Aug 21, 2013 - building and gas station sites are not part of the subject shopping center. ... However, given the histor
~ .: -
W
Historic Resources Board
CITY OF
StaffRe ort
ALO A T Agenda Date:
August 21,2013 (HRB)
To:
Historic Resources Board
From:
Elena Lee Senior Planner
Subject:
Department: Planning and Community Environment
2080 Channing Avenue [13PLN-00197]: Review of a request by Sand Hill , Property Company for an amendment to the Planned Community Zoning (PC5150) for the Edgewood Plaza Shopping Center mixed use project to allow for the reconstruction of one of the two historic Eichler retail buildings (Building 1). Building 1 was approved to be dismantled and rehabilitated onsite as one of the primary public benefits, but was demolished instead. The Supplemental Environmental Impact Report prepared for 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 the project has been tentatively scheduled for September 11, 2013.
RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) review the proposed revised project and the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report and provide feedback to staff, th~ Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) and City Council. BACKGROUND 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), imd 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 ResQurces (CRHR), nor 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. Accordingly, staff is requesting the HRB's input on this change to the project and the SEIR because it is about the 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 will be in1portant and helpful during the entitlement process.
Page 1
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 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. 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 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. 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 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 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 turn-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 of 2012, 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 # 1with 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-lam 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 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. 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 EIR 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
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.
