HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4191
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4191)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 11/18/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: 2nd Reading - Edgewood Plaza PC Amendment
Title: Second Reading: Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Section
18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Approve an Amendment to
Planned Community (PC-5150) Mixed use Project to Allow Reconstruction of
One of Two Historic Eichler Retail Buildings (Building 1), for a 3.58 Acre Site
Located at 2080 Channing Avenue (Edgewood Plaza Mixed Use Project) (First
Reading: October 7, 2013; Passed 7-1 Holman no, Scharff absent)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that City Council at the second reading adopt the revised draft Ordinance
(Attachment A), approving the amendment to the Planned Community (PC) project to allow the
reconstruction of Building #1 with all new materials, where installation of replicas of the
original detailed wood window frames and contribution of $94,200 would serve as the two PC
public benefits.
Background
At its October 7, 2013 hearing, the City Council certified a Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report (Final SEIR) and approved a request by Sand Hill Property Company, for a
Planned Community Zoning Amendment to allow reconstruction of one of two historically
significant retail buildings with all new materials. City Council approved the original Edgewood
Plaza PC and associated EIR on March 19, 2012, allowing redevelopment of the historic, three-
building shopping center, including the relocation and rehabilitation of a historic building, ten
new single family homes and a new 0.20 acre park. The amendment would allow the
reconstruction of the historic building that was illegally demolished. All other components of
the project would remain the same as originally approved.
Discussion
City of Palo Alto Page 2
The attached ordinance for the Edgewood Plaza Planned Community Zoning Amendment is
provided for second reading by the City Council. The revised ordinance reflects a change to the
public benefit requirement that City Council adopted at the October 7, 2013 public hearing.
The revised ordinance requires the public benefit payment of $94,200 as a penalty for the
demolition of the historic structure without identifying the use of the penalty. The original
proposal was to allocate the penalty to either a historic restoration fund or a towards the
construction of a sidewalk on W. Bayshore Road from Channing Avenue to the City of Palo Alto
and East Palo Alto border. City Council directed that, as a separate action from this Planned
Community Zoning Amendment, staff to return to the City Council within 90 days with a
recommendation as to the use of the fund.
Environmental Review
The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Final SEIR) prepared for the project was
certified by the City Council on October 7, 2013. Statement of Overriding Considerations were
adopted regarding the significant unavoidable historic resource impacts. The Draft and Final
SEIR, as well as the original Final EIR, Draft EIR, and First Amendment are also available online
on the City’s website: http://goo.gl/PjnreG.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Revised Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment B: CMR dated October 7, 2013 with attachments (PDF)
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131135 1
Ordinance No.________
Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo Alto Amending Ordinance 5150
(amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code [The Zoning
Map] to Change the Classification of Property Located at 2080 Channing
Avenue [Edgewood Plaza] to PC Planned Community Zone (PC 5150)) to Allow
the Reconstruction of Building #1 with All New Materials.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1.
(a) On April 9, 2012, the City Council granted Planned Community (PC)
Zoning Ordinance 5150 (“Project”) to permit the redevelopment of the property
commonly known as the Edgewood Shopping Center located at 2080 Channing Avenue
(the “Subject Property”). A copy of Ordinance 5150 is attached as Exhibit C and
incorporated by reference. As part of that PC, the applicant Sand Hill Property Company
(Applicant) was required to rehabilitate Building 1, identified as a historic resource, in
accordance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation.
(b) In September 2012, the Applicant without permission of the City,
demolished Building 1 rendering reconstruction infeasible. The City immediately put a
Stop Work Order on the remaining portion of the Project. Subsequently, the City
permitted certain aspects of the Project to move forward.
(c) On February 26, 2013, the Applicant applied to the City for an
amendment to Planned Community Zoning (PC) 5150 to substitute the reconstruction of
Building 1 for the rehabilitation of Building 1 to accommodate the uses set forth below.
(d) The Historic Resources Board, at its meeting of August 21, 2013,
reviewed the Project and recommended the City Council approve the amendment with
associated draft conditions of approval ‘Exhibit B.’
(e) The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed
public hearing held September 11, 2013, reviewed, considered, and recommended
certification of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, then reviewed the
Planned Community, and recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to rezone the Subject Property to a new Planned
Community zone for the proposed project depicted on ‘Exhibit A,’ (the “Project”),
consistent with conditions included in the Planned Community zone related to allowable
land uses and required development standards, and subject to provision of the public
benefits outlined in this ordinance. Draft conditions of project approval “Exhibit B”
attached to this document and incorporated by reference were presented to the PTC for
review and comments.
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131135 2
(f) The Palo Alto City Council, after due consideration of the proposed
Project, the analysis of the City staff, and the conditions recommended by the Planning
and Transportation Commission, certified the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program, concurred with the recommendations from
the PTC and the HRB, approved conditions of approval attached as Exhibit B hereto, and
found that the proposed project and this Ordinance is in the public interest and will
promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth.
(g) The Council finds that the findings made in Ordinance 5150 justifying
the granting of Planned Community 5150 still apply to the Subject Property in that the
Project will incorporate the modified community benefits described in Section (3)(f)
hereof.
SECTION 2.
Ordinance 5150 amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
the “Zoning Map,” is hereby amended as follows: The project is as depicted on the
Development Plans dated February 2, 2012 and amended in Development Plans dated
September 11, 2013, incorporated by reference, including the following new
component:
(a) Reconstruction of Building #1 with all new materials in the originally
approved location and configuration.
Except as herein modified, all other provisions of Ordinance 5150, including any
exhibits and conditions, shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3.
Section 4 of Ordinance 5150 is amended to additionally require compliance with
(i) the February 29, 2012 Development Plans as amended on September 11, 2013, (ii)
the conditions of project approval attached as Exhibit B, and (iii) any approved
supplemental materials for the Subject Property, as submitted by the applicant pursuant
to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC §18.38.090). In addition, Sections (f) and (g) shall be
amended as follows:
(f) Public Benefits:
Development of the site under the provisions of the PC Planned
Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable
by application of the regulations of general districts or combining
districts. The Project includes the following public benefits that are
inherent to the Project and in excess of those required by City zoning
districts.
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131135 3
(1) Rehabilitation of Building #2 and reconstruction of Building
#1 in a design significantly closer to its original appearance
with the inclusion of custom made windows in the original
design, with narrow full height frames and projecting
moldings. Rehabilitation of the original historic monument
sign for the shopping center.
(2) Redevelopment and rehabilitation of a high-quality shopping
and commercial area on the Edgewood Plaza site that will
serve the community, including the provision of a new
grocery store for the local neighborhood, in a manner that
reflects the mid-century aesthetic and design of the existing
buildings and surrounding Duveneck/Saint Francis (Edgewood
and Green Gables) neighborhood. Reconstruction of Building
#1 will enable a complete restoration of the shopping center.
(3) Provision of a grocery store in the 20,600 sq. ft. building. The
commercial property owner shall ensure the continued use of
the 20,600 sq. ft. building as a grocery store for the life of the
Project;
(4) Provision of 0.20 acre public park, via public access easements
in perpetuity. The park would be maintained by the
commercial property owner and shall not be used for
seating/activities associated with the retail uses. The Applicant
shall provide an on-site display highlighting Joseph Eichler’s
achievements in the Park.
(5) Payment to the City of $94,200 to be used for the restoration
of a publicly owned or accessible historic resourcewith respect
to the improper demolition of Building #1.
(6) Subject to support by the immediate neighborhood, Applicant
shall construct a sidewalk along west side of West Bayshore
from Channing to the Palo Alto city border.
(76) Provision of two Level 2 Electric Vehicle chargers and one
Level 2 Electric Vehicle charger.
(g) Development Schedule:
The project is required to include a Development Schedule pursuant to
PAMC §18.38.100. The approved Development Schedule is set forth
below:
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131135 4
Construction of the Project shall commence immediately following the
adoption of the PC zone, unless a change in the development schedule is
approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, not
to exceed a one year extension in time and only one such extension
without a hearing, pursuant to PAMC §18.38.130. The total time for the
project construction and occupancy of tenant spaces is expected to be 12
months following adoption of the PC zone, or by October 2014, unless
extended by the Director for up to one additional year.
SECTION 4.
A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for this project was
prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council
certified the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program and adopted a resolution at its
meeting of October7, 2013.
SECTION 5.
The plans referenced consist of plans titled “Edgewood Shopping Center”
prepared by Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Burton Architecture, Sandis and the
Guzzardo Partnership, dated February 29, 2012, including the Tentative Map for
Edgewood Plaza, prepared by Sandis, dated September 11, 2013.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131135 5
SECTION 6.
This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption
(second reading).
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
__________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
__________________________
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
_________________________
Mayor
_________________________
City Manager
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131135 6
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131135 7
Exhibit B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
2080 Channing Avenue – Edgewood Plaza/ File No. 13PLN-00197
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
Planning and Transportation Divisions
1. The plans submitted to obtain all permits through the Building Inspection Division
shall be in substantial conformance with the revised plans, project details and
materials received on March 22, 2012 and as modified in plans received on
September 11, 2013, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of
approval.
2. All conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set
submitted to obtain any permit through the Building Inspection Division.
3. Construction details, colors, materials, and placement of the shopping center signs
and roof mounted equipment shall be submitted to the Planning Division for
review prior to submittal of the building permit.
4. All conditions required in PC-5150, including mitigation measures, are still
applicable unless specifically amended by the document.
5. Prior to the submittal of a building permit application, a historic consultant shall be
hired by the City and paid for the applicant to review the building permit submittal
and construction of Building #1 to confirm compliance with this approval and
mitigation requirements of the project’s Supplement Environmental Impact
Report.
6. Building #1 shall be constructed of materials that were approved for use in
Building #2 to the satisfaction of the Director of the Planning and Community
Environment Department.
7. A plaque identifying Building #1 as a reconstructed building shall be installed on
Building #1 to the satisfaction of the Director of the Planning and Community
Environment Department.
8. Storefront glass shall not be obstructed by shelves or storage and shall remain
primarily open to permit public viewing of interior of store, except as allowed by
the Sign Ordinance. The Director may permit display of store’s merchandise or
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131135 8
other window display in his or her discretion provided it shall not impact the
neighborhood serving retail environment.
EIR Mitigation Measures
9. MM CR-2.2: The applicant shall create a display illustrating the history of the
Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, prior to approval of final occupancy.
10. MM CR-2.3: Distinctive materials and defining architectural features, finishes, and
construction techniques of Building 2 including windows, frames, and eaves will be
retained to the extent possible to the satisfaction of the Director of the Planning
and Community Environment Department, as the building elements will require
some alterations due to ADA compliance, public safety, building code compliance,
or deteriorated condition. The existing building components, to the satisfaction of
the Planning Director, may be constructed out of new building materials that
match the character and form of the existing, if reuse of existing building
components is not feasible. Prior to the rehabilitation of Building 2, a qualified
historic preservation architect shall review the plans for the remodeled buildings
and verify that the work on these buildings is in keeping with the buildings’ original
design and applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, such
as Standards #5, 6, 7, and 9.
11. A new Building 1 will be constructed of new building materials that match the
character and one-story form of the commercial buildings of Edgewood Plaza as
built by Eichler Homes, consistent with the previously approved building
elevations. As a condition of approval, all facades of Building 1 will be wood-
framed storefront systems that replicate the detail of the original 1957 window
design.
12. The final design and materials to be used in the renovation of Building #2 and
reconstruction of Building #1 will be reviewed and approved by the Director and
the Historic Preservation Planner of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community
Environment Department.
13. Government Code Section 66020 provides that project applicant who desires to
protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a
development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project
is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that
fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the
project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development
fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code
Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD
OR TO FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131135 9
SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR
REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS.
14. This matter is subject to the Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5, and the
time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131135 10
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4081)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 10/7/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Council Priority: Land Use and Transportation Planning
Summary Title: Edgewood Plaza SEIR, Final Map and PC Amendment
Title: Public Hearing: Adoption of (1) a Resolution Certifying a Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report; (2) an Ordinance Amendin g
Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Approve an
Amendment to Planned Community (PC-5150) Mixed use Project to Allow
Reconstruction of One of Two Historic Eichler Retail Buildings (Building 1);
and 3) Approval of a Final Map to Subdivide Two Commercial Parcels Into
Eleven Parcels to Include a Commercial Parcel with a Public Park and Ten
Single Family Properties, for a 3.58 Acre Site Located at 2080 Channing
Avenue (Edgewood Plaza Mixed Use Project). * Quasi-Judicial
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that City Council (1) approve the Resolution (Attachment A), certifying the
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (EIR), (2) adopt an Ordinance (Attachment B),
approving the amendment to the Planned Community (PC) project to allow the reconstruction
of Building #1 with all new materials, where installation of replicas of the original detailed wood
window frames and contribution of $94,200 towards a fund for the future historic rehabilitation
of a public building would serve as the two PC public benefits, and (3) approve the Final Map.
Executive Summary
The applicant, Sand Hill Property Company, is requesting a Planned Community Zoning
Amendment to allow reconstruction of one of two historically significant retail buildings with all
new materials. Council approved the Edgewood Plaza PC on March 19, 2012, allowing
redevelopment of the historic, three-building shopping center, including the relocation and
rehabilitation of a historic building, ten new single family homes and a new 0.20 acre park.
Council concurrently approved an EIR and a Tentative Map to subdivide the property into one
City of Palo Alto Page 2
commercial parcel, which would include the 0.2-acre park, and ten residential, fee simple lots.
The two historically significant retail buildings were to be preserved as a primary PC public
benefit: Building #2 was to be rehabilitated in place, while Building #1 was to be disassembled,
relocated on site and rehabilitated. However, the applicant demolished Building #1 without
notifying or receiving approval from the City, resulting in an order to stop construction. On
March 4, 2013, the City Council authorized the applicant to proceed with the construction of
the grocery store, the remaining historic building (Building #2), and six of the ten homes.
Because the Final EIR certified for the original project assumed both historic buildings would be
rehabilitated, a Supplemental EIR was prepared to address the fact that Building #1 must be
rebuilt with all new materials. On August 21, 2013, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) has
recommended that City Council certify the SEIR and approve the PC Zoning Amendment. At its
hearing on September 25, 2013, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)
recommended by a vote of 5-1-2 that the City Council certify the Final SEIR and approve the PC
amendment.
Background
The project scope required submittal and review of a separate Planned Community Rezoning
Amendment application, because the project is not considered a minor change to a previously
approved Planned Community development plan. If it were considered as a minor change, the
Architectural Review Board and Historic Resources Board would have been allowed to review
and recommend the changes to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. The
applicant proposes to reconstruct Building #1 using new materials rather that rehabilitate the
building demolished during the construction process. The applicant is not proposing any other
changes to the project.
Planned Community Rezoning
PC districts follow a unique set of procedures, standards, and findings, which are described in
Chapter 18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Typically, the first step in the PC
process is PTC review of the concept plans, development program statement and draft
development schedule, and initiation of the rezoning. This application is different in that (1) it
is a revision to a PC project the Council recently approved, (2) the application does not require
initiation, and (3) the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review was not included in this PC
review process due to the scope of the amendment; rather, the Historic Resources Board (HRB)
has considered the project and has provided a recommendation to Council. Because the only
proposed change to the PC development plan is the construction materials of Building #1, and
all other components of the PC remain the same, the amendment was not brought to the ARB.
However, the ARB subcommittee has been consulted on a periodic basis for minor façade
changes in the ARB’s purview throughout the construction process.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
The approval of the amended PC is still subject to the three PC findings, that:
(a) the site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such
characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not
provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development; and
(b) development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will
result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of
general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section,
the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, as appropriate, shall
specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned
community district; and
(c) the use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the
district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and shall be
compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general
vicinity.
Project History
Edgewood Plaza is a commercial shopping center built between 1956 and 1958 by Joseph
Eichler/Eichler Homes and A. Quincy Jones of Jones and Emmons. The center was originally
built with the existing grocery building (1957), two retail buildings (1958), an office building that
formerly housed the office of Eichler Homes (1959), and a gas station (1957). The office
building and gas station sites are not part of the shopping center or this project. Edgewood
Plaza is not listed on The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of
Historical Resources (CRHR), or on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. This site is not on the City’s
historic resources inventory but, because it has been deemed eligible for both registers, it is
considered a historic resource.
The site was the subject of a Planned Community (PC) rezoning approved by the City Council on
March 19, 2012 to allow the redevelopment of an existing vacant and historic shopping center,
including the relocation of one of three retail buildings, the addition of ten homes and a new
9,000 square foot park. Two of the existing commercial buildings, Buildings #1 and #2 were
deemed historic resources and approved for rehabilitation. Building #3, the former Lucky
market building, currently occupied by Fresh Market, is not considered a historic resource.
Building #1 was to be disassembled, relocated on the site and rehabilitated. Building #2 was to
be rehabilitated in place. A tentative map was also approved to subdivide the property into
one commercial lot, including a public park, and ten single family lots. The primary public
benefits for the Edgewood Plaza project consisted of 1) the preservation of historic resources,
2) the construction and operation of the grocery store, 3) the creation of a 0.20 acre park
containing a display highlighting Joseph Eichler’s achievements, and 4) the installation of three
electric vehicle chargers.
City of Palo Alto Page 4
A Final EIR was prepared and certified by the City Council on March 19, 2012, to provide
environmental clearance for the rezoning, in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). The document analyzed the historic resources and the project’s potential
impact on those resources. Buildings #1 and #2 were deemed to have retained integrity of
design and would have been eligible for inclusion on the CRHR. Because the site had been
determined to be eligible for both the NRHP and CRHR, per the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the
site would have qualified for the Palo Alto Historic Inventory under Criterion 3 and 4. The
certification of the EIR was based on the assumption that historic impacts for the relocation of
Building #1 would be mitigated to a less than significant impact because the building would be
rehabilitated in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Historic Rehabilitation
(Standards). The rehabilitation was to include retention of the character defining features of
the building, such as the wood window frames, glulam beams, concrete block wall, cornice and
wood paneling.
City Council Hearing on March 4, 2013
In September 2012, a stop work order was issued because the historic building (Building #1)
that was to be disassembled and reconstructed onsite was illegally demolished. The project
was taken to a City Council hearing on March 4, 2013 (continued from February 11, 2013) to
request direction on how to move forward on the project given the demolition. The City Council
authorized the continued construction of the grocery store, the remaining historic (Building #2),
six of the homes and other onsite and offsite improvements. The City Council also authorized
the City’s hiring of Carey & Company, the historic consulting firm that the performed the peer
review on the original EIR for the City, to review plans and monitor construction to ensure that
Building #2 complies with the PC zoning and all mitigation measures, including the Standards.
The monitoring has included multiple walk-throughs and special focus has been placed on the
preservation of the building’s signature glulam beams. To date, the applicant has completed the
grocery store building, and installation of various parking lot improvements including the
electric charging stations. The rehabilitation of Building #2 is in process and has been done to
the satisfaction of the City’s historic consultant. Following the March Council hearing, staff
received multiple emails supporting the continued construction of the project. The City Council
motion specifically included the following:
Allow preparation of Supplemental EIR;
Return to Council with SEIR and amendment to the PC Zoning following HRB and PTC
hearings;
Prohibit construction of Building #1 until SEIR certified and PC Amendment approved;
Allow continued construction of Building #3 (grocery store);
Allow rehabilitation of Building #2 with monitoring by City’s historic consultant;
Allow offsite improvements;
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Allow installation of historic sign and other related work;
Allow construction of six homes, with the two units behind Building #2 stayed pending
PC Amendment; and
Request for staff to return with a recommendation on a fine based on the amount of
savings likely to be achieved from moving forward with housing construction.
Board and Commission Review
HRB Review
Following the release of the Supplemental EIR, a Historic Resources Board hearing was held on
August 21, 2013 to receive HRB feedback on the Supplemental EIR and the proposal to rebuild
Building #1 with all new materials. The shopping center, now more than 50 years old, has been
deemed a historic resource even though it is not on the California Register of Historic Resources
(CRHR), the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or the Palo Alto Historic Inventor. The
HRB had reviewed the original project and EIR. A copy of the staff report and minutes of the
August 21st hearing are attached for the Council’s review. The staff report can also be found at
the following link: http://goo.gl/tN7OKG.
During the hearing, one member of the public spoke regarding the project, suggesting that
Building #1 not be rebuilt and that the housing site be replaced with dedicated parkland. The
HRB voted unanimously to recommend that City Council certify the Supplemental EIR with a
Statement of Overriding Considerations. The HRB also voted unanimously to approve the
amendment to the PC Zoning to allow the reconstruction of Building #1 with all new materials,
specifying that the replacement materials must follow the materials approved for use in
Building #2 and a plaque must be installed on the building recognizing that it is a replica in
accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Reconstruction. The HRB believed
that this was the most appropriate response to the loss of the historic structure. The HRB’s
recommendation included staff’s recommendation that a historic consultant be hired to
monitor the construction of Building #1, to ensure that it will be similar to the originally
approved Building #1. The HRB determined that the project could be supported because the
proposed replacement meets the original intent to retain the retail building environment.
PTC Review
On September 25, 2013, the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended that the
City Council certify of Final SEIR and approve the PC Zoning Amendment, on a 4-1-2. The PTC
recommended that the installation of custom made wood windows that replicate the original
windows in Building #1 and #2 be identified as a public benefit, because the windows bring the
design closer to the original buildings. The PTC also recommended that the applicant be
City of Palo Alto Page 6
required to contribute $94,200 to a fund for the future rehabilitation of a City owned historic
building as the second public benefit. The PTC’s motion also included that, if a survey of
residents along West Bayshore Road shows support for the construction of the West Bayshore
Road sidewalk, then a contribution to the sidewalk project should be considered. As directed, a
survey has been sent out to area residents. The results of the survey will be presented to the
City Council at the October 7th hearing.
The Commissioners were generally supportive of allowing the project to continue and
expressed appreciation for the applicant taking responsibility for the demolition. One member
of the public spoke at the PTC hearing. The speaker, a 46-year resident on Wildwood Lane,
stated that she was thrilled that the project was originally approved, happy about Fresh Market
opening, and that she and her neighbors are enthusiastically in favor of the project continuing.
Roger Kohler, vice chair of the HRB, noted that the HRB unanimously supported the project as
proposed and felt it was the best solution.
The PTC’s primary focus during the discussion was the topic of penalties and public benefits.
The PTC acknowledged that this project is different from other PC requests, in that the project
is no longer controversial but that the City’s response to the violation of the PC is very
important and is needed to discourage future violations. In addition to debating the
appropriate penalty dollar amount, the PTC also debated whether the penalty should be
applied to a future historic rehabilitation of a public building or to the construction of a
sidewalk on West Bayshore Road to benefit the neighborhood to the north. The initial
recommendation was to apply the penalty towards a historic rehabilitation fund. However, the
PTC’s motion also included that the sidewalk project be considered if the neighborhood
supported it. The September 25, 2013 PTC staff reports, without attachments and meeting
minutes are attached. The entire PTC staff report can also be found on the City’s website at the
following link: http://goo.gl/u0ddiQ.
Discussion
The resolution for the Final Supplemental EIR (Attachment A) and the Ordinance for the
Planned Community Rezoning (Attachment B) are attached. Key issues discussed below are: (1)
the Final SEIR and historic impacts and (2) Penalty and Planned Community Public Benefits.
Final SEIR and Historic Impacts
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was originally published and posted on February 1, 2013 and
sent to the State Clearinghouse for a 30-day period, from February 1 to March 4, 2013. A
Notice of Completion and Availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(SEIR) was published, posted and mailed announcing that the document was available for a 45-
day comment period from May 17 through July 20, 2013. Copies of the Draft SEIR and Final
City of Palo Alto Page 7
SEIR were provided to the HRB, PTC and City Council at the beginning of the circulation period.
The document concluded that the revised project would result in two new significant impacts:
1) Significant Impact to the historic resources specific to Building #1 after implementation of
mitigation measures and 2) Significant Cumulative Historic Resources Impact.
The SEIR, prepared by David J. Powers and Associates, was found acceptable by both the HRB
and PTC. The Final SEIR would have included formal responses to all comments received during
the public comment period. Since no comments were received regarding the SEIR, a Final SEIR
was prepared confirming that no comments were received. The Final SEIR was circulated for
public review on September 5, 2013 and was available to the public a minimum of ten days
prior to the EIR certification hearing. The Draft SEIR and Final SEIR, including source documents,
additional background information, and the PTC, HRB, and ARB reports for review dates
mentioned above are available on the City’s website at http://goo.gl/PjnreG. Images of project
plans are also available with the staff report online, as a link on the PTC September 11, 2013
PTC meeting agenda at http://goo.gl/u0ddiQ.
SEIR Contents
Because the complete loss of Building #1 has been deemed a substantial change to the project,
in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the SEIR was prepared to address the
changes needed to comply with State law. This SEIR is focused only on the new significant
historic impact created by the change to the proposal, the loss of Building #1 and the
replacement construction in the same location with new materials. The original Final EIR
included a mitigation measure (MMCR-2.3) that required compliance with the Secretary of
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation to reduce the impact to historic resources to a less than
significant level for both Buildings #1 and #2. Loss of Building #1’s materials prevents the
application of the mitigation measure and the Standards of Rehabilitation. The other two
mitigation measures to reduce the impact to historic resources to a less than significant level
included the preparation of a Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) (MM CR-2.1) and
creation of a display illustrating the history of Edgewood Plaza (MM CR-2.2) are still applicable.
The HABS survey was completed and has been used to facilitate the preparation of the SEIR and
the project implementation.
The SEIR concluded that there would be a new significant impact to historic resources due to
the loss of Building #1. Because there was a complete loss of materials, only the Secretary of
Interior’s Reconstruction approach for potential mitigation is applicable to address impacts to
the site’s historic resources. The Reconstruction guidelines have typically been used in very
selective situations, such as reconstruction of a historic museum, where there is a clear public
benefit (usually educational). The guidelines include requirements such as preservation of any
remaining historic materials and construction of only the original design. The complete list of
Guidelines and Standards for Reconstruction are provided on pages 19-22 of the Draft SEIR.
City of Palo Alto Page 8
However, application of the guidelines cannot reduce the demolition to a less than significant
level, because none of the historic fabric would be retained. Because the proposed Building #1
is substantially consistent with the originally approved design and in the same location, the SEIR
concludes that there would not be an impact to the character of Building #2.
To address the new impact caused by the loss of Building #1, mitigation measure CR-2.3 has
been amended. The mitigation measure as originally written still applies to Building #2. CR-2.3
now states:
A new Building 1 will be constructed of new building materials that match the
character and one-story form of the commercial buildings of Edgewood Plaza as
built by Eichler Homes, consistent with the previous approved building
elevations. As a condition of approval, all facades of Building #1 will be wood-
framed storefront systems that replicate the detail of the original 1957 window
design.
The final design and materials to be used in the renovation of Building #2 and
reconstruction of Building #1 will be reviewed and approved by the Director and
the Historic Preservation Planner of the City of Palo Alto Planning and
Community Environment.
In addition, staff proposes that the City’s historic consultant, Carey & Company, review and
monitor the construction of Building #1, similar to what was required for Building #2. As noted
above, application of the revised mitigation measure will not reduce the level of significance
because none of the original building has been retained. The SEIR also concluded that there is a
significant impact to Cumulative Cultural Resources, in that the loss of Building #1 combined
with the recently approved demolition of the Edward Durrell Stone Building Complex (1959), a
significant example of a mid-century building, at the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC)
campus (as part of the SUMC Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project approved in July
2011) has created a cumulatively considerable impact to mid-century modern buildings by
prominent architects. The loss of Building #1 combined with the loss of the Stone Building
Complex will therefore be a significant impact.
As noted, the Final SEIR, together with the Draft SEIR, is considered the CEQA clearance
document for the amended project. No new environmental impacts were identified following
the release of the Draft SEIR. The Final SEIR confirmed that no comments were received for the
Draft SEIR and no changes have been made. Because there are significant impacts that cannot
be mitigated, the City Council must adopt overriding considerations in order to certify the SEIR.
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Overriding considerations have been provided in the CEQA Resolution in Attachment A for the
Council’s review and action.
Reconstruction versus Retention/Rehabilitation of Building #1
Building #1 was originally approved to be dismantled and rebuilt to accommodate the
redevelopment, and would have retained the character defining features, such as the turn-
down roof, glue laminated or glulam beams, concrete masonry unit (cmu) block walls, and
redwood siding. The walls were defined as a “kit of parts” to be reorganized to maintain the
historic character of the buildings, while allowing the modernization of the building to
accommodate a successful retail environment. The applicant proposes a complete
reconstruction of Building #1 with all new materials, but in the same location and configuration
as previously approved by Council. All other components of the previously approved PC
project, including the ten residences and park, would remain the same as approved by Council.
Building #1 is proposed to be substantially similar to the originally approved design, which was
based on the “kit of parts” concept that would ensure the building would retain the character
defining features of the Eichler aesthetic: the block walls, the storefront glass, redwood siding
and the glulam beams. The building would still include a new roof screen to hide roof-mounted
equipment. The modifications include minor changes to the proportions of each element to
accommodate modern tenants and requirements of the Building Code. These minor
modifications have been carefully reviewed and found acceptable by the City’s Historic
Preservation Planner. Similar modifications to Building #2 have been reviewed and approved by
the City, also with consultation by the City’s historic consultant, Carey & Company.
The applicant will also be required to install a plaque, to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director, identifying the building as a reconstruction in accordance with Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Reconstruction. Staff is also recommending that Carey & Company be
retained to monitor the building permit process and construction for Building #1. This will also
be critical for the installation of the window frames, discussed below.
Storefront Windows
Given that the proposal is for reconstruction, replication of the original storefront window
system is now possible. The original approval allowed installation of simpler wood window
frames. Building #1 can now be rebuilt in a design significantly closer to its original appearance
than the altered building that was demolished. The original wood window frames of both
Eichler buildings were a more complex design that included narrow full-height projecting
moldings on either side of the glass, which gave the windows a streamlined, modern look.
Because one storefront at the rear of Building #2 was preserved intact since 1957, the City and
the applicant’s historic consultant is able to use that storefront as a model to guide the
City of Palo Alto Page 10
reconstruction of Buildings #2 and #1 to better approximate its original 1957 design. The
reconstruction of Building #1 with the custom made windows would provide a much more
historically correct design than was found in the building that was demolished, and more
correct than the version originally approved. Working closely with the City’s historic consultant,
the applicant now has custom-made replicas for the rehabilitation of Building #2, and will do
the same for Building #1, should the amendment be approved. Although the loss of a historic
building cannot be mitigated, the historic accuracy of the replacement structure would be
increased with the installation of these more complex window frames. Staff has determined
that, because the storefront glass system was a large part of the original design, this
requirement provides a significant historic benefit to the project. This addition, in some ways,
will result in a building that is more similar to the original design, although constructed of all
new materials. This historic enhancement will also improve the historic integrity of the
remaining historic building, Building #2.
Public Benefits and Penalties
As part of the original PC rezoning, the applicant proposed to provide the following public
benefits to satisfy the second PC finding:
1) preservation of a historically significant Eichler designed shopping center,
2) an approximately 20,600 sq. ft. grocery store,
3) an approximately 0.20 acre park with an on-site display highlighting Joseph Eichler’s
achievements, and
4) three electric vehicle car chargers.
The applicant will still be able to provide the second, third and fourth public benefits. However,
due to the demolition of Building 1, the character of the preservation benefit will need to be
modified. The applicant is also requesting that the City weigh his unexpected costs during the
consideration of penalties and public benefits. The applicant has had to increase his cost by
over $200,000 for complications regarding the traffic signal modification and the electric
vehicle chargers. Additional costs have also included the cost of the preparation of the SEIR
($43,000) and the construction monitoring and plan review by the historic consultant ($15,000).
Because the applicant is proposing a PC amendment, the City can consider whether additional
public benefits should be required to compensate for the benefits lost by the demolition of
Building #1. The installation of a storefront window system on Buildings #1 and #2 that
replicates the original wood window frames of the original Eichler design can be considered a
public benefit. The window frames feature a more complex, three-dimensional design that
included narrow full-height projecting moldings on either side of the glass. The cost for
installing the new frames will be over $250,000. The installation of the new frames on Building
City of Palo Alto Page 11
#2 has begun and it was anticipated that construction would be completed in late September.
The City’s consultant has been carefully reviewing the entire process.
Although Building #1 has been lost, the project continues to provide the public benefit of the
preservation (or re-creation) of a historic design, preservation of the historic Building #2, a
public park, a grocery store and the rehabilitation of a public sign. Construction of Building #1
will result in a project that more closely resembles the original center than it would without the
building.
Possible Public Benefits
West Bayshore Road Sidewalk
During the original public hearings for this project, there were requests to require the
construction of sidewalks along the site’s West Bayshore Road frontage. Sidewalks were not
required because West Bayshore Road to the north of the site does not have sidewalks and this
portion of West Bayshore Road frontage is not designed for pedestrian activity. However, in
response to the request by area residents, the City has incorporated the construction of
sidewalks on West Bayshore Road as a future project in the Bike and Pedestrian Transportation
Plan (adopted July 2012). Staff has consulted both with Transportation and Public Works staff
regarding the feasibility of the construction of sidewalks. The cost estimate for construction of
sidewalk on one side of West Bayshore from the project site to the City limits for a length of
approximately 1,600 feet, excluding drainage cost, is approximately $144,000. The City Council
could require the applicant to contribute towards the work to be completed by the City as part
of its Capital Improvement Program, as a public benefit. This option would directly benefit this
neighborhood. However, the construction of sidewalks in this area would result in the loss of
approximately 10 potential parking spaces. The parking spaces are not official spaces but areas
in the unfinished dirt edge that are large enough to accommodate vehicles.
Historic Rehabilitation Contribution
As an alternative, the applicant could make a contribution to the restoration of a publicly
owned, historic resource in Palo Alto. For example, the applicant could contribute funding
towards improvements of the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Depot, which is the
second busiest station for the Caltrain system. The Streamline Modern style station is
designated as a Category 1 resource on the City’s historic inventory and is also on the National
Registry of Historic Places. This is just one example; there are other publicly owned buildings in
Palo Alto that could also benefit from rehabilitation funds. If appropriate, these funds could be
stored in a reserve account, and be made available for use toward a specific project when
directed by the Council. This public benefit is appropriate because the proceeds would be for
historic rehabilitation in exchange for the loss of a historic resource.
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Penalties
Because this is a PC and one of the primary community benefits has been removed, the Council
has some discretion in determining the best approach for assessing penalties. While at a
minimum the penalty should serve as a deterrent to future violations, the penalties could also
provide a vehicle for additional public benefits. The approaches include consideration of
possible savings by the applicant by being allowed to continue the project, use of the City’s
existing penalty system, and typical practices by other cities.
City Council had directed staff to provide them with recommendations regarding penalties for
the demolition of Building #1. Council specifically requested that staff make a recommendation
of the fine based on the amount of the savings likely to be achieved by the developer from
moving forward with the construction of the housing. The applicant has not yet received
building permit because a Final Map has not been issued and has not been able to begin
construction. The Final Map cannot be approved until the SEIR is certified for the revised
project. However, the applicant has stated that the ability to move forward with the review of
the building permit for the homes has allowed the loan financing to proceed. The cost of
capital or interest “savings” is approximately $52,800 because work was allowed for the 6
months following Council’s March 4th authorization to continue. Accordingly, using this
methodology a penalty of $52,800 would be appropriate.
