.
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 Measure TRANS-I.l.
c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this
120402dm0120533 12
potentially significant impact to a less-than-significant level by: (i) restriping Embarcadero Road
to create a left turn receiving lane; and (ii) installing a left turn lane receiving area at the
Embarcadero RoadiSt. Francis Drive intersection at Wildwood Lane. Installation of these
improvements will facilitate left turns and reduce left turn delays, thereby mitigating this Impact
to a less-than-significant level.
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 CEQA, "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 for
the project, or other specific and identifiable considerations, make the alternative infeasible.
The City Council certifies that the Final EIR 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 explained in the findings set forth above,
the Project will not result in any significant effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated
through the mitigation measures which are hereby being adopted and imposed on the Project.
Therefore, the Council need not make any additional findings regarding the feasibility of any Project
alternative.
\\
\\
\\
\\
\\\
\\
\\
\\
\\
120402 dm 0120533 13
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: MARCH 19,2012
AYES: BURT, ESPINOSA, HOLMAN, KLEIN, PRICE, SCHARFF, SCHMID,
SHEPHERD,YEH
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Asst. City Attorney
Director of Planning & Community Environment
120402 dm 0120533 14
February 4, 2013
Elena Lee
City of Palo Alto
Development Center
285 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Edgewood Shopping Center – Report to the Palo Alto City Council for February 11, 2013
Dear Elena,
This report is written to provide the Palo Alto City Council a summary analysis of the historic
Building 1 and Building 2, beginning with permitted construction plans and continuing
chronologically through the conditions of Building 1 and the grocer building, recent
reconnaissance on Building 2, proposed revisions to the historic building elevations, and
concluding with the protocol for proceeding with the construction of the historic buildings and
project. The primary consideration for formulating our proposal in this letter is to ensure best
efforts and outcomes by the project sponsor and its team that will allow completion of this
very important community facility.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
! We reviewed the Building 1 and Building 2 construction drawings for historic
conformance and the City-issued demolition and construction permits.
! During construction, we assessed Building 1 and concluded that much of the material
used in its construction was not repairable, was not in good condition, and would need to
be replaced with new materials to match the material, configuration, character and finish
of the original.
! All three walls of the grocery building that were intended to be retained were discovered
during renovation to be in too poor condition and had to be replaced with compatible new
materials. The grocery building was determined by the City to be no longer a historic
resource due to extensive alterations.
! Building 2 was recently discovered to have 23.5% of its original 1957 exterior wall
surfaces remaining including two sections of concrete block, two sections of storefront
glass and wood frames, and most of the original transom windows and window frames.
Most wall surfaces have been replaced at an undetermined date prior to the project
sponsor’s ownership. The window frames were extensively replaced with similar but not
identical wood window frames and are compatible but not as distinctive in design as the
original window frames.
Lee, page 2
! Tenants and official neighborhood leaders request minor revisions to the permitted
elevations, making the buildings appear more in keeping with the “Eichler” style.
! The project sponsor has put into place special protocol and specifications to ensure that
the reconstruction of Building 1 and the rehabilitation of Building 2 can be completed
efficiently and within the parameters of the City’s permitting process and the
requirements of the EIR. We believe that this will result in the successful rehabilitation of
the Edgewood Shopping Center.
SUMMARY ANALYSIS OF BUILDING 1 AND BUILDING 2
I. Construction Plans Permitted by the City of Palo Alto on August 9, 2012
Prior to permitting, Page & Turnbull reviewed the construction drawings that were
prepared by Little Architects and concluded that the proposed project was in keeping with
the historic buildings’ original design and with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Rehabilitation #5, 6, 7, and 9 as recommended by City staff and the Historic Resources
Board. We issued a letter dated June 14, 2012 to the City of Palo Alto confirming this
review and analysis.
At that time, the construction drawings showed that distinctive materials and architectural
features, finishes and construction techniques would be retained to the extent possible.
The drawings that we reviewed also indicated that deteriorated features proposed for
removal and replacement would be reviewed by Page & Turnbull and approved by the
Director of Planning.
