Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-07-25 Historic Resources Board Summary MinutesCity of Palo Alto Page 1 1 2 Call to Order/Roll Call 3 4 Present: Chair Bower, Board Member Bernstein, Board Member Kohler, Board Member Wimmer 5 6 Absent: Vice Chair Corey, Board Member Makinen, Board Member Shepherd 7 8 Chair Bower: Okay, I see lights on. We have a quorum, so Robin, would you call roll. 9 10 Ms. Robin Ellner: Four present and we do have a quorum. Thank you. 11 12 Chair Bower: Thank you Robin. 13 14 Oral Communications 15 16 Chair Bower: It’s nice to see faces in the audience this morning. Welcome to all of you. We’ll do oral 17 communications. Anyone that wants to speak on any topic not on our agenda, just three minutes. I don’t 18 have any cards, so we’ll move right on to the next item. 19 20 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 21 22 Chair Bower: Agenda Changes, Additions or Deletions. I don’t think… 23 24 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: None. 25 26 City Official Reports 27 28 1.2019 Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments.29 30 Chair Bower: Okay, Official City Reports. 31 32 Ms. French: We do not have any today. 33 34 Chair Bower: Right. There’s one correction on the meeting schedule. I had thought I would be out of town 35 September 26th. I will not, I’ll be here, so, that’s another opportunity for us to have a meeting. 36 37 Study Session 38 39 Chair Bower: Okay, Study Session. It’s three minutes per speaker and I don’t think we’ll have a problem 40 letting everyone who wants to speak, speak. 41 42 43 Action Items 44 45 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING MINUTES July 25, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 A.M. City of Palo Alto Page 2 2. Historic Resources Board Discussion and Comments on the Historic Resources 46 Evaluation of the Former Cannery Property Located at 340 Portage Avenue (Frys site), 47 within the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP). 48 49 Chair Bower: So, let’s move on to the Action Items