The Municipal Code allows the City to fine applicants for a variety of code violations, based on
the type of infraction. Palo Alto’s standard administrative penalty for violating a building permit
condition is $500. A daily fine can be levied in situations where the applicant has the ability to
correct the violation. In this situation, a daily fine is not applicable as there is no feasible
method for correcting the violation. In addition, a one-time penalty of $500 is grossly
inadequate for the subject violation.
An alternate method, which has been used by other cities, is to charge double or triple the
building permit fee for code violations. The building permit fee is based on the valuation of the
construction cost and the scope of work for all trades (i.e. lighting, plumbing, etc.). The building
permit fee for the shell that was charged for Building 1 was $9,443.17, or about 1.5 percent for
a valuation of $600,000. The City could use this rationale to fine the applicant $9,443.17 (or
double) for the illegal demolition. Additionally, given the special circumstance of the
demolition of an historic structure, an additional fine may be warranted. There is a specific fine
of $1,000 authorized in the City Code for demolition of a downtown historic structure. If a
similar fine were added to the building permit fee, a total of $10,443.17 could be assessed.
According to the applicant, the cost of the construction is approximately 25-30% higher, or
between $150,000 and $180,000 (based on the original valuation), than expected. This
excludes site construction and the additional cost due to the custom made windows. The cost
of the custom made windows will add approximately $162,000 to the total construction cost of
City of Palo Alto Page 13
Building #1. This also excludes the cost of the electrical vehicle charging stations and the traffic
signal modifications discussed above. If the building permit fee were to be evaluated again, the
valuation would be $912,000 or $942,000. If the cost of the revised building permit fee was to
be used as a penalty, then a possible fine would be between $13,680 (double the fee) and
$28,260 and (triple the fee). As an alternative, the City could charge a percentage of the
construction cost of the project because of the significant loss. If ten percent is used, the fine
can be between $91,200 and $94,200. Although typical practice would be to charge double or
triple the building permit fee and the cost of the project has increased significantly, given that a
significant structure has been lost and a required public benefit can no longer be provided, the
higher amount would be appropriate. The PTC recommended the $94,200 penalty amount as
an appropriate penalty. In addition, the PTC recommended that the penalty be applied
towards a city historic fund to help compensate for the loss of the resource. As an alternative, if
there is neighborhood support, the PTC is requesting that the Council also consider applying the
penalty to the Bayshore Road sidewalk improvements.
Staff has consulted with various cities regarding their approaches for implementing penalties
for the illegal demolition of historic resources. Cities consulted included Berkeley, San Jose,
Burlingame, Menlo Park, and Los Gatos. Those cities do not have ordinances that identify
specific penalty fees for illegal demolition. (As a side note, staff will continue its research and
will likely recommend a separate fine for demolition of historic buildings in connection with the
Administrative Penalty update.) The City of Pasadena requires an automatic construction delay
of 6 months for illegal demolitions. As discussed above, those cities have required payment of
double to triple the building permit fees as a penalty. The applicant has and will continue to
incur costs associated with the delay due to the demolition. The costs include the preparation
of the SEIR, hiring of the historic consultant and the fees for the PC Amendment.
Final Map
The purpose of the final map is to subdivide the subject into one commercial parcel, which
would include the 0.20 acre park, and ten residential fee simple lots. The Final Map and the
Ordinance for the original PC Zoning and Tentative Map have been provided for the Council’s
information. Staff of the Planning and Public Works Departments have reviewed the Final Map
(Attachment D) and have determined that it is consistent with the approved Tentative Map.
The map is consistent with the approved Tentative Map site layout, which was designed to
meet the requirements of both the original Planned Community Zoning and the proposed
Amendment. The map also satisfies all approval conditions for the Tentative Map, including the
preparation of a Subdivision Improvement Agreement, Park Maintenance Agreement, and
Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Agreement. The City Attorney, Public Works Department
and Community Services Department have reviewed the agreements and concur. According to
City of Palo Alto Page 14
the State Subdivision Map Act, the City Council must therefore approve the Final Map if it
complies with the approved Tentative Map.
Resource Impact
The project’s addition of 10 residential units, along with its creation of 38,400 square feet of
retail space to the existing shopping center, would yield the City additional annual revenues in
the form of property taxes, sales taxes, and utility user taxes, estimated in the range of
$100,000 to $150,000. One-time revenues would include impact fees of approximately $1.6
million and documentary Transfer Fees of approximately $0.07 million. On the expenditure
side, the project’s residential portion will create additional demand for City services, but these
should be offset by the required development impact fees.
Environmental Review
A Final Supplemental Environmental Impact report (Final SEIR) was prepared for the project,
with a focus on impacts to historic resources, as discussed above. The Draft SEIR was circulated
for public review between May 17 and July 20, 2013. The Final EIR was circulated on
September 5, 2013, confirming that no comments were received by the comment end date.
CEQA requires that Final SEIR be circulated a minimum of ten days prior to actions by the
decision making body, which is the City Council. Copies of the Draft and Final SEIR have
previously been distributed to the City Council. The Draft and Final SEIR, as well as the original
Final EIR, Draft EIR, and First Amendment are also available online on the City’s website:
http://goo.gl/PjnreG.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Resolution (PDF)
Attachment B: Ordinance (Exhibits include location map and original Ordinance) (PDF)
Attachment C: Location Map (PDF)
Attachment D: Historic Resources Board Staff Report (without attachments) and
Minutes dated August 21, 2013 (PDF)
Attachment E: Planning and Transportation Commission Staff Report (without
attachments) and Draft Minutes (PDF)
Attachment F: Applicant's Development Schedule Letter (PDF)
Attachment G: Applicant's Cost Savings Letter (PDF)
Attachment H: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (PDF)
Attachment I: Public Correspondence (PDF)
Attachment J: Project Plans (Council Members Only) (TXT)
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131134 1
Resolution No _________
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the Adequacy of the
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Edgewood Plaza Project
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and Adopting the
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of Overriding
Considerations
The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1. Introduction and Certification.
(a) The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”), in the exercise of its
independent judgment, makes and adopts the following findings to comply with the
requirements of the 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 Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030) (the “Final SEIR”), which
includes the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (“Draft SEIR”). The Final SEIR
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 prepare the Final SEIR, and Powers &
Associates prepared the Final SEIR under the supervision and at the direction of the City’s
Director of Planning and Community Environment.
(e) The City, through Powers & Associates, initially prepared the Draft SEIR and
circulated it for review by responsible and trustee agencies and the public and submitted it to
the State Clearinghouse for review and comment by state agencies, for a comment period
which ran from May 1, through July 20, 2013. As noted above, the Final SEIR includes the Draft
SEIR. No comments were received and no changes were made in the Final SEIR.
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131134 2
(f) The City’s Planning and Transportation Committee has reviewed the Final SEIR
and a draft of these findings and has provided its recommendations to the City Council
regarding certification of the Final SEIR. The City Council has independently reviewed the Final
SEIR and has considered the Planning and Transportation Committee’s recommendations in
making these findings.
(g) Based upon review and consideration of the information contained therein, the
City Council hereby 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 environment, and
in adopting the findings set forth below, the City Council certifies that it has complied with
Public Resources Code sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21082.2.
(h) Section 6 of the Final SEIR shows all revisions which the Final SEIR made to the
Draft SEIR. All references to the Draft SEIR in these findings include references to all revisions to
the Draft SEIR made in the Final SEIR. Having reviewed this section and the Final SEIR as a
whole, the City Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that no significant new
information has been added to the Final SEIR so as to warrant recirculation of all or a portion of
the Draft SEIR. Likewise, the City Council has considered all public comments and other
information submitted into the record since publication of the Final SEIR, and further finds that
none of that additional information constitutes significant new information requiring
recirculation of the Final SEIR.
SECTION 2. Project Information.
The following Project information is supplied to provide context for the discussion and
findings that follow, but is intended as a summary and not a replacement for the information
contained in the Draft SEIR, Final SEIR, or Project approvals.
(a) Project Objectives
The Project Objectives of the Project applicant are set forth in Section 2.4 of the Draft
EIR, which is incorporated herein by reference.
(b) Project Description
The proposed Project is an amendment to the approved project that consisted of the
renovation of three existing commercial buildings at the Edgewood Shopping Center containing
approximately 38,400 square feet of retail uses, and the redevelopment of the northern portion
of the site with ten single-family residences and an approximately 10,000 square-foot park. The
amendment would be to allow the reconstruction of one of the two historic Eichler retail
buildings (Building #1) in the already approved location and configuration. Building #1 was
approved to be dismantled and rehabilitated onsite as one of the primary public benefits, but
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131134 3
was demolished instead.
A conceptual site plan of the proposed Project is shown on Figure 4. A breakdown of
the proposed development areas and building square footage are shown in Table 2.3-1.
Conceptual elevations 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 SEIR, as modified where applicable in the Final SEIR.)
A complete description of the Project as proposed by the Project applicant is set forth
in Section 2.3 of the Draft SEIR, as modified in the Final SEIR.
(c) Required Approvals
The approvals required by the City as lead agency for implementation of the Project
include:
A. Planned Community Zoning
B. Final Subdivision Map
C. Tree Removal Permits
SECTION 3. Record of Proceedings.
(a) For purposes of CEQA, CEQA Guidelines section 15091(e), and these findings,
the Record of Proceedings for the Project includes, but is not limited to, the following
documents:
(1) The Final SEIR, which consists of the Edgewood Plaza Project Draft Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report, published and circulated for public review and
comment by the City from May 17 through July 20, 2013 (the “Draft SEIR”), and
the Edgewood Plaza Project Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Report,
published and made available on September 5, 2013, and all appendices,
reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, testimony, and other materials
related thereto;
(2) All public notices issued by the City in connection with the Project and the
preparation of the Draft SEIR and the Final SEIR, including but not limited to
public notices for all public workshops held to seek public comments and input
on the Project and the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Completion, Notice of
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,
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131134 4
including oral communications made at public hearings or meetings held on the
Project approvals;
(4) The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program;
(5) All findings and resolutions adopted by the City Council in connection with the
Project, and all documents cited or referred to therein;
(6) All final reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, or other planning
documents relating to the Project prepared by the City of Palo Alto and
consultants with respect to the City of Palo Alto’s compliance with the
requirements of CEQA, and with respect to the City of Palo Alto’s actions on the
Project, including all staff reports and attachments to all staff reports for all
public meetings held by the City;
(7) Minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all public meetings and/or public
hearings held by the City of Palo Alto in connection with the Project;
(8) Matters of common knowledge to the City of Palo Alto, including, but not limited
to, federal, state, and local laws and regulations;
(9) Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited
above; and
(10) Any other materials required to be in the record of proceedings by Public
Resources Code section 21167.6(e).
(b) The custodian of the documents comprising the record of proceedings is the
Director of Planning and Community Environment, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo
Alto, California, 94301.
(c) Copies of all of the above-referenced documents, which constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the City of Palo Alto’s decision on the Project is based, are and have
been available upon request at the offices of the Planning and Community Environment
Department, City of Palo Alto, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California, 94301, and other
locations in the City of Palo Alto.
(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 section 15384 of the CEQA Guidelines) to support each of the findings contained
herein.
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131134 5
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 as
Exhibit A 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. Significant and Unavoidable Impacts.
The Draft SEIR and the Final SEIR documented that the Project would result in significant
and unavoidable impacts which cannot be adequately mitigated through the adoption and
implementation of feasible mitigation measures. Those impacts, along with mitigation
measures to mitigate them to the extent feasible, are listed below as referenced in the Draft
SEIR.
3.1 Cultural Resources
Impact CR: Demolition of Building 1 represents a substantial adverse alteration of the
physical characteristics of a historical resource and a change in the significant of the resource.
Reconstruction of the proposed replacement building would not reduce the adverse impacts to
the physical characteristics of the former building that conveyed its historical significance and
eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources and the National Register of Historic
Places.
a) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.1.3 of the Draft SEIR.
b) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and
will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and as
further described in the remainder of these findings:
Mitigation Measures CR-2.2 and CR-2.3.
MM CR-2.2: The applicant shall create a display illustrating the history of the Edgewood
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131134 6
Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, prior to approval of final occupancy.
MM CR-2.3: Distinctive materials and defining architectural features, finishes, and
construction techniques of Building 2 including windows, frames, and eaves will be
retained to the extent possible, as the building elements will require some alterations
due to ADA compliance, public safety, building code compliance, or deteriorated
condition. The existing building components may be constructed out of new building
materials that match the character and form of the existing, if reuse of existing building
components is not feasible. Prior to the rehabilitation of Building 2, a qualified historic
preservation architect shall review the plans for the remodeled buildings and verify that
the work on these buildings is in keeping with the buildings’ original design and
applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, such as Standards #5,
6, 7, and 9.
A new Building 1 will be constructed of new building materials that match the character
and one-story form of the commercial buildings of Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler
Homes, consistent with the previously approved building elevations. As a condition of
approval, all facades of Building 1 will be wood-framed storefront systems that replicate
the detail of the original 1957 window design.
The final design and materials to be used in the renovation of Building 2 and
reconstruction of Building 1 will be reviewed and approved by the Director and the
Historic Preservation Planner of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community
Environment Department.
c) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this
potentially significant impact by: (i) creating a display illustrating the history of the Edgewood
Plaza as built by Eichler Homes prior to approval of final occupancy; (ii) requiring that the
distinctive and defining architectural features, finishes and construction techniques of Buildings
#1, including windows, frames, and eaves, be retained to the extent feasible during the
reconstruction of Building #1, subject to verification by qualified professionals that work on
these resources is completed in conformance with applicable federal standards; and
(iii) requiring review and approval of the final design and materials to be used in the renovation
of these buildings by the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department;
thereby ensuring that this Impact is mitigated to the extent feasible. However, these measures
would not fully mitigate this Impact to a less-than-significant level.
d) Remaining Impacts. There are no other feasible mitigation measures available
to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measures
CR- 2.2 and 2.3 would lessen the Project’s impacts on the described historical resources by
reconstructing Building #1 as originally approved and documenting the significant historical
characteristics of Buildings #1. However, the reconstruction of Building #1 would not result in
reversing the demolition, and therefore this reconstruction would still result in a significant
impact to historic resources.
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131134 7
e) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, social, economic and other
benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project
relating to historical resources as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
below.
Section 4.0 Cumulative Impacts
f) Impact Cumulative Impact: The Edgewood Plaza site is considered historically
significant under federal, state and City of Palo Alto criteria. The demolition of Building #1 and
reconstruction with all new materials would result in a significant impact to cumulative cultural
resources. As with all historic structures of a particular design or time period, there are a finite
number of representative structures that exist. Of the two Eichler commercial buildings within
the City of Palo Alto deemed historically significant, one has now been demolished. As a result,
Building #2 is the only remaining representative Eichler commercial building within Palo Alto.
As discussed in the Edgewood Plaza Final EIR, the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC)
project would result in the loss of the Stone Building Complex, which was designed by E.D.
Stone and constructed in 1959. The SUMC project has been identified as resulting in a
significant cumulative historic resources impact due to the small body of E.D. Stone’s work in
Palo Alto that retains sufficient integrity to be eligible as historic resources. The Stone Building
Complex and Building #1 are of a similar time period, both represent a modern design
aesthetic, and both are significant examples of their respective architects. Therefore, the loss
of Building 1 combined with the loss of the Stone Building Complex is a cumulatively
considerable impact relative to mid-century modern buildings by prominent architects in Palo
Alto.
g) Potential Impact. The impact identified above is described and discussed in
Section 3.1.3 of the Draft SEIR.
h) Mitigation Measures. The following mitigation measures will be adopted and
will be implemented as provided in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and as
further described in the remainder of these findings:
Mitigation Measures CR-2.2 and CR-2.3.
MM CR-2.2: The applicant shall create a display illustrating the history of the Edgewood
Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, prior to approval of final occupancy.
MM CR-2.3: Distinctive materials and defining architectural features, finishes, and
construction techniques of Building 2 including windows, frames, and eaves will be
retained to the extent possible, as the building elements will require some alterations
due to ADA compliance, public safety, building code compliance, or deteriorated
condition. The existing building components may be constructed out of new building
materials that match the character and form of the existing, if reuse of existing building
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131134 8
components is not feasible. Prior to the rehabilitation of Building 2, a qualified historic
preservation architect shall review the plans for the remodeled buildings and verify that
the work on these buildings is in keeping with the buildings’ original design and
applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, such as Standards #5,
6, 7, and 9.
A new Building 1 will be constructed of new building materials that match the character
and one-story form of the commercial buildings of Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler
Homes, consistent with the previously approved building elevations. As a condition of
approval, all facades of Building 1 will be wood-framed storefront systems that replicate
the detail of the original 1957 window design.
The final design and materials to be used in the renovation of Building 2 and
reconstruction of Building 1 will be reviewed and approved by the Director and the
Historic Preservation Planner of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community
Environment Department.
i) Findings. The above-noted mitigation measures will reduce the severity of this
potentially significant impact by: (i) creating a display illustrating the history of the Edgewood
Plaza as built by Eichler Homes prior to approval of final occupancy; (ii) requiring that the
distinctive and defining architectural features, finishes and construction techniques of Buildings
#1, including windows, frames, and eaves, be retained to the extent feasible during the
reconstruction of Building #1, subject to verification by qualified professionals that work on
these resources is completed in conformance with applicable federal standards; and
(iii) requiring review and approval of the final design and materials to be used in the renovation
of these buildings by the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department;
thereby ensuring that this Impact is mitigated to the extent feasible. However, these measures
would not fully mitigate this Impact to a less-than-significant level.
j) Remaining Impacts. There are no other feasible mitigation measures available
to mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measures
CR- 2.2 and 2.3 would lessen the Project’s impacts on the described historical resources by
reconstructing Building #1 as originally approved and documenting the significant historical
characteristics of Buildings #1. However, the reconstruction of Building #1 would not result in
reversing the demolition, and therefore this reconstruction would still result in a significant
impact to cumulative historic resources.
k) Overriding Considerations. The environmental, social, economic and other
benefits of the Project override any remaining significant adverse impacts of the Project
relating to historical resources as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations
below.
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131134 9
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 SEIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives
to the Project, which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, and that the City
Council has evaluated the comparative merits of the alternatives. As described below, the City
Council has decided to approve the Project as proposed, and to reject the remainder of the
alternatives, as summarized below.
Sections 2.3 of the Draft SEIR set forth the Project applicant’s objectives for the Project.
That list is incorporated herein by reference. In light of the applicant’s objectives for the
Project, and given that the Project is expected to result in certain significant environmental
effects even after the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures, as identified above,
the City hereby makes the following findings with respect to whether one or more of the
alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIR could feasibly accomplish most of the goals and
objectives for the Project and substantially lessen or avoid one or more of its potentially
significant effects.
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative – Current Conditions Scenario is discussed at Section 7.2 of
the Draft SEIR. The No Project – Current Conditions Scenario is hereby rejected as infeasible
because it would not achieve the Project objectives, as explained in Sections 7.3.2, 7.3.3 and
7.3.4 of the Draft SEIR.
Building Design Alternative
The Building Design Alternative is discussed in Section 7.4.1 of the Draft SEIR. The
Building Design Alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible because it would not achieve most
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131134 10
of the Project objectives, as explained in Sections 7.4.3, 7.4.4 and 7.5 of the Draft SEIR.
SECTION 7. Statement of Overriding Considerations
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and Section 15093 of the CEQA
Guidelines, this City Council adopts and makes the following Statement of Overriding
Considerations regarding the remaining significant unavoidable impacts of the Project, as
discussed above, and the anticipated economic, social and other benefits of the Project. The
City finds that: (i) the majority of the significant impacts of the Project will be reduced to less-
than-significant and acceptable levels by the mitigation measures described in the Final EIR and
approved and adopted by these Findings; (ii) the City’s approval of the Project will result in
certain significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be avoided even with the
incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures into the Project; and (iii) there are no other
feasible mitigation measures or feasible Project alternatives that would further mitigate or
avoid the remaining significant environmental effects. The significant effects that have not been
mitigated to a less-than-significant level and are therefore considered significant and
unavoidable are identified in Section 6 above. Despite these potentially significant impacts, it is
the City’s considered judgment that the benefits offered by the Project outweigh the
potentially adverse effects of these significant impacts. The substantial evidence supporting the
following described benefits of the Project can be found in the preceding findings and in the
record of proceedings.
The benefits of the Project which the City Council finds serve as “overriding
considerations” justifying its approval include the following:
(1) Rehabilitation of Building #2 and reconstruction of Building #1 in a design
significantly closer to its original appearance with the inclusion of custom made
windows in the original design, with narrow full height frames and projecting
moldings. Rehabilitation of the original historic monument sign for the shopping
center.
(2) Redevelopment and rehabilitation of a high-quality shopping and commercial area
on the Edgewood Plaza site that will serve the community, including the provision of
a new grocery store for the local neighborhood, in a manner that reflects the mid-
century aesthetic and design of the existing buildings and surrounding Duveneck/
Saint Francis (Edgewood and Green Gables) neighborhood. Reconstruction of
Building #1 will enable a complete restoration of the shopping center.
(3) Provision of a grocery store in the 20,600 sq. ft. building. The commercial property
owner shall ensure the continued use of the 20,600 sq. ft. building as a grocery store
for the life of the Project;
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131134 11
(4) Provision of 0.20 acre public park, via public access easements in perpetuity. The
park would be maintained by the commercial property owner and shall not be used
for seating/activities associated with the retail uses. The Applicant shall provide an
on-site display highlighting Joseph Eichler’s achievements in the Park.
(5) Payment to the City of $94,200 to be used for the restoration of a publicly owned or
accessible historic resource.
(6) Subject to support by the immediate neighborhood, Applicant shall construct a
sidewalk along west side of West Bayshore from Channing to the Palo Alto city
border.
(7) Provision of two Level 2 Electric Vehicle chargers and one Level 2 Electric Vehicle
charger.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
__________________________ _____________________________
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
__________________________ _____________________________
Senior Assistant City Attorney City Manager
_____________________________
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131134 12
EXHIBIT A
MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM
EDGEWOOD PLAZA PROJECT
SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT
Palo Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10PLN-00198/13PLN-00197
State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030
CITY OF PALO ALTO
JULY 2013
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131134 13
P R E F A C E
Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a Lead Agency
to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program whenever it approves a project for
which measures have been required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the
environment. The purpose of the monitoring or reporting program is to ensure
compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation.
The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report concluded that the implementation of the
project could result in significant effects on the environment and mitigation measures
were incorporated into the proposed project. This Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting
Program addresses those measures in terms of how and when they will be implemented.
The previously approved project included three mitigation measures to reduce impacts
to historic resources on the site. Mitigation Measure (MM) MM CR-2.1, completion of a
Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) documentation of Building 1 and Building 2
has been completed and is not referenced further. MM CR-2.2, creation of a display
illustrating the history of the Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, will be
completed prior to approval of final occupancy and is included below. The third
mitigation measure, MM CR-2.3 is included in its entirety, and has been revised to
reflect the demolition of Building 1 and proposed changes in the project. The changes
affect the reconstruction of Building 1 only. No changes have been made to the
approved mitigation for rehabilitation of Building 2.
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131134 14
MITIGATION MONITORING OR REPORTING PROGRAM
Edgewood Plaza Project, 2080 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto
Palo Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10PLN-00198/13PLN-00197, State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030
Environmental Impacts Mitigation Measures Responsibility for
Compliance
Method of Compliance and
Oversight of Implementation Timing of Compliance
Cultural Resources
Impact: Demolition of
Building 1 represents a
substantial adverse alteration
of the physical characteristics
of a historical resource and a
change in the significant of
the resource. Reconstruction
of the proposed replacement
building would not reduce the
adverse impacts to the
physical characteristics of the
former building that
conveyed its historical
significance and eligibility for
the California Register of
Historical Resources and the
National Register of Historic
Places
[Significant Impact]
MM CR-2.2: The applicant shall create a display illustrating the
history of the Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, prior
to approval of final occupancy.
MM CR-2.3: Distinctive materials and defining architectural
features, finishes, and construction techniques of Building 2
including windows, frames, and eaves will be retained to the
extent possible, as the building elements will require some
alterations due to ADA compliance, public safety, building code
compliance, or deteriorated condition. The existing building
components may be constructed out of new building materials
that match the character and form of the existing, if reuse of
existing building components is not feasible. Prior to the
rehabilitation of Building 2, a qualified historic preservation
architect shall review the plans for the remodeled buildings
and verify that the work on these buildings is in keeping with
the buildings’ original design and applicable Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, such as Standards #5, 6,
7, and 9.
A new Building 1 will be constructed of new building materials
that match the character and one-story form of the
commercial buildings of Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler
Homes, consistent with the previously approved building
elevations. As a condition of approval, all facades of Building 1
will be wood-framed storefront systems that replicate the
detail of the original 1957 window design.
The final design and materials to be used in the renovation of
Building 2 and reconstruction of Building 1 will be reviewed
and approved by the Director and the Historic Preservation
Planner of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community
Environment Department.
(Significant Impact After the Implementation of Mitigation
Measures)
Project applicant
and consulting
historic
preservation
architect.
All measures will be required as
part of development permits, and
will be printed on all construction
documents, contracts, and project
plans prior to issuance of
development permits.
Oversight of implementation by the
City of Palo Alto Director of
Planning and Community
Environment and the City’s Historic
Resources Plan
Prior to the start of
demolition and construction,
as specified.
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131135 1
Ordinance No.________
Ordinance of the Council of the City Of Palo Alto Amending Ordinance 5150
(amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code [The Zoning
Map] to Change the Classification of Property Located at 2080 Channing
Avenue [Edgewood Plaza] to PC Planned Community Zone (PC 5150)) to Allow
the Reconstruction of Building #1 with All New Materials.
The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:
SECTION 1.
(a) On April 9, 2012, the City Council granted Planned Community (PC)
Zoning Ordinance 5150 (“Project”) to permit the redevelopment of the property
commonly known as the Edgewood Shopping Center located at 2080 Channing Avenue
(the “Subject Property”). A copy of Ordinance 5150 is attached as Exhibit C and
incorporated by reference. As part of that PC, the applicant Sand Hill Property Company
(Applicant) was required to rehabilitate Building 1, identified as a historic resource, in
accordance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation.
(b) In September 2012, the Applicant without permission of the City,
demolished Building 1 rendering reconstruction infeasible. The City immediately put a
Stop Work Order on the remaining portion of the Project. Subsequently, the City
permitted certain aspects of the Project to move forward.
(c) On February 26, 2013, the Applicant applied to the City for an
amendment to Planned Community Zoning (PC) 5150 to substitute the reconstruction of
Building 1 for the rehabilitation of Building 1 to accommodate the uses set forth below.
(d) The Historic Resources Board, at its meeting of August 21, 2013,
reviewed the Project and recommended the City Council approve the amendment with
associated draft conditions of approval ‘Exhibit B.’
(e) The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed
public hearing held September 11, 2013, reviewed, considered, and recommended
certification of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, then reviewed the
Planned Community, and recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the
Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to rezone the Subject Property to a new Planned
Community zone for the proposed project depicted on ‘Exhibit A,’ (the “Project”),
consistent with conditions included in the Planned Community zone related to allowable
land uses and required development standards, and subject to provision of the public
benefits outlined in this ordinance. Draft conditions of project approval “Exhibit B”
attached to this document and incorporated by reference were presented to the PTC for
review and comments.
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131135 2
(f) The Palo Alto City Council, after due consideration of the proposed
Project, the analysis of the City staff, and the conditions recommended by the Planning
and Transportation Commission, certified the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report and Mitigation Monitoring Program, concurred with the recommendations from
the PTC and the HRB, approved conditions of approval attached as Exhibit B hereto, and
found that the proposed project and this Ordinance is in the public interest and will
promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth.
(g) The Council finds that the findings made in Ordinance 5150 justifying
the granting of Planned Community 5150 still apply to the Subject Property in that the
Project will incorporate the modified community benefits described in Section (3)(f)
hereof.
SECTION 2.
Ordinance 5150 amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code,
the “Zoning Map,” is hereby amended as follows: The project is as depicted on the
Development Plans dated February 2, 2012 and amended in Development Plans dated
September 11, 2013, incorporated by reference, including the following new
component:
(a) Reconstruction of Building #1 with all new materials in the originally
approved location and configuration.
Except as herein modified, all other provisions of Ordinance 5150, including any
exhibits and conditions, shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 3.
Section 4 of Ordinance 5150 is amended to additionally require compliance with
(i) the February 29, 2012 Development Plans as amended on September 11, 2013, (ii)
the conditions of project approval attached as Exhibit B, and (iii) any approved
supplemental materials for the Subject Property, as submitted by the applicant pursuant
to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC §18.38.090). In addition, Sections (f) and (g) shall be
amended as follows:
(f) Public Benefits:
Development of the site under the provisions of the PC Planned
Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable
by application of the regulations of general districts or combining
districts. The Project includes the following public benefits that are
inherent to the Project and in excess of those required by City zoning
districts.
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131135 3
(1) Rehabilitation of Building #2 and reconstruction of Building
#1 in a design significantly closer to its original appearance
with the inclusion of custom made windows in the original
design, with narrow full height frames and projecting
moldings. Rehabilitation of the original historic monument
sign for the shopping center.
(2) Redevelopment and rehabilitation of a high-quality shopping
and commercial area on the Edgewood Plaza site that will
serve the community, including the provision of a new
grocery store for the local neighborhood, in a manner that
reflects the mid-century aesthetic and design of the existing
buildings and surrounding Duveneck/Saint Francis (Edgewood
and Green Gables) neighborhood. Reconstruction of Building
#1 will enable a complete restoration of the shopping center.
(3) Provision of a grocery store in the 20,600 sq. ft. building. The
commercial property owner shall ensure the continued use of
the 20,600 sq. ft. building as a grocery store for the life of the
Project;
(4) Provision of 0.20 acre public park, via public access easements
in perpetuity. The park would be maintained by the
commercial property owner and shall not be used for
seating/activities associated with the retail uses. The Applicant
shall provide an on-site display highlighting Joseph Eichler’s
achievements in the Park.
(5) Payment to the City of $94,200 to be used for the restoration
of a publicly owned or accessible historic resource.
(6) Subject to support by the immediate neighborhood, Applicant
shall construct a sidewalk along west side of West Bayshore
from Channing to the Palo Alto city border.
(7) Provision of two Level 2 Electric Vehicle chargers and one
Level 2 Electric Vehicle charger.
(g) Development Schedule:
The project is required to include a Development Schedule pursuant to
PAMC §18.38.100. The approved Development Schedule is set forth
below:
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131135 4
Construction of the Project shall commence immediately following the
adoption of the PC zone, unless a change in the development schedule is
approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, not
to exceed a one year extension in time and only one such extension
without a hearing, pursuant to PAMC §18.38.130. The total time for the
project construction and occupancy of tenant spaces is expected to be 12
months following adoption of the PC zone, or by October 2014, unless
extended by the Director for up to one additional year.
SECTION 4.
A Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) for this project was
prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council
certified the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program and adopted a resolution at its
meeting of October7, 2013.
SECTION 5.
The plans referenced consist of plans titled “Edgewood Shopping Center”
prepared by Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Burton Architecture, Sandis and the
Guzzardo Partnership, dated February 29, 2012, including the Tentative Map for
Edgewood Plaza, prepared by Sandis, dated September 11, 2013.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131135 5
SECTION 6.
This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption
(second reading).
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
__________________________
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney
__________________________
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
_________________________
Mayor
_________________________
City Manager
'"h. e ll! or
r a l o Alto
Edgewood Plaza
Location Map
This mao is a product of the
City 01 PiIIQ A.IIo GIS
• ••
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131135 7
Exhibit B
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
2080 Channing Avenue – Edgewood Plaza/ File No. 13PLN-00197
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
Planning and Transportation Divisions
1. The plans submitted to obtain all permits through the Building Inspection Division
shall be in substantial conformance with the revised plans, project details and
materials received on March 22, 2012 and as modified in plans received on
September 11, 2013, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of
approval.
2. All conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set
submitted to obtain any permit through the Building Inspection Division.
3. Construction details, colors, materials, and placement of the shopping center signs
and roof mounted equipment shall be submitted to the Planning Division for
review prior to submittal of the building permit.
4. All conditions required in PC-5150, including mitigation measures, are still
applicable unless specifically amended by the document.
5. Prior to the submittal of a building permit application, a historic consultant shall be
hired by the City and paid for the applicant to review the building permit submittal
and construction of Building #1 to confirm compliance with this approval and
mitigation requirements of the project’s Supplement Environmental Impact
Report.
6. Building #1 shall be constructed of materials that were approved for use in
Building #2 to the satisfaction of the Director of the Planning and Community
Environment Department.
7. A plaque identifying Building #1 as a reconstructed building shall be installed on
Building #1 to the satisfaction of the Director of the Planning and Community
Environment Department.
8. Storefront glass shall not be obstructed by shelves or storage and shall remain
primarily open to permit public viewing of interior of store, except as allowed by
the Sign Ordinance. The Director may permit display of store’s merchandise or
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131135 8
other window display in his or her discretion provided it shall not impact the
neighborhood serving retail environment.
EIR Mitigation Measures
9. MM CR-2.2: The applicant shall create a display illustrating the history of the
Edgewood Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, prior to approval of final occupancy.
10. MM CR-2.3: Distinctive materials and defining architectural features, finishes, and
construction techniques of Building 2 including windows, frames, and eaves will be
retained to the extent possible to the satisfaction of the Director of the Planning
and Community Environment Department, as the building elements will require
some alterations due to ADA compliance, public safety, building code compliance,
or deteriorated condition. The existing building components, to the satisfaction of
the Planning Director, may be constructed out of new building materials that
match the character and form of the existing, if reuse of existing building
components is not feasible. Prior to the rehabilitation of Building 2, a qualified
historic preservation architect shall review the plans for the remodeled buildings
and verify that the work on these buildings is in keeping with the buildings’ original
design and applicable Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, such
as Standards #5, 6, 7, and 9.
11. A new Building 1 will be constructed of new building materials that match the
character and one-story form of the commercial buildings of Edgewood Plaza as
built by Eichler Homes, consistent with the previously approved building
elevations. As a condition of approval, all facades of Building 1 will be wood-
framed storefront systems that replicate the detail of the original 1957 window
design.
12. The final design and materials to be used in the renovation of Building #2 and
reconstruction of Building #1 will be reviewed and approved by the Director and
the Historic Preservation Planner of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community
Environment Department.
13. Government Code Section 66020 provides that project applicant who desires to
protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a
development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project
is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that
fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the
project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development
fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code
Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD
OR TO FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE
NOT YET APPROVED
131001 jb 0131135 9
SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR
REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS.
14. This matter is subject to the Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5, and the
time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
Ordinance No. 5150
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section
18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to
Change the Classification of Property Located at 2080 Channing
Avenue (Edgewood Plaza) from Planned Community (PC-1643) to
PC Planned Community Zone (PC-5150) for the Renovation of the
Three Existing Eichler Retail Structures, On-Site Relocation of One of
the Retail Structures, Construction of Ten New Single-Family Homes,
and Creation of a 0.20 Acre Park
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1.
(a) Sand Hill Property Company, ("the Applicant") applied on June 1,2010 to
the City for approval of (1) a rezoning application (the "Project") for a new Planned
Community (PC) district for a property located at 2080 Channing Avenue (the "Subject
Property") to accommodate the uses set forth below and (2) a Tentative Map to subdivide
the 3.58 site into one commercial lot, including a 0.20 acre park, dedicated to the City
with public access easements and maintained by the commercial property owner, and ten
single family residential lots.