As discussed during Palo Alto Historic Resources Board meetings in 2011, we believed
that adjustments would be made to the exterior of building Buildings 1 and 2 out of a ‘kit
of parts’* that would be compatible with the massing, size, scale, and architectural
features of the original buildings. Item MM CR 2.3 of the EIR anticipated some alteration
of existing character-defining features to accommodate accessibility, public safety and
building code concerns. In addition, the EIR clarified that “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.” For
reference, following is the complete Item MM CR 2.3 of the EIR,
“Distinctive materials and defining architectural features, finishes, and construction
techniques of Buildings 1 and 2 including windows, frames and eaves will be retained
to the extent possible, as the building elements will require some alterations due to
* A ‘kit of parts’ is the concept where four distinct wall materials - concrete masonry block,
wood framed glass storefront, vertical wood siding, and plaster finish - are the ‘parts’ that
variously combine into a ‘kit’ to create the historic Eichler buildings’ characteristic style.
Lee, page 3
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 relocation and reconstruction of Building 1
and 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 building’s original design and applicable Secretary of
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, such as Standards #5, 6, 7, and 9. The final
design and materials to be used in the renovation of these buildings will be reviewed
and approved by the Director and Historic Resources Planner of the City of Palo Alto
Planning and Community Environment Department.”
It should be noted that the structural drawings of the permitted plans indicate new
concrete block shear walls and Glulam beams to replace the structurally deficient
concrete block walls and beams in Building 1, and new concrete block shear walls to
replace the structurally deficient concrete block walls in Building 2.
II. Conditions of Building 1 and the Grocery Building
On March 5, 2012 and September 10, 2012, a representative from Page & Turnbull
visited the site with the project sponsor, construction manager and contractor to review
the condition of existing materials in Building 1 and Building 2 and to review the
contractor’s attempts to salvage building material as it was removed from Building 1.
During the September site visit, the project sponsor expressed to the team that the
structural engineer had reservations about the structural integrity of the existing Glulam
beams in Building 1 and preferred that they be replaced. Page & Turnbull confirmed that
many of the existing Glulam beams were in poor condition and were splitting and
delaminating.
During the same site visit, the contractor showed that the existing Redwood siding was
splintering as it was removed from the building for salvage and future reinstallation. Page
& Turnbull learned during this site visit that some of the existing wood siding was
replacement siding - - not original siding - - and that in some places, original shiplap
Redwood siding had been replaced with strips of painted plywood.
While we believe that exploratory demolition and testing on the historic buildings should
have been completed prior to the development of construction drawings, that likely would
not have changed our determination that much of the material used in the construction of
Building 1 was not repairable, was not in good condition, and would need to be replaced
with new materials to match the material, configuration, character and finish of the
original.
Lee, page 4
It was also discovered during the recent renovation of the grocery building that it too was
in poor condition and three of its walls which were intended to remain had to be replaced
in their entirety. Its south concrete block wall was comprised of substandard concrete
footings with inadequate steel reinforcing, and its north and west wood framed walls were
highly compromised from dry rot and termite damage. The grocery building had
previously been determined by the City to be ineligible for the California Register due to
extensive alteration, and, therefore it was no longer a historic resource under CEQA.
III. Reconnaissance to Assess the Condition of Historic Building 2 Exterior Walls
On January 10, 2013, the Director of Planning authorized City Planner Elena Lee and
City Historian Dennis Backlund to tour Building 2 with the project sponsor, construction
manager and contractor to observe its condition. Soon thereafter, the City granted
permission to perform very limited reconnaissance consisting of small openings in its
non-character defining interior walls so that the building’s historic exterior skin could be
viewed from inside and its condition assessed.
On January 15, 2013, it was discovered during reconnaissance that only a limited amount
of original exterior wall material remains unaltered for Building 2. The total area of
exterior wall surface is 3,604 square feet and after studying the building’s exterior and
interior small openings, Dennis Backlund concluded that two sections of concrete block
along the building’s south and east walls, totaling 227 square feet (6.3%), two sections of
storefront glass and wood frames along its west wall, totaling 143 square feet (4.0%), and
most of the original transom windows and window frames, totaling 476 square feet
(13.2%), collectively 23.5%, are what remain of the original 1957 exterior. This loss of
original material is not surprising given that there likely have been dozens of tenant
turnovers having different exterior requirements during the building’s 55 years.