(b) The Tentative Map plan set, dated February 15,2012, and last revised on
March 19, 2012 includes information on the existing parcels, onsite conditions, and the
layout of the proposed new lots. These drawings are in compliance with the applicable
provisions of the City's Subdivision Ordinance. These plans contain all information and
notations required to be shown on a Tentative Map (per PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.13),
as well as the design requirements concerning the creation of lots, streets, walkways, and
similar features (P AMC 21.20).
(c) The Planning and Transportation Commission, at its meeting of April 27,
2011, acted favorably on the applicant's request for initiation of the Planned Community
Zone process for the establishment of Planned Community Zone District No. PC-5150.
(d) The Architectural Review Board, at its meeting of February 2, 2012,
reviewed the Project design and recommended the City Council approve the project with
associated draft conditions of approval 'Exhibit B.'
(e) The Plmming and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public
hearing held February 29,2012, reviewed, considered, and recommended certification of
the Final Environmental Impact Report, then reviewed the Planned Community and
Tentative Map and this ordinm1ce, and recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning
Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to rezone the Subject Property to a
new Planned Community zone for the proposed project depicted on 'Exhibit A,' (the
"Project"), consistent with conditions included in the PlaImed Community zone related to
120313 dm0120529 1
allowable land uses and required development standards, and subject to provision of the
public benefits outlined in this ordinance and recommended approval of the Tentative
Map. Draft conditions of project approval "Exhibit B" attached to this document and
incorporated by reference were presented to the PTC for review and comments.
(f) The Palo Alto City Council, after due consideration of the proposed
Project, the analysis of the City staff, and the conditions recommended by the Planning
and Transportation Commission, certified the Final Environmental Impact Report and
Mitigation Monitoring Program, concurred with the recommendations from the PTC and
the ARB, and found that the proposed project and this Ordinance is in the public interest
and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth.
(g) The Council finds that (1) the Subject Property is so situated, and the use
or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general
districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow for the
Project; (2) development of the Subject Property under the provisions of the PC Planned
Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application
of the regulations of general districts or combining districts, as set forth in Section (4)( c)
hereof; and (3) the use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable
within the proposed district are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Goals,
Policies, and proposed designation of Mixed Use for the Subject Property) and are
compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general
vicinity.
SECTION 2.
Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby
amended by changing the zoning of Subject Property from Planned Community (PC-
1643) to "PC Planned Community Zone 5150".
SECTION 3.
The City Council hereby finds with respect to the Subject Property that the project
(the "Project") comprises the following uses included in this ordinance and a mixed use
development, depicted on the Development Plans dated February 2, 2012, incorporated
by reference, including the following components:
(a) Renovation of an existing 37,965 sq. ft. shopping center, including
relocation and renovation ofthe 10,000 sq. ft. retail building, renovation of the 7,800 sq.
ft. retail building in place, and renovation of the 20,600 sq. ft. building in place for use as
a grocery store, deletion of the outer parking lots and expansion of the remaining parking
lot, and associated site improvements
(b) Construction of ten detached residential units on fee simple lots along
Channing Avenue, including five surface parking stalls and ten two-car garages.
(c) Construction of a 0.20 acre park at the comer of Channing Avenue and St.
Francis Drive. The park shall include public access easement so that it would be a public
120313 dm0120529 2
\ )
park to be maintained by the commercial property owner in perpetuity. There shall not
be any use of the park for the purposes of the retail tenants.
(d) A Tentative Map to subdivide the 3.58 acre site into eleven parcels. The
first parcel (2.73 acres) would contain the existing grocery building, the other two retail
buildings ("Buildings 1 and 2") and the new 0.20 acre park. The park would include a
public access easement allowing use as a public park, and would be maintained by the
owner of the commercial parcel. The remaining ten parcels (ranging from 3,376 to 4,026
sq. ft.) would be created for the ten residences. Private easements would be provided for
the driveways and walkways.
SECTION 4.
The Development Plan for the Subject Property dated February 29,2012, and any
approved supplemental materials for the Subject Property, as submitted by the applicant
pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (pAMC §18.38.090), shall be subject to the
following permitted and conditional land uses and special limitations on land uses,
development standards, parking and loading requirements, modifications to the
development plans and provisions of public benefits outlined below, and conditions of
project approval, attached and incorporated as "Exhibit B".
(a)
as follows:
Permitted, Conditionally Permitted land uses shall be allowed and limited
Permitted Uses (subject to the limitations below under Section 4(b)):
(1) Ten residential units;
(2) Retail Services (excluding liquor stores);
(3) Eating and Drinking Services (excluding drive-in services);
(4) Personal Services;
(5) Neighborhood Business Services;
(6) Financial Services (excluding drive-up services);
(7) A 0.20 acre public park, via public access easements;
(8) Accessory facilities and activities customarily associated with or
essential to permitted uses, and operated incidental to the principal use.
Conditionally Permitted Uses:
(1) Small tutoring center or afterschool program center;
120313 drn 0120529 3
(2) Limited commercial recreation;
(3) Farmer's Markets or similar.
(b) Special limitations on land uses include the following:
(1) The 20,600 sq. ft. building shall be primarily used for grocery uses
only;
(2) No medical office shall be permitted within the development;
(3) No administrative office use shall be permitted within the
development;
(4) The "Retail" space as identified on the Development Plan shall be
occupied by retail uses, personal service uses, eating and drinking
services or customer serving financial services only, except where a
conditional use permit is required in accordance with 4(a).
(c) Development Standards:
Development Standards for the site shall comply with the standards
prescribed for the Planned Community (PC) Zone District (P AMC
Chapter 18.38) and as described in Section Three and Section Four herein
and in the Approved Development Plans.
(d) Parking and Loading Requirements:
120313 dm0120529
In addition to the parking and loading requirements specified in P AMC
§§18.52 and 18.54, a Transportation Demand Management Plan ("TDM")
Program shall be developed for the Project in accordance with P AMC
§18.52.050(d) for employees of the Project. The TDM plan shall include
bicycle, pedestrian and public transportation functions. The TDM plan
shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Community
Environment prior to issuance of building permits for the site and shall
include, at a minimum, offer for parking cash out, bike facilities,
transportation information kiosks, and the designation of a transportation
demand coordinator for the building.
The TDM program will include monitoring reports, which shall be
submitted to the Director not later than two years after building occupancy
and again not later than five years after building occupancy, noting the
effectiveness of the proposed measures as compared to the initial
performance targets, and suggestions for modifications if necessary to
enhance parking and/or trip reductions. Where the monitoring reports
indicate that performance measures are not met, the director may require
further program modifications.
4
( e) Modifications to the Development Plan and Site Development
Regulations:
Once the project has been constructed consistent with the approved
Development Plan, any modifications to the exterior design of the
Development Plan or any new construction not specifically permitted by
the Development Plan or the site development regulations contained in
Section 4 (a) -(c) above shall require an amendment to this Planned
Community zone, unless the modification is a minor change as described
in PAMC §18.76.050 (b) (3) (e), in which case the modification may be
approved through the minor Architectural Review process. Any use not
specifically permitted by this ordinance shall require an amendment to the
PC ordinance.
(f) Public Benefits:
Development of the site under the prOVISIOns of the PC Planned
Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable
by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts.
The Project includes the following public benefits that are inherent to the
Project and in excess of those required by City zoning districts.
(1) Preservation and renovation of an existing historically significant
shopping center developed by Eichler Homes, eligible for federal,
state and local historic registries;
(2) Provision of a grocery store in the 20,600 sq. ft. building;
(3) Provision of a 0.20 acre public park, via public access easements,
in perpetuity. (Land is dedicated for the ten units, plus an
additional 5,000 sq. ft., where an in-lieu fee could also be
proposed. The park would be maintained by the commercial
property owner.) The park shall not be used for seating/activities
associated with the retail uses.
(4) Provision of three (3) electrical vehicle (EY) charging stations
installed on site, subject to final City approval. The applicant shall
incur all costs of the installation.
(g) Development Schedule:
120313 dm 0120529
The project is required to include a Development Schedule pursuant to
PAMC §18.38.100. The approved Development Schedule is set forth
below:
Construction of the Project shall commence immediately following the
adoption of the PC zone, unless a change in the development schedule is
approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, not
5
\
)
to exceed a one year extension in time and only one such extension
without a hearing, pursuant to P AMC § 18.38.130. The total time for the
project construction and occupancy of tenant spaces is expected to be 24
months following adoption of the PC zone, or by March 2014, unless
extended by the Director for up to one additional year.
(h) No building permit shall be approved (other than for model homes with
no more than one model home per plan type) for residential development
prior to submittal to the Director of a lease agreement or other legally
binding commitment from a grocery operator to occupy 20,600 square
feet in the Grocery Building. The Lease Agreement shall require that
Occupancy of the grocery store shall occur not later than 15 months after
the issuance of the first building permit for the Grocery Building or 15
months after issuance of the first building permit for the residential
development (other than a model home). Final inspection and occupancy
shall be allowed for not more than 5 homes (including model homes)
prior to final inspection and occupancy approval for the grocery store.
Bonding or other financial security may be considered in lieu of these
requirements only upon review and approval by the City Council as an
amendment to this PC ordinance.
SECTION 5.
Tentative Map Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a
Tentative Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code
Section 66474):
1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and
specific plans as specified in Section 65451:
This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The site does not lie
within a specific plan area and is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive
Plan. The land use designation in the area of the subdivision is Neighborhood
Commercial and the zoning designation is Planned Community (PC) District. The
proposed development of the commercial and residential mixed use development is
consistent with the land use and zoning designations of the site.
2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not
consistent with applicable general and specific plans:
This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The map is consistent
with applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, particularly including: (1) Policy L-l -
Limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service
area; (2) Policy L-4 -Maintain Palo Alto's varied residential neighborhoods while
sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. Use the Zoning
Ordinance as a tool to enhance Palo Alto's desirable qualities; (3) Policy L-9 -Enhance
desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to
120313 dm0120529 6
\
/
create opportunities for new mixed use development; and (4) Policy B-27 -Support the
upgrading and revitalization of Palo Alto's four Neighborhood Commercial Centers.
3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development:
This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The site can
accommodate the proposed subdivision, as it is currently vacant, flat, and absent any
significant vegetation. The lots conform to the width, depth, and area requirements of this
Planned Community Zoning District. The design of the mixed use, commercial and
residential buildings require Architectural Review approval. The proposed development
was recommended for approval by the City Council from the Architectural Review Board
on February 2,2012.
4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development:
This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision would be
consistent with the site development regulations of this Planned
Community Zoning District and would not affect the location of the
existing property lines at the perimeter of the site.
5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements is likely
to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat:
This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision would
not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat, as
the site is currently fully developed with a vacant commercial
development. An Environmental Impact Report was adopted certifying
that there will be no significant unmitigated environmental impacts.
6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to
cause serious public health problems:
This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision of the
existing parcel for a commercial and residential mixed use development
will not cause serious public health problems.
7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through
or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection,
the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements,
for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially
equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection
shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by
judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby
granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has
120313 dm 0120529 7
acquired easements for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision.
This finding can not be made in the affirmative. The subdivision of the
existing parcel will not conflict with easements of any type, in that the
subdivision is compatible with adequate emergency vehicle access and
any utility easements that would be required to serve the proposed
developments.
SECTION 6.
Indenmification. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify
and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the
"indenmified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a
third party against the indenmified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void
this ordinance or any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including
(without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in
defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such
action with attorneys of its choice
SECTION 7.
Monitoring of Conditions and Public Benefits. Not later than three (3) years
following the approval of building occupancy by the City and every three (3) years
thereafter, the applicant shall request that the City review the project to assure that
conditions of approval and public benefits remain in effect as provided in the original
approval. The applicant shall provide adequate funding to reimburse the City for these
costs. If conditions or benefits are found deficient by staff, the applicant shall correct
such conditions in not more than 90 days from notice by the City. If correction is not
made within the prescribed timeframe, the Director of Planning and Community
Environment will schedule review of the project before the Planning and Transportation
Commission and Council to determine appropriate remedies, fines or other actions.
SECTION 8.
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project was prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council certified
the EIR and Mitigation Monitoring Program and adopted a resolution at its meeting of
March 19,2012.
SECTION 9.
The plans referenced consist of plans titled "Edgewood Shopping Center"
prepared by Kenneth Rodrigues & Partners, Burton Architecture, Sandis and the
Guzzardo Partnership, dated February 29, 2012, including the Tentative Map for
Edgewood Plaza, prepared by Sandis, dated February 15,2012.
SECTION 10.
120313 drn 0120529 8
This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its
adoption (second reading).
INTRODUCED: March 19,2012
PASSED: April 9, 2012
AYES: Burt, Espinosa, Klein, Price, Schmid, Shepherd, Yeh
NOES: Holman
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT: Scharff
ATTEST: APPROVED:
C:~-CL.-~y
~Clerk
D :zt; <:~RM:
Assistant City Attome;=:::::::-:
~~~
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
120313 dm 0120529 9
T I. C i L~ .r
Palo Alto
Edgewood Plaza
Location Map
Exhibit A
--•
\ ;
ExhihitB
RECOMMENDED DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
2080 Channing Avenue -Edgewood Plaza! File No. 10PLN-00198
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
Planning and Transportation Divisions
1. The plans submitted to obtain all pem1its through the Building Inspection Division shall be
in substantial conformance with the revised plans, project details and materials received on
March 22,2012, except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval.
2. All conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set submitted to
obtain any permit through the Building Inspection Division.
3. Construction details, colors, materials, and placement ofthe shopping center signs and roof
mounted equipment shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review prior to
submittal of the building permit.
4. A subsequent Architectural Review Permit shall be required for the relocated sign and other
new signs related to this project.
5. The project shall be subject to applicable Development In1pact Fees, which would be due
prior to issuance of the building permit. The applicable impact fees would be calculated
based upon the fee structure in place at the time of building permit submittal.
6. The developer shall submit and implement a Transportation Demand Management program
to the satisfaction ofthe Planning and Community Environment Director.
7. Sheet T-I_Tree Protection-it's Part ofthe Plan (http://www.city.palo
alto.ca.us/arb/planning forms.htrnl). Complete the Tree Disclosure Statement and
Inspection(s) #1-6 shall be checked.
8. Applicant shall file a tree removal permit for the trees planned for removal.
9. The entire Tree Preservation Report approved by staff, shall be printed on Sheet T-1 and/or
T -2 (all sheets). A note shall be applied to the site plan stating, "All measures identified in
the Tree Protection Report on Sheet T -1 and the approved plans shall be implemented,
including inspections and required watering of trees.
10. Maintenance: All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned
according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2001 or current version).
Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the
current property owner within 30 days of discovery.
11. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a final detailed landscaping plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval, specifying exact species,
numbers and location of all plant materials.
12. The planting palette shall be modified as follows:
• Specify Elegant Tristania, replacing the Tristaniopis laurina.
• Do not use Liquidambars in small areas or planters. The species forms multiple
leaders and hardscape damaging root system. Replace with other fall color species
such as, Sour Gum, Shumard Oak or similar.
• All trees should be 24" box size as a minimum.
• Justify the use of century plant, in both large spatial area needed and safety from the
potentially lethal spear-like foliage. Or, select another species better suited for these
populated areas.
13. All parking lot median islands that are ~ccupied with trees, shrubs and ground covers and
surrounded by raised curb shall specify:
• Materials, concrete or asphalt on grade
• Specify discontinuous curb (planned breaks in the curb every 3 vehicle spaces) in all
formed curb lengths. Intent to drain or capture water runoff, allow capacity spillover
and plant/soil filtration of water runoff.
14. Screening of all above ground utilities is required, especially around water check valves and
backflow preventers near the sidewalks and property lines. Creative use of shrubbery and
species encouraged.
15. Other conditions of approval that are site and landscape related will be provided for
submittal of the building permits.
16. The parking lot median islands shall incorporate discontinuous curbs (planned eight inch
breaks in the curb every three vehicle spaces) to allow for filtration of water runoff.
17. Prior to the submittal of abuilding permit, the applicant shall submit documentation
demonstrating that all noise producing equipment proposed for the project shall meet the
City's Noise Ordinance requirement.
18. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the ten single-family residences
shall include a provision that requires all future owners to maintain the private garages so
that two cars may be parked inside at all times. The CC&Rs shall be reviewed by the
Planning Director and City Attorney for approval prior to approval of the Final Map.
19. To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its
City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties) from against any
claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the
applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the
Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and
\
)
costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to
defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
20. Lighting shall not exceed 0.5 foot-candle as measured at the abutting residential property
line. Lighting fixtures shall not exceed a height of 15 feet in the parking lot.
21. Prior to the issuance of a Building Permit application, the applicant shall return to the ARB
subcommittee and obtain feedback and/or approval on the following items:
• Final landscaping plan
• Street furniture
• Trellis details
22. All property line fences shall meet the requirements of the Mlmicipal Code
23. Integral color shall be used for the stucco.
24. The lighting shall be corrected so that the photometric plans show that light will not spill
beyond the residential property line
25. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the ten single-family residences
shall include a provision that requires all future owners to maintain the private garages so
that two cars may be parked inside at all times. The CC&Rs shall be reviewed by the
Planning Director and City Attorney for approval prior to approval of the Final Map.
26. No restrictions shall be placed on the commercial or residential surface parking spaces that
will prevent park users from using those spaces.
27. The rehabilitation of the proposed sign shall be reviewed by the Historic Resources Board
for their recommendation.
28. A Final Map, in conformance with the approved Tentative Map, all requirements of the
Subdivision Ordinance (PAMC Section 21.16), and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,
shall be filed with the Planning Division and the Public Works Engineering Division within
two years of the Tentative Map approval date (PAM C 21.13.020 [ c ]).
29. A Below Market Rate agreement shall be executed prior to City Council Action on the
Final Map and recorded concurrently with the subdivision agreement and map.
30. Prior to the recordation of a Final Map, the applicant shall execute and record a Park
Maintenance Agreement for the proposed public park to the satisfaction of the Director of
the Community Services Department.
Sustainability Requirements
31. The project is required to comply with P AMC 16.14 for green building. Building permit
plans shall include compliance with the Greenpoint Rated Checklist -as locally amended -
\ )
for the residential portion ofthe project and the California Green Building Code Checklist
as locally amended -for the nonresidential portion of the project. These requirements
incorporate minimum standards for landscape water efficiency (note that the installation of a
dedicated irrigation meter for all landscape with an approved backflow prevention device will
be required) and energy performance among other things. For more information visit
www.cityofpaloalto.orglgreenbuilding.
32. The project is required to comply with P AMC 16.12.030 for recycled water infrastructure.
Building permit plans shall include the on-site infrastructure necessary to connect the site's
irrigation system to the city's recycled water supply when it becomes available. Plans shall
demonstrate that recycled water will be used when available, and include consideration for
plants that are recycled water tolerant
Transportation Division
33. A Transportation Demand Management plan shall be submitted for the approval of the
Planning Director prior to the issuance of a building permit. In addition to the annual
report, the project applicant and/or Edgewood Plaza owner will conduct a parking
monitoring program for a minimum of six months after full occupancy of the retail portion
ofthe Edgewood Plaza site, or as directed by the City of Palo Alto Director of Planning and
Community Environment. The monitoring program will record the number of parked
vehicles during the anticipated peak times of 11 :00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 8:00
p.m. If parking demand is found to exceed parking supply, one or more of the following
strategies will be employed as a part of the project's Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) program tplimit parking spillover:
• Offer parking cash-out (financial payment) to employees who forego their parking space
on-site and get to work by carpooling, bicycling, walking, or taking transit; and/or
• Increase use ofTDM measures (such as facilitating a carpool matching service for
employees on site).
The hours of loading shall be consistent with the Municipal Code. The need for traffic
calming, including the installation of speed humps on Channing Avenue, shall be evaluated
by the City approximately a year after occupancy.
34. One level 3 electric vehicle charging station and two level 2 electric charging stations shall
be provided on site.
35. Bicycle racks must be installed to the satisfaction ofthe Transportation Division. The
project shall include four double loaded bike racks (8 bike capacity) within 50 feet ofthe
main entrance of the Grocery Store. The rack closest to the pedestrian ramp must be located
with at least 5 feet of clear landing area from the ADA accessible ramp connecting to the
parking lot pedestrian path.
36. Parking stalls closest to St. Francis Drive that are 15'6" in depth must have a low curb and
at least two feet of clear overhang.
37. The project shall include raised islands and median striping enhancements at intersection of
West Bayshore/Embarcadero intersection (West Bayshore right-tum only).
38. The project shall include off-site crosswalk and curb ramp improvements at intersection of
st. Francis I Channing.
39. Signing and striping modifications per mitigation measure identified on Embarcadero
between st. Francis and Wildwood shall be included.
40. Bicycle improvements are recommended along West Bayshore including share the road
signage and pavement markings.
41. A left turn sign shall be installed on West Bayshore Road, north of Channing subject to the
review ofthe Transportation Division.
42. Modify the traffic signal on Embarcadero Road at Saint Francis Drive to provide left tum
signal phasing from Embarcadero Road to Saint Francis Drive.
43. Preserve the vehicular access between the project site and the adjacent gas station site at the
existing site connection, with no net loss of vehicle parking spaces on the shopping center
site.
Building Division
44. Architectural Comments: On sheet AI.O, Project Data: list the following information on
the plans for all the (N) and (E) structures:
• Building Occupancy Group:
• Type of Construction:
• Number of Stories:
• Building Area:
• Sprinklered: (YIN)
45. On sheet AI.O, Conceptual Site Plan: provide a revised site plan showing the proposed lot
line adjustments to be made for this project. Currently, this project is located on two legal
parcels and the proposed residential units #3 & 4 both straddle the current lot line and is
not allowed. Show on the revised Site Plan the lots lines that divides the ten (10)
residential units into separate parcels.
46. On sheet AI.O, Project Data: provide an allowable area analysis for the (E) Grocery
Building as it appears that it can no longer take advantage of the three (3) sides open for
area increase. In addition, provide the allowable area calculations for Retail Buildings 1
& 2. Show if the buildings are to be considered as parts of one building on the lot or
multiple buildings on one lot with assumed property lines between the buildings. If the
latter is the case, then clearly show on the Site Plan the location of the assumed property
line.
\
/
47. Structural Comments: A geotechnical report is required for the construction of the new
location ofthe relocated Commercial building.
48. General Comment: The completed plan submittal package should be sent to an approved
Outside Plan Check Consultant for plan review.
49. Additional accessible parking spaces are required due to the total number of required
parking spaces. At least 6 are required when there are 151 to 200 parking stalls. Show
location of dispersed accessible parking spaces and provide the accessible path of travel
to the building located such that those persons with disabilities are not compelled to walk
or wheel behind parked cars other than their own. CBC 1129B.4.3,'CBC 1129B.1
50. Based on the scope of work for this project the City of Palo Alto has the option to require
the applicant to utilize a third party plan check firm to conduct the building code plan
review. A list of plan check agencies approved by the City of Palo Alto is available at the
Development Center. The City of Palo Alto Building plan check fees are reduced by 35%
when a 3rd party plan check agency is utilized.
51. The Building Permit Plans shall be prepared by a licensed architect. When the plans are
submitted for a building permit, be sure to include the full scope of work including all site
development, disabled access and exiting for the entire site, utility installations,
architectural, structural, electrical, plumbing, mechanical work associated with the
proposed project. The plans shall include the allowable floor area and entire building area
calculations on the project data sheet and where there are multiple occupancies, provide
unity calculations for either separated or non-separated uses.
EIR Mitigation Measures
52. MM CR-2.1: Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) Level III documentation of
the exterior of Buildings 1 and 2 and their setting shall be prepared by the applicant and
project consultants prior to the relocation of Building 1 and remodeling of Building 2.
Following the HABS guidelines, this documentation shall include:
• Sketch plan of the existing site and reproduction of original drawings.
• Up to 12 large-format photographs (4 by 5 inches) of exterior view.
• A written summary of project site's history.
• Transmittal of one set of documents to the City's Historic Resources Planner and
to a relevant local historical society, library or repository.
• The documentation shall be filed by the applicant prior to the start of construction
53. MM CR-2.2: The applicant shall create a display illustrating the history of the Edgewood
Plaza as built by Eichler Homes, prior to approval of final occupancy.
54. MM CR-2.3: 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 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.
55. Air Quality MM AQ-l.l: The following mitigation measures shall be implemented during
all phases of construction on the project site to prevent visible dust emissions from leaving
the site:
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is
prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or
soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to five minutes (as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of
Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all
access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible
emissions evaluator.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead
agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action
within 48 hours. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations.
56. Biological Resources MM BIO-l.l: In compliance with the MBTA and the California Fish
and Game Code, the proposed project shall implement the following measures:
• Pre-construction surveys shall be completed by a qualified ornithologist to identify
active nests that may be disturbed during project implementation. All potential nesting
areas (trees, tall shrubs) shall be surveyed no more than 30 days prior to tree removal or
pruning, ifthe activity will occur within the breeding season (February 1 -August 31).
If more than 30 days pass between the completion of the preconstruction survey and the
initiation of construction activities, the preconstruction survey shall be completed again
and repeated at 30 day intervals until construction activities are initiated.
• If an active nest is observed, tree removal and pruning shall be postponed until all the
young have fledged. An exclusion zone shall be established around the nest site, in
consultation with the California Department ofFish and Game (CDFG). Exclusion
zones for active passerine (songbirds) nests shall have a 50-foot radius centered on the
nest tree or shrub.
• Active nests shall be monitored weekly until the young fledge. No construction
activities,
• parking, staging, material storage, or other disturbance shall be allowed within the
exclusion zones until the young have fledged from the nest.
57. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-1.1: Considering the property will be
redeveloped and that potentially regulated soils may be encountered during site preparation
activities, a Soil Management Plan (SMP) shall be prepared to reduce or eliminate exposure
risk to human health and the environment. The SMP shall be developed to establish
management practices for handling contaminated soil or other materials if encountered
during construction activities. The SMP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of
Palo Alto prior to commencing construction activities.
58. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-1.2: Each contractor working at the site shall
prepare a health and safety plan (HSP) that addresses the safety and health hazards of each
phase of site operations that includes the requirements and procedures for employee
protection.
59. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-1.3: At the time Building 1 is moved, soil and
groundwater samples, and/or soil vapor samples, if appropriate, shall be obtained from
under 2125 Saint Francis Drive (the former Moon Cleaners) to ensure that soil exceeding
the applicable levels for tetrachloroethene (PCE) and its breakdown products is not present
within five feet ofthe ground surface. PCE-affected soil shall be removed by properly
trained and licensed personnel and contractors, in conformance with procedures in the soil
management plan (MM HAZ-l) prior to paving the area. Contaminated soil will be
handled by trained personnel using appropriate protective equipment and engineering
controls, in accordance with local, state, and federal laws. An excavation base confirmation
sample will be collected and analyzed to document sufficient soils removal.
Documentation of removal ofPCE-affected soil shall be provided to the City of Palo Alto
and appropriate oversight agencies prior to installation of pavement in the parking lot area.
60. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-l.4: Excavated soils will be characterized
prior to off-site disposal or reuse on-site. Appropriate soil characterization, storage,
transportation, and disposal procedures shall be followed. Contaminated soils shall be
disposed of at a licensed facility in accordance with all appropriate local, state, and federal
regulations, in accordance with its characteristics.
61. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-1.5: The applicant shall prepare a contingency
plan prior to the beginning of the project construction that will address any previously
unknown sumps, hydraulic hoists, or tanks that may be present in the area of work.
62. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-2.1: In conformance with local, state, and
federal laws, an asbestos building survey and a lead-based paint survey shall be completed
by a qualified professional to determine the presence of ACMs and/or lead-based paint on
the structures proposed for renovation. The surveys shall be completed prior to work
beginning on these structures.
63. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-2.2: A registered asbestos abatement
contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of all potentially friable asbestos
containing materials, in accordance with the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP) guidelines, prior to building relocation or renovation that may
disturb the materials. All construction activities shall be undertaken in accordance with
Cal/OSHA standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR),
Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Materials containing more
than one percent asbestos are also subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) regulations.
64. Hazards and Hazardous Materials MM HAZ-2.3: During renovation activities, all building
materials containing lead-based paint shall be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead
in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR 1532.1, including employee training, employee air
monitoring and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings
shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed.
65. Hydrology and Water Quality MM HYDRO-1.1: Construction ofthe proposed project on
site will comply with the City of Palo Alto Flood Hazard Ordinance, including elevation of
habitable spaces above anticipated flood levels, as listed in the Municipal Code, Section
16.52, Flood Hazard Regulations. All project plans must show the base flood elevations on
all applicable elevations, sections, and details, and must comply with all other requirements
as listed in the ordinance.
66. Hydrology and Water Quality MM HYDRO-l.2: Construction of the proposed project on
site will comply with the requirements of the Federal Emergency Management Agency for
flood hazard areas.
67. Hydrology and Water Quality MM HYDRO-2.1 : Erosion and Sedimentation Control: The
following erosion and sediment control measures, based upon Best Management Practices
recommended by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, shall be included in the
project to reduce potential construction-related water quality impacts. Many of these
measures are the same as or similar to measures required to reduce air quality impacts.
Erosion and sedimentation control plans shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading or building permits.
• Stormwater inlet protection will be installed around storm drain inlets to keep sediment
• and other debris out of the stormwater drainage system.
• All exposed or disturbed soil surfaces will be watered at least twice daily to control dust
as necessary.
• Earthmoving or other dust-producing activities will be suspended during periods of high
winds (instantaneous gusts exceed 25 miles per hour).
• Stockpiles of soil or other materials that can be blown by the wind will be watered or
covered.
• All trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials will be covered and all trucks
will be required to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
• All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas adjacent to the construction
sites will be swept daily with water sweepers.
• Vegetation in disturbed areas will be replanted as quickly as possible.
68. Hydrology and Water Quality MM HYDRO-2.2: Post-Construction Mitigation: The
following mitigation measures, and City of Palo Alto requirements, are included in the
proposed project to ensure compliance with NPDES permit requirements to reduce
postconstruction water quality impacts:
• All onsite trash enclosures shall have roofs.
• Storm runoff from the site shall be treated prior to discharge to the City of Palo Alto
stormwater system. (Treatment mayor may not include the use of mechanical
devices.)
• An annual post-construction maintenance agreement shall be prepared and submitted
to the Public Works Department prior to issuance of grading or building permits.
• The commercial development shall implement regular maintenance activities (i.e.,
litter control and maintaining on-site drainage facilities) to prevent soil and litter from
accumulating on the project site and contaminating surface runoff.
• Landscape maintenance shall employ minimal pesticide use, including landscape
maintenance techniques listed in the Fact Sheet on Landscape Maintenance
Techniques for Pest Reduction prepared by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff
Pollution Prevention Program.
69. MM NOISE-I. I : Sound-rated windows, doors, and exterior wall assemblies will be used in
residential building construction to reduce interior noise from outdoor sources to the 45 dB
DNL and Lmax 50/55 dB criteria. Specific details and sound insulation ratings shall be
determined during the design phase, when the final site, grading and floor plans, and
exterior elevations have been detennined. An acoustical consultant shall review drawings
during the design phase and finalize appropriate noise control treatments, which will be
submitted to the City of Palo Alto Building Division along with the building plans, and
approved prior to issuance of building pennits.
70. Noise MM NOI-1.2: Dual pane windows and doors with equal glass thicknesses can have
resonances that result in audible tones indoors. Acoustical test reports of all sOtmd rated
windows and doors shall be reviewed by an acoustical consultant, and compared with
traffic noise spectrums, prior to approval.
71. Noise MM NOI-1.3: Since windows will have to be closed to maintain the interior noise
goals, "ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment,"
even with windows closed, shall be included in the project (i.e., windows shall not be relied
upon for ventilation).
72. Noise MM NOI-l.4: Overall outdoor noise in yards is expected to be between DNL 60 and
65 dBA, based on a combination of local and distant transportation sources. Since the
proposed residences would include private fenced yards, six foot tall noise barriers shall be
incorporated where plans currently show walls or fences separating private yards from the
adjacent roadways. Barriers should be solid from bottom to top with no cracks or gaps, and
a minimum surface density of three pounds per square foot.
73. Noise MM NOI-1.5: Residential mechanical equipment shall be selected and located to
meet the property line limits in the City's Noise Ordinance. If detennined to be necessary
during the design phase and the acoustical review described in MM NOISE-I. 1 , additional
measures may consist of equipment barriers and/or enclosures.
74. Noise MM NOI-2.l: Measures shall be included in the renovation of the commercial
buildings to reduce noise impacts at nearby residences, in confonnance with the Palo Alto
Noise Ordinance. These measures would be finalized during the design phase and
acoustical analysis (as described in Mitigation Measure MM NOISE-I. 1), submitted to the
City of Palo Alto Building Division along with the building plans, and approved prior to
issuance of building pennits. These measures could include:
• Solid noise barriers along the north and east sides (the eastern wall extending south
alongside delivery trucks) ofthe loading dock, combined with a shed roof. These
barriers would reduce the estimated noise levels from unloading activities to the
allowable limits in the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance.
• The roof and walls shall be lined with a sound absorbing material (for example,
perforated metal panels, such as Kinetics KNP, or a spray on material, such as Pyrok
Acoustement 40, applied to a thickness of 1-112").
75. MM NOISE-2.2: Trucks entering and leaving the site must pass close to a residential
property line. As they do, they are likely to exceed the noise ordinance limits. Although it
may not be feasible to completely eliminate this noise, the following measures would
reduce this impact:
• Limit deliveries to daytime hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
• Communicate to vendors that their drivers will be operating close to residences, so they
limit noise (e.g., avoid excess idling, high engine speeds, un-necessary backing, etc.)
• Provide a full disclosure statement to the owners of residential Lots #9 and #10 to make
them aware that trucks entering and leaving the site may generate noise levels in excess
ofthe Noise Ordinance limits. This disclosure would be incorporated by the project
applicant into the deeds for these residential properties.
76. MM NOISE-3.1: Mechanical equipment shall be selected, designed, and located so as to
minimize impacts on adjacent and nearby residential uses. This can be accomplished by
locating noise generating equipment away from residential uses or by providing acoustical
shielding. Preliminary estimates suggest that solid rooftop screens or noise barriers will be
needed. An acoustical specialist will review the mechanical equipment plans prior to
construction to confirm that the City's Noise Ordinance would be met at the residential
property line. These plans will be submitted to the City of Palo Alto Building Division, and
approved prior to issuance of building permits.
77. Transportation MM TRANS-I. 1 : Because of signal spacing considerations, a traffic signal
is not recommended at this intersection. To mitigate this impact, the proposed project will
restripe Embarcadero Road to create a left turn receiving lane. As part ofthe project left
turn lane improvements at the Embarcadero Road/Saint Francis Drive intersection, a left
turn receiving area will be built at Wildwood Lane. This will facilitate outbound left turns
and reduce left turn delay, which would reduce the project impact to a less than significant
level.
78. Avoidance Measures
a. Biological Resources CONDITION BIO-2.1: A Tree Preservation Report (TPR) will be
prepared for trees to be preserved and protected, consistent with Policy N -7 of the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan. An updated tree survey and tree preservation report (TPR)
prepared by a certified arborist shall be submitted for review and acceptance by the City
Urban Forester. The TPR incorporate the following measures, safeguards and
information:
• The TPR shall be based on latest plans and amended as needed to address activity
or improvements within the dripline area, including but not limited to incidental
work (utilities trenching, street work, lighting, irrigation, patio material, leveling,
etc.) that may affect the health of the trees. The project shall be modified to
address TPR concerns and recommendations identified to minimize below ground
or above ground impacts.
• The TPR shall be consistent with the criteria set forth in the tree preservation
ordinance, P AMC 8.10.030 and the City'S Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00,
4.00 and 6.30 http://www.cityofpaloalto.orglenvironment/urban _ canopy. asp.
• To avoid improvements that may be detrimental to the health of the trees the TPR
shall review the applicant's landscape plan to ensure that patio flat work,
irrigation, planting or potted plants is consistent with the Tree Technical Manual.
The approved TPR shall be implemented in full, including mandatory inspections
and monthly reporting to City Urban Forester.
b. Biological Resources CONDITION BIO-2.2: Provide optimum public tree replacement
for loss of one or more public street trees. Publicly owned trees are growing in the right
of-way along Saint Francis Drive, Channing Avenue, and West Bayshore Road. Provide
mitigation in the event of a public tree removal. The new frontage should be provided
maximum streetscape design and materials to include the following elements:
• Consistency with the Public Works Department Tree Management Program.
Provide adequate room for tree canopy growth and root growing volume
resources.
• Create conflict-free planting sites by locating tree sites and underground utility
services at least 1 a-feet apart (electric, gas, sewer, water, fiber optic, telecom,
etc.).
• Utilize city-approved best management practices for sustainability products, such
as permeable ADA sidewalk, Silva Cell planters, engineered soil mix base,
generous planter soil volume (800 to 1,200 cubic feet) to sustain a medium to
large tree.
c. Noise CONDITION NOI-4.1: The following mitigation measures are included in the
project to further reduce construction noise impacts on neighboring properties:
• Equip all internal combustion engine-driven equipment with mufflers, which are
in good condition and appropriate for the equipment;
• Prohibit all unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines;
• Route construction related traffic to and from the site via designated truck routes
and avoid residential streets where possible;
• Utilize "quiet" models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where
technology exists;
• Locate all stationary noise-generating equipment, such as air compressors and
portable power generators, as far away as possible from adjacent land uses;
• Shield adjacent sensitive uses from stationary equipment with individual noise
barriers or partial acoustical enclosures;
• Temporary noise barriers (e.g., solid plywood fences (minimum 8 feet in height)
and/or acoustical blankets could be erected, if necessary, along affected property
boundaries facing the construction site. This mitigation would only be necessary if
conflicts occurred which were irresolvable by proper scheduling. Noise control
blanket barriers can be rented and quickly erected;
• Locate staging areas and construction material storage areas as far away as
possible from adjacent sensitive land uses;
• Designate a "disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for responding
to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator will
determine the cause ofthe noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, bad muffler,
etc.) and will require that reasonable measures warranted to correct the problem be
implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number for the disturbance
coordinator at the construction site and include it in the notice sent to neighbors
regarding the construction schedule;
• Hold a preconstruction meeting with the job inspectors and the general
contractor/on-site project manager to confirm that noise mitigation and practices
(including construction hours, construction schedule, and noise coordinator) are
completed.
Utilities Water Gas Wastewater
79. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit
loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity
fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may
not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures.
80. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters
including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within
10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the
building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected
and removed.
81. The applicant shall submit a completed separate water-gas-wastewater service connection
application -load sheets for each commercial tenant space or residential unit for City of
Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility
service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture
units/g.p.d.).
82. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must
show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the
public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements,
sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. All
water meters shall be in the public right-of-way (sidewalk or planting strip). All WGW
utility services shall be from Saint Francis Drive or Channing Avenue.
83. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be
placed over existing or new water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain l'
horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as
found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaultslbases shall
be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions.
84. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e.
water well, gray water, recYGled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc).
85. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains
and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes
all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the
utility mains and/or services.
86. Sewer drainage piping serving fixtures located less than one foot above the next upstream
sewer main manhole cover shall be protected by an approved backwater valve per
California Plumbing Code 710.0. The upstream sewer main manhole rim elevation shall
be shown on the plans.
87. Flushing of the fire system to sanitary sewer shall not exceed 30 GPM. Higher flushing
rates shall be diverted to a detention tank to achieve the 30 GPM flow to sewer.
88. Sewage ejector pumps shall meet the following conditions:
• The pump( s) be limited to a total 100 GPM capacity or less.
• The sewage line changes to a 4" gravity flow line at least 20' from the City clean out.
• The tank and float is set up such that the pump run time not exceed 20 seconds each
cycle.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
89. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study
showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will
provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the
development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing
may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main.
Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer.
90. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall
submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the
installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance
with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of
way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a
registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work,
method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for
approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be
allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been
approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is
complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of
the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto
Utilities record drawing procedures.
91. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at
the applicant's expense.
92. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with the
installation of the new utility service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities.
The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be
performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation.
93. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans.
94. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection
shown on the plans.
95. A separate water meter and backflow preventer shall be installed to irrigate the approved
landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall
be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the
account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading
or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards.
96. An approved reduce pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is
required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply
with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605
inclusive. The RPP A shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the
water meter, within 5' of the property line. Show the location of the RPPA on the
plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply
pipe between the meter and the assembly. The applicant shall provide the City with
current test certificates for all backflows.
97. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water
connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative
code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. reduced pressure detector
assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within
5' of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly
on the plans. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the
supply pipe between the City connection and the assembly.
98. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location(s) on the
plans. The gas meter location must conform with utilities standard details. The gas
meters shall be located above ground on private property against the building as close to
Saint Francis or Channing as possible.
99. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private
property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa
Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies ofthe public utilities
easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development.
100. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at
the main per WOW utilties procedures before any new utility services are installed.
101. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards
for water, gas & wastewater.
102. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall
prepare and submit to the WOW engineering section of the Utilities Department as-built
drawings of the installation of water and wastewater utilities to be owned and maintained
by the City in accordance with:
• Two sets of as-built drawings (hard copies).
• As-built drawings in 2008 or 2010 AutoCAD format.
• As-built drawings in .tiffformat.
• Survey points in .csv format for all new utility features.
Note: All survey data shall be collected by a California Licensed Land Surveyor. The
surveyor is responsible to setup all control points needed to perform the survey work.
The accuracy for all survey data shall be +/-1cm.
103. Survey data to be collected (what's applicable):
• Collect horizontal and vertical data for:
• Sanitary sewer manholes (rim and invert elevations and depth)
• Storm drain manholes and catch basins (rim and invert elevations and depth)
• Water valves (cover and stem elevations)
104. Collect horizontal data only for:
• Service or lateral connection points at the main
• Fire hydrants
• Water meters
• Sanitary sewer cleanout boxes
105. Use CPAU WOW Engineering's "feature codes" for naming convention available from
CPAU WGW Engineering 1007 Elwell Ct, Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 566-4501. All
drawings and survey data shall be on the California State Plane Coordinate System -Zone
3 in units of feet. The horizontal datum shall be the North American Datum of 1983
(NAD83) and the vertical datum shall be based on Bestor 93.
Fire Department
106. Applicant shall follow all mitigation measures outlined in the EIR.
107. Fire Department recommends a contingency plan be put in place to deal with any
previously undiscovered soil contamination, sumps, hydraulic hoists or tanks that may be
present in the area of work. The plan shall be submitted to the Fire Department prior to
the issuance of a building permit.
Public Works Engineering
108. Flood Zone: The proposed improvements are located within Special Flood Hazard Areas
AH 11.9 & AH 12.2. Please make sure the submitted plans accurately reflect the flood
zone designation. Accordingly, the proposed construction must meet all ofthe City's and
Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) requirements for construction within
a flood zone, such as: the finished bottom floor must be at or above the base flood
elevation (BFE); the crawl space (if used) must have flood vents; and all construction
materials and equipment below the BFE must be water-resistant. Garage slabs can be
below the BFE, but the garage will then need flood vents. See Palo Alto Municipal Code
Section 16.52, Flood Hazard Regulations, and our website for more information. The
plans must show the BFE on all applicable elevations, sections and details; must include a
calculation of the required amount of flood vents; must include the flood vents on the
elevations and foundation plan; must note all materials below the BFE as water-resistant;
and must include the Elevation Certification Submittal Requirements for Construction in
the Special Flood Hazard Area form, which is available from Public Works at the
Development Center or on our website. Please note that FEMA recently (May 2009)
changed the vertical datum of the flood zones. You must use the new vertical datum
(NA VD88) on plans submitted for a building permit.
109. Substantial Improvement: The existing structures are located within a Special Flood
Hazard Area. If the construction cost of the improvements (remodeling and/or addition)
is greater than 50% of the depreciated existing value of the structure, then the
improvements will be classified as a "substantial improvement" and the existing structure
and all new construction will be required to meet the City's Flood Hazard Regulations. In
particular, the finished first floor must be at or above the base flood elevation (BFE). If
the project is a "substantial improvement", then upon submittal for a building permit, the
applicant must provide a copy of the FEMA Elevation Certificate showing that the
existing finished first floor is at or above the BFE or, if the floor is below the BFE, the
plans must show the floor being raised. The plans must include:
• The Elevation Certification Submittal Requirements for Construction in the Special
Flood Hazard Area form
• The BFE on sections, elevations and details
• Flood vents, if there is a crawl space
• A table calculating the flood vents required and provided
• If the crawl space is sub grade , meaning that the bottom of the crawl space is below
the adjacent exterior grade on all four sides ofthe house, then it must be filled in until
it is either no longer subgrade or until it is 18" from the floor framing (to meet the
minimum CBC requirement)
• If the crawl space is still subgrade after filling, then include a sump, pump and outlet
pipe to pump flood waters out
• The garage slab can be below the BFE, but the garage will then need to be flood
vented separately from the house
• Notes that all materials and equipment below the BFE are water-resistant
110. Public Works will prepare a flood zone screening form, including a "substantial
improvement" screening form, at the Development Center when plans are submitted for a
building permit. In order to determine if your project is a "substantial improvement"
prior to submitting for a building permit, you can have a preliminary screening performed
by Public Works' staff at the Development Center.
111. Conceptual Grading, Drainage, C.3 and SWPPP Plan: To verify the project adequately
addresses grading, drainage and surface water infiltration, the applicant is required to
submit a conceptual site grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering (PWE)
prior to the final ARB submittal. The plan must demonstrate that site runoff is conveyed
to the nearest adequate municipal storm drain system and that drainage is not increased
onto, nor blocked from, neighboring properties. The plan must also include a conceptual
storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), including the permanent best
management practices (BMP's) to protect storm water quality and control runoff per the
C.3 provisions of the Grading Ordinance (see C.3 below). Resources and handouts are
available from PWE, including "Planning Your Land Development Project". The
elements of the PWE-approved conceptual grading and drainage plan shall be
incorporated into the building permit plans.
112. Subdivision Maps: A Tentative Map and a Final Map are required for the proposed
development. The applicant shall submit an application for a major subdivision with the
Planning Division. Public Works' Major Subdivision -Tentative Map checklist must
accompany the Tentative Map and the Major Subdivision -Final Map checklist must
accompany the Final Map. All existing and proposed dedications and easements must be
shown on the maps. A digital copy of the Final Map, in AutoCAD format, shall be
submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall conform to North American Datum
1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NA VD 1988 for vertical
survey controls.
113. Improvement Plans: The applicant shall arrange a meeting with the Public Works
Engineering, Water/GaslW astewater and Electric Utilities Engineering, Planning, and
Transportation Divisions and the Fire Department to determine what on-site and off-site
public improvements will be required. The off-site improvements required by Public
Works Engineering will include at minimum: replacement of the sidewalk, curb & gutter
along the frontages of the site; the installation of curb ramps and street trees; and the
resurfacing of the street (2" grind & overlay) along the project frontages. Improvement
plans must be completed, approved and signed prior to the Final Map going to City
Cotmcil for approval.
114. Subdivision Improvement Agreement: A subdivision improvement agreement is required
to secure compliance with the conditions of approval and security of the onsite and offsite
public improvements. The agreement must be finalized and signed prior to the Final Map
going to City Council for approval.
115. Bonds: The developer shall post bonds to guarantee the completion of the onsite and
offsite public improvements. The applicant must submit a construction cost estimate for
the onsite and offsite public improvements. The amount of the bond shall be determined
by the Planning, Utilities and Public Works Departments after reviewing the plans and the
estimate. The bonds must be submitted prior to the Final Map going to City Council for
approval.
116. Developer's Project Manager: The subdivision includes significant complexity involving
coordination of infrastructure design and construction. Developer shall appoint a Project
Manager to coordinate with Planning, Public Works and Utility Department staff. Public
Works will have regular communication with the Project Manager in order to facilitate
timely review and approval of design and construction.
Prior to Final ARB Submittal
117. Flood Zone: The applicant shall arrange a meeting with the Public Works Engineering
Division to verify compliance with the FEMA flood zone construction requirements
regarding all new construction as well as remodeling of existing retail buildings.
Grading & Building Submittal
118. Grading & Excavation Permit: A Grading and Excavation Permit is required for the
project. A grading permit only authorizes grading and storm drain improvements,
therefore, the following note shall be included on each grading permit plan sheet: "This
grading permit will only authorize general grading and installation of the storm drain
system. Other building and utility improvements are shown for reference information
only and are subject to a separate building permit approval." No utility infrastructure
should be shown inside the building footprints.
119. Storm Drains: The existing municipal storm drainage system in the area may be unable to
convey the peak runoff from the project site. The applicant may be required to provide
)
stonn water detention on-site to lessen the project's impact on city stonn drains. The
applicant's engineer shall provide stonn drain flow and detention calculations, including
pre-project and post-project conditions. The calculations must be signed and stamped by
a registered civil engineer.
120. C3: This project shall comply with the stonn water regulations contained in provision C.3
of the NPDES municipal stonn water discharge pennit issued by the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code
Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development projects that create or
replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the
potential pennanent impacts of the project on stonn water quality, the applicant shall
incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and
treatment controls that serve to protect stonn water quality, subject to the approval of the
Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate
pennanent stonn water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based
treatment controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and penneable pavement rather than
mechanical devices that require long-tenn maintenance) to treat the runoff from a "water
quality stonn" specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal
stonn drain system. In addition, the applicant shall designate a party to maintain the
control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance
agreement with the City. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge
an inspection fee.
121. UPDATE: New regulations regarding third-party certifications of stonn water treatment
designs and installations went into effect 211 0111. Prior to the issuance of the building
pennit, the project applicant shall submit a certification by a qualified third-party reviewer
that the design of the project complies with the requirements of P AMC Chapter 16.11.
Prior to issuance of an occupancy pennit, the project applicant shall submit a certification
by a qualified third-party reviewer that the project's pennanent stonn water pollution
prevention measures were constructed or installed in accordance with the approved plans.
A list of qualified third-party reviewers is available at: http://www.scvurppp
w2k. com! consultants.htm
122. Revision: Additional, new stonn water treatment requirements will go into effect on
December 1, 2011. These new requirements will not apply if a development application
(ARB) receives final discretionary approval before December 1,2011.
123. Survey Datum: Plans shall be prepared using North American Datum 1983 State Plane
Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NA VD 1988 for vertical survey controls
throughout the design process.
J
124. Final Drainage Plan: The plans shall include a final drainage plan prepared by a licensed
professional. This plan shall show proposed spot elevations or contours of the site and
demonstrate the proper conveyance of storm water to the nearest adequate municipal
storm drainage system. Existing drainage patterns, including accommodation of runoff
from adjacent properties, shall be maintained.
125. SWPPP: This proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land.
Accordingly, the applicant must apply for coverage under the State ·Water Resources
Control Board's (SWRCB) NPDES general permit for storm water discharge associated
with construction activity. A Notice of Intent (NOl) must be filed for this project with the
SWRCB in order to obtain coverage under the permit. The General Permit requires the
applicant to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOl and the draft SWPPP to the
Public Works Department for review and approval prior to issuance of the building
permit. The SWPPP should include both permanent, post-development project design
features and temporary measures employed during construction to control storm water
pollution.
126. Impervious Surface Area: The proposed development will result in a change in the
impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations of the existing
and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. For non
residential properties, a Storm Drainage Fee adjustment on the applicant's monthly City
utility bill will take place in the month following the final approval ofthe construction by
the Building Inspection Division. The impervious area calculation sheets and instructions
are available from Public Works Engineering and on the division's website:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/public-works/eng-documents.htmI
127. Work in the Right-of-Way: The off-site public improvement plans must note that any
work that is to be conducted in the public right-of-way must be done per City standards
and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from
Public Works at the Development Center.
128. Street Trees: Show all street trees in the public right-of-way or state that there are none.
Include street tree protection details in the plans. Any removal, relocation or planting of
street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement installation within 10 feet of a street
tree, must be approved by Public Works' arborist. This approval shall appear on the
plans.
\
,I
Prior to Demolition & Constrnction
129. Temporary Encroachment Permit: The contractor may be required to obtain a temporary
encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to occupy
the right-of-way and/or to provide traffic control to perform the demolition.
130. Street Work Permit: A Permit for Constrnction in the Public Street ("street work
permit") must be obtained by the general contractor or all subcontractors performing work
in the public right-of-way. All construction within the right-of-way, easements or other
property under City jurisdiction shall conform to the standard specifications and details of
the Public Works and Utility Departments.
131. Logistics Plan: A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to
the public and including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses,
construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job
trailer, contractors' parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding,
materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to
the City of Palo Alto's Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route
map, which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. A handout
describing these and other requirements for a construction logistics plan is available from
Public Works Engineering. Typically, the construction logistics plan is required for and
attached to an encroachment permit or a street work permit.
132. Storm Drain Logo: The applicant is required to paint "No Dumping/Flows to Matadero
Creek" in blue on a white background adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. Stencils of
the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which
may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the
construction grading and drainage plan. The applicant is required to install thermoplastic
logos adjacent to all off-site storm drain inlets that are located in the public right-of-way
and affected by the project. The thermoplastic logos may be obtained from the Public
Works Inspector.
133. Record Drawings: At the conclusion of the project applicant shall provide digital as
built/record drawings of all improvements constructed in the public right-of-way or
easements in which the City owns an interest. The digital files shall conform to North
American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NA VD 1988
for vertical survey controls. In addition, a digital copy of any project parcel map,
subdivision map, or certificate-of-compliance shall also be provided. All files should be
delivered in AutoCad format.
134. Building Permit Sign-Off: The Public Works Inspector shall sign-offthe building permit.
Activities that must be completed prior to this sign-off include: 1) all off-site
improvements, 2) all on-site grading and stonn drain improvements, 3) all post
construction stonn water pollution control measures, 4) entering into and recording a
maintenance agreement for the C.3 measures, and 5) submittal of as-built record drawings
for improvements in the public right-of-way.
Utilities Electrical Engineering
General
135. This project requires the installation of padmount transfonners for both the new
residential development and the rehabilitation of the existing retail buildings. The present
transfonner serving the site shall be removed by CPAU. Proposed locations for the
transfonners shall be incorporated on the site plan and submitted to the Utilities
Department for approval.
136. The existing main breaker serving the facility, located in CPAU manhole 1637, shall be
removed. The new switchgear location shall be incorporated on the site plan and
submitted to the Utilities Department for approval.
137. Easements for the pad mounted transfonners and clearances in the front and around the
transfonner shall be as per City's requirements.
138. All the existing equipments/vaults and utility lines (on-site) shall be removed or relocated
at applicant's expense prior to construction.
139. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service
requirements noted during plan review.
140. The Permittee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both
public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the
Pennittee shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48
hours prior to beginning work.
The Following Shall Be Submitted/or Electrical Permit Submittals
141. , A completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all
applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the
preliminary submittal.
142. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric
Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees
have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested.
143. Only one electric service lateral is pennitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.
144. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e.
transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the
City.
145. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required
from the service point to the customer's switchgear. The design and installation shall be
according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 &
#18.
146. A public utility easement shall be required for the padmount transformers.
147. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved
by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department.
148. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required
equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no
conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all
aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building
design and setback requirements.
149. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition
cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility's padmount transformer and the
customer's main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the
Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval.
150. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be
connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for
connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between
the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a
transition cabinet will not be required.
151. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required
equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards.
Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.
152. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the
utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special
Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost
of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20.
153. Applicant shall submit well-pump specifications. Specifications to include pump type,
HP, voltage, starting current, efficiency, single-phase or three-phase. Also include
reduced starting method.
154. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or
reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer's expense and must be
coordinated with the Electric Utility.
During Construction
155. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground
Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and
marked. The areas to be check by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA
markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete.
156. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and
pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in
a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code
requirements and no 112 -inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work
will be constructed by the City at the customer's expense. Where mutually agreed upon
by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be
constructed by the Applicant.
157. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at
the depth of30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary
. conduit nm. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes.
158. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and
shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling.
159. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus
duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the
National Electric Code and the City Standards.
160. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service
Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA
standards for meter installations.
161. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must
be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to:
Gopal Jagannath, P.E.
Supervising Electric Project Engineer
Utilities Engineering (Electrical)
1007 Elwell Court
Palo Alto, CA 94303
162. Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing submittal.
163. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the
Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing.
Public Works Department
Water Quality Control Plant/Environmental Compliance Division
164. P AMC 16.09.032(B)(17) Covered Parking: Drain plumbing for parking garage floor
drains must be connected to an oil/water separator with a minimum capacity of 100
gallons, and to the sanitary sewer system.
165. PAMC 16.09.106(e) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities: New dumpster areas
shall be covered. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and run
off from the area.
166. PAMC 16.09.032 Loading Docks with Chemicals: Connections to the storm drain shall
not be permitted for loading docks where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or
waste products are handled.
167. Loading dock drains may be connected to the sewer only if the area in which the drain is
located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and
appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the superintendent is provided. Any
loading dock area with a sanitary sewer drain shall be equipped with a fail-safe valve,
which shall be kept closed during periods of operation.
168. PAMC 16.09.l06(d)(4) Loading Docks without Chemicals: Loading dock drains to the
storm drain system may be allowed if a valve or equivalent device is provided, which
remains closed except when it is raining.
169. Undesignated Retail Space~ P AMC 16.09 -Newly constructed or improved buildings
with all or a portion of the space with undesignated tenants or future use will need to meet
all requirements that would have been applicable during design and construction.
170. If such undesignated retail space becomes a food service facility the following
requirements must be met: P AMC Section 16.09.103(a) Grease Interceptors for Food
Service Facilities
171. A grease interceptor shall be installed with a minimum capacity of 750 gallons. The
grease interceptor must be sized in accordance with Appendix H of the Uniform
Plumbing Code. The sizing calculation must be submitted with the plans.
172. PAMC 16.09.032b(16) Covered Dumpsters for Food Service Facilities: After January 1,
1996, new buildings constructed to house food service facilities shall include a covered
area for a dumpster. The area shall be designed to prevent water run-on to the area and
runoff from the area. Drains that are installed beneath dumpsters serving food service
facilities shall be connected to a grease removal device.
173. P AMC 16.09.1 03( e) Prohibition Against Garbage Disposals: The installation of a
garbage grinder at any food service facility is prohibited after January 1, 2003. The
kitchen cannot utilize a garbage grinder for food waste disposal to the sanitary sewer.
174. P AMC 16.09.032b(16) Large Item Cleaning Sink for Food Service Facilities: Food
service facilities shall have a sink or other area for cleaning floor mats, containers, and
equipment, which is connected to a grease interceptor and the sanitary sewer.
175. At the former Moon Cleaners location, the current appropriate level that will be used to
define the extent of soil removal and as the comparison criteria for the confirmation sample
for PCE is the Environmental Screening Level (ESL) of 0.70 mg/kg for
commerciallindustrialland use listed by the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) in Screeningfor Environmental Concerns at Sites with Contaminated Soil
and Groundwater, Table A, Interim Final November 2007, revised May 2008). This ESL for
sites where Groundwater is Current or Potential Source of Drinking Water would be
conservatively applied. Characterization and removal of any contaminated soil will be
undertaken in coordination with appropriate oversight agencies and that coordination will be
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Community Environment
and the Palo Alto Fire Department.
176. The final underground utility plan will be reviewed by a qualified California professional
geologist or professional civil engineer, the Palo Alto Fire Department, Utilities Department,
and Department of Public Works to determine whether the extension of underground utilities
(in a joint trench or separate water lines, sewer lines, storm drains, electrical conduit, etc.)
could provide a conduit for PCE soil gas intrusion from the former Moon Cleaners location.
In the event utility lines extend through areas near the former Moon Cleaners site and a
possibility of soil vapor intrusion remains, appropriate engineering controls will be
implemented to reduce possible soil vapor migration through trench backfill and utility
conduits. These engineering controls may include placement of low-permeability backfill
"plugs" at intervals in the on-site utility trenches or other measures. Measures to be
employed will be approved by the Palo Alto Fire Department, the Utilities Department and
the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits.
'"h. e ll! or
r a l o Alto
Edgewood Plaza
Location Map
This mao is a product of the
City 01 PiIIQ A.IIo GIS
• ••
C iTY OF
PA LO
A LT O
Agend a Date:
To:
From :
S ubj ect:
August 21,2013 (HRB)
Historic Resources Board
Elena Lee
Senior Planner
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report
Dep.ar1ment: Planning and
Community Environment
2080 Channing Avenue [13PLN-00197): Review of a request by Sand Hill
Property Company for an ame ndment to the Planned Community Zoning (pC-
5150) for the Edgewood Plaza Shopping Ccnter mixed use project to allow fo r
the reconstruction afone of the two historic Eichler retail buildings (Bui lding
I). Bui lding I was approved to be dismantled and rehabilitated onsile as one of
the primary public benefits, but was demolished instead. The Supplemental
Environmenta11mpact Repon prepared fOT the project has been published and
the public comment period began May 17 and ended July 20,2013. A
Planning and Transportation Commission public hearing for tbe projecl has
been tentatively scheduled for September 11, 2013.
RECOMMENDA nON
Staff recommends thal tbe Historic Resources Board (HRB) review the proposed revised project
and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and provide feedback to staff, th~ Planning
a nd TranspOrtation Commission (P&TC) and City Council.
BACKGROUND
Project Hi,tory
Edgewood Plaza is a commercial shopping center built between 1956 and 1958 by Joseph
EichlerfEichler Homes and A. Quincy Jones of lanes and Emmons. The center was originally
built with the eKisling grocery building (1957), two retail buildings (t 958), an office building
that formerly housed lhe office of Eichler Homes (1959), and a gas station (1957). The office
building and gas station sites are not part of the subject shopping center. Edgewood Plaza is nol
listed on The Nat;onal Register of Historic Places (NR.J-n», tbe California Register of Historical
Resowces (CRHR» nor on the Palo A Ito Historic lnventory. Although this site is not 00 the
City'S inventory, because it has been deemed eligiblt: for bolh registers, it is considered a hiStoric
resource. Accordingly. slaff is requesting the HRB's input 011 this change to the project and the
SEIR because it is about tbe historic resource. As the center is not on the City's Historic
Inventory, the HRB is not required by the City's Municipal Code to make a formal
reCommendation to the ARB. However, given the historic importance of the site, the HRB's
comments wi ll be important and helpful during the entitlement process.
Page I
The site was the subject of a Planned Community (PC) rezoning approved by the City Council on
March 9, 2012 to allow the redevelopment of an existing vacant and historic shopping center,
including the relocation of one of three retail buildings, the addition of ten homes and a new
9,000 square foot park. Two of the existing commercial buildings, Buildings # 1 and #2 have
been deemed historic resources. Building 3, the fornler market building, currently occupied by
Fresh Market, is not considered a historic resource. Building # 1 was approved to be
disassembled, relocated on site and rehabilitated. Building #2 was approved to be rehabilitated
in place. 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
Environnlental 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 by the City Council based on the assumption that historic
impacts for the relocation of Building #1 wouldbe mitigated to a less than significant impact
because the building would be rehabilitated in accordance with the Secretary of Interior's
Standards for Historic Rehabilitation. This was consistent with the HRB' s recommendation at
the October 19, 2011 hearing for the original project. 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.
In September 2012, a stop work order was issued because the historic building (Building #1) that
was to be disassembled and reconstructed onsite was illegally demolished.. On March 4, 2013,
the City Council authorized the continued construction of the grocery store, the remaining
historic (Building #2), six of the homes and other onsite and offsite improvements. The City
Council also authorized staff to hire Carey & Company, the historic consulting finn that the
perfonned the peer review on the original EIR for the City, to review plans and monitor
construction to ensure that Building #2 comply with the PC zoning and all mitigation measures,
'including the Secretary of Interior's Standards of Rehabilitation. The monitoring has included
multiple walk throughs and special focus has been placed in the preservation of the building's
signature glu-lam beams. To date, the applicant has completed the grocery store building, various
parking lot improvements and installation of the electric charging stations. The rehabilitation of
Building #2 is in process.
DISCUSSION
Building #1
Building # 1 was originally approved to be dismantled and rebuilt to accommodate the
redevelopment. As discussed above, the building would be reconstructed and rehabilitated
according to the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. The building would have
retained the character defining features, such as the tum-down roof, glue laminated or glu-lam
beams, cmu block walls, and redwood siding. The walls have been defined as a "kit of parts"
that are proposed to be reorganized to maintain the historic character of the buildings, while
allowing the modernization of the building to accommodate a successful retail environment. As
of September of2012, the building was demolished and the materials were disposed of, making
it not possible to comply with the original approval.
The applicant is now requesting the City to allow complete reconstruction of Building # 1 with all
Page 2
new materials. All other components of the project, including the ten residences and park, would
remain the same. Under the revised project, the building would be constructed with all new
materials in the approved location. The building would be substantially consistent with the
originally approved design with a few minor modifications.
The most important modification is the City's requirement to replicate the original storefront
window system. The original approval approved installation of new much simpler wood framed
windows. Like Building #2, the original window frames in Building # 1 had been replaced over
the years with similar but simpler wood frames. The replacement wood window frames were flat
and did not include the projecting moldings. This modification allows Building #1 to be rebuilt
in a design significantly closer to its original appearance than the altered building that was
illegally demolished. The original wood window frames of both Eichler buildings were a more
complex design that included narrow full-height projecting moldings on either side of the glass
which gave the windows a streamline modeme look. Because one storefront at the rear of
Building #2 was preserved' intact since' 1957, the City and the applicant's historic consultant will
be able to use that storefront as a model in the reconstruction of Buildings #2 and # 1, if
approved, to its original 1957 design. The rebuilding of Building #1 will provide a much more
historic design of the building than was provided in the building that was demolished and even
compared to the version if the building was preserved and rehabilitated as originally approved.
The applicant has agreed to install these more complex window frames for both Buildings #1 and
#2. Working closely with the City's historic consultant, the applicant has custom made replicas
for the rehabilitation of Buiiding #2 and will do the same for Building #1 should the amendment
be approved.
Building # 1 is proposed to be substantially similar to the originally approved design, which was
based on the "kit of parts" concept that would ensure that the building would retain the character
defining features of the Eichler aesthetic. The "kit of parts" consist of the block walls, the
storefront glass, redwood siding and the glu-Iam beams. The building would still include a new
roof screen to hide roof mounted equipment. The modifications include moving around of the
"parts" and modifications of the proportions of each element to accommodate modem tenants
and requirements of the Building Code. As illustrated in the elevations shown on plan set pages
A3.2 and A3.3 (Attachment D), the new building would consist of the same types of materials in
a different configuration. These minor modifications have been carefully reviewed and found
acceptable by the City's Historic Preservation Plaluler. Similar modifications to Building #2 have
been reviewed and approved by the City, also with consultation by the City's historic consultant,
Carey & Company. Although the loss of a historic building cannot be mitigated, the historic
accuracy of the replacement structure would be increased with the installation of the more
complex window frames. Staff has determined that because the storefront glass system was a
large part of the original design, this requirement provides a significant historic benefit to the
project.
HISTORIC RESOURCES AND SEIR
A Final ErR was certified by the City Council, following positive recommendations by the HRB, the
PlalIDing and Transportation Commission (P&TC) , and the Architectural Review Board. The
original Final ErR analyzed the historic resources and the proj ect' s potential impact on those
Page 3
resources. Four reports regarding the project's historic resources were prepared for the project's
Eut An initial report was prepared by Page & Turnbull, Inc., the applicant's consultant, with a peer
review prepared by Carey & Company. <Buildings 1 and 2 were deemed to have retained integrity of
design, despite some nlinor exterior alterations over the past fifty years. Both buildings would be
eligible for inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) under Criterion 3,
Architecture, as a rare example of commercial development by the noted partnership of Eichler
Homes and Jones & Emmons. Because the site has been determined to be eligible for both the
NRHP and CRHR, per the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the site would qualify for the Palo Alto
Historic Inventory under Criterion 3 and 4.
Because the complete loss of Building # 1 has been deemed a substantial change to the proj ect, in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), a Supplemental to the EIR (SEIR) has been
prepared to address the changes needed to comply with State law. The supplement contains the
information needed to address the change. This SEIR is focused only on the new significant historic
impact created by the change to the proposal, the loss of Building # 1 and the replacement
construction in the same location of new materials. The original Final EIR included a mitigation
measure (MMCR-2.3) that required compliance with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation to reduce the impact to historic resources to a less than significant level for both
Buildings #1 and #2. Loss of Building #1 's materials has made application of the mitigation
measure and the Standards of Rehabilitation not possible. The other two mitigation measures to
reduce the impact to historic resources to a less than significant level included the preparation of a
Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) (MM CR-2.1) and creation of ad is play illustrating the
history of Edgewood Plaza (MM CR-2.2) are still applicable. The HABS survey was completed and
has been used to facilitate the preparation of the SEIR and the project implementation. The applicant
is working on the design of the historic display.
The City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code
(PAMC), states that the Historic Resources Board is responsible for making recommendations to the
Director ofPlmming and Community Environment and City Council on projects that could impact
sites listed in the City's Historic Inventory. Although this site is not on the City's inventory, because
it has been deemed a historic resource, staff is requesting the HRB' s input on the historic component
of this project. The HRB's comments will be important and helpful to the P&TC and City Council
during the upcoming project reviews.
The SEIR was prepared to address the historic impact of Building # 1 and circulated on May 17, 2013
for the required 45-day period. The Notice of Availability and SEIR were sent to the State
Clearinghouse and made available for public review at City Hall and the City's website
(http://goo.gl/PinreG). Additionally, the notices were emailed to interested parties. The end of the
circulation period was originally July 1,2013 but had been extended to July 20th. Copies of the
SEIR were provided to the HRB, P&TC and City Council at the beginning of the circulation period.
No public comments have been received. The document concluded that the revised project would
result in two new significant impacts: 1) Significant Impact to the historic resources specific to
Building #1 after implementation of mitigation measures and 2) Significant Cumulative Historic
Resources Impact.
Page 4
The SEIR concluded that there would be a new significant impact to historic resources due to the
loss of Building # 1. The Secretary of Interi9r has established four treatments or guidelines to
address the preservation of historic resources: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration and
Reconstruction. Because there was a complete loss of materials, only the Reconstruction approach is
applicable to address impacts to historic resources. The Reconstruction guidelines have typically
been used in very selective sitl1ations, such as reconstruction of historic museum, where there is a
clear public benefit (usually educational). The guidelines include requirements such as preservation
of any remaining historic materials and construction of only the original design. The complete list of
Guidelines and Standards for Reconstruction are provided on pages 19-22 of the SEIR. However,
application of the guidelines cannot reduce the demolition to a less than significant level because
none of the historic fabric would be retained. The SEIR also analyzed the potential impact to the
remaining historic building, Building #2. Because the proposed Building # 1 is substantially
consistent with the originally approved design and in the same location, it was determined that there
would not be an impact to the character of Building #2.