That the Building 2 project is a rehabilitation of a building that will not need to be moved
helps in being able to retain more of its remaining original materials. Although our
reconnaissance did not include detailed investigation of the Glulam beams, steel
columns, concrete slab and roof purlins and sheathing for Building 2, we still believe
those components can be re-used and reinforced as necessary per the previously
permitted plans.
The conditions that were discovered in Building 1 prior to its demolition were similar to
Building 2. In addition to losses of original material, Building 1 was generally in worse
condition due, we believe, to its superior visibility and location within the center which
contributed to a more intensive use. This locational advantage not only attracted more
tenant turnover but also tenants that generated higher traffic and heavier use compared
to those in the less visible Building 2.
Lee, page 5
We have researched files of the City of Palo Alto Building Department and other archives
for information about original construction. With the knowledge gained from
reconnaissance of Building 1 and Building 2, it has become clear that Building 1 and
Building 2 appear to have been primarily glass enclosed structures with a wooden or
concrete block wall segment, typically not exceeding 16 feet in width, located midpoint
along each wall.
IV. Tenants and Official Neighborhood Leaders, the Architectural Control Committee,
Propose Exterior Revisions to the Historic Buildings
During the City entitlement process, the buildings’ elevations were only approximated
since future tenant requirements were unknown. With leasing now underway, tenant
space requirements are adjusting exact door locations, and where interior visibility is not
desired segments of wooden walls may replace glass storefront with Neighborhood
Architectural Control Committee (“ACC”) support. Such adjustments conform to the ‘kit
of parts’ composition approved by the Historic Resources Board. These adjustments are
also desired by the neighborhood ACC who believe the proposed revisions will make the
buildings appear more in keeping with the “Eichler” style. We have reviewed the
proposed revisions and endorse them. We understand the Secretary’s Standards for
Rehabilitation must continue to be met, which we judge to be the case with the revisions.
These proposed revisions are shown clouded in the attached exhibits. Along the west
wall of Building 1 the ACC requests replacing the five metal exit and utility doors with
glass storefront doors and transom windows above. And along the south and east walls
of Building 2, Chase Bank’s requirements propose to replace segments of glass
storefront with wood in Eichler style. Unknown future tenant needs may warrant similar
further adjustment to the buildings, all to be endorsed by the ACC and Page & Turnbull
and approved by the City of Palo Alto before any are implemented.
Due to the losses of original building material in Building 2, we propose to preserve an
original 16 feet wide concrete block wall located mid-point along its east wall. This wall is
structurally deficient and per the permitted plans was to be replaced with one having
identical appearance. However, we can retain the original material and character of this
Eichler wall. We will construct a new structural wall to the north and conceal this new
wall behind one of the proposed glass-to-wood exterior revisions described above.
V. Proceeding with Construction of the Historic Buildings and Project
Since the previously approved construction procedure for Building 2 has not been
compromised, a rehabilitation approach under the Secretary’s Standards will continue to
be taken on Building 2. The scope of work described in previously approved permit
drawings will be adhered to following our receiving City and ACC approvals.
Lee, page 6
We recommend that the existing elevations in the previously approved permit set be
updated to indicate areas of removal and replacement of existing materials, and in
accordance with any approved revisions. All proposed removal and replacement should
be clearly indicated on red mark-up, revised permit elevations, reviewed by Page &
Turnbull and approved by the City and ACC before the contractor proceeds. All removed
and salvaged materials will be sorted and stored on site to give Page & Turnbull and the
City officials an opportunity to inspect the materials.
The permitted plans indicate that all existing Building 2 structural elements including
columns, footings, and Glulam beams are intended to remain in place, and reinforced as
necessary. As changes are made during construction to accommodate the existing
conditions, we recommend that the contractor and project sponsor consult with Page &
Turnbull and the City of Palo Alto before proceeding with any work that does not conform
to the permit set.