To address the new impact caused by the loss of Building #1, mitigation measure CR-2.3 has been
amended. The mitigation measure as originally written still applies to Building #2. CR-2.3 now
states:
A new Building 1 will be constructed of new building materials that match the
character and one-story form of the commercial buildings of Edgewood Plaza as
built by Eichler Homes, consistent with the previous approved building elevations.
As a condition of approval, all facades of Building #1 will be wood-framed
storefront systems that replicate the detail of the original 1957 window design.
The final design and materials to be used in the renovation of Building #2 and
reconstruction of Building #1 will be reviewed and approved by the Director and
the Historic Preservation Planner of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Community
Environment.
In addition, staff is also proposing to have the City's historic consultant, Carey & Company, to
review and monitor the construction of Building # 1 sinlilar to what was required for Building #2. As
noted above, application of the revised mitigation measure will not reduce the level of significance
because none of the original building has been retained. The SEIR also concluded that there is a
significant impact to Cumulative Cultural Resources, in that the loss of Building #1 combined with
the recently approved demolition of the Edward Durrell Stone Building Complex (1959) at the
Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) campus (as part of the SUMC Facilities Renewal and
Replacement Project approved in July 2011) has created a cumulatively considerable impact to mid
century modem buildings by prominent architects. The Stone Building Complex represents a
significant example of the modem design Aesthetic and of a significant architect. The loss of
Building # 1 combined with the loss of the Stone Building Complex will therefore be a significant
inlpact.
Alternatives have been set forth and evaluated in the SEIR to allow the City Council and
recommending bodies to consider ways to nlinimize the significance of the impacts to historic
Page 5
resources. Two alternatives were analyzed in the SEIR: (1) No Project and (2) Building Design.
The No Project alternative would be a project without a new Building #1. Because the original
building no longer exists, this would not avoid or reduce the historic impact due to the loss.
However, the project objectives of creating a new mixed use project with three retail buildings
would not be met.
The second alternative, Building Design Alternative, would allow for a new building to be
constructed in its new location with new materials. However, the building would be constructed
in a manner that duplicates the original 1957 design. This nlay result in a more historically
accurate representation, but would still be a new building. Therefore it would not reduce the
impact to a less than significant level. The alternative would also not meet the project objectives
because it would not allow the changes originally proposed by the applicant to make the building
more suitable for a viable retail building.
RECOMMENDED REVIEW ITEMS FOR THE HRB
1. Review and comment on the adequacy of the analysis for the loss of Building # 1 and the
proposal to reconstruct the building as originally approved with all new materials, and
2. Review and provide a recommendation on the change to the project which would allow the
construction of Building # 1 with all new materials.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
As described above, a SEIR has been prepared for the project. The SEIR was prepared in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act to address changes to the project that
occurred after the certification of the or~ginal Final EIR for the original project. The Draft EIR
was circulated for public review on May 17,2013 through July 20,2013. A Final EIR will be
prepared to respond to comments received from the public, the HRB, P&TC and City Council.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that the Final EIR be circulated for a
minimum often days. Upon completion of the circulation period, the EIR must be certified and
accepted by the decision making body before a decision can be made on the application the EIR
was prepared for. In this case, the City Council must certify this EIR before taking a final action
on the proj ect.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Location Map
Attachrrlent B: Approved CEQA Resolution
Attachment C: Edgewood Plaza Project Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(Previously provided and available online, including the original FEIR at
http://goo.gl!Pj m'cG)
Attachment D: Project Plans* (Commissioners & Libraries only)
Page 6
COURTESY COPIES
John Tze, Ho Holdings No.1 LLC
Prepared by: Elena Lee, Senior Planner @-
Reviewed by: Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager
Page 7
Historic Resources Board 1
Draft Minutes 2
August 21, 2013 3
Excerpt 4
5
6
7
8
1. 2080 Channing Avenue [13PLN-00197]: Review of a request by Sand Hill Property 9
Company for an amendment to the Planned Community Zoning (PC-5150) for the 10
Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center mixed use project to allow for the reconstruction of 11
one of the two historic Eichler retail buildings (Building 1). Building 1 was approved 12
to be dismantled and rehabilitated onsite as one of the primary public benefits, but 13
was demolished instead. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared 14
for the project has been published and the public comment period began May 17 and 15
ended July 20, 2013. A Planning and Transportation Commission public hearing for 16
the project has been tentatively scheduled for September 11, 2013. 17
18
Chair Bernstein: Next on our agenda is 2080 Channing Avenue. Request, review of a 19
request by Sand Hill Property Company for an amendment to the Planned Community 20
Zoning (PC-5150) for the Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center mixed-use project to allow 21
for the reconstruction of one of the two historic Eichler retail buildings (Building 1). 22
Building 1 was approved to be dismantled and rehabilitated onsite as one of the primary 23
public benefits, but was demolished instead. The Supplemental Environmental Impact 24
Report (EIR) prepared for the project has been published and the public comment period 25
began May 17th and ended July 20, 2013. A Planning and Transportation Commission 26
(PTC) public hearing for the project has been tentatively scheduled for September 11, 27
2013. Planning staff have a staff report for us. 28
29
Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager: Yes, good morning Board Members. Steven 30
Turner, Advance Planning Manager. I’d like to introduce Elena Lee a Senior Planner in 31
the Planning Division who will be giving the staff report this morning. 32
33
Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Thank you. The purpose of today’s hearing is to request 34
Historic Resources Board (HRB) feedback on the adequacy of a Supplemental EIR that 35
was prepared for the project and the proposal to approve the rebuilding of Building 1 in 36
its originally approved location with all new materials. Although the shopping center has 37
not been identified on any historic inventories because it was deemed eligible for both the 38
State and Federal register staff is requesting the Board’s recommendation regarding the 39
proposed project. This site was the subject of a Planned Community (PC) Zoning that 40
was approved last year that allowed the rehabilitation of the existing shopping center, 41
three building shopping center, and the construction of 10 new single family residential 42
units as well as a small park. The project included the relocation and renovation of one 43
of the two retail buildings that were deemed historic and rehabilitation of the other 44
historic building and renovation of the grocery building, which is now occupied by Fresh 45
Market and was deemed not historic. A final Environmental Impact Report was certified 46
to provide environmental clearance on the assumption that both historic buildings would 1
be rehabilitated per the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and 2
therefore would not create any significant unavoidable impacts. 3
4
In September 2012 a stop work order was issued because one of the two historic 5
buildings, Building 1 that was supposed to be dismantled and rehabilitated onsite was 6
demolished. Council authorized the continued construction of the project in March of 7
2013 that included construction of, continued construction of Building 2, which was still, 8
which was not demolished and so application of the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for 9
Rehabilitation would still be possible. The Council also authorized construction on the 10
four homes. Since the authorization of Council the applicant has requested an 11
amendment to the Planned Community Zoning that would allow the rebuilding of 12
Building 1 with all new materials. As part of the oversight staff has also retained Carey 13
and Company, the City’s historic consultant for the Environmental Impact Report for the 14
original project to review all the building permit plans related to Building 2 as well as to 15
provide onsite monitoring to make sure that there’s full compliance with the project. 16
17
The, as I stated, the applicant is now requesting ability to move forward with the project 18
and the proposal would be to build it where it was approved and substantially consistent 19
with its originally approved elevation, but with all new materials. The applicant has 20
made minor modifications to the elevations to better address modern tenant’s needs. 21
These changes have been reviewed both by staff including Historic Preservation Planner 22
as well as the City’s historic consultant and accordingly the Supplemental EIR was also 23
prepared for the project that would address that change to the project, which would be 24
that Building 1 would be constructed with all new materials; however, the Rehabilitation 25
Standards are no longer applicable so analysis was done using the Reconstruction 26
Standards. However, because all the building materials have been removed and it’s no 27
longer available and because there is no remnant of the historic materials, the EIR 28
assumes that there are significant unavoidable impacts because the building, the historic 29
resources is no longer available and accordingly the EIR assumes significant unavoidable 30
impacts for historic resources as well as cumulative impacts because this is the loss of yet 31
another historic building in the City. 32
33
So staff is requesting feedback from the HRB, comments regarding the adequacy of the 34
Supplemental EIR and its analysis of the historic resources and again because the only 35
change to the project was the historic building this EIR focused on the historic resources. 36
Staff would also like to bring attention to one significant addition to the project. The City 37
required application of the original constructed windows, which included narrow full 38
height projecting moldings. During the analysis, during the construction process staff, it 39
was discovered that one of the storefront windows in Building 2 were the original 40
windows. So we were able to require that that be preserved again under the auspices of 41
the City’s historic consultant and use that to basically replicate those original windows. 42
The applicant has agreed to do that with Building 2 and if Building 1 is approved then the 43
same thing would occur on Building 1. Staff is also proposing to retain Carey and 44
Company to also monitor the construction and review of Building 1 should this be 45
approved. 46
1
So the custom made windows I think, we believe will help create a building that is 2
significantly closer to its original appearance than what would have been required under 3
the original project which required installation of wood windows but not the original 4
moldings. So staff’s assessment is that this will significantly enhance the historic quality 5
of the building and this is already going to be occurring with Building 2. So basically 6
because of the amount of storefront glass that exists on Building 1 we believe that this 7
really does add to the project. And as stated earlier the whole project including the 8
Supplemental EIR will be going back to the Planning and Transportation Commission on 9
September 11th for their analysis and a recommendation. Then the whole project will 10
return to the City Council for their final decision. As part of that decision there will be a 11
discussion on the requirement for public benefits and any other changes that the City 12
Council or any of the boards or commission would like to see on this project. 13
14
The applicant is available here today as well as Nora Monette and Shannon George of the 15
City’s Environmental Impact Report Consultant. This concludes staff report. Oh, also 16
want to bring your attention to an e-mail that was sent to the Board yesterday and is 17
available at places today, which is from one of the neighbors of the project. And she’s 18
just in that e-mail, yes, stating that she fully supports the project and would like to see the 19
project progress. Other than that particular comment staff has received some questions 20
and feedback from neighbors regarding concern about the project, most of it just asking 21
what’s going on and also stating their support for the project because they just want to see 22
the project continue. Other than that staff has not received any other comments regarding 23
the EIR in particular. This concludes staff’s report. 24
25
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. For members of the public I just want to announce our 26
normal process for this hearing, after the staff recommendation that Planner Lee just 27
mentioned then there’d be applicant presentation 10 minutes presentation, then Historic 28
Resources Board questions of the applicant or staff, then public comment. I do have one 29
comment card from members of the public. Applicant closing comments, three minutes, 30
close the public hearing, and then any Motions or recommendations by the Board and 31
then a final vote. So moving ahead, applicant presentation; I’d like to invite the applicant 32
to, and please state your name for our recorded message. Thank you. 33
34
John Tze, Sand Hill Property Company: Good morning, my name is John Tze with Sand 35
Hill Property Company at 203 Redwood Shores Parkway in Redwood City. Thank you 36
for seeing me this morning. I know it’s early. 37
38
And Board Member Bunnenberg just to clarify, we did change the historic sign so there is 39
no metal element on that wing carrying the… yes, that’s correct. It is wood painted. So 40
going right back to the way the original sign was. Correct. So just confirming that. 41
42
We’re continuously working with the neighbors, meeting with them regularly, keeping 43
them updated with what’s happening with the project. Everybody seems to be very 44
pleased with the way Fresh Market has opened and the condition of Fresh Market 45
bringing it back to the way it was originally designed or at least as close as we could. 46
The second building, the historic building that’s undergoing the renovation is progressing 1
as well. The detailing on the wood storefront frames is actually being hand installed right 2
now as we speak and the windows should be going in next week. And I’m sorry, I was 3
saying the second building, Building 2, that is being renovated in places is progressing 4
quite well. The detailing on the wood framing is being installed right now and the 5
windows themselves will be installed next week and so that building should be pretty 6
much closed up and starting the plaster and painting within the next few weeks and you’ll 7
see significantly how our proposed Building 1 will look since it has very similar Eichler 8
characteristics, paint colors, and so forth. So there doesn’t have to be too much 9
imagination in what Building 1 will be. 10
11
We continue to work very closely with Carey and Company keeping them apprised of 12
every detail, every little change that tenants are requiring, such as an ATM for Chase 13
Bank, additional lighting for the ATM required by the banking authorities, things like 14
that. We continue to work with staff and Carey and Company and by the way the, I 15
wanted to express my appreciation for the staff report. The planning report seemed very 16
thorough and I’m very appreciative of everybody’s time on this. One little detail is 17
although it was quite a surprise to us, but we take full responsibility, I do, not all the 18
demolished materials was removed from the site. And so a lot of the old glulam beams 19
from Building 1 are actually still on site, but I don’t think that really makes any 20
difference. I will be available for any questions and be very happy to answer anything or 21
make clarification as needed. Thank you very much. 22
23
Chair Bernstein: And thank you John. First of all I’d like to make a disclosure that I have 24
actually visited the site. I bought some eggs there, so. 25
26
Board Member Bower: Yeah, I had the opportunity to visit the site yesterday as well, 27
looked at Building 2 in preparation for this meeting. 28
29
Board Member Bunnenberg: I also visited the site. I shopped at the Fresh Market. I 30
looked at Building 2 as much as possible and of course saw that there are supports up for 31
Building 1 it appeared. So that I made a site visit. 32
33
Chair Bernstein: Alright, then moving ahead on our schedule of events Historic 34
Resources Board questions of the applicant or staff. Yeah, David? 35
36
Board Member Bower: Quick question; the glass in Building 1 I assume now will be 37
insulated glass? 38
39
Mr. Tze: That’s correct. It’ll be the same glass that’s in the grocery building and going 40
into Building 2. 41
42
Board Member Bower: Yeah, ok. It’s not significant, just a question of interest. 43
44
Chair Bernstein: Beth. 45
46
Board Member Bunnenberg: Actually I kind of have a line of questioning and then 1
actually to ask for Mr. Tze’s help as well. Because this historic, loss of historic fabric is 2
really a very serious matter I had some questions about it. In the drawings that we were 3
provided on A33Y, there is a small statement that the existing wood panel and this is on 4
Building 1 should be carefully removed and stored. Can you tell me if that statement also 5
got onto the construction drawings, which of course are much more detailed? 6
7
Mr. Tze: Yes, that is actually excerpted from the permit, construction permit drawing set. 8
9
Board Member Bunnenberg: So that that and it included the glulam beams and also that 10
one referred to redwood that was vertically grooved. Was any of that material still left or 11
did Building 2 have any of that vertically grooved redwood? 12
13
Mr. Tze: Yes, a lot of that material is left. Working with Dennis Backlund we thoroughly 14
investigated Building 2’s condition before we started work on it a few months ago and 15
discovered what panels were original. We were very surprised with a lot of our 16
discovery, but those panels that were deemed to be original have been protected, 17
carefully removed, and placed into a safekeeping trailer or storage container on site for 18
reference. So (interrupted) 19
20
Board Member Bunnenberg: For reference and you also will be using them for Building 1 21
for the, where the vertically grooved was indicated. 22
23
Mr. Tze: That’s correct. It’s the (interrupted) 24
25
Board Member Bunnenberg: So it’s your model, it’s your sample, the pieces you have 26
(interrupted) 27
28
Mr. Tze: That’s correct. 29
30
Board Member Bunnenberg: Are the models to make sure that you’re doing that. Thank 31
you very much. I also noted that there was some mention of raptor nests and whether 32
there were any archeological finds. And sometimes some of that is just word that’s put in 33
in this kind of thing. Did you find any raptor nests? No. 34
35
Mr. Tze: No, not that we’re aware of; no archeological (interrupted) 36
37
Board Member Bunnenberg: And no archeological (interrupted) 38
39
Mr. Tze: Artifacts of significance (interrupted) 40
41
Board Member Bunnenberg: Things. 42
43
Mr. Tze: No. 44
45
Board Member Bunnenberg: Ok, because I had been asked that question by a member of 1
the public. So my question to you is: this is a very serious matter and have you 2
suggestions as a person who’s been through it as to how we as a Board and a City could 3
avoid this kind of thing? Is it a matter of training? Is it a matter of highlighting on the 4
construction plans? Is it a matter of very stiff regulations and penalties? What do you 5
see and how do you see the monitoring as having gone? 6
7
Mr. Tze: That actually goes to the heart of how this occurred and Former Planning 8
Director Curtis Williams and I had numerous conversations of this, about that exact topic: 9
how to, how this, why this occurred and how to prevent it from happening again. The 10
solution I feel personally is the monitoring of Carey and Company or somebody who 11
understands construction, the practical implications of what you are hoping to find when 12
you start construction, what you do find, and somebody who has the judgment and 13
expertise to be able to guide you through that as you find inevitable surprises through the 14
construction process. So the monitoring of Carey and Company in this case or any 15
historic consultant who has construction background has been instrumental in guiding us 16
through the rehabilitation of Building 2. Dennis Backlund’s assistance or oversight 17
during the discovery of what Building 2 is was very key. 18
19
I would say stepping back our biggest mistake was investigating the grocery building 20
condition and realizing that yeah, it doesn’t meet historic standards, but not thoroughly 21
investigating the construction condition of the two historic buildings before this whole 22
process and EIR and everything was started a year or two ago. And so that wasn’t a 23
historic issue that was just simply a construction miss. When you’re renovating 24
something you should try to understand it thoroughly before you start. But I think just 25
that oversight and having somebody act as the bridge on the construction site and 26
understanding the entitlement process is key. 27
28
Board Member Bunnenberg: And was the historic documentation done? Photographs 29
and so forth were supposed to have been taken. Was that done? 30
31
Mr. Tze: Yes, the conditions require us to have survey and all of that was done. I 32
personally was checking off every line item as we progressed. 33
34
Board Member Bunnenberg: Thank you very much. 35
36
Chair Bernstein: Other Board Members? David? 37
38
Board Member Bower: Just a little follow up on that. So I was out there yesterday. I 39
looked at the building Number 2 and there’s effectively no building there. I mean 40
Eichler’s didn’t have a lot. They were very streamlined designs. So they’re a beam, 41
prominent architectural features would be the beams, the Concrete Masonry Unit (CMU) 42
block walls, the siding, and the glass walls. Now when this project came to our Board the 43
first time I wondered how Building 1 was going to be moved because I’m pretty sure the 44
cinder block walls had no grout. Is that what you found? 45
46
Mr. Tze: Yeah, we found in our investigation of the grocery building, which we thought 1
would be in the best condition of the three buildings simply because of its height and its 2
structural requirements at the time it was built would be in the best condition, but during 3
construction even the walls we thought we would save turned out not to be reusable and 4
no walls in the grocery building are original. And similarly from a practical standpoint 5
we never thought we would be able to actually pick up and move one of the historic 6
masonry walls and that was just kind of a practical issue that we had vetted with the 7
historians early on. But yes, we found that they weren’t to any kind of structural code of 8
today. 9
10
Board Member Bower: Sure I watched the grocery building be reconstructed and so when 11
this project came to us initially I thought well what you’ll be doing on that Building 1 is 12
moving the roof, because that’s really the only part of the structure that you could 13
actually pick up and move. You could’ve picked up the beams with it, but the posts that 14
support the beams probably don’t have, I’m guessing didn’t have adequate connections, 15
maybe they weren’t even, they might have been redwood, which is a typical material that 16
Eichler used, so what we’ve lost in, where I’m going with this is what we’ve lost in this 17
particular situation is the glass storefronts frames, some of the siding which you have 18
saved, if I understood your comment to Beth. So in effect we have not lost a lot of a 19
building because there wasn’t a lot of the building to lose initially. So I understand 20
we’ve lost the roof, I understand the protection of historic fabric, but there wasn’t a lot of 21
it here so I think what I saw yesterday onsite is that you can reproduce this building and 22
make it look just like the old one even though it’s not the old one. And that’s I guess 23
why we’re here today. Is that an adequate statement? 24
25
Mr. Tze: We are reproducing the original 50’s building to meet current code and so the 26
plans that you have are actually the construction documents, the permit drawings, but you 27
cannot have a 12 inch thick roof anymore because there was no insulation in those roofs. 28
And so now you see that roof is about 22 inches. You have the overhanging roof lines at 29
the same distance, six feet. You have the turn down roofs where they were original. The 30
posts actually, this is just simply a post and beam construction, the posts were actually 31
four inch steel columns, tubular columns, just type, but structurally they weren’t 32
embedded into the ground properly. Their buckets up, holding up the glulam beams 33
weren’t quite adequate today. 34
35
What we found in the roof of Building 1 and Building 2, if you notice in Building 2 very 36
little of the roof is actually store original and many of the glulam beams had to be 37
replaced as well because they failed. 38
39
Board Member Bower: Sure. 40
41
Mr. Tze: Even before we purchased the property in 2005 the roof had pretty much failed 42
in both these buildings. They weren’t properly sloped anymore. We, every time it rained 43
we had to go up there and wash off the rainwater and so that settling rainwater over the 44
years had basically dry rotted large portions of the roof all the way through the glulam 45
beams. And so one of the conditions that we found was, coming to your point, we 46
actually weren’t able to salvage any of the roof because and that’s something that our 1
historic consultant and we and the structural engineer reviewed, you could actually put a 2
pencil into the glulam beam in points. And so our structural engineer pretty much 3
insisted you can’t use any of these glulam beams. Maybe we can go out and test them 4
and try to salvage a few, but he wasn’t very comfortable using any of the glulam beams 5
because we had to meet a new building construction structural requirements of today. 6
7
On top the glulam beams if you understand construction, that’s why Carey and Company 8
has been very good. On top of the glulam beams you had purlins going back and forth 9
and then on top of the purlins, these are the roughly 2 by 8 inch or 2 by 10 inch purlins 10
that built on top of the glulam beams in perpendicular direction to the beams and then on 11
top of that you had basically just plywood. And on top of the plywood was basically just 12
a little tar and gravel type of roof to keep water out. Well when the plywood rotted there 13
was not really not much of any roof to save because the purlins were also damaged. It 14
just kind of made its way all the way through. 15
16
In our discovery phase of Building 1 before Carey and Company go involved the wood 17
slatted walls that you’re mentioning, most of those weren’t original. They looked exactly 18
the same and we couldn’t even tell, but somebody at some point had to replace them and 19
used plywood and just adhered little one by quarter inch strips to the plywood. And so if 20
you were very careful you could see little nails and so it wasn’t actually the lathed 21
grooved slats that were original. And we found that in almost all the way around the 22
building. So as far as what really we could move we could’ve moved the whole building 23
theoretically, but then we would have had to replace everything. 24
25
Board Member Bower: Yeah, so where I was going with this is I thought this was going 26
to be a very difficult process. When I first heard it doesn’t surprise me that you’re back 27
here with this situation and that’s maybe a little more destructive testing earlier in the 28
process would’ve given you a better understanding of existing conditions and so maybe 29
we wouldn’t have to be here. Anyway I just wanted to make that (interrupted) 30
31
Mr. Tze: Yeah. 32
33
Chair Bernstein: Other Board Members, questions for the applicant or staff? Michael. 34
35
Board Member Makinen: Thank you Chair Bernstein. What do you have in the way of 36
evidence of the original look of Building 1 as far as photographs or drawings that you 37
could use to guide you in the reconstruction of that building? 38
39
Mr. Tze: Oh we photographed both buildings thoroughly with hundreds of photographs 40
and beyond that we did a HABS survey. Our architect took those photos. Beyond that 41
we hired a historic consultant to do the HABS survey, which were additional 42
photographs. The architectural construction drawings that you have copies of that were 43
inserted into this revised package of yours were based on the historic buildings that were 44
there. it was, everything was available when these drawings were produced. 45
46
Board Member Makinen: Thank you. 1
2
Mr. Tze: And beyond that of course we have materials from Building 2 stored. 3
4
Chair Bernstein: Ok. Yeah, Elena on the staff report it says “Recommended review items 5
for the HRB: review and comment on the adequacy of the analysis of the loss.” I assume 6
that’s the adequacy of the Supplemental EIR? 7
8
Ms. Lee: Yes it is. 9
10
Chair Bernstein: And also then “Comment on the proposal to reconstruct the building as 11
originally approved with all new materials,” and “Review and provide a recommendation 12
on the change to the project, which would allow the construction of Building 1 with all 13
new materials.” Any other items that you’d like the HRB to review? 14
15
Ms. Lee: No, that’s pretty much all of what staff is requesting feedback on. You know 16
it’s primarily the project is the Supplemental EIR and the amendment to the Planned 17
Community Zoning. 18
19
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. 20
21
Mr. Turner: Staff might direct the Board specifically to the Supplemental Environmental 22
Impact Report (SEIR), which I believe that you, were, was previously distributed to you. 23
One of the tasks that the HRB often preforms is a discussion about the project’s 24
consistency with the Secretary Standards and a discussion and analysis of this project’s 25
consistency with the Standards are contained within the SEIR and I believe it begins on 26
Page 16. Just for your reference, you have probably looked at this already, but just 27
wanted to direct you and the public to the discussion within the SEIR. So finding, if the 28
Board finds that the SEIR is adequate I think you would also be finding that the 29
reconstruction of Building 1 would be consistent with the Standards as well. 30
31
As Elena mentioned I think previously the overall there is still a significant impact that 32
cannot be mitigated even though the SEIR does recommend mitigations it cannot reduce 33
the impacts to a less than significant level. And so therefore Council would have to adopt 34
essentially a statement of overriding considerations with the Supplemental EIR at one of 35
their future reviews. 36
37
Ms. Lee: Staff also wants to point out that the original SEIR was distributed to the Board 38
in May, but the entire document including the original Environmental Impact Report are 39
all available online on the City’s website. 40
41
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Ok, if there are no more questions for the applicant or staff 42
we will move to members of the public. I have one card from Herb Borock. Herb 43
welcome, if you could state your name for our recorded documents? Thanks. 44
45
Herb Borock: Good morning Chair Bernstein and Board Members. My name’s Herb 1
Borock. I hesitated even coming here this morning because the behavior of City 2
Manager and the City Council on this project indicate to me that they don’t think we have 3
a Historic Resources Board and since you’re not relevant anymore maybe the best 4
recommendation you can make is that you dissolve the Board, Council dissolves the 5
Board. Now I realize it may be in the City Council’s interest to continue to have a 6
Historic Resources Board, an Architectural Review Board (ARB), and a Planning and 7
Transportation Commission so they can appoint warm bodies to each of the boards and 8
commissions who will then vote in favor of development projects and disregard the 9
zoning code in the same way that the Council and the Manager do. 10
11
On this particular project to go to Board Member Bunnenberg’s question there has to be a 12
price to pay for the action that was taken. The staff report indicates that a stop work 13
order was issued in September of last year, almost a year ago. In fact, the staff permitted 14
the developer to continue working on the grocery store. So that’s not a stop work order. 15
And they didn’t bring the issue to the Council until six months later when the grocery 16
store was about to be opened. So that doesn’t show any interest in doing anything about 17
what had happened. 18
19
I suspect that the building that was demolished was only demolished after the developer 20
and his consultant figured out that if they couldn’t rebuild it it would still be a very 21
profitable project. So the simplest thing to do is to make a recommendation that the 22
building not be rebuilt. Ideally since it’s a Planned Community Zone what the Council 23
should have done, would have withdrawn the approval for the residential units and turned 24
it into dedicated parkland or else to just rezone it to Neighborhood Commercial. 25
26
You’re being asked to make a determination about restoring a building or so on. That’s 27
not what the Secretary of the Interior Standards talk about. You can restore something 28
that still exists otherwise what you’re doing is replicating. And replicating something 29
violates the Interior, Secretary of the Interior Standards. So doing anything that even 30
looks like or is another Building 1 violates the Secretary of the Interior Standards. So 31
therefore you can’t do anything with the building if you’re a Historic Resources Board, 32
but if the Council doesn’t care what you’re doing and the staff doesn’t care what you’re 33
doing, why are you bothering to still exist? Why? Because it’s in the Municipal Code. 34
35
In regard to the report I’ve already mentioned the loose language in terms of the stop 36
work order. Also if I am reading this correctly on page 5 the paragraph at the top of the 37
page last sentence it starts off saying “Because the proposed Building 1 is substantially 38
consistent with the originally approved design.” I think that means Building 2, but if 39
we’ve had a staff write that and all of you have read it maybe you understand better than I 40
do. 41
42
In regard to which staff is here today it seems to be a pattern that whenever there’s some 43
sort of loose recommendation regarding historic resources Dennis Backlund disappears 44
who is the Historic Planner for the City. This is not the first project on which this has 45
happened. What you have essentially is the City Council has made clear what 46
development it wants approved here and its pretending to seek your recommendation. In 1
fact if you look at the staff reports for this entire calendar year they no longer start off by 2
asking boards and commissions for a recommendation. They instead say “Well, provide 3
feedback to the staff.” That’s not what the Municipal Code says about boards and 4
commissions. It says you are an advisory body to the City Council. You are not a 5
sounding board to City staff. 6
7
So this project is sort of a poster child for figuring out whether or not it’s appropriate to 8
have a Historic Resources Board anymore. You eventually you may have a majority of 9
you whose job it is to approve projects that this developer or this consultant bring you, 10
but if you think there’s a role for the HRB it certainly isn’t at this stage in the process, 11
which is almost a year after the building was demolished. Thank you. 12
13
Chair Bernstein: Thank you Herb. Any other members of the public like to speak to us? 14
Ok, seeing none we’ll move back to our process. Next will be applicant closing 15
comments. Three minutes if you’d like to add any more words? Ok, seeing none for 16
that. Next is to close the public hearing and bring it back to the Board for Motions and 17
recommendations or comments. 18
19
I do have one question about looking at the Standards for Rehabilitation and staff correct 20
me if this is correct that even buildings that are considered to be reconstructions or 21
replications does the standards of differentiation and compatibility still apply? 22
23
Ms. Lee: The guidelines for reconstruction that would apply to the project basically talks 24
about preserving any possible historic materials and doing accurate depiction. I think 25
there’s more emphasis on accurate depiction of what was gone, basically to replicate 26
exactly what was gone. The rehabilitation standard talks about differentiation materials, 27
but the reconstruction standards do not. 28
29
Chair Bernstein: Ok, thank you. David. 30
31
Board Member Bower: So I’d like to make a comment and be interested in other Board 32
Members response to this. I just attended a California Environmental Quality Act 33
(CEQA) conference and went through a very thorough analysis of what CEQA requires 34
and what happens when, first of all CEQA requires that all steps be taken to mitigate 35
damage of historic fabric. Well, I think it’s pretty clear from the consultants review and 36
the engineers’ analysis of what the little historic fabric that this building contained that it 37
was not possible to renovate it, it would have to be replaced. And under the CEQA 38
guidelines that cannot, that mitigation measure cannot be met and so replacing the 39
damaged parts of the building is within a CEQA guideline and it is not, does not 40
challenge the CEQA requirements. So this particular hearing while in a difference 41
circumstance is in effect a verification of what the City’s consultants and owner’s 42
consultants would have told us if the building hadn’t been damaged or destroyed prior to 43
this hearing. So I think this is where we were going to come to inevitably and so I’m not 44
sure about the reproduction, exact reproduction of historic fabric, but I think we’re not as 45
a public speaker just suggested, we’re not here for window dressing. We’re following the 46
CEQA guidelines and that they have this specific, this kind of analysis is not only part of 1
the CEQA process but is a really, is condoned, it’s not the right word, but it would be 2
accepted as part of the CEQA process. 3
4
So I think that as a Board what we’re doing here is we are acknowledging what I thought 5
was inevitable when it first came, this project first came to us and that we’re trying to 6
make the best of a situation that for a variety of reasons we didn’t anticipate, but we’re 7
now having to deal with. So… Also the other thing is in any project in the City of Palo 8
Alto every structure has its own permit. Stopping work on Building 1 would not have 9
required that work be stopped on the market or Building 2 because those are separate, in 10
the eyes of City planners those are separate buildings and they have their own process 11
and they have their own reviews and they have their own inspections. While all three 12
buildings are part of this project proposal, losing one building doesn’t disqualify the 13
entire project to move forward. 14
15
Chair Bernstein: Board Member Wimmer. Go ahead. 16
17
Board Member Wimmer: I just wanted to just comment and this is just a general 18
comment. So now that this building no longer exists and there was a question of its 19
historic real value to begin with and I do believe that relocating it would have been next 20
to impossible. Any building that’s that old and probably had initial flaws to the original 21
design anyway and doesn’t comply to the current codes, excuse me, now that building no 22
longer exists. So is the best solution to rebuild it as closely as possible to what it was or 23
is this an opportunity to do something, I don’t know. I mean I know this is probably 24
going back in time and I’m new to the committee and I’m new to this project so when I 25
look at this and I see what’s on this paper I’m not sure that that’s the best solution for 26
Palo Alto. I’m not sure that that’s the best building that we can build in that spot. I mean 27
it is a nod to Eichler. It is a nod also to mid-century modern, which I think is very 28
popular right now especially among younger people and it’s a design that I think does 29
have merit and value in the historic history of American architecture, but I’m not sure 30
that this is a prize winning example of architecture that belongs in Palo Alto. 31
32
I mean I’m hoping I’m not stepping on anyone’s toes, but also what I see another thing 33
that bothers me is just the amount of the height of the shroud that hides the air 34
conditioning unit is a third of the height, of the overall height of the building. Two-thirds 35
is the building and one-third is this box that is necessary I guess because we do have to 36
make sure that the building has the adequate mechanical features that it needs, but it’s 37
such a design impact. It’s such a, it has so much height and it’s just a box that’s there and 38
it is visible, it’s very visible and I know that it’s not original to the original building 39
because the original building didn’t require that feature, but if we can at least look at that 40
I think that’s something worth looking at. 41
42
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. I just want to make a comment. I was actually thinking 43
similar thoughts that Board Member Wimmer just mentioned about what else could be 44
there for a building and that’s why I asked the question about the differentiation. Is there 45
a structure there that would be completely different than replicating the building that was 46
there in style? And one of my thoughts about that is that could be interesting from an 1
architectural design point of view, but would that distract then from the historical quality 2
of the existing buildings that are qualified or deemed possible for historic registration and 3
I think that’s probably the most important thing about any existing historical qualities is 4
that whatever is there does it district from the quality of what’s there historically? So I 5
thought about the same question. There’s an opportunity to do something that is 6
compatible yet differentiation. But we’re looking at something right now, the applicant is 7
asking for reconstruction. Beth, go ahead. 8
9
Board Member Bunnenberg: Thank you for bringing up the question of the cumulative 10
effects of the loss of these mid-century modern buildings. I think one thing that we had 11
not talked about was the fact that here is this building lost and to put in something new 12
would definitely change the whole atmosphere I feel of the shopping center and the fact 13
that we’ve also are losing the Edward Durell Stone Building out at Stanford and the 14
hospital complex so that unless I’m missing one I think that the main library is the only 15
Edward Durell Stone Building that’s left so that there’s a definite loss of this kind of 16
thing. And in that we’re seeing a real resurgence in the Eichlers it feels to me like the 17
important thing would be to maintain the look of the shopping center and if necessary put 18
a little plaque up to the effect that this is a reconstruction of what was there, but I would 19
seriously worry about putting a modern, different, total different building there. 20
21
Chair Bernstein: David. 22
23
Board Member Bower: So I think the staff report on Page 6 the first paragraph really 24
captures why we’re here today. We’re not really here to look at a building and whether 25
or not the trim around the windows matches. It’s the fact that this particular Eichler 26
development was the first retail development that Eichler did and maybe the only one. 27
Isn’t that right? It’s the only one. And so the purpose of this project was to retain the 28
three building retail interaction and moving this Building 1 allowed for a more efficient 29
use of this space. And we’ve lost the building itself, but by recreating the building, 30
rebuilding it we won’t lose the what I think is the most important historic aspect and 31
that’s the retail environment. So putting another type of building there basically ends that 32
as a historic objective and I think that that’s really what we’re analyzing today. 33
34
And I’m sorry we lost the hospital. Durell Stone is a significant architect. This building 35
is no longer considered historic because they had to take down the canopies outside. We 36
still have it until the earthquake takes it away from us, which I think is inevitable. So we 37
have a problem in Palo Alto retaining any building that’s old and doesn’t have some kind 38
of protection downtown. None of the residential buildings that were built say before the 39
Second World War I think will survive in this building because of the land value 40
pressure. That’s something we ought to do as a Board. We ought to figure out a way to 41
get those buildings, but today we’re here to look at the Eichler retail development out at 42
Embarcadero and I think that approving this is the way we keep that development intact. 43
44
Chair Bernstein: Pat. 45
46
Board Member DiCicco: I feel actually very strongly in agreement with David and Beth 1
because we still are retaining something that is the only thing that existed at this time 2
being a retail center constructed in the postmodern and even though there is the 3
development of ten houses it is far, far better than the development of 25 house and 4
basically eliminating what was the core of this property granted it has a lot of mitigation 5
that it is new and I agree a plaque or something to identify that this has been replicated as 6
close as we can to the original to get the feel of what this property really was and the 7
signage and so on and so forth. So it is what it is and I think that’s the best solution. 8
9
Chair Bernstein: Michael. 10
11
Board Member Makinen: So I generally agree with everything I’ve heard here. I will 12
point out the fact that the integrity of the shopping center is what we’re really interested 13
in preserving and there are seven aspects of historic integrity and association and the 14
context are the important ones right here that we try to maintain the fact that we do have a 15
shopping center that is unique, it is mid-century, the only mid-century shopping center 16
that was ever built, and to put something entirely different would I believe result in loss 17
of total integrity that we have for that site. So I’m in favor of the reconstruction. 18
19
Chair Bernstein: Staff, Steven. If the Board does make a Motion and it gets passed to 20
recommend the reconstruction process for this there are findings that are, are findings 21
needed to support any Motion? 22
23
Mr. Turner: Well I believe there are two requests and recommendations by staff as noted 24
on Page 6. Number one is to review and comment on the adequacy of the analysis of the 25
loss of Building 1 and the proposal to reconstruct the building as originally approved with 26
all new materials. That’s essentially the information that’s contained within the SEIR 27
and on Page 16 there is a detailed environmental analysis that talks about the consistency 28
of the reconstruction project with those standards. So by finding that the Board chooses 29
to do so, making a finding that the SEIR seems to adequate analyze the reconstruction 30
that you would be essentially agreeing with the Secretary’s Standards analysis within that 31
document. And then second of all, the second item for review and recommendation to 32
the reconstruction project itself, those were the project plans that were contained within 33
your packet and you can make comments on that as well. 34
35
I think staff might recommend separate Motions and votes on each one. I know Board 36
Member Wimmer as a new Board Member may not have had the opportunity to review 37
the SEIR since that was distributed previously, so if she chooses she may abstain on that 38
particular action, but can certainly make a recommendation on the second item on the 39
reconstruction plans themselves. 40
41
Ms. Lee: Chair if I may I also wanted to point out that the reconstruction standards do 42
require that, do identify a need for a plaque to identify that the building is not a historic 43
building and it’s a recreation. So that will be a requirement for this as well as the 44
applicant is still working on providing a plaque for the park that provides the historic 45
context of this project. 46
1
Chair Bernstein: Thank you. Are we approaching a Motion? Go ahead, yeah. Roger. 2
3
Vice-Chair Kohler: I guess I thought I’d make one last comment. I’ve worked on several 4
Eichlers, homes and they are very susceptible to rot and things like that because they are 5
all wood. And so I think that the fact that the one building is maintaining and being 6
refurbished and the other building sounds like just was barely standing on its own by 7
itself. The other thing if you look at the site plans the aerial photos of the arrangement of 8
the three buildings on the site I think that was one of the downturns of this, the popularity 9
of the shopping center in that it became it was so close and tight knit that you couldn’t, 10
when you drove by you actually couldn’t see all the buildings. And so I think its 11
perception as a shopping center sort of went down as time went on and the fact that the 12
building that’s was being relocated is now is actually being moved will make the 13
visibility of the shopping center much more friendly and will invite more people into it 14
then it had in the past. 15
16
You know because my office isn’t far from there and we used to go get pizza there at 17
lunch, but just finding the pizza place which was around the back on the other side of the 18
building that’s actually being moved was difficult to locate. So I think the arrangement 19
of this shopping center has I think contributed a lot to its demise. Not totally, but I think 20
it’s just visually not very friendly to get into. So I think moving the building is actually 21
going to be a good thing. So, ok. 22
23
Chair Bernstein: Beth. 24
25
Board Member Bunnenberg: Well I think I would respectfully disagree with Board 26
Member Kohler. I was thoroughly disappointed when this building, when the agreement 27
of the Board was to move this building because I thought the arcade was an important 28
part of it. my only hope is that some of the retention of those woodland beams and the 29
fact that there is a visual way through even from the Saint Francis side keeps a little bit of 30
that feeling, but for the Secretary of Interior Standards I didn’t really approve, I didn’t 31
feel that moving the building was a great thing for the site. 32
33
Chair Bernstein: For the benefit of the next review process staff is asking us to make two 34
recommendations or consider making two recommendations. The first is review and 35
comment on the adequacy of the Supplemental EIR; any recommendations or a proposed 36
Motion for that item? 37
38
Board Member Bower: I would move that the SEIR as the staff has requested is adequate 39
and I think it’s, you want to know that it, you want us to say it’s adequate and that it 40
addresses the issues, correct. 41
42
Ms. Lee: Yes and also that you’re recommending that if the City Council should certify 43
the Supplemental EIR that would be the technical (interrupted) 44
45
MOTION 46
1
Board Member Bower: So my Motion is that we approve the SEIR and that we encourage 2
the Council to certify the SEIR. 3
4
Chair Bernstein: Do I have a second? 5
6
Board Member Bunnenberg: Do we want to mention the Secretary of Interior Standards 7
in the Motion? 8
9
Chair Bernstein: I think it’s in the SEIR 10
11
Board Member Bunnenberg: Is that sufficient to have it there? 12
13
Mr. Turner: I think it’s sufficient in that the Secretary Standards are described in detail 14
within the SEIR. 15
16
SECOND, VOTE 17
18
Chair Bernstein: Ok, do we have a second for the Motion? Ok it’s been seconded, Any 19
discussion on this particular Motion before we bring it to a vote? All in favor say aye 20
(Aye). That passes unanimously. 21
22
MOTION PASSED (7-0) 23
24
Chair Bernstein: Next item, review and provide recommendation on the change to the 25
project, which would allow the construction of Building 1 with all new materials; Any 26
discussion or recommendation or Motion toward that direction? Pat your light’s on. We 27
need your light on. 28
29
MOTION 30
31
Board Member DiCicco: I would recommend that we approve reconstruction of Building 32
1 in the planned site and to meet the Secretary Standards ensure that a placard is affixed 33
to the building and construction will follow the approval of the materials already used in 34
Building 2. 35
36
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 37
38
Board Member Bunnenberg: And do we including monitoring in that? Oh, I’d like to see 39
it called out. Would you accept that addition? 40
41
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT INCORPORATED 42
43
Board Member DiCicco: And to include in this recommendation that the monitoring at 44
every step of the way continue as recommended in the staff report. 45
46
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 1
2
Board Member Bower: Could I make one other friendly amendment/recommendation? 3
That we say in this Motion that we feel as a Board that replacing this building meets the 4
original intent of the proposal, which is to retain the retail, the retail environment, 5
building environment. 6
7
Chair Bernstein: Was that agreeable to the maker of the Motion? 8
9
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT INCORPORATED 10
11
Board Member DiCicco: Yes, well stated. 12
13
Chair Bernstein: Ok. 14
15
SECOND 16
17
Board Member Bower: I’ll second that Motion then. 18
19
Chair Bernstein: Ok, it’s been Moved and seconded, Any discussion on this? I have a 20
just a quick comment. I think this is the right direction to go. We’ve discussed the 21
option of, we discussed the possibility of no building, no project. We’ve discussed or at 22
least mentioned the idea that there could be an alternative design. So my thought about 23
this is that having a reconstruction and it’ll be publicly noted through a plaque process 24
that I think having the three buildings there that have this certain feel is a higher benefit 25
than if there are only two buildings there that have this feeling and not have a building 26
that competes with the character that Mr. Eichler tried to achieve on this. That’s why I’ll 27
be in support of the Motion. 28
29
Anymore discussion before we bring it to a vote? Staff do you need anything else from 30
us on this Motion? 31
32
Ms. Lee: No, that’s it. Thank you. 33
34
VOTE Motion by Bower and seconded by DiCicco 35
36
Chair Bernstein: Ok. All in favor say aye (Aye). Passes unanimously. Good. Ok, thank 37
you very much, the applicant thank you so much for your presentation, and staff thank 38
you for your regard on this. 39
40
MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0) 41
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4076)
Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report
Report Type: Meeting Date: 9/25/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Edgewood Plaza PC Amendment
Title: 2080 Channing Avenue [13PLN-00197]: Review of a request by Sand
Hill Property Company for (1) the certification of the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report and Adoption of Overriding Considerations,
and (2) an amendment to Planned Community (PC-5150), Edgewood Plaza
Shopping Center mixed use project, to allow reconstruction of one of two
historic Eichler retail buildings (Building 1). The Supplemental Environmental
Impact Report public comment period began May 17 and ended July 20,
2013.
From: Elena Lee, Senior Planner
Lead Department: Planning & Community Environment
PLANNING COMMISSION PURVIEW
The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) is requested to review the Edgewood
Shopping Center Mixed Use Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) and the
attached draft Resolution (Attachment A) and amended Planned Community (PC) ordinance
(Attachment B) and forward its recommendation to Council regarding the SEIR and proposed
Amendment to Planned Community PC-5150. The applicant is proposing the amendment to
this PC Zoning because one of the historic retail buildings proposed to be rehabilitated was
demolished during the construction process.
The project scope required submittal and review of a separate Planned Community Rezone
application, because the project is not considered a minor change to a previously approved
Planned Community development plan. If it were considered as a minor change, the
Architectural Review Board and Historic Resources Board would be allowed to review and
recommend the changes to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Attachment
A identifies the proposed construction of Building #1 using new materials and a schedule for
estimated completion of the project.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Planned Community Rezoning
PC districts follow a unique set of procedures, standards, and findings, which are described in
Chapter 18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Typically, the first step in the PC
process is Commission review of the concept plans, development program statement and draft
development schedule, and initiation of the rezoning. This application is different in that (1)
the Council previously approved a development plan, a development program statement, a
schedule, and a PC ordinance for the previous version of the project. The proposed project is a
modification of a recent Council approved PC. (2) The application does not require initiation,
and (3) the Architectural Review Board (ARB) is not part of this PC review process due to the
scope of this amendment; rather, the Historic Resources Board (HRB) has considered the
project and has provided a recommendation to Council. Because the only proposed change to
the PC development plan is the construction materials of Building #1, and all other components
of the PC remain the same, the amendment was not brought to the ARB. However, the ARB
subcommittee has been consulted on a periodic basis for minor façade changes in the ARB’s
purview throughout the construction process.
The approval of the amended PC is still subject to the three PC findings, that:
(a) the site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such
characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not
provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development; and
(b) development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will
result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of
general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section,
the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, as appropriate, shall
specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned
community district; and
(c) the use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the
district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and shall be
compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general
vicinity.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the City
Council: 1) approve the Resolution (Attachment A) certifying the Final Environmental Impact
Report (previously distributed and available on the City’s website); and 2) adopt an Ordinance
(Attachment B) approving the amendment to the Planned Community project to allow the
reconstruction of Building #1 with all new materials.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
BACKGROUND
Project Description
Planned Community (PC) application 13PLN-00198 submitted on February 6, 2013 requested
the rebuilding of Building #1 with all new materials. The applicant is not proposing any other
changes to the project. The site area of the PC is 156,175 sq. ft. and is currently developed with
two retail buildings having a combined 28,400 sq. ft. non-residential floor area. Building #1 (at
10,000 sq. ft.) would be relocated towards the southeast of the property, such that the nearest
street facing wall would be set back approximately 15 feet from the Saint Francis Drive property
line (approximately 20 feet from the back of the sidewalk). Building #1 would be reconstructed
as originally approved by Council in March 2012. The building would feature the character
defining features, such as the turn-down roof, glulam beams and redwood siding. The building
would also include a new metal mechanical enclosure on the roof to screen roof- mounted
equipment.
Building #1 is to be rebuilt in substantial conformance to the elevations approved in March
2012. A Final Map is also pending Council review and action. This PC amendment was
reviewed and recommended for approval by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) at the August
21, 2013 public hearing. A summary of the HRB hearing is provided below. The master sign
program, grocery store signage and re-facing of the historic monument sign were reviewed and
approved by both the ARB and HRB accordingly.
Project History
Edgewood Plaza is a commercial shopping center built between 1956 and 1958 by Joseph
Eichler/Eichler Homes and A. Quincy Jones of Jones and Emmons. The center was originally
built with the existing grocery building (1957), two retail buildings (1958), an office building that
formerly housed the office of Eichler Homes (1959), and a gas station (1957). The office
building and gas station sites are not part of the subject shopping center. Edgewood Plaza is
not listed on The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical
Resources (CRHR), or on the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Although this site is not on the City’s
inventory, because it has been deemed eligible for both registers, it is considered a historic
resource.
The site was the subject of a Planned Community (PC) rezoning approved by the City Council on
March 19, 2012 to allow the redevelopment of an existing vacant and historic shopping center,
including the relocation of one of three retail buildings, the addition of ten homes and a new
9,000 square foot park. Two of the existing commercial buildings, Buildings #1 and #2 have
been deemed historic resources and proposed for rehabilitation. Building #3, the former
market building, currently occupied by Fresh Market, is not considered a historic resource.
Building #1 was approved to be disassembled, relocated on site and rehabilitated. Building #2
was approved to be rehabilitated in place. A tentative map was also approved to subdivide the
City of Palo Alto Page 4
property into one commercial lot, including the public park, and ten single family lots.
The primary public benefits for the Edgewood Plaza project consisted of 1) the preservation of
historic resources, 2) the construction and operation of the grocery store and 3) 0.20 acre park
with an on-site display highlighting Joseph Eichler’s achievements. An Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) was prepared and certified by the City Council in March 2012, to provide
environmental clearance for the rezoning, in accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). A Final EIR for the original project was certified by the City Council,
following positive recommendations by the HRB, the Planning and Transportation Commission
(P&TC), and the Architectural Review Board. The original Final EIR analyzed the historic
resources and the project’s potential impact on those resources. Four reports regarding the
project’s historic resources were prepared for the project’s EIR. An initial report was prepared
by Page & Turnbull, Inc., the applicant’s consultant, with a peer review prepared by Carey &
Company. Buildings 1 and 2 were deemed to have retained integrity of design, despite some
minor exterior alterations over the past fifty years. Both buildings would have been eligible for
inclusion on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) under Criterion 3,
Architecture, as a rare example of commercial development by the noted partnership of Eichler
Homes and Jones & Emmons. Because the site had been determined to be eligible for both the
NRHP and CRHR, per the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the site would have qualified for the Palo
Alto Historic Inventory under Criterion 3 and 4.
The Council’s March 19, 2012 certification of the EIR based on the assumption that historic
impacts for the relocation of Building #1 would be mitigated to a less than significant impact
because the building would be rehabilitated in accordance with the Secretary of Interior’s
Standards for Historic Rehabilitation (Standards). This was consistent with the HRB’s
recommendation at the October 19, 2011 hearing for the original project. The rehabilitation
included retention of the character defining features of the building, such as the wood window
frames, glulam beams, concrete block wall, cornice and wood paneling.
In September 2012, a stop work order was issued because the historic building (Building #1)
that was to be disassembled and reconstructed onsite was illegally demolished. On March 4,
2013, the City Council authorized the continued construction of the grocery store, the
remaining historic (Building #2), six of the homes and other onsite and offsite improvements.
The City Council also authorized the hiring of Carey & Company, the historic consulting firm that
the performed the peer review on the original EIR for the City, to review plans and monitor
construction to ensure that Building #2 comply with the PC zoning and all mitigation measures,
including the Standards. The monitoring has included multiple walk-throughs and special focus
has been placed in the preservation of the building’s signature glulam beams. To date, the
applicant has completed the grocery store building, various parking lot improvements and
installation of the electric charging stations. The rehabilitation of Building #2 is in process.
Following the Council hearing, staff has received multiple emails supporting the continued
City of Palo Alto Page 5
construction of the project.
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD REVIEW
Following the release of the Supplemental EIR, a HRB hearing was held on August 21, 2013 to
receive HRB feedback on the Supplemental EIR and rebuilding of Building #1 with all new
materials. The shopping center, now more than 50 years old, has been deemed a historic
resource even though it is not on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), or the Palo Alto Historic Inventor. The HRB had
reviewed the original project and EIR.
During the hearing, one member of the public spoke regarding the project, recommending that
Building #1 not be rebuilt and that the housing approved with the project be replaced with
dedicated parkland. The HRB voted unanimously to recommend that City Council certify the
Supplemental EIR with a Statement of Overriding Considerations. The HRB also voted
unanimously to approve the amendment to the PC Zoning to allow the reconstruction of
Building #1 with all new materials, specifying that the replacement materials must follow the
materials approved for use in Building #2 and a plaque must be installed on the building
recognizing that it is a replica in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
Reconstruction. The HRB’s recommendation included staff’s recommendation that a historic
consultant be hired to monitor the construction of Building #1, to ensure that it will be similar
to the originally approved Building #1. The HRB determined that the project can be supported
because the proposed replacement meets the original intent to retain the retail building
environment.
KEY ISSUES
Reconstruction versus Retention of Building #1
Building #1 was originally approved to be dismantled and rebuilt to accommodate the
redevelopment, and would have retained the character defining features, such as the turn-
down roof, glue laminated or glulam beams, concrete masonry unit (cmu) block walls, and
redwood siding. The walls were defined as a “kit of parts” to be reorganized to maintain the
historic character of the buildings, while allowing the modernization of the building to
accommodate a successful retail environment. As of September of 2012, the building was
demolished and the materials were disposed of, making it not possible to comply with the
original approval.
The applicant proposes a complete reconstruction of Building #1 with all new materials, but in
the same location as previously approved by Council. All other components of the previously
approved PC project, including the ten residences and park, would remain the same as
City of Palo Alto Page 6
approved by Council. The building would be substantially consistent with the originally
approved design, with a few minor modifications.
Building #1 is proposed to be substantially similar to the originally approved design, which was
based on the “kit of parts” concept that would ensure the building would retain the character
defining features of the Eichler aesthetic. The “kit of parts” consist of the block walls, the
storefront glass, redwood siding and the glulam beams. The building would still include a new
roof screen to hide roof mounted equipment. The modifications include moving around of the
“parts” and modifications of the proportions of each element to accommodate modern tenants
and requirements of the Building Code. As illustrated in the elevations shown on plan set pages
A3.2 and A3.3 (Attachment D), the new building would consist of the same types of materials in
a different configuration. These minor modifications have been carefully reviewed and found
acceptable by the City’s Historic Preservation Planner. Similar modifications to Building #2 have
been reviewed and approved by the City, also with consultation by the City’s historic
consultant, Carey & Company.
The applicant will also be required to install a plaque, to the satisfaction of the Planning
Director, identifying the building as a reconstruction in accordance with Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for Reconstruction. Staff is also recommending that Carey & Company be
retained to monitor the building permit process and construction for Building #1. This will also
be critical for the installation of the window frames.
Storefront Windows
The original Council approved PC plan included the installation of new, much simpler wood
framed windows. Like Building #2, the original window frames in Building #1 had been replaced
over the years with similar, but simpler, wood frames. The approved replacement wood
window frames were flat and did not include the projecting moldings.
Given that the revised project allows for modifications, replication of the original storefront
window system is now possible. Building #1 can now be rebuilt in a design significantly closer
to its original appearance than the altered building that was illegally demolished. The original
wood window frames of both Eichler buildings were a more complex design that included
narrow full-height projecting moldings on either side of the glass which gave the windows a
streamline modern look. Because one storefront at the rear of Building #2 was preserved intact
since 1957, the City and the applicant’s historic consultant will be able to use that storefront as
a model in the reconstruction of Buildings #2 and #1 to its original 1957 design. The rebuilding
of Building #1 will provide a much more historically correct design than was found in the
building that was demolished, and more correct than the version the Council had approved.
The applicant has agreed to install these more complex window frames for both Buildings #1
and #2. Working closely with the City’s historic consultant, the applicant now has custom-made
City of Palo Alto Page 7
replicas for the rehabilitation of Building #2, and will do the same for Building #1, should the
amendment be approved. Although the loss of a historic building cannot be mitigated, the
historic accuracy of the replacement structure would be increased with the installation of these
more complex window frames. Staff has determined that because the storefront glass system
was a large part of the original design, this requirement provides a significant historic benefit to
the project. This addition, in some ways, will result in a building that is more similar to the
original design, although constructed of all new materials. This historic enhancement will
improve the historic integrity of the remaining historic building, Building #2.
Public Benefits
Original Public Benefits
As part of the original PC rezoning, the applicant proposed to provide the following public
benefits to satisfy the second PC finding:
1) preservation of a historically significant Eichler designed shopping center,
2) an approximately 20,600 sq. ft. grocery store,
3) an approximately 0.20 acre park with an on-site display highlighting Joseph Eichler’s
achievements, and
4) three electric vehicle car chargers
Applicant’s Proposed New Public Benefits
The applicant will still be able to provide most of the public benefits. However, due to the
demolition of Building 1, the character of the preservation benefit will need to be modified. The
applicant is also intending on completing the rehabilitation of Building #2 in late September and
staff believes that the rehabilitation will conform to the Secretary of Interior Standards and be a
good example of mid-century architecture. The City’s historic consultant, Charlie Duncan of
Carey & Company, indicated that he has been satisfied with the process and work so far. The
applicant has also stated that he would request that the City consider the addition of the three
car chargers and the traffic signal upgrade at St. Francis and Embarcadero also be considered
public benefits because although those were City requirements, technical modifications have
increased the cost significantly. Per the applicant, those items will cost over $200,000.
Because the applicant is proposing an amendment to the Planned Community Zoning, the City
can consider whether additional public benefits should be required to compensate for the
benefits lost by the demolition of Building #1. As noted earlier in this report, the applicant is
proposing that the installation of a storefront window system on Buildings #1 and #2 that
replicates the original wood window frames of the original Eichler design be considered a public
benefit. The window frames feature a more complex three dimensional design that included
narrow full-height projecting moldings on either side of the glass. The cost for installing the
City of Palo Alto Page 8
new frames will be over $250,000, excluding the cost required for monitoring by the City’s
historic consultant. The installation of the new frames on Building #2 has begun and
construction is anticipated to be completed in late September. The City’s consultant has been
carefully reviewing the entire process.
Although Building #1 has been lost, the project continues to provide the public benefit of the
preservation (or recreation) of a historic design, a public park, a grocery store and the
rehabilitation of a public sign. Construction of Building #1 will result in a project that more
closely resembles the original center than it would without the building.
Possible Public Benefits
West Bayshore Road Sidewalk
During the original public hearings for this project, there were requests to require the
construction of sidewalks along West Bayshore Road. Sidewalks were not been required
because West Bayshore Road to the north of the site does not have sidewalks and this portion
of West Bayshore Road frontage is not designed for pedestrian activity. Construction of
sidewalks to the north of the site would have been beyond the scope of the project. However,
in response to neighbor comments, the City has incorporated the construction of sidewalks on
West Bayshore Road as a future project in the Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
(adopted July 2012). Staff has consulted both with Transportation and Public Works staff
regarding the feasibility of the construction of sidewalks. The cost estimate for construction of
sidewalk on one side of West Bayshore from the project site to the City limits, excluding
drainage cost, is approximately $144,000. The City could require the applicant contribute
towards the work to be completed by the City as part of its Capital Improvement Program as a
public benefit.
Historic Rehabilitation Contribution
As an alternative, the applicant could make a contribution to the restoration of a publicly
owned, historic resource in Palo Alto. For example, the applicant could contribute funding
towards improvements of the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Depot, which is the
second busiest station for the Caltrain system. The Streamline Modern style station is
designated as Category 1 on the City’s historic inventory and is also on the National Registry of
Historic Places. This is just one example; however, there are other publicly owned buildings in
Palo Alto that could also benefit from rehabilitation funds. If appropriate, these funds could be
stored in a reserve account, and be made available when directed by the Council.
Penalties
City of Palo Alto Page 9
City Council also asked staff to provide them with recommendations regarding penalties for the
demolition of Building #1. The consideration of penalties should be weighed when determining
the cost and benefit of additional required public benefits. The Municipal Code allows the City
to fine applicants for a variety of code violations, based on the type of infraction. A common
practice among various municipalities is to charge double to triple the building permit fee for
code violations. Although the demolition of historic buildings without permits happens rarely,
the application of double or triple the building permit fee has been used. The building permit
fee is based on the valuation of the construction cost and the scope of work for all trades (i.e.
lighting, plumbing, etc.). The building permit fee for the shell that was charged for Building 1
was $9443.17, or about 1.5 percent for a valuation of $600,000. Accordingly, the City could use
this rationale to fine the applicant an additional $9,443.17 for the illegal demolition.
Additionally, given the special circumstance of the demolition of an historic structure, an
additional fine may be warranted. There is a specific fine of $1,000 authorized in the City Code
for demolition of a downtown historic structure. If a similar fine were added to the building
permit fee, a total of $10,443.17 could be assessed. According to the applicant, the cost of the
construction is approximately 25-30% higher, or between $150,000 and $180,000 (based on the
original valuation), than expected due to the poor condition of the building materials. This
excludes site construction and the additional cost due to the custom made windows. The cost
of the custom made windows will add approximately $162,000 to the total construction cost.
This also excludes the cost of the electrical vehicle charging stations and the traffic signal
modifications discussed above. If the building permit fee were to be evaluated, the valuation
would be $912,000 or $942,000. If the cost of the building permit fee was used as a penalty,
then a possible fine would be between $13,680 and $28,260. As an alternative, the City could
charge a percentage of the construction cost of the project. If ten percent is used, the fine can
be between $91,200 and $94,200.
Staff has consulted with various cities regarding their approaches for implementing penalties
for the illegal demolition of historic resources. Cities consulted included Berkeley, San Jose,
Burlingame, Menlo Park, and Los Gatos. Those cities do not have ordinances that identify
specific penalty fees for illegal demolition. However, as discussed above, those cities have
required payment of double to triple of the building permit fees as a penalty. The applicant has
and will continue to incur substantial costs associated with the delay due to the demolition.
The costs include the preparation of the Supplemental EIR, hiring of the historic consultant and
the fees for the PC Amendment.
While it does not appear that the City’s existing penalty structure adequately compensates the
community for loss of a historic resource, nevertheless, the City Council may ultimately
determine additional compensation is warranted upon review of the amended PC Zoning.
Final SEIR and Environmental Impacts
City of Palo Alto Page 10
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was originally published and posted on February 1, 2013 and
sent to the State Clearinghouse for a 30-day period, from February 1 to March 4, 2013. A
Notice of Completion and Availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report
(SEIR) was published, posted and mailed announcing that the document was available for a 45-
day comment period from May 17 through July 20, 2013. Copies of the SEIR were provided to
the HRB, P&TC and City Council at the beginning of the circulation period. The document
concluded that the revised project would result in two new significant impacts: 1) Significant
Impact to the historic resources specific to Building #1 after implementation of mitigation
measures and 2) Significant Cumulative Historic Resources Impact.
The Supplemental EIR was prepared by David J. Powers and Associates, an environmental
consulting firm. The Draft SEIR was the subject of a HRB hearing on August 21, 2013. The HRB
found the SEIR adequate and recommended that it be certified by the City Council. The Final
SEIR would have included formal responses to all comments received during the public
comment period. Since no comments were received regarding the SEIR, a Final SEIR was
prepared confirming that no comments were received. The Final SEIR was circulated for public
review on September 5, 2013 and will be available to the public a minimum of ten days prior to
the EIR certification hearing. The SEIR and project have been tentatively scheduled for an
October 2013 City Council hearing, pending the outcome of this PTC hearing. The Draft SEIR
and Final SEIR, including source documents, additional background information, and the PTC,
HRB, and ARB reports for review dates mentioned above are available on the City’s website at
http://goo.gl/PjnreG. Images of project plans are also available with the staff report online, as
a link on the PTC September 11, 2013 PTC meeting agenda.
SEIR Contents
Because the complete loss of Building #1 has been deemed a substantial change to the project,
in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15162(a), the Supplement to the EIR (SEIR) was
prepared to address the changes needed to comply with State law. The supplement contains
the information needed to address the change. This SEIR is focused only on the new significant
historic impact created by the change to the proposal, the loss of Building #1 and the
replacement construction in the same location of new materials. The original Final EIR included
a mitigation measure (MMCR-2.3) that required compliance with the Secretary of Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation to reduce the impact to historic resources to a less than significant
level for both Buildings #1 and #2. Loss of Building #1’s materials has made application of the
mitigation measure and the Standards of Rehabilitation not possible. The other two mitigation
measures to reduce the impact to historic resources to a less than significant level included the
preparation of a Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) (MM CR-2.1) and creation of a
display illustrating the history of Edgewood Plaza (MM CR-2.2) are still applicable. The HABS
survey was completed and has been used to facilitate the preparation of the SEIR and the
project implementation. The applicant is working on the design of the historic display.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
The SEIR concluded that there would be a new significant impact to historic resources due to
the loss of Building #1. The Secretary of Interior has established four treatments or guidelines
to address the preservation of historic resources: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration and
Reconstruction. Because there was a complete loss of materials, only the Reconstruction
approach is applicable to address impacts to historic resources. The Reconstruction guidelines
have typically been used in very selective situations, such as reconstruction of historic museum,
where there is a clear public benefit (usually educational). The guidelines include requirements
such as preservation of any remaining historic materials and construction of only the original
design. The complete list of Guidelines and Standards for Reconstruction are provided on
pages 19-22 of the SEIR. However, application of the guidelines cannot reduce the demolition
to a less than significant level because none of the historic fabric would be retained. The SEIR
also analyzed the potential impact to the remaining historic building, Building #2. Because the
proposed Building #1 is substantially consistent with the originally approved design and in the
same location, it was determined that there would not be an impact to the character of
Building #2.
To address the new impact caused by the loss of Building #1, mitigation measure CR-2.3 has
been amended. The mitigation measure as originally written still applies to Building #2. CR-2.3
now states:
A new Building 1 will be constructed of new building materials that match the
character and one-story form of the commercial buildings of Edgewood Plaza as
built by Eichler Homes, consistent with the previous approved building
elevations. As a condition of approval, all facades of Building #1 will be wood-
framed storefront systems that replicate the detail of the original 1957 window
design.
The final design and materials to be used in the renovation of Building #2 and
reconstruction of Building #1 will be reviewed and approved by the Director and
the Historic Preservation Planner of the City of Palo Alto Planning and
Community Environment.
In addition, staff is also proposing to have the City’s historic consultant, Carey & Company, to
review and monitor the construction of Building #1 similar to what was required for Building #2.
As noted above, application of the revised mitigation measure will not reduce the level of
significance because none of the original building has been retained. The SEIR also concluded
that there is a significant impact to Cumulative Cultural Resources, in that the loss of Building
#1 combined with the recently approved demolition of the Edward Durrell Stone Building
Complex (1959) at the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) campus (as part of the SUMC
Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project approved in July 2011) has created a cumulatively
City of Palo Alto Page 12
considerable impact to mid-century modern buildings by prominent architects. The Stone
Building Complex represents a significant example of the modern design Aesthetic and of a
significant architect. The loss of Building #1 combined with the loss of the Stone Building
Complex will therefore be a significant impact.
Alternatives have been set forth and evaluated in the SEIR to allow the City Council and
recommending bodies to consider ways to minimize the significance of the impacts to historic
resources. Two alternatives were analyzed in the SEIR: (1) No Project and (2) Building Design.
The No Project alternative would be a project without a new Building #1. Because the original
building no longer exists, this would not avoid or reduce the historic impact due to the loss.
However, the project objectives of creating a new mixed use project with three retail buildings
would not be met.
The second alternative, Building Design Alternative, would allow for a new building to be
constructed in its new location with new materials. However, the building would be
constructed in a manner that duplicates the original 1957 design. This may result in a more
historically accurate representation, but would still be a new building. Therefore it would not
reduce the impact to a less than significant level. The alternative would also not meet the
project objectives because it would not allow the changes originally proposed by the applicant
to make the building more suitable for a viable retail building.
As noted, the Final SEIR, together with the Draft SEIR, is considered the CEQA clearance
document for the amended project. No new environmental impacts were identified following
the release of the Draft SEIR. The Final SEIR confirmed that no comments were received for the
Draft SEIR and no changes have been made.
Certification of Final SEIR
Based on the analysis provided in the Final SEIR, consultation with various professional
consultants and the recommendation by the HRB, staff recommends that the PTC recommend
that the Council find that the demolition of Building #1 is significant, but that Statement of
Overriding Considerations be made to allow the reconstruction of Building #1 with all new
materials. The reconstruction of Building #1 will result in a building that is compatible to the
original and will be more similar to the original building than the approved rehabilitation due to
the installation of the more detailed window frames.
RESOURCE IMPACT
City of Palo Alto Page 13
The applicant has already paid impact fees for the original PC rezoning, which included park,
community center and library fees for the project. The redeveloped project site is expected to
result in a significant increase in property taxes. The applicant estimates that the project would
result in annual sales tax revenue from retail activity of approximately $1,050,000 and annual
property tax revenue of approximately $350,000.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed amendment to the PC zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use
designation of Neighborhood Commercial and associated policies. A table of applicable
Comprehensive Plan policies is included as Attachment E.