On November 5, 2012, Page & Turnbull submitted the enclosed Protocol and
Specifications for Salvage, Selective Demolition and Protection to the City that details the
procedure for the documentation, notification, salvage, protection, selective demolition,
and approvals by the City and Page & Turnbull necessary to move forward with the
construction of the historic buildings. On January 10, 2013, Dennis Backlund
recommended approval of the Protocol and Specifications to the Director of Planning.
If the measures described above are adhered to, we are confident that the reconstruction
of Building 1 and the rehabilitation of Building 2 can be completed efficiently and within
the parameters of the City’s permitting process and the requirements of the EIR. We
believe that this will result in the successful rehabilitation of the Edgewood Shopping
Center.
Sincerely,
J. Gordon Turnbull, FAIA
Principal
Enclosure: Protocol and Specifications for Salvage, Selective Demolition and Protection
Page & Turnbull Edgewood Plaza
January 9, 2013 Salvage, Protection, Demolition
1
PROTOCOL AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
SALVAGE, SELECTIVE DEMOLITION AND PROTECTION
PART 1. GENERAL
Purpose: The rehabilitation of Building 2 and the reconstruction of Building 1 under the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation.
Preface: These specifications are submitted to owner Ho Holdings No. 1, LLC (the “Owner”) and Owner’s
contractor (the “Contractor”) as guidelines for ongoing reconstruction and rehabilitation work on Buildings
1 and 2 of Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center in Palo Alto, California (the “Project”).
As Owner’s consultant, Page & Turnbull (the “Historic Preservation Consultant”) has reviewed the
Project’s permit drawings but is not a part of the Project’s architectural team that prepared the drawings and
is not submitting these specifications as formal construction documents. These specifications are for
guidance only. The City of Palo Alto requires the project applicant to incorporate these specifications into
all construction documents.
Section 1.4(B) of these specifications pertains to both Buildings 1 and 2. All other Sections of these
specifications pertain only to Building 2.
In general, any proposed construction activity for Buildings 1 and 2 that is not in compliance with the
permit plans should be reported by the Contractor or Owner to the Historic Preservation Consultant and the
City of Palo Alto for review and approval prior to commencing work.
All directions for Building 2 are set forth in permit plan sheet T0.4 “ARB Conditions of Approval” and
sheet A4.2.1 “Retail Bldg. #2 Exterior Elevations.” If any proposed construction activity for Building 2 is
not in compliance with sheets T0.4 or A4.2.1 then the Contractor shall receive written approval from the
Historic Preservation Consultant and the City of Palo Alto prior to commencing work.
1.1 SUMMARY
This Section includes the following:
A. Demolition and removal of selected portions of building or structure as shown on the permit
plan drawings.
B. Salvage of existing items to be reused as shown on the drawings.
1.2 REFERENCES
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service: The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring
& Reconstructing Historic Buildings.
1.3 DEFINITIONS
Historic Fabric: Architectural and structural materials and finishes constructed during the
buildings’ Period of Significance. Most, but not all, historic fabric is identified on the permit plan
Page & Turnbull Edgewood Plaza
January 9, 2013 Salvage, Protection, Demolition
2
drawings. It is the intent of this Section and this Project to maintain and restore as much historic
fabric as possible.
1.4 SUBMITTALS
A. Photographs of Existing Conditions of Building 2
Prior to commencement of selective salvage, demolition and protection work for Building
2, submit photographs of existing damage on surfaces that might be misconstrued as
damage related to selective salvage, demolition and protection operations.
B. Samples and Mock-ups
1. Samples of exterior materials for Buildings 1 and 2: Clearly label samples of all
replacement exterior materials and submit photographs and samples as required by
the Historic Preservation Consultant for approval prior to their installation. Such
exterior materials may include concrete block, windows and window frames, new
storefronts, plaster and stucco finish, Glulam beams, wood wainscot, and any other
exterior replacement materials.
2. Mock-ups of Buildings 1 and 2: After acceptance of the exterior materials and
proposed method of reconstruction, repair or refinishing, a representative sample
area shall be reconstructed, repaired or refinished. Obtain acceptance of the mock-up
from the Historic Preservation Consultant before proceeding with remainder of the
procedure.
C. Quality Control
If alternative methods and materials to those indicated on the permit plans are proposed for
any phase of work, provide written description to Historic Preservation Consultant and City
of Palo Alto for review and approval prior to commencing work.
1.5 PROJECT CONDITIONS
A. Required Care in Selective Salvage, Demolition and Protection operations
1. The work seeks to preserve historic fabric and to protect, salvage and reuse selected
building materials.
2. Building materials shall be considered fragile and must be removed, restored,
modified and handled with care. Historic materials damaged during selective salvage
and demolition operations may not be available for replacement; to remedy such
damage repair and restoration shall be required. Protection of existing materials and
items is of great importance.
3. Contractor shall be responsible for restoration of materials and finishes damaged
during selective salvage and demolition activities. Where damaged materials and/or
finishes are beyond repair or restoration, Contractor shall be responsible for
replacement in kind. The City of Palo Alto shall be notified of damage to materials
and finishes and the plan for replacement prior to the removal of damage materials
and finishes.
B. Selective Removal and Salvage
Page & Turnbull Edgewood Plaza
January 9, 2013 Salvage, Protection, Demolition
3
1. Materials or items indicated on the permit plans to be salvaged shall be removed
with care and stored in a designated storage area or facility. The City shall approve
any materials or items proposed to be removed.
2. Each material or element indicated to be salvaged shall be carefully crated and
packed to prevent damage during transportation and storage. No salvaged materials
shall be removed from the site or altered without City approval.
C. Protection
1. Protection: Construct temporary barricades and other forms of protection as may be
necessary to fully protect existing building and all existing materials and items to
remain.
2. Cover and protect existing materials when demolition work is performed in areas
where existing materials have not been removed.
3. Cease operations and notify Owner and Historic Preservation Consultant
immediately if safety of structure appears to be endangered; take precautions to
properly support structure. Do not resume operations until safety is restored.
D. Existing Conditions
Notify Historic Preservation Consultant and City of Palo Alto of discrepancies between
existing conditions and Drawings before proceeding with selective demolition.
Page & Turnbull Edgewood Plaza
January 9, 2013 Salvage, Protection, Demolition
4
PART 2. PRODUCTS
2.1 MATERIALS
A. Verify with Historic Preservation Consultant and the City of Palo Alto the extent of
materials to be retained prior to beginning selective demolition.
B. Maintain possession of materials being removed unless otherwise noted.
C. Carefully remove, store, and protect materials indicated for reinstallation; where stored
materials are damaged, repair to original condition or replace with new undamaged
materials. Notify City of Palo Alto prior to discarding and replacing any damaged
materials.
2.2 STORAGE AND HANDLING
A. Every effort must be made to use and reuse materials that are original to the structure.
When removed from their rightful place, these materials must be stored under cover inside
the building or on the site where they cannot be damaged.
B. Salvaged materials and items shall be stored under cover inside the building or on the site
where they cannot be damaged.
C. If salvage material is to be reused, treat it as new or original material with regard to its
storage.
2.3 PROTECTION AND SALVAGE MATERIALS
A. All necessary precautions shall be taken to protect all parts of the building not being
repaired from effects of the work.
B. Provide protection against the spread of dust, debris and water at or beyond the work area
by suitable enclosures of sheeting and tarpaulins.
C. Provide masking or covering on adjacent surfaces. Secure coverings without the use of
adhesive type tape or nails. Impervious sheeting that produces condensation should not be
used.
D. Scaffolding, ladders and working platforms, required for the execution of this work should
not be attached to the building.
Page & Turnbull Edgewood Plaza
January 9, 2013 Salvage, Protection, Demolition
5
PART 3. EXECUTION
3.1 EXAMINATION
A. Survey existing conditions and correlate with requirements indicated to determine extent of
selective demolition required.
B. Inventory and record the condition of items to be removed and reinstalled and items to be
removed and salvaged.
3.2 PROTECTION
A. Protect all elements that are to remain and are exposed during selective salvage, demolition
and rehabilitation operations.
B. Construct temporary protection at existing elements indicated to remain, to prevent damage
to or marring of materials and items. Protection shall be of required size and thickness to
withstand impact from falling debris, rolling equipment and objects; residue and droppings
from all construction related activities.
C. Protective materials shall not be anchored directly to the item being protected. Prevent
direct contact between protective assemblies and existing elements or materials by use of
spacers, corrugated cardboard, quilted pads, kraft paper, non-moisture retentive padding, or
other adequate means.
For Plaster, Stucco and Wainscot: provide hard barrier protection to prevent damage from
construction activities.
3.3 SALVAGE AND REMOVAL
A. Salvage and Removal: Where indicated on permit plan drawings to be ‘removed, salvaged
and reinstalled’ and ‘removed and salvaged,’ carefully remove indicated materials and
items, and store under cover inside the building or on the site where they cannot be
damaged, or pack or crate for transport to storage area. Maintain any storage area for the
duration of the Project. Storage areas and methods of storage shall be approved by the
City.
B. Removal and Demolition: Demolish and remove existing construction as indicated only
after protection, catalog, documentation and salvage operations have been completed. Use
methods required to complete work within limitations of governing regulations and as
follows:
1. Proceed with selective salvage, demolition and protection systematically.
2. Neatly cut openings and holes plumb, square, and true to dimensions required. Use
cutting methods least likely to damage construction to remain or adjoining
construction. To minimize disturbance of adjacent surfaces, use hand or small power
tools designed for sawing or grinding, not hammering and chopping. Temporarily
cover openings to remain.
3.4 SELECTIVE DEMOLITION
A. General: Demolish and remove existing construction only to the extent required by new
construction as indicated on permit drawings. Use methods required to complete the work
within limitations of governing regulations and as follows:
Page & Turnbull Edgewood Plaza
January 9, 2013 Salvage, Protection, Demolition
6
1. Neatly cut openings and holes plumb, square, and true to dimensions required. Use
cutting methods least likely to damage construction to remain or adjoining
construction. Use hand tools or small power tools designed for sawing or grinding,
not hammering and chopping, to minimize disturbance of adjacent surfaces.
Temporarily cover openings to remain.
2. Do not use cutting torches until work area is cleared of flammable materials. At
concealed spaces, such as duct and pipe interiors, verify condition and contents of
hidden space before starting flame-cutting operations. Maintain portable fire-
suppression devices during flame-cutting operations.
3. Locate selective demolition equipment and remove debris and materials so as not to
impose excessive loads on supporting walls, floors, or framing.
B. Removed and Salvaged Items:
1. Clean salvaged items.
2. Store under cover inside the building or on the site where they cannot be damaged.
C. Removed and Reinstalled Items:
1. Clean and repair items to functional condition adequate for intended reuse.
2. Store under cover inside the building or on the site where they cannot be damaged.
3. Protect items from damage during transport and storage.
4. Reinstall items in locations indicated. Comply with installation requirements for
new materials and equipment. Provide connections, supports, and miscellaneous
materials necessary to make item functional for use indicated.
D. Existing Items to Remain: Protect construction indicated on permit plan drawings to
remain against damage and soiling during selective demolition. When permitted by
Historic Preservation Consultant, items may be removed to a suitable, protected storage
location during selective demolition and reinstalled in their original locations after selective
demolition operations are complete.
3.5 REPAIR
Repair damage to adjacent construction caused as a result of selective demolition work.
END OF SPECIFICATIONS
ST
.
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
D
R
I
V
E
Existing Grocery Service Yard
FFE (13.31)
(Existing Retail)
FFE (13.50)
(Relocated Existing Retail)
FFE (13.33)
BLDG 1
BLDG 2
Vedic Center
BAY
S
H
O
R
E
R
O
A
D
TRASH
ST.
F
R
A
N
C
I
S
D
R
I
V
E
T
T
T
FRONT
FRONT
FR
O
N
T
M
B-9
B-9
B-9
B-9
T
1
2 4
3
6
7
8 10
RE
F
.
DW
RE
F
.
DW
Signature
Date
Renewal Date
06-30-13
North
0
Scale: 1" = 20'
10 20 40
2
2
2
Edgewood Plaza Update
Attachment E
Please see below responses to Councilmember Holman’s questions regarding Edgewood
Plaza.
-----Original Message-----
From: Karen Holman [mailto:kcholman@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 9:16 PM
To: Tucker, Sheila; Williams, Curtis
Cc: Keene, James; Stump, Molly
Subject: Item 12 - Edgewood questions
I have the following questions on this item:
1) In the Draft Motion, #4 it states "Allow continued development of the grocery store (Bldg 3)
as the remainder of the project moves forward.”
Can staff please explain/clarify what this means?
Staff Response: Staff is proposing to allow the grocery store to be fully constructed and to open
while the SEIR and PC amendment are being processed.
2) Draft Motion #5: Why is staff recommending the commencement of work on BLDG 2 as it
would seem that some compensation for the demo of BLDG 1 could potentially be a higher level
of preservation than previously identified?
Staff Response: Staff believes that Building 2 can be rehabilitated as previously approved,
subject to special protocols and inspections. A protocol for work on Building 2 has been
developed by the applicant to guide work and to prevent what had happened with Building
1. Staff is also already working with the applicant to provide a higher level of historic
preservation/enhancement, such as the installation of wood windows that replicate the very
specific style of the existing windows on Building 2. The building would not be finaled until the
FEIR and PC amendment are approved, but staff does not believe that extensive changes to the
building can be accomplished unless it is demolished, which of course is to be avoided. The
Council may direct otherwise, however.
3) Preparation of the SEIR: the staff report states that the original DEIR consultant is being
engaged. Why is not Carey & Company being engaged since the primary concerns on the site are
historic resources with which Carey & Co. is most familiar as they were the historic consultants
for the original DEIR?
Staff Response: Carey & Company was hired as a subconsultant by Powers & Associates, the
City’s CEQA consultant, to provide a peer review of the historic report on the shopping center
that was prepared by the applicant’s historic consultant Page & Turnbull. Carey & Company has
not been brought back as a subconsultant because the primary CEQA consultant has the
technical expertise to prepare the SEIR with information submitted by Page & Turnbull. The
analysis for this project is more straightforward because the building in question was
demolished. There is no difference in opinion as there was previously about the historic
significance of Building 2. If issues arise and Powers and Associates feels that further assistance
is needed, Carey & Company or another consultant could be authorized as a subconsultant.
4) Has a peer reviewer been identified and if so is it Carey & Co. given the above reference?
4a) Has Carey & Co been consulted and provided any advisory on potential outcomes to date?
Staff Response: Staff has not yet identified a peer reviewer and has not contacted Carey &
Co. Carey & Co. will be one of the firms considered. Staff will select a consultant if the City
Council authorizes construction of Building 2. A key component of the peer reviewer’s duties
will be onsite monitoring. The chosen firm will be the one that can provide both the peer
review of plans and monitoring, which may be a historic architect rather than a historic
resources consultant.
5) Draft Motion #6: might there not be additional traffic improvements that could be included in
addition to what was originally provided?
I think there may have been additional conditions that the PTC had recommended that were not
incorporated. Please advise.
Staff Response: The approved Planned Community Ordinance required two additional traffic
related improvements: 1) preservation of the vehicular access/driveway between the adjacent
gas station and the project site and 2) modification of the traffic signal on Embarcadero Road at
Saint Francis Drive to provide left turn signal phasing. The applicant is still required to provide
those improvements. Staff is proposing that those improvements be constructed with the
grocery store work to ensure safe circulation once the grocery store is in operation. Staff is not
at this time proposing additional traffic improvements because there are no changes to the
project that would create changes in traffic impact. The project as approved fully mitigates all
potential traffic impacts. The only new environmental impact is the loss of the historic Building
1, so staff’s focus has been on potential historic impact mitigations. However, if additional
traffic improvements are desired, it can be discussed and considered as part of the public
benefits discussion of the PC Amendment process.
6) Draft motion #7: The relocation of the iconic and historic sign. Might not one compensation
for the demo be to retain the sign in its original location, thus altering the site plan and historic
integrity to a lesser degree?
Staff Response: The approved relocation of the historic sign did not result in a significant
historic impact. The new location, proposed for better visibility, is within a few feet of the
original location in the same island and the applicant is proposing to preserve the historic
elements of the sign. Historic Resources Board and Architectural Review Board review would be
required for the final design of the sign face. The new location was approved as part of the PC
ordinance. The City Council can require that the sign be placed back in the original location as
part of the PC Amendment. However, staff believes that placing the sign back in its original
location would not provide substantive compensation and would have negative impacts on
visibility for the shopping center.
By the way, I was by the site this afternoon, and the sign was down. It was still in place when last
I noticed just a week or so ago. Has any authorization been given to move ahead and take the
sign down esp given the inclusion of this consideration is on the agenda Monday night?
Staff Response: The applicant was allowed to take down the sign for site improvements related
to the grocery store following extensive discussion with staff, including the historic preservation
planner. The applicant is required to retain and protect the sign onsite per the PC
zoning. Architectural Review Board and Historic Resources Board hearings would be required
prior to the installation of the rehabilitated sign. As stated in the staff report, the applicant has
been allowed to proceed with site improvements needed for the grocery store construction and
operation.
7) Would considerations referenced in questions 2, 5, & 6 above be part of the SEIR and thus
giving the go ahead at this time be out of sequence?
Staff Response: In accordance with CEQA, the SEIR is required for changes to the project that
may result in new environmental impacts. The only change that will create new environmental
impacts to the project is the demolition of Building 1, because the change will be a new building
rather than a rehabilitated building. There are no changes currently proposed to Building 2, the
sign or traffic impacts. Council certainly has the discretion to direct staff to hold back on other
project elements if desired, but that is not staff’s recommendation.
8) The staff report references "mitigations" in a couple of places but there is no mitigation
possible for the demolition of an historic building. Is staff referring to the demolition or to the
situation?
Staff Response: Although a demolished building cannot be mitigated, possible measures to
mitigate the loss of the building will be studied and determined through the SEIR process. There
may be additional measures that will strengthen the historic integrity of the site, although
mitigation may still require a statement of overriding considerations for the loss of the historic
structure.
9) The staff report indicates that the applicant has experienced costs due to their violations of
the array of previous approvals and conditions and seems not to support imposing penalties due
to this. How much have the violations cost the City in terms of staff time devoted to rectifying
the situation to date and going forward?
How far would the financial penalties go to cover the costs the City has experienced and is likely
to experience...in other words, what is the level of financial penalty that can be imposed?
Staff Response: Staff has spent a considerable amount of time on this project following the
issuance of the Stop Work Order. As a PC amendment, all staff costs are charged to the
applicant. The applicant will also fund the preparation of the SEIR and the additional review
required for the historic buildings. If it is deemed that additional penalties are warranted, the
City Council may require them. Options will be outlined in the staff report, but typical penalties
relate to either double permit fees for re-permitting the building or fines for removal of a
historic building (though the fee schedule only includes such a fine for demolishing historic
buildings downtown).
10) The staff report indicates the array of violations: CEQA, approved plans, the PC zone and
public benefits. Why has this not come to Council for direction and/or comment previously as
the violations took place in September? All of the approvals required Council approval, so I am
trying to understand how/why staff has been authorized to allow continuation of work on the
site prior to coming to Council for direction.
Staff Response: The project was not brought to the Council earlier to allow staff to work with
the applicant to develop a full and accurate picture of what had happened and why, as well as to
outline a potential path forward. Staff has allowed the applicant to proceed with work on the
grocery store and related site work because the new market was not a historic resource, the
market is a key public benefit, and there were no violations associated with this building. Staff
has tried to balance the need to stop and evaluate the historic consequences of the Building 1
demolition with the community’s desire to see the site redeveloped in a timely fashion.
Thank you.
Karen