NEXT STEPS
After the Planning and Transportation Commission makes a recommendation regarding the
Final SEIR and the PC amendment, the project has been tentatively scheduled for a City Council
hearing on October 2013.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft Edgewood Plaza CEQA Resolution (PDF)
Attachment B: Ordinance for Edgewood Plaza PC Amendment (DOCX)
Attachment C: Approved Ordinance 5150 for Edgewood Plaza (PDF)
Attachment D: Final SEIR Edgewood Plaza Project (PDF)
Attachment E: Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR) (DOCX)
Attachment F: Applicant's Development Schedule (PDF)
Attachment G: Project Plans (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1 ===============MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26=================
This agenda is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) or section 54956. 2
3
Wednesday, September 25, 2013, Meeting 4
6:00 PM, Council Chambers 5
6
7 Public Hearing 8 9
1. 2080 Channing Avenue [13PLN-00197]: Review of a request by Sand Hill Property Company for review 10
and recommendation of: (1) the certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report and (2) an amendment 11
to the Planned Community Zoning (PC-5150) for the Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center mixed use project to 12 allow for the reconstruction of one of the two historic Eichler retail buildings (Building 1). Building 1 was 13
approved to be dismantled and rehabilitated onsite as one of the primary public benefits, but was demolished 14
instead. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project has been published and the 15
public comment period began May 17 and ended July 20, 2013. *Quasi-Judicial 16
Item 1 continued from September 11, 2013 17
18
Chair Michael: So moving ahead let’s open the public hearing. The first item is, relates to 2080 19
Channing Avenue, which is a quasi-judicial matter. And it’s a review of a request by Sand Hill 20
Property Company for our review and recommendation of (1) the certification of the final 21
Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and (2) an amendment to the Planned Community (PC) 22
zoning for the Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center mixed-use project to allow for the 23
reconstruction of one of the two historic Eichler retail buildings, which was inadvertently 24
demolished. 25
26
Now this is a quasi-judicial item, which leads me to ask my fellow Commissioners if anyone has 27
a disclosure to make regarding ex-parte communications with the applicant. Before I do that 28
let me just note for the Commission and those present what our policy is on ex-parte 29
communications and that is that each Commissioner who has had such contact with the 30
applicant, which communication outside of this public meeting would make a verbal disclosure 31
on the record of any relevant information that was, which transpired in that communication or 32
PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION
DRAFT MINUTES – EXCERPT
City of Palo Alto Page 2
our policy permits the Commissioner to make a very brief written summary of the discussion 1
and make that available to the public. And we allow either mode of disclosure, but the verbal 2
disclosure is sort of required, the written disclosure would be optional if necessary to clarify. So 3
with that does anybody have any disclosures to make with respect to this matter? 4
5
Ok. There are none. So let’s begin this with the report from staff. 6
7
Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Thank you Chair; Elena Lee, Senior Planner with the Planning 8
Division. So the purpose of today’s hearing is to review the Edgewood Plaza PC amendment. 9
Specifically staff is requesting Commission’s recommendation to the City Council on the 10
adequacy of the final supplemental EIR that was prepared for the subject project and the 11
Planned Community zoning amendment to approve the rebuilding of Building 1 with all new 12
materials. All other components of the project are to remain the same. 13
14
The subject was the site of a PC zoning to allow rehabilitation of an existing shopping center 15
and the development of ten new residential units including a small park. The project included 16
the relocation and renovation of one of the two retail buildings including Building 1 that was 17
deemed historic and renovation of the other historic building, Building 2, and renovation of the 18
grocery building that was not deemed historic. A final Environmental Impact Report was 19
certified to provide environmental clearance, which assumed that all historic resources would be 20
rehabilitated and therefore not create any significant impacts. The public benefit of the project 21
were the preservation of the shopping center, two historic buildings, provision of a grocery 22
store, electrical vehicle chargers, and a small park. The historic monument sign on the site was 23
also to be rehabilitated and protected. 24
25
City of Palo Alto Page 3
In September 2012 a stop work order was issued because a historic building, Building 1, which 1
was originally required to be relocated onsite and rehabilitated was to be rebuilt. It was 2
demolished illegally. City Council authorized the continued construction of the project on March 3
4, 2113, with the exception of the reconstruction of the demolished Building 1 and for the 4
homes. Since the authorization of Council the applicant has completed a renovation of the 5
grocery building and Fresh Market has occupied the site and has opened for business. Although 6
Building 1 will no longer be historic the project is able to provide most of the required public 7
benefits especially the revitalization of a shopping center, the grocery store, the park, and the 8
electrical vehicle chargers. 9
10
So staff has also retained Carey Company the City’s historic consultant for the original EIR to 11
review building permit plans and monitor construction of Building 2, the remaining historic 12
building. Because the original FEIR assumed both buildings would be retained, the demolition 13
of Building 1 would require new environmental clearance. A supplemental EIR in accordance 14
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was prepared for the revised project. The 15
document was circulated for public review on May 17th for a 45 day circulation period. To date 16
staff has not received any comments about the project, accordingly staff has prepared a final 17
supplemental Environmental Impact Report confirming that no comments were received and no 18
changes were made to SEIR. That document has been released and circulated for at least 10 19
days. 20
21
Staff is requesting Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) comments on the adequacy 22
of the supplemental EIR and proposal to reconstruct Building 1. Staff would like to bring 23
attention to one significant addition to the project; the City has required the applicant to 24
replicate the original storefront window system, which is a distinct style that includes narrow full 25
City of Palo Alto Page 4
height projecting moldings. This required custom made windows that staff believes will help 1
create a building that is significantly closer to its original appearance than would have been 2
required for the original approval. The applicant has agreed to install these windows in Building 3
2 and will be required to do the same if Building 1 is approved to be reconstructed. Given the 4
amount of storefront glass that would exist in Building 1, this represents a significant 5
contribution to the Eichler character of the building. 6
7
The other key component that staff would request Commission’s recommendation on would be 8
the topic of public benefits. The loss of Building 1 removed the project’s ability to preserve one 9
of the two historic buildings, which was one of the primary public benefits. The applicant is 10
requesting that the addition of the custom windows as well as other site improvements, which 11
cost over $250,000 for both Buildings 1 and 2 be considered as public benefits. Staff has 12
included in the staff report two potential public benefits for the Commission’s consideration. 13
One would be funding towards construction of sidewalks along West Bayshore Road as 14
requested by some of the area residents and discussed at previous Commission hearings or 15
funding towards a restoration of a publicly owned historic resource, such as the University 16
Avenue Caltrain Station to be later determined by Council. 17
18
Because a historic resource was lost, staff recommends that a new public benefit be for historic 19
preservation. Although the City does have a system in place for issuing fines for building 20
infractions such as illegal demolition the key issue for this project is a public benefit because of 21
the laws of historic building. Identification of an appropriate public benefit potentially provides 22
a bigger benefit to the City while allowing the City to clearly state that the provision of public 23
benefits is important to the City and cannot be ignored. Staff has also identified a range of 24
City of Palo Alto Page 5
what the amount should be based on the City’s established fine and typical practices by other 1
cities. 2
3
Copies of the August 21st Historic Resources Board (HRB) staff report and draft excerpt minutes 4
have been provided at places and is also available to the public. Vice-Chair Roger Kohler is in 5
attendance tonight to represent the HRB. At the August 21st hearing the HRB unanimously 6
voted to recommend that Council certify the SEIR and also approve the PC amendment. Also 7
available tonight is the City’s Historic Consultant, Charlie Duncan, and Environmental Consultant 8
Nora Monette and Shannon George of David J. Powers & Associates. They’re available to 9
answer questions. This concludes staff’s report. Oh, and also the applicant John Tze is also in 10
attendance to answer questions. Thank you. 11
12
Chair Michael: Would the representative of the applicant have a statement that you would like 13
to add to the staff report? 14
15
John Tze, Sand Hill Property Company: Good evening, my name is John Tze, Sand Hill Property 16
Company at 203 Redwood Shores Parkway in Redwood City. Thank you for taking the time 17
Chairman and Members of the Commission. I apologize to have to bring this project back to 18
you. Many of you have seen this over the years and it’s unfortunate that I have to take your 19
time to do this. I think the staff report was very thorough. I imagine some of you may be 20
wondering what exactly happened and so if I may take a minute I’ll just walk you through in my 21
own words what I think may be in the back of some of your minds as everybody asks. 22
23
Over the course of the project entitlements and once we’ve got approvals we rarely walked the 24
site with our consultants and one of those are the historic consultant that we had hired. This 25
City of Palo Alto Page 6
walk included myself, my construction team, which is my project manager and contractors and 1
so after getting the consultant’s recommendations or opinions I was like the neighbors 2
surprised when I heard from the neighbors that the building came down. I think my 3
construction team and I take responsibility as they are my team, came to their own reasoning 4
and jumped the gun. That’s essentially what happened. I don’t think there’s no mal intent. I 5
think it was just an error on my team’s part and we’re trying to rectify it. 6
7
When we were made aware of a possible way to make the buildings more historically significant 8
by rebuilding the storefronts, the wood storefronts with much more detail we opted to go ahead 9
and do that to try to make amends for our mistake. I’ll be available for questions and basically 10
that’s I think what happened. Thank you. 11
12
Chair Michael: So thank you very much. Do we have any speaker cards? Are there any 13
members of the public who have indicated, ok we have… Oh. So you can bring up the speaker 14
card and in the meantime does anybody from the Commission want to ask a question of the 15
applicant? Vice-Chair Keller. 16
17
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you very much and I appreciate your apology. It’s an unfortunate 18
situation. I’m wondering are there some comments in the staff report about the expenditure 19
that you put in in terms of improving the windows beyond what, for the building that is 20
remaining to make them, is that correct? To make them more conducent with the original 21
style? 22
23
Mr. Tze: Yes. I think there are figures that are provided Elena as to what it cost to rather than 24
taken off the shelf wood storefront have we had actually had a team of carpenters out there 25
City of Palo Alto Page 7
building it onsite. And so that cost for both buildings was about a quarter of a million dollars. 1
So Building 1 is a little bit larger than the building that we’re just finishing up and about to 2
paint. So if you maybe break it up 55/45 percent of that $250,000. 3
4
Vice-Chair Keller: And I’m wondering, you know more about this than I do, so I’m wondering 5
whether the life of the building that you’re building from scratch in terms of being built with 6
modern materials and modern insulation, modern wiring to code and all that kind of stuff 7
without having to rebuild it whether that would have a value of the fact that it’s in some sense 8
new construction as opposed to having to retrofit the existing building? 9
10
Mr. Tze: Well we’ve just gone through a rehabilitation of Building 2, the one that you might see 11
right next to the Fresh Market and very little bit was actually salvageable. In fact under the 12
guidance of Charlie Duncan we and the architects and structural engineers agreed what should 13
and should not be kept as far as even the large glulam beams. A new, the original building I 14
can’t tell you exactly what kind of age buildings are designed, but what I’ve heard from 15
architects and engineers is generally the use of those buildings may not have been designed for 16
more than 30 to 50 or 60 years. 17
18
And so what we discovered in the building that was illegally demolished is to our surprise not 19
much of the material was actually original of the observable façade. When we peeled that 20
away and showed our consultants we were actually surprised by how little original material 21
there was. And what original material there was a lot of it was found objectionable by our 22
structural engineer from simply you could actually put a pencil into the glulam beams that were 23
supposed to be reused. And so he didn’t want to reuse any of those. So anyway a new 24
City of Palo Alto Page 8
building should have a life of at least 50 years. It is still a wood structure building, but 1
obviously to current seismic code, current Title 24 green building requirements, etcetera. 2
3
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you very much. 4
5
Chair Michael: Are there any other questions of the applicant? Commissioner King. 6
7
Commissioner King: I will ask there’s also reference to technical modifications that have 8
increased the cost to the traffic signal upgrade and the three car chargers. Can you address 9
that and I ask you and may ask staff as well do we have verification of the funds expended? 10
11
Mr. Tze: Sure. The staff does not have verification, but I can provide that. Maybe it was 12
mischaracterized as technical upgrades, but the traffic signal was maybe estimated by some 13
staff members to be a certain dollar amount and it turns out it’s not, it’s quite a bit more. So 14
the $200,000 is basically what the replacement traffic signal. That’s not the intersection work 15
or roadwork, just the electric signals section. And three car charger and the affiliated power 16
that Commissioner Keller very well knows about. In our case we saved a lot of money on the 17
chargers themselves because actually a provider called Blink provided the actual level two and 18
level three chargers, but we just had to put the infrastructure in for them. And so that’s where 19
the $200,000 came from, but it’s not a technical difference. It was basically maybe an 20
inaccurate estimate by some people early on. 21
22
Commissioner King: And so is your argument that you relied upon those numbers in your initial 23
(interrupted) 24
25
City of Palo Alto Page 9
Mr. Tze: No. 1
2
Commissioner King: Oh? 3
4
Mr. Tze: No, I’m not arguing that. 5
6
Commissioner King: Ok, so I’m just a little… so if in fact the request is to, I guess it appears 7
here that you’re requesting that we might consider that a public benefit, the expenses incurred 8
on that for the chargers and the traffic signal. 9
10
Mr. Tze: The expense was just to quantify what it cost. That was what was asked of me, but 11
my opinion is the chargers, in my view is a benefit to the public. Putting that revised traffic 12
signal in along with the restriping will be a benefit. It wasn’t a requirement by Transportation, 13
but it was more, it’s inconvenient making a left hand turn going westbound onto St. Francis. 14
I’ve experienced it, I’m sure you all have because the exiting traffic is sometimes moving at 50 15
miles per hour toward you. 16
17
Commissioner King: Yes. 18
19
Mr. Tze: And so it was suggested that we replace that. And all I’m saying is an estimate by a 20
staff member at the time was very low compared to what it really cost, but I’m not saying that 21
that’s a, I’m not trying to make an exorbatant case for that being a public benefit. 22
23
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Commissioner King: Ok, but those expenses were a discretion on your part is your… the change 1
to the traffic signal and the car chargers were a discretion on your part and not part of the 2
original requirements for the project? 3
4
Mr. Tze: I don’t think they’re discretionary. I think they were part of the project conditions of 5
approval. 6
7
Commissioner King: Ok. Great. Thank you. 8
9
Chair Michael: So I just had one question of staff and that is it appears that there’s no dispute 10
about the fact and I think that that’s all for you. 11
12
Mr. Tze: Thank you. 13
14
Chair Michael: So thanks very much. But there isn’t any dispute about the fact that Building 1 15
was demolished illegally and for which we’ve received an apology from the applicant; however, 16
the question is what, what are the consequences of that? And under the applicable provisions 17
of the City code when there’s a, I suppose this is analogous to a building permit violation or a 18
zoning code violation, but in fact this is a Planned Community zone, which was granted in 19
exchange for in part because of the public benefit that would be provided as a result of 20
proceeding with this project and the public benefit here had multiple elements, one of which 21
was the preservation of the historic structure that was illegally demolished. So do we have any 22
guidance to give the Commission in terms of one, what our purview is as a Commission and 23
what are the applicable standards for a penalty or remedy for the illegal demolition of this 24
building in the Planned Community zone, which abrogates part of the public benefit? 25
City of Palo Alto Page 11
1
Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney: Yes, thank you Chair. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant 2
City Attorney. There are two issues here. One is the penalty procedure and there is a penalty 3
for demolishing a building in violation of the building permit and other entitlements. And 4
unfortunately our penalty structure is very low in connection with that. And so the information 5
in the staff report shows that it’s about $5,000 for a penalty. And so I think that staff thought 6
and at the City Council hearing when this issue came up the first time around the sense was 7
that that penalty was really not sufficient. Now because this is a PC it is possible to try to 8
satisfy the or assess an appropriate penalty through the PC process and it is also appropriate in 9
the PC process too because the one of the primary community benefits in this case was the 10
historic demolition or was the historic retention of this building it is appropriate to come up with 11
a substitute for that community benefit. So there are two issues in front of the Commission at 12
this point; one is whether the penalty is appropriate and second whether the community benefit 13
is appropriate at this point. 14
15
Chair Michael: Ok, thank you very much. And we have one speaker card. Let’s open up to 16
that. 17
18
Vice-Chair Keller: The speaker is Gayle Olson and by the way after this, after we hear from the 19
public the applicant will be allowed to speak later. Thank you. 20
21
Gayle Olson: Good evening and thank you. I’m Gayle Olson. I live at 715 Wildwood Lane, 22
which is right around the corner from the shopping center. I’ve lived there with my husband 23
for 46 years. Needless to say we have been through many difficulties with the Edgewood 24
Shopping Center over these years. We’ve attended numerous meetings to plan what to do 25
City of Palo Alto Page 12
about the shopping center. So when this was finally approved I was thrilled, the neighborhood 1
was thrilled, and when the Fresh Market opened it was a glorious day. So I’m here to speak in 2
favor of moving forward with this project and getting the rest of the shopping center 3
completed. There will be additional services, there’ll be shops, hopefully a restaurant with 4
some pizza parlors and that sort of thing. The neighbors are all enthusiastic. We have elderly 5
people in the neighborhood who are not able to drive anymore so this is a benefit for them. So 6
I would urge you to move forward and approve the project. Thank you. 7
8
Chair Michael: Thank you very much. Are there any other speakers from the public? Seeing 9
none… oh, do we have a representative from the HRB here this evening? And would you like to 10
elaborate on any of the issues that are presented here based on your hearing? 11
12
Roger Kohler, Vice-Chair HRB: Yes, Good evening. I’m Roger Kohler, Vice-Chair of the Historic 13
Resources Board. We reviewed this project a couple weeks ago and we also reviewed it of 14
course when it first came through. We found that the, there was some suggestion during the 15
meeting that instead of rebuilding the structure was to do an entirely different looking structure 16
because there was thought that this was not, you shouldn’t be duplicating because it’s not a 17
historic structure. But we all felt unanimously that the proposed program would be far more 18
appropriate and would continue the feel and the look of the historic shopping center over 19
having a totally different looking building there. 20
21
The truth is that having worked on a lot of homes myself and things that refurbishing historic 22
homes there’s a lot of existing structure that’s there and everything, but in the end it looks 23
brand new because it’s all been new paint and fixed up and it looks very good. So I think in the 24
end this building, I think from the inside as well it’ll be obvious that this is a new structure. 25
City of Palo Alto Page 13
From the exterior I think it’ll fit in and look like the old, the existing building that is there. The 1
building is also being refurbished is also going to look brand new as well because it’s being 2
refurbished from top to bottom. So that was our feeling and that was one of the few 3
discussions we had about the structure. Other than that we approved of the project as it was 4
presented. 5
6
Chair Michael: So thank you very much. Does anybody on the Commission have questions of, 7
excuse me, I didn’t get your name. 8
9
Mr. Kohler: Roger Kohler. 10
11
Chair Michael: Of Roger Kohler? Vice-Chair Keller? Ok. Commissioner King. 12
13
Commissioner King: Yes, thank you Mr. Kohler. So I, and this, you may decline to answer 14
these, but you’ve had history of probably doing hundreds of new construction and remodels in 15
the City of Palo Alto. So do you have any rough guess of what the applicant might have saved 16
in costs by tearing down the property and being able to build without having to remodel? 17
18
Mr. Kohler: Well the building was, this building was being moved because it was the part of the 19
reason the shopping center failed in a lot of the opinion of the Board Members was the random 20
orientation of those two structures. When you drove in you saw the one unit and the other was 21
around the corner. So once you, like today when you walk into even Safeway parking lot in 22
Mountain View you can see all the structures and you get an obvious oh yeah, there’s that store 23
and there’s that store, but on Edgewood Market when you pulled into the Lucky Store the other 24
unit was behind the other one store so you weren’t always aware that it was there. I mean my 25
City of Palo Alto Page 14
office is on Colorado and I used to go there to get pizza for lunch all the time, but I think the 1
arrangement of it is, is going to make the whole shopping center work a great deal better. I’m 2
not sure I’m answering your question. 3
4
Commissioner King: My more question is (interrupted) 5
6
Mr. Kohler: In the end I don’t, I think yeah they might be saving some money, but because 7
they were moving the building anyway I think some of that cost is somewhat negligible. But 8
(interrupted) 9
10
Commissioner King: Ok, and the reason I asked the question is that I think in my mind one of 11
the primary things we want to move forward with is to ensure that we do not provide incentives 12
and that we actually provide a disincentive for people to break terms of the development 13
agreement such that there could be an argument made oh if the applicant would save X, pick a 14
number, half a million dollars in costs by tearing down the building and starting from scratch 15
versus rehabilitating the existing building then it makes sense to have some penalties or public 16
benefits that are commensurate with the savings. 17
18
Mr. Kohler: I suppose you’re, there’s a project on University Avenue where they sort of just 19
dismantled the whole house and are going to do things different than were on the approved 20
plans, but fortunately when they dismantled the home they kept a very good record of all the 21
little pieces of the siding and everything so the reassembled building is looking very close to the 22
original because a good part of the materials are still being used although a lot of the actual 23
structure is new. So I would say that the preferred option and that’s why we don’t since the 24
late mid-eighties or so we do more new homes than remodeling’s in my little business in part 25
City of Palo Alto Page 15
because a lot of the older homes just are really failing. The foundations are no good and with 1
the new zoning ordinance and everything it’s just usually easier to do a new home. 2
3
In this case I think they might have saved some money. I wouldn’t say it’s dramatic myself 4
because they, I mean it’s just construction. Maybe there’s, if they had been able to keep all of 5
the glulam beams the cost of the glulam beams might have been some dimension, but I don’t, I 6
just don’t think it’s that much myself. 7
8
Commissioner King: Thank you. 9
10
Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller. 11
12
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. Did the HRB consider at all whether or not there should be any 13
penalties applied to the applicant in this project or was that not within the purview of the HRB? 14
15
Mr. Kohler: I might defer that to Steven. I don’t actually remember that we talked about 16
anything like that. We don’t normally get into that kind of discussion. 17
18
Ms. Lee: If I may, that was not a question that was brought to the HRB. The HRB’s role and 19
what we requested of them specifically was on the EIR and the historic resource impact of the 20
project. 21
22
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. And in terms of the historic resources impact of the project I 23
understand that because the building was demolished and was being rebuilt that that is a 24
City of Palo Alto Page 16
significant but unavoidable impact. Is that right of the project, the destruction of the building 1
and rebuilding of it, is that right? 2
3
Mr. Kohler: I’m not exactly sure. It’s basically an impact. The building is being rebuilt. Now 4
the impact on the shopping center itself is probably going to be negligible because it’s all going 5
to look like the original structure. That was one of the reasons why we weren’t in favor of 6
doing a total and different looking building so you’d have two older looking buildings and 7
suddenly this new structure. So if that’s what you’re asking. I’m seeing other people here 8
[have something to say]. 9
10
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you very much. Yes? 11
12
Aaron Aknin, Interim Director – Planning: I was just going to note that EIR related questions 13
you could probably ask staff because we may be able to answer those. 14
15
Vice-Chair Keller: Great, thank you very much. Thank you Rodger. 16
17
Mr. Kohler: I’m not good at answering EIR questions. 18
19
Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 20
21
Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah just I’m not sure if you’ll be able to speak to this or staff, but is 22
there any precedent for this situation? I mean in your experience or on maybe any of the 23
current members of the HRB’s experience have you ever been in a situation where (interrupted) 24
25
City of Palo Alto Page 17
Ms. Lee: In consulting with multiple staff members this is the first time something like this has 1
happened in the City, especially for a PC project. We’ve had situations where historic buildings 2
were demolished, but in one case in the downtown the materials were preserved and so they 3
were able to reconstruct, but in this case none of the building remains in order to allow 4
reconstruction. Staff also surveyed cities around the Bay Area to see if this has happened and 5
this is a very rare occurrence. 6
7
Mr. Kohler: I guess I can chime in. I guess next year begins my 20th year as a HRB Member so 8
when I walk down University there’s a whole number of buildings we’ve looked at and over 9
town and I don’t think we’ve ever encountered where we’ve approved the reworking of a 10
historic structure to have it torn down. So. 11
12
Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. 13
14
Chair Michael: So now we’ll come back to the Commission and as we’ve done in the past first if 15
there’s a round of any questions to clarify the matter and then we’ll have sort of comments 16
perhaps based on a Motion. Ok, and then we’ll have the opportunity for the applicant to make 17
a final statement. So to the Commission for any questions that you have about the matter. 18
Commissioner Panelli. 19
20
Commissioner Panelli: Thank you Mr. Chair. I have a question for staff on actually the slide 21
that’s up there right now, Slide 8. There are a couple ideas for additional public benefits, one 22
being a contribution toward the West Bayshore sidewalk improvement the other being toward 23
restoration of a historic building. Does staff have a recommendation of what the size of that 24
contribution should be? 25
City of Palo Alto Page 18
1
Ms. Lee: That’s been a difficult question for staff. We’ve looked at the penalty structure that we 2
have in the City, which is fairly low amounts as shown in the staff report. And when we 3
surveyed other cities for destruction or demolition of historic buildings or some impact on 4
historic structures most of that has been doubling to tripling of the fees, which again is shown 5
in the staff report as what that range could be. As an alternative staff has said you could also 6
just apply a percentage based on the valuation and staff has also raised the valuation because 7
we understand that there’s significant costs incurred in the project as part of this. So that’s 8
something that we’re really looking to the Commission to provide, but we do have a range in 9
there. It would be between $10,000 up to $942,000. 10
11
Commissioner Panelli: Ok. I guess let me phrase it differently then, the question. How much 12
for example is the, what’s the total budget required for the West Bayshore sidewalk 13
improvement? 14
15
Ms. Lee: It’s estimated right now to be about $144,000. 16
17
Commissioner Panelli: Ok. And the contribution towards restoration of a historic building, I’m 18
assuming that’s for a future unknown so you really, you’d have to just pick a number and hope 19
that it satisfies whatever future project. 20
21
Ms. Lee: That’s correct. 22
23
Commissioner Panelli: Ok. Can you remind me what the total square footage of this building is? 24
I know it’s in the staff report, but I, is it? 25
City of Palo Alto Page 19
1
Ms. Lee: It is about 10,000 square feet. 2
3
Commissioner Panelli: Ok. Just for this, for this building? Ok. 4
5
Ms. Lee: Just Building 1. 6
7
Commissioner Panelli: Ok, thank you. 8
9
Chair Michael: Commissioner King do you have any clarifying questions? 10
11
Commissioner King: Yes. So I’d ask of staff of the same, regarding the sidewalk project I mean 12
I’m, I don’t get a sense being able to read between the lines on whether this is a project we 13
feel really fits in with our long term plans or whether it’s just hey, here’s something we could 14
throw money at even if we don’t think it’s a great use for the money. It’s someplace to put 15
money even though it may not be the most optimal solution. Could you address that please? 16
17
Ms. Lee: Sure, thank you. So basically this improvement came up as part of the overall 18
discussion during the original PC and when the neighbors brought that up City did recognize 19
that that was a deficiency in our sidewalk system. And so it’s been identified in our Bike 20
Pedestrian Master Plan as a deficiency that should be corrected. And so it is a project or 21
improvement that the City would support. 22
23
Commissioner King: And I’m, I may be missing it. Is there a graphic of where that exists? 24
Where we’re talking about? 25
City of Palo Alto Page 20
1
Ms. Lee: It would be basically from, there’s no graphic on there although if you look on your, 2
the site plan it’s basically West Bayshore Road from north of the site all the way to the East 3
Palo Alto boarder. So it would be basically the left hand side, the one opposite from the 4
freeway. Right now it’s really a dirt, some dirt paths and then so the proposal would be to add 5
a sidewalk where those dirt paths currently are. 6
7
Commissioner King: And that’s beginning at Channing Avenue? 8
9
Ms. Lee: Yes, well north of Channing. 10
11
Commissioner King: Beginning of Channing headed north? 12
13
Ms. Lee: Yes. 14
15
Commissioner King: And how far would that go? 16
17
Ms. Lee: I don’t actually have the footage, the distance, but it would be all the way to the East 18
Palo Alto boarder. 19
20
Commissioner King: Ok. Ok, thank you. And then let’s see do I have another question… no, I 21
think that’s it. Thank you. 22
23
City of Palo Alto Page 21
Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck did you have any clarifying questions? Ok. Ok so at this 1
point maybe we can open the floor for a Motion. Oh, Vice-Chair Keller is keeping me honest 2
and I’d like to invite the applicant back to make a statement if you like for three minutes. 3
4
Mr. Tze: It’s not a final statement. I just wanted to clarify a few things because after this 5
happened when I finally got a hold of my contractors and asked him what happened there were 6
a few things that contributed to their confusion and mistake. One is there was a demo permit 7
issued for this building because the City doesn’t have a deconstruction permit or relocation 8
permit. That permit did exist and to your question Commissioner King as far as the condition of 9
the building when it was reviewed and opened up was such that you didn’t want to reuse those 10
materials. If you tried to reuse it the inspector would tell you to replace it. There was that 11
much damage and dry rot and so forth in most of the building materials. So I just wanted to 12
point those things out. Thank you. 13
14
Chair Michael: Thank you very much. So now we’ll turn back to the Commission for a Motion 15
and for any other comments. Commissioner King. 16
17
Commissioner King: Yeah, so I guess on the comment section I watched the Council when they 18
addressed this and I think they as I believe we maybe find ourselves are perplexed. There’s no 19
track record. It’s a very rare occurrence. As far as how you would penalize or yeah, really it’s 20
penalizing the applicant for the error made, which at face value was unintended and in my mind 21
I think you, we’re ending up with a superior building that will last longer and probably safer, 22
certainly more habitable for the tenants so… Although that decision should have of course 23
been made during the initial process and I know at the time there were many members of the 24
public who were saying that’s an old beat up building and in fact with that style of architecture 25
City of Palo Alto Page 22
there’s not much there that you know it’s some windows there just isn’t a lot of structure, right? 1
It’s like a, like Eichler homes. And so I think it’s very hard to decide what is the appropriate 2
penalty. 3
4
I think as I mentioned before the key thing is that you want some disincentive for this to ever 5
happen again and yet the odds of something, the stars aligning where this could even happen 6
seems pretty rare. And so I really don’t want to make an unreasonable burden on the applicant 7
and yet again we don’t want that to become a par for the course for developers to say, “Hey it’s 8
just cheaper for me to break the agreement and pay the penalty.” So I have to say I don’t 9
really know where to really start as far as proposing a dollar amount that would then be 10
converted into funds to the City or General Fund or to specific projects. So I’m anxious to see if 11
any of the other Commissioners have a sense of that. 12
13
I believe staff may have made an error in saying $942,000. I think it was $94,000. Is that 14
correct? 15
16
Ms. Lee: Yeah, thank you. It’s actually between, so basically the $942,000 would be the 17
adjusted valuation and so if we used the 10 percent it’d be $91,200 to $94,200. And on the 18
other hand also if we did a doubling or tripling of the building permit fees, which is a pretty 19
standard fine used by other cities in the area that would be between $13,680 and $28,260. So 20
that would be more in line with what other cities have done, but because this is a PC the City 21
does have the leeway to make that a different number because the question that we’re focused 22
on here also is not just what is the violation that was done but also ultimately what is the best 23
public benefit that’s appropriate given the situation and given the needs of the City. 24
25
City of Palo Alto Page 23
Commissioner King: Thank you and so I mean, I guess if I were just trying to put some 1
numbers in there a fine in the ten to hundred thousand dollar range it could be again I don’t 2
know. Mr. Kohler didn’t really have an offhand back of the envelope of what the applicant 3
might have saved. Then again, maybe he didn’t save anything, but I would expect that not 4
having to try and recreate the building moving pieces of that type of construction that there 5
was, were some material savings and maybe we want to ask the applicant. I want to ask him 6
at this point, but those are my thoughts. And I’m sorry, no Motion is popping out from this 7
Commissioner at this point. 8
9
Chair Michael: Ok, thank you. So at this point let me just observe that often before the 10
Planning and Transportation Commission are applications for Planned Community zoning. In 11
connection with approving a PC zone ordinance it’s incumbent upon the Commission to 12
determine the adequacy of the public benefit that would result from the project. And here, well 13
and we also have had in the community some concern about the PC zoning process. It was 14
observed that the criticism is that oftentimes the public benefits are arguably inadequate and 15
then in the end they might not actually be delivered. So there, I think that situation is not what 16
we’re looking at tonight just to be perfectly clear. And I’ve also from up here this evening I’ve 17
been very impressed with the candor and the sincerity of the applicant in acknowledging the 18
facts, what happened, and it wasn’t intended and their efforts to bring about a practical way 19
forward, which was also part of the record in front of the Historic Resources Board. 20
21
So as we’re dealing with sort of a matter that there isn’t a well-established precedent in Palo 22
Alto for the penalty that the Council will impose I think that we should put forward sort of a 23
recommendation for the Council in terms of what would be a reasonable amount of monetary 24
penalty perhaps in line with the standards suggested by staff. But I think that the important 25
City of Palo Alto Page 24
policy issues that we face in considering public benefits in connection with PC zoning generally 1
that’s not the issue we’re facing tonight. There is an aspect of the, the nature of the benefit 2
relative to the historic building demolition, but the fact that it’s been rebuilt or is in the process 3
of being rebuilt with attention to the proper detail and whatnot is duly noted. So perhaps one 4
of our colleagues of the Commission will come forward with a Motion for a recommendation to 5
Council and our action on the two issues that we have. Interim Planning Director Aknin. 6
7
Mr. Aknin: If I could help out with this, I think after taking a look this is obviously a difficult one 8
for staff too because it’s hard to quantify this. When I’m taking a look at this I’m taking a look 9
at what public benefit was lost and obviously it was the historical aspect of this. I think just 10
talking briefly and speaking to other cities I think tripling of the fine, which would come out to 11
about $28,000 and then putting that towards some type of historic, some type of fund to help 12
rehabilitate a historic public structure would be something that would be adequate in this case. 13
14
Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 15
16
Commissioner Alcheck: So is there precedent where we were consulted on fine amounts in past 17
transgressions, not tear downs of historical so and so, like I’ll give you an example of why I’m 18
asking because this isn’t the first “public benefit” that didn’t turn out the way it should have. 19
And I don’t know if we’ve gone back and investigated other public benefits which we feel have 20
not been provided the way they may or may not have been agreed to be provided. To the 21
extent that that’s the topic we’re talking about I feel like is this something we’ve done in the 22
past? Is it something we want to start doing? To the extent that this is an act that violated 23
let’s say a permit, is there a precedent for Planning Commission to kind of weigh in on the fine 24
City of Palo Alto Page 25
someone would get for violating a permit? Do you see what, there’s sort of two different 1
(interrupted) 2
3
Mr. Aknin: Yeah, the answer is no. I think you’re hitting it right there. We’re kind of mixing 4
and matching two things. There’s the fine and then there’s the public benefit amount. In this 5
case what we’re saying is a fine would typically be brought down by staff to an applicant. But 6
since we’re part of a PC zone right here right now what we’re saying is to pay an equivalent 7
amount as part of the public benefit so that fine could be put towards a specific purpose, which 8
in this case would be rehabilitation of a publicly owned historic building. 9
10
Commissioner Alcheck: I’m not putting forth a Motion at this time, but I would suggest that if 11
we evaluate the loss of a public benefit or if we begin that sort of can of worms there the 12
notion that the public benefit’s value has been lost and so we’re going to get involved in 13
remedying the, that loss because there’s a lot of potential public benefits that you may want to 14
look at that similarly didn’t meet expectation or direction of the Planning Commission. And I’m 15
not sure that’s what we want to do tonight or that’s, I don’t know. 16
17
To the extent that there should be a fine assessed for the failure of the applicant to comply with 18
the permit he was given if there was a Motion to essentially defer to the City Council I would be 19
in favor of that. I sort of think that there are sort of two unspoken or I guess subtle messages 20
here. If the City Council, I’m assuming they’ll review this, if the City Council determines that 21
the failure to provide the public benefit is or failure to essentially deliver the public benefit as 22
promised is so significant that the fine has to be severe that would go a long way to bolstering 23
the notion that City Council is behind this idea of public benefits. If the City Council decides to 24
essentially assess a fine for failure to adhere to the permit that’s sort of different because 25
City of Palo Alto Page 26
people will fail to comply with specific permits in the future and they may or may not have 1
anything to do with the public benefit scenario. 2
3
And so again, I don’t think we’ve ever been in a situation where we’re tasked with enforcing the 4
receipt of public benefits. And so to a certain extent I’m uncomfortable with beginning to do 5
that because in the past on the Commission I’ve heard Commissioners state that the public 6
benefits that were supposed to occur didn’t occur. And I would then query as to well why don’t 7
we open that back up and figure out why that public benefit has not been provided the way you 8
intended and if it didn’t let’s assess some fine for it. If, so since we haven’t gone there in the 9
past and I’m not sure that’s where we want to go I don’t know if we should be essentially 10
weighing in too heavily on specific fine amounts. If this is an issue about assessing a fine for 11
permit noncompliance I think the City’s got a pretty standard formula and since we’re not 12
actively involved in the enforcement of those sorts of issues I don’t really know if we have to be 13
any more involved than to suggest that the City Council review this matter in light of the 14
situation and enact the standard procedure for assessing a fine for permit noncompliance. 15
16
So there’s sort of two big issues here and in both cases I’m sort of inclined to suggest that we 17
defer to the City Council with the suggestion that they pay particularly close attention to the 18
notion that if they don’t deal with this in a way they’re going to set a precedent for the value 19
we’re actually placing in our public benefit analysis if you could essentially avoid the delivery. 20
That’s convoluted, but I’d like to hear what you guys think about it. 21
22
Chair Michael: Commissioner Panelli. 23
24
MOTION 25
City of Palo Alto Page 27
1
Commissioner Panelli: Thank you Mr. Chair. I’m going to suggest that building off of what the 2
Chairman said before that this PC is not controversial like some of the others because this is 3
something that the neighborhood actually really wants. And I’d argue that the folks who have 4
been penalized the most are probably the neighbors. 5
6
I am very sensitive though to the comments that Commissioner King mentioned, which is we’ve 7
got to provide some kind of a disincentive to the old adage that it’s easier to ask for forgiveness 8
afterwards than to ask for permission beforehand. So what I’d suggest is, I’m going to disagree 9
with you Commissioner Alcheck about deferring to Council. I think Council appointed us to this 10
body to ease their load in some way and so the more that we can demonstrate some leadership 11
I think the more valuable we are to Council. So I would say let’s suggest something. They are 12
more than welcome to agree or add to it or subtract from it, but I think we can put forward 13
some rationale as to a specific proposal. 14
15
I think at this point I would like to make a recommendation, a Motion that we recommend that 16
Council approve this… let’s see, what’s the best way to phrase this? This amended Planned 17
Community or supplemental EIR under the condition that they contribute for the West Bayshore 18
sidewalk improvement. To me there’s a direct, because this is a connector to this, ostensibly to 19
this shopping center I think it’s a benefit to the community because I think it allows them to 20
perhaps walk more safely than what it is available today if they were to try to walk down West 21
Bayshore. I’m hesitant towards this contribution towards restoration of a historic building 22
because to me there’s no direct relationship other than the idea is that we’re supposed to be 23
historically preserving something, it didn’t happen, but it’s… I don’t see any connection to a 24
historic preservation opportunity in that part of town. So I’d rather see a project, a public 25
City of Palo Alto Page 28
benefit that actually benefits that part of town directly. And barring a better idea that one 1
seems like the best one on the table. So that would be my Motion. 2
3
Chair Michael: Just as a clarification did you have an amount for the contribution? 4
5
Commissioner Panelli: The $144,000, I mean whatever the estimated cost was. 6
7
Chair Michael: Planning Director Aknin. 8
9
Mr. Aknin: One thing, sorry for late breaking news, but we just received an e-mail from our 10
Transportation Staff. I had asked them to go out there an actually measure to figure out if any 11
parking spaces would be lost as a result of the sidewalk being put in and I’m reading the e-mail 12
now that up to 10 parking spaces could be lost if the sidewalk was put in now. They’re not 13
legally, they may or may not be legal spaces, but they are functioning as spaces and historically 14
have been functioning as spaces along there near the East Palo Alto boarder. So just to throw 15
another monkey wrench into everything there could potentially be a loss. Now you could 16
amend your Motion for us to take a look at that and provide that as part of our information to 17
City Council. That could be one way of going about it because this is just a preliminary e-mail, 18
but since I had the info I wanted to relay it to you. 19
20
Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck had a question. 21
22
Commissioner Alcheck: Yes. This is going to come off wrong, but this sidewalk serves residents 23
of Palo Alto or residents of East Palo Alto? 24
25
City of Palo Alto Page 29
Commissioner Panelli: It’s both. 1
2
Commissioner Alcheck: Because I’m a little confused about that because it looks like it would 3
serve residents of East Palo Alto and not that that isn’t a worthy cause, it’s just I think relevant 4
to the discussion. 5
6
Chair Michael: Commissioner King. 7
8
Commissioner King: Yeah, I have my, I can pass this along. Unfortunately I don’t, someday 9
soon we’ll be able to project it up there. I have Google maps here and I’ll describe what I see, 10
which is that from Channing along 101, along West Bayshore to I believe the City of Palo Alto 11
ends at the creek, correct? That’s our boarder. There are no houses that appear to face from, 12
the houses on Edgewood back to West Bayshore there appear to be no residences or structures 13
through to the creek, which would be the border with East Palo Alto and then there’s that 14
apartment complex there that has sidewalks in front of it and then it goes to the intersection at 15
Woodland and from there north it appears there are no sidewalks and that there is street 16
parking where sidewalks might be. And so I’ll pass this along if Commissioners would like to 17
take a look at that. And so I’ll just… 18
19
Commissioner Alcheck: Do you know if the parking spots he was talking about are those near 20
that apartment complex? 21
22
Commissioner King: Maybe Aaron could address that. I’m not seeing any parking spaces near 23
Channing. I’m seeing parking spaces near Woodland. 24
25
City of Palo Alto Page 30
Commissioner Alcheck: I guess my question is: are those East Palo Alto? Are those parking 1
spaces that residents of East Palo Alto are using that we would…? 2
3
Ms. Lee: Well, we’re not sure exactly who uses those parking spots, but the parking spots as 4
Aaron had described are in Palo Alto. It’s just they’re informal parking spaces where vehicles, 5
people are parking their vehicles on basically dirt areas. So they’re not paved, but they’re just 6
wide enough for cars to park. 7
8
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 9
10
Chair Michael: So I have a question of Commissioner Panelli and maybe this is in the form of a 11
friendly amendment to your Motion and that is I guess for all the factors that you articulated in 12
making the Motion I wonder if we should try to provide some just clarity in our recommendation 13
to Council that the amount of the penalty should be some multiple of the permit amount, say 14
three times the permit amount and that it should be contributed towards the purpose stated, 15
which is towards a portion of the cost of the West Bayshore sidewalk improvement when that 16
project is implemented. So would that be accepted as a friendly amendment to your Motion? 17
18
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ACCEPTED 19
20
Commissioner Panelli: Yes. 21
22
Chair Michael: Is there a second? Commissioner Alcheck? 23
24
City of Palo Alto Page 31
Commissioner Alcheck: I just want to throw in that I mean, again I to some extent wish we 1
could defer, but if we’re going to make a recommendation I sort of would prefer that the 2
contribution went towards the restoration of a historic building because this sidewalk to 3
nowhere essentially is what I would call it seems like a complete waste of money. I’m worried 4
that it doesn’t serve our residents and to some extent it seems more fitting that the monies 5
raised or assessed will go to the very cause that was not met here right, the restoration of a 6
historic building. It seems like the second concept would be more apt. 7
8
Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller. 9
10
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. So firstly I think that there are two additional presumably public 11
benefits that have apparently already been done, which were not included in the original public 12
benefit. And one of those which is arguable is the restoration of the storefront windows of 13
Building 1 and 2 to their original appearance as designed by the architect. The second thing is 14
the improvement of the traffic signal, which was not originally public benefit and that I’m not 15
sure if that was. Was that a public benefit or not? 16
17
Ms. Lee: It was a condition of approval. 18
19
MOTION 20
21
Vice-Chair Keller: It was a condition of approval. Ok, thank you for that clarification. So it 22
seems to me that I’m aligned with Commissioner Panelli that there should be some sort of 23
penalty. I’m aligned with Commissioner Alcheck that the direct cost if you will, the loss was in 24
historic resources and therefore any penalty should be applied to historic rehabilitation of 25
City of Palo Alto Page 32
resources in Palo Alto. The thing that’s interesting to me about this is that the sidewalk 1
construction on West Bayshore although I have no problem with benefitting the people of the 2
Condo Complex in East Palo Alto who came and spoke to us, I think that’s a worthy thing to 3
consider doing, the issue is that construction might further annoy the neighbors because it’s 4
actually happening behind the houses that are in Palo Alto on Edgewood Drive. And so I’m not 5
sure if that construction would be desired by them or not desired by them. So without getting 6
their input I don’t know, I have trouble recommending that that be done. 7
8
And I’m guessing that my suggestion would be probably considered too high, but I’m going to 9
say it anyway. So, but first let me say that we should probably have an ordinance. We have 10
this informally but it may not be an ordinance to require that there be no demolition without a 11
new building permit and that would have prevented for example the loss of the historic property 12
at the Juana Briones House that happened because of inadequate and there were also 13
destructions of houses that were not replaced by anything in Professorville I believe. People 14
just wanted vacant land and that’s a problem. And also we should actually have a law that 15
basically creates a penalty in case of an illegal demolition and other things like that so that this 16
would be clarified. 17
18
But it seems to me that there’s actually two things going on. There’s actually two infractions. 19
One infraction is demolition in violation of the building code. They’re supposed to have not 20
demolished the building but moved it. And I realize that technically there was a demolition 21
permit issued to move it, but that’s kind of an arcane thing. The second thing is that there’s a 22
loss of public benefit, which is the public benefit of having this historic building there. There is 23
a new historic building in its place, which is according to the Historic Resources Board better 24
City of Palo Alto Page 33
than replacing it with a building that looks out of place, but in some sense that’s a loss of 1
resources. 2
3
So I don’t know if I’ll get a second, but my suggestion is, my Motion is to recommend approval 4
to the City Council of the supplemental Environmental Impact Report to amend the Planned 5
Community ordinance to add to the benefits (1) restoring windows of Buildings 1 and 2, 6
storefront windows of Building 1 and 2 to the original appearance as designed by the original 7
architect and (2) a $500,000 contribution to historic rehabilitation of some buildings in Palo 8
Alto, one or more buildings in Palo Alto with that amount covering both the penalty of the illegal 9
demolition as well as the loss of the historic resource. 10
11
Chair Michael: So there’s a substitute Motion by Vice-Chair… there’s a new Motion by Vice-Chair 12
Keller. Is there a second? 13
14
Commissioner King: I’m sorry, could you repeat the penalty amount? 15
16
Vice-Chair Keller: The penalty amount as recommended was $500,000. And basically the idea 17
there is that that’s significant enough to deter people from violating PC ordinances at this stage 18
and I do, and it is, it goes towards historic rehabilitation and also the issue is I do think that we 19
should be enforcing in some ways public benefits that we don’t get. 20
21
Chair Michael: Can I make a friendly amendment to your Motion? 22
23
Vice-Chair Keller: Sure. 24
25
City of Palo Alto Page 34
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 1
2
Chair Michael: I am inclined to support everything, all of the elements of your Motion other than 3
the penalty amount, which I think under the circumstances and facts outlined this evening is 4
significantly higher than I would have thought reasonable. And I would recommend that the 5
penalty amount be at the high end of the range in the staff report, which ranged from $10,000 6
to $94,000. So I think if we have a recommendation being for the high end of the range from 7
the Planning Department I would support your Motion. 8
9
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT ACCEPTED 10
11
Vice-Chair Keller: Ok. I’ll accept your friendly amendment of the high end, which was I guess 12
$94,000 approximately. 13
14
Mr. Aknin: Correct. 15
16
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. 17
18
SECOND 19
20
Chair Michael: So I’m going to second the Motion and then Commissioner Alcheck would like to 21
make a friendly amendment. 22
23
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 24
25
City of Palo Alto Page 35
Commissioner Alcheck: I’m just going to throw this out there again, which is that we operate 1
with the, I would prefer to operate with the fine amount that was typical in the City for I would 2
call it permit infractions, which is three times the permit fees. And the reason why I would 3
prefer to do that is because since there is no current process for us to somehow enforce the PC 4
requirements on developers after the fact, at least I’m not aware of one if there is. It says if 5
we’re, it’s as if we’re trying to get that all out right here. Because it’s so important to us that 6
the PC’s that we, the public benefits that we attempt to negotiate if you will in some cases are 7
not achieved that we would really want to discourage anyone from ever doing something like 8
that again. At the same time we can’t go back and fix the ones that we don’t think are being 9
properly provided now and I’m not sure we’ll be able to, our role is not to enforce the delivery 10
of those public benefits that have been negotiated already and so I sort of would prefer that we 11
use this three times amount of the permit process because then we can say well this situation 12
we dealt with it in the standard permit penalty process as opposed to public benefit analysis 13
process. 14
15
Chair Michael: So does Vice-Chair Keller accept Commissioner Alcheck’s friendly amendment? 16
17
Vice-Chair Keller: With all due respect I don’t accept your friendly amendment. The reason 18
being we’re actually dealing with two things: the violation of the code rule for which the three 19
times rule might make sense, but the additional amount is for the loss of the public benefit that 20
was in the original PC. 21
22
Ms. Silver: Chair Michael if I could just interject for one moment just to clarify we do have a 23
code enforcement process for violations of a PC ordinance that has already been approved by 24
the Council. What makes this situation a little bit awkward is that while the ordinance was 25
City of Palo Alto Page 36
approved the construction was midstream and so we’re, the community benefits had not 1
entirely been provided at this point so we treat this violation really as a building permit violation 2
as opposed to a PC code enforcement violation. 3
4
Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck. 5
6
Commissioner Alcheck: I’m just sort of curious if a development was supposed to provide a 7
certain space for public use and it not only failed to provide that space, but that space was sort 8
of commandeered for private benefit use is there any enforcement process that would allow this 9
Commission to assign a value to that public space and ask that applicant after the fact to pay 10
into a General Fund or in the Park Fund or something? 11
12
Ms. Silver: I see what you’re saying. No, we would, that type of issue would be handled at an 13
administrative code enforcement level. And so there would be fines imposed and there would 14
also be an option that staff could bring to you a revocation or a modification of the PC 15
ordinance and that process would ultimately come to you so you would be considering whether 16
the violation is sufficient enough to revoke the PC permit. 17
18
Chair Michael: Vice-Chair Keller do you want to speak to your Motion? 19
20
Vice-Chair Keller: I think I’ve spoken enough on this and I hope that we can, let me just say 21
quickly I think that in general this has been an excellent project and I appreciate all that the 22
applicant has done to build this project and to try to create a, the grocery store for the 23
community. I think we’re all, my guess is that we’re all in agreement as to this project should 24
move forward and that the entire project should be built and that the building should be 25
City of Palo Alto Page 37
rehabilitated. What we’re arguing about is the consequence for the demolition that was not 1
according to what the original PC said. So I just wanted to clarify that. So I’m assuming that 2
even those who might decide to vote against this Motion probably are, I would assume are still 3
in favor of moving forward. Thank you. 4
5
Chair Michael: And I have no further comments. Maybe we could just have a vote on the 6
Motion? Commissioner Panelli? 7
8
FRIENDLY AMENDMENT 9
10
Commissioner Panelli: I would like to make a friendly amendment to what you put forth. I 11
would like for us to say that we will recommend this to Council, but that the decision about 12
where to apply this public benefit we’ll leave up to them whether it goes to the sidewalk or to 13
the historic preservation. We’ll let them make that decision. Because then it gives the 14
neighborhood neighbors a chance to provide their commentary about what they want. Because 15
one of my concerns is that the benefits are not, we’re going to see these benefits in some other 16
part of town and I’d rather see that neighborhood get the benefit. 17
18
MOTION AMENDED BY MAKER 19
20
Vice-Chair Keller: How about if I deal with this way that staff should survey, I’m requesting that 21
staff get some information about the neighbors on, in the vicinity and see whether they support 22
the building of the sidewalk and if so then report that as an option to Council. Is that 23
acceptable? 24
25
City of Palo Alto Page 38
Commissioner Panelli: Yes. 1
2
Mr. Aknin: I’ll just make one comment. This is scheduled for the, an early October Council 3
agenda. So we’ll do our best to get something out. We’ll send our regular notice out related to 4
it, but I can’t say with confidence we’re going to be able to have any type of adequate polling 5
of the neighborhood. And yeah we did send out the notice and we haven’t had much comment 6
on it so. 7
8
Vice-Chair Keller: My suggestion is that for the houses along Edgewood Road, I guess 9
Edgewood Drive that go from this property to where West Bayshore crosses over the bridge to 10
East Palo Alto, but basically maybe a postcard be sent to them whether they have any 11
comments or objections to having a sidewalk installed. 12
13
Mr. Aknin: That’s fine. 14
15
Vice-Chair Keller: Thank you. 16
17
Chair Michael: Ok, I’m going to call for a vote. Commissioner King. 18
19
Commissioner King: Sorry. One question I have is will Council see the graphic that we’re seeing 20
now that offers, that has the two proposed potential benefits? Will Council see that? 21
22
Ms. Lee: Yes, we’ll make sure they’re presented that. 23
24
Commissioner King: So they’ll know that these were options we discussed? 25
City of Palo Alto Page 39
1
Ms. Lee: Yes. 2
3
Commissioner King: Ok, thank you. And then my comment I wanted to bring up and I’d like to 4
actually address this to the applicant is I believe that in the Council’s addressing of this issue 5
that you were, had to stop building four of the houses and then you had to incur the expense of 6
the SEIR. So I believe that can be considered some form of a penalty that there were costs 7
incurred by the applicant for those and I would, if I were the applicant I might want to make 8
some estimate of those costs when you address the Council when this comes up before them. 9
So that’s it. Thanks. 10
11
Chair Michael: Ok. So I think we’re ready for a vote on the Motion. All in favor say aye (Aye). 12
All opposed? So the Motion has passed with Commissioners Panelli, Vice-Chair Keller, Chair 13
Michael, and Commissioner King voting in favor. Commissioner Alcheck opposed and 14
Commissioners Martinez and Tanaka absent. And we’ll take a five minute break. 15
16
MOTION PASSED (4-1-2, Commissioner Alcheck opposed, Commissioners Martinez and Tanaka 17
absent) 18
19
Commission Action: Approved staff recommendation to approve SEIR and amendment to 20
the PC zoning for the Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center mixed use project to allow for the 21
reconstruction of one of the two historic Eichler retail buildings (Building 1) with a friendly 22
amendment by Chair Michael to add historic rehab penalty in the amount of $94,200. 23
Motion by Vice-chair Keller second by Chair Michael (4-1-2, Commissioner Alcheck against, 24
Commissioners Martinez and Tanaka absent) 25
26
Page 1
EDGEWOOD PLAZA
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
FOR PC ZONE DISTRICT AND ORDINANCE
______________________________________________________________________
The Grocery Building and site parking areas including landscaping and tree planting
were completed in May 2013.
Retail Building 2 will be completed and painted in September 2013, and the park is
currently under construction.
Construction of Retail Building 1 shall commence once its building permit is secured and
shall complete construction within 12 months following the adoption of the new PC Zone.
The completion date is subject to a one-time extension of up to twelve months by Staff.
Aug.
27,
2013
1. Determine:
The
amount
of
the
savings
likely
to
be
achieved
by
the
developer
from
moving
forward
with
the
construction
of
six
homes
starting
March
4,
2013,
the
last
City
Council
hearing.
Response:
Each
home
will
cost
approx.
$550,000
to
construct
so
six
homes
is
$3,300,000.
We
borrow
from
our
bank
at
an
annual
interest
rate
of
3.20%
(one
month
LIBOR
plus
3.00%).
And
March
4,
2013
to
present
is
nearly
6
months.
The
cost
of
capital,
or
interest,
“savings”
is
$3,300,000
x
3.20%/year
x
0.5
years
=
$52,800.
2. Added
cost
of
historic
detailing
on
wood
storefronts:
Our
original
off-‐the-‐shelf
storefronts
for
Buildings
1
&
2
cost
$134,000.
To
achieve
the
historic
detailing
multiple
carpenters
are
on
site
custom-‐building
the
storefronts
at
a
cost
of
$384,000
(see
attachment).
Thus,
the
additional
cost
of
the
historic
detailing
is
$250,000.
To: Lyncon Construction
650.335.1988
From: Jason Goyette
Phone: 715.9545 Project: Edgewood Plaza Bldgs 1,2
Fax: 715.9547 GC#:
Att: Sean Anderson / Nandy Kumar Ref: Wood system alternatives
Alternate #3
Complete wood system bldg’s #1 & #2
$383,954.00 lump sum complete to include
-shop drawings and submittals
-field verificaition of openings prior to fabrication of framing
-Con-heart kiln dried S4S redwood 2” x 6” framing vertical and horizontal members
- Con-heart clear, kiln dried S4S 1X stops of various sizes for the exterior and interior
surfaces and for the bottom kick plate. The stops will be used to duplicate the original wood
system
-SAM wrap of all openings prior to framing install
-Galvanized sill flahings under all wood storefront by SVG with up-turned end dams
welded/soldered corners
-Shop fabrication of frames for field install
-installation of SAM material in glass pockets prior to glass install.
-pre-shimmed Buty sealant tape at interior and exterior of windows
-finish cap bead of sealant between glass and wood stops
-Glazing to be project standard 1” clear Low “E”, tempered as required by code
-interior and exterior perimeter beads of sealant between frames and surrounding SAM
wrapped construction
-Doors to be aluminum in bronze anodized finish with 1” perimeter aluminum sub-frame
installed into the wood framing. Hardware is to be unchanged from what has been submitted.
-cladding of wood around steel posts incidental to the window walls
-mock-up (finishing not by SVG)
NOTE: FINISHING OF WOOD IS NOT IN OUR SCOPE
220 Vineyard Court, Ste. 150
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
T 408-778-7786
F 408-778-8203
www.siliconvalleyglass.com
QUOTE
SVG Quote# 1206761
Date 3/21/2013
Pages 2
March 21, 2013
l Page 2
Exclusions: Final cleaning of glass; protection of glass after install; labor for composite cleaning crews;
afterhours or weekend work; anything not listed above.
License #735260 C-17 Signatory to Glazier’s Local 1621
Jason Goyette Estimator
______________________________________
Accepted By
______________________________________3/21/2013 ______________________________________
Signature
Date
Signature
Date BY SIGNING ABOVE YOU ACCEPT THE TERMS OF THIS QUOTE
Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report
Edgewood Plaza Project
Palo Alto File No. 08PLN-00157/10PLN-00198
State Clearinghouse No. 2011022030
City of Palo Alto
July 2013
Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue) 1 Final Supplemental EIR City of Palo Alto July 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1.0 OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE OF THE FINAL EIR ............................................ 2
SECTION 2.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND INDIVIDUALS
RECEIVING THE DRAFT EIR OR NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY ................... 4
SECTION 3.0 LETTER FROM STATE CLEARINGHOUSE ..................................................... 5
Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue) 2 Final Supplemental EIR City of Palo Alto July 2013
SECTION 1.0 OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE OF THE FINAL EIR
This document, together with the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIR),
constitutes the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (FSEIR) for the proposed
Edgewood Plaza Project in Palo Alto, California. Under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA), the Lead Agency is required, after completion of a Draft SEIR, to consult with and obtain
comments from public agencies having jurisdiction by law with respect to the proposed project, and
to provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on the Draft SEIR. The City of Palo
Alto, as the Lead Agency, is then required to respond to significant environmental issues raised in the
review and consultation process, as described in CEQA Section 15132.
The Draft SEIR was circulated to affected public agencies and interested parties for a 45-day review
period. Comments on the Draft SEIR were to be received in writing by no later than June 28, 2013.
1.1 FORMAT OF THE FINAL EIR
This document has been prepared in accordance with Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines. In
addition to Section 1.0, describing an overview of the purpose and format of the Final EIR, the Final
EIR includes the following sections:
Section 2.0 List of Agencies and Individuals Receiving the Draft EIR
The agencies, organizations, and individuals who received copies of the Draft EIR are listed
in this section. The locations where the Draft EIR could be reviewed during the public
circulation period are also included in this section.
Section 3.0 Letter from State Clearinghouse
There were no written comments received on the Draft SEIR during the 45-day circulation period
and no changes to the Text of Draft SEIR have been made. Therefore, this document does not
include responses to comments or text revisions.
Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue) 3 Final Supplemental EIR City of Palo Alto July 2013
1.2 PURPOSE OF THE FINAL EIR
In conformance with the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15151), EIRs should be prepared with a
sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisions-makers with information which enables them to
make a decision on the project that takes into account environmental consequences. The Final EIR
also is required to examine mitigation measures and alternatives to the project intended to reduce or
eliminate significant environmental impacts.
The FSEIR is used by the City and other Responsible Agencies in making decisions regarding the
project. The CEQA Guidelines require that, while the information in the FSEIR does not control the
agency’s ultimate discretion on the project, the agency must respond to each significant effect
identified in the DEIR by making written findings for each of those effects. According to the State
Public Resources Code (Section 21081), no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for
which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant
effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of
the following occur:
(a) The public agency makes one or more of the following findings with respect to each
significant effect:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which will mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
(2) Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other
agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities of highly
trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in
the environmental impact report.
(b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under paragraph
(3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic,
legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant
effects on the environment.
All documents referenced in this SEIR are available for public review in the City of Palo Alto’s
Development Center, 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, during business hours, Monday, Tuesday,
Thursday and Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.; Wednesdays 1:00 p.m. to
4:00 p.m.
The Final SEIR will also be available for review on the City’s website,
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org, and at the following public libraries: Palo Alto Main Library, 1213
Newell Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94303, and Palo Alto Downtown Library, 270 Forest Ave., Palo Alto, CA
94301. In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the FSEIR will be made available to the public a
minimum of ten days prior to the EIR certification hearing.
Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue) 4 Final Supplemental EIR City of Palo Alto July 2013
SECTION 2.0 LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND
INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING THE DRAFT SEIR OR
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
State Agencies California Department of Fish and Game, Region 3
California Department of Parks and Recreation
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
California Department of Transportation, Division of Aeronautics and District 4 California Department of Water Resources
California Highway Patrol
California Native American Heritage Commission
California Public Utilities Commission California Resources Agency
California State Clearinghouse
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2
State Office of Historic Preservation
Regional Agencies
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Local Agencies
Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) City of East Palo Alto
Additional individuals and groups were notified of the availability of the Draft EIR by email and postal mail, and the Draft EIR has been posted on the City’s website and in the Palo Alto Main and Downtown Libraries.
Edgewood Plaza Project (2080 Channing Avenue) 5 Final Supplemental EIR City of Palo Alto July 2013
SECTION 3.0 LETTER FROM STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
:-~--~---~-------~-------------.--------------.. -------~----.--------c~~!>.;;_
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNOR'S OFFICE o/PLANNING AND RESR.ARCH
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE AND PLANNING UNIT
EDMUND G. BROWN JR. KENAJ.Ex
DOOCI'OR GoVERNOR
July 1, 2013
Elena Lee
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Subject: Edgewood Plaza
SCH#: 2011022030
Dear Elena Lee:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Supplemental EIR to selected slate agencies for
review_ The review period closed on June 28, 2013, and no state agencies snbrnitted comments by that
date_ This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements
for draft envirorunental documents, pursuant to the California Envirorunental Quality Act.
Please call the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the
environmental review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the
ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.
sm~~
Scott Morgan
Director, State Clearinghouse
1400 lOth Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812·3044
(916) 445·0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 WWW.OpLWl.goV
Received
JUL 082013
I:!ePanment of f'!anning & COmmunity l:nWotunem
,
... ~~~Docu.!l1El!1.!pel<l.!I~f!ep~!".t .~
State Clearinghouse Data Base
_""~_,_.~~ ··~~ __ ·'_~ •• 0¥~
SCH#
Project Title
Lead Agency
2011022030
Edgewood Plaza
Palo Alto, Cily of
Type SIR Supplemental EIR
Description The proposed project is a modification of the approved redevelopment of the Edgewood Plaza
Shopping Center. Under the revised project, Building 1 would be reconstructed with all new materials.
The location and design of the building would be consistent with the previously approved project. All
other aspects of the approved project, including the renovation of Building 2 and the grocery building,
the new parking layout and landscape design. and development of 10 single"family houses, remain the
same as the approved project evaluated in the 2012 FEI R.
Lead Agency Contact
Name
Agency
Phone
email
Elena Lee
City of Palo Alto
6506173196 Fax
Address 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor
City Palo Alto State CA Zip 94301
Project Location
County Santa Clara
City Palo Alto
Region
Lat I Long 37' 26' 53" N /122' 01' 32" W
Cro.ss Streets
Parcel No.
Township
2080 Channing Avenue, near St Francis Drive and West Bayshore Road
003-18-021 and 003"1 8-023
53 Range 2W Section
--.. -----------------~
Proximity to:
Highways US101,SR82
Airports Palo Alto Airport
Railways UPRRlCaltrain
Waterways San Francisco Creek, San Franciso Bay
Schools DuveneckElementary
Base MDM&M
Land Use Comprehensive Plan: Neighborhood Commercial, Zoning: Planned Community District (PC 1643)
Project Issues Archaeologic~Historic; Biological Resources; Drainage/Absorption: Flood Plain/Flooding;
Geologic/Seismic; Noise; Public Services; Recreation/Parks; Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading;
Toxic/Hazardous; Traffic/Circulation; Vegetation; Water Quality; Landuse; CumUlative Effects
Reviewing Resources Agency: Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 3; Office of Historic Preservation;
Agencies Department of Parks and Recreation; San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission;
Department of Water Resources; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; California Highway Patrol;
Caltrans, District4; Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 2; Department of Toxic Substances
Control; Native American Heritage Commission; Public Utilities Commission
Date Received 0511512013 Start of Review 0511512013 End of Review 0612812013
Grider, Donna
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dear Donna,
Woodland Creek HOA <woodlandcreekhoa@gmail.com>
Tuesday, October 01, 2013 1:51 PM
Grider, Donna
char@cjmasi.com; hrosmarin@mac.com; Brenda Erwin
Council Packet -October 7, 2013
Edgewood Plaza Public Benefit.pdf
Attached please find a letter relating to the 2080 Channing Avenue (Edgewood Plaza) Agenda item for
inclusion in the Council packet for the October 7, 2013 city council meeting.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Thank you,
Brenda Erwin
President
1
WOODLAND C~EK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
Street Address: 1982 West Bayshore Road, East Palo Alto, CA 94303
. Mailing Address: c/o CJM Association Services, Inc., P.O Box 190, Pleasanton, CA 94566
October 1,2013
Via Electronic Mail: domia.grider@cityofpaloalto.org
Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto, Office of the City Clerk
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
1------:RE.'----2080.Ghanning-Avenue-(Edgewood-Plaza)-Public-Benefit---------------,.----
West Bayshore Road Sidewal~ I Bike lane
Dear City CounciImembers:
Thank you for considering the improvement of West Bayshore Road'in Palo Alto, including construction
of a sidewalk or bike lane (the "Improvement"), as a public benefit in connection with the Edgewood "
:--.. -----Plaza reifevelopmerif8f20KO'Cfimmmg Aveiiije(·~agewooa'Plaza")-. --~-:-.-~--------. -----. ------.-. -..
I •. .
We strongly support the Improvement because it will provide an important public benefit for
residents of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto by improving the saf~ty of West Bayshore Road for
pedestrians, bieyclists, and motorists •.
. Our' community consists of 90 single-family homes located approximately 1200 feet north of Edgewood
Plaza. During the Edgewood Plaza DEIR and EIR review process, our residents raised a nUI1lber of
concerns about the safety of the stretch' of West Bayshore Road between San Francisquito Bridge and
Edgewood Plaza. West Bayshore Road in Palo Alto is particularly hazardous for children walking
or biking to the planned' new neighborh.oodpark and other attraction$' at Edgewood Plaza. We also
. submitted a petition with more than 70 signatures requesting safety improvements to West Bayshore.
Benefits of West Bayshore Road Sidewalk I Bike Lane to Palo Alto
1. Improves Safety of West Bayshore Road for PedeStrians, Bicyclists,and Motorists ~om Both
Palo Aito' and East palo Aito. Residel1ts o(botii'cities"useWesfBayshoie-Roli(i'as'~dZey' corricior
between University Avenue and Embarcadero Road. With the increase of pedestrian and bicycle
traffic to. and from the new Edgewood Plaza shopping center and planned park, the risk of pedestrian
bicyclist-motorist collisions on West Bayshore Road has escalated. The road has a blind curve, and
---·----·------cars-tra:velaTmgn speeli~ .. There-isalsoa seriousnsk-ofmotorisl-moWristcoilisions as drivers swerve ---\------_ .. _--,
to avoid pedestrians and bicyclists who are traveling"on the road because there is no sidewalk or'bike "
lane. (Once the San Francisquito Creek Bridge sidewalk ends, there is a 1;200 foot section of West
Bayshore road with no bike lane, sidewalk, path or protective divider of any kind until Channing
Ave.) The risks are particularly acute for children walking or biking on West Bayshore Road.
2. Implements a Priority Recommendation of the City of Palo Alto's Bicycle + P~destrian
Transportation ,Plan. The City of Palo Alto's Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan recommends
that "a sidewalk or Class I path should be provided along West Bayshore between East Palo Alto and '
Channing Avenue to provide access in the area around Edgewood PI8Z8:" (6.3.3 and 6.4.1). .
1
L I
3. Mitigates Hazards. Many residents have attempted to walk or bicycle this stretch of West Bayshore
Road and have witnessed a number of near collisions between vehicles and pedestrians and bicyclists.
The City has been alerted multiple times in writing to the hazards on this stretch of road, which is
within its jurisdiction. The proposed Improvement presents an opportunity for the City to mitigate the
hazards as well as to provide a public benefit.
4. Supports Pedestrian and Bicycle Access to Shopping Center in Accordance with City of Palo
Alto's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan states that ''Palo Alto will provide accessible,
attractive, economically viable and enviropmentally sound transportation options .... Emphasis will be
placed on alternatives to the automobile ... Solutions that reduce the growth in the number of
automobiles on City streets, calm or slow traffic, and save energy will be supported." Specifically,
Policy T -14 states: "Improve pedestrian and bicycle access to and between local destinations,
including public facilities, schools, parks, open space, employment districts, shopping centers, and
multi-modal transit stations."
.5. Promotes Success of Edgewood Plaza. Edgewood Plaza's attractiveness as a destination will be
enhanced by safe pedestrian and bicycle access. /
6. Connects Palo Alto Communities. The Improvement will provide another link in the route for Palo
Altans who wish to bicycle from Embarcadero to Newell Street or University Avenue.
Other Considerations
CalTrans Project: CalTrans is planning to rebuild the San Francisquito Creek / Highway 101 Bridge.
The project, set to begin in 2014, will involve the temporary complete closure of the stretch of West
Bayshore Road under consideration for this improvement, which may provide a window of opportunity to
construct the project without re-routing traffic. We recommend that the timing of the proposed
Improvement be coordinated with CaITrans.
Thank you for your consideration.
~.A1£~
Brenda Erwin
President
cc: Charlene C. Marquez, CJM Association Services, Inc.
2
9042.txt
Project Plans
Page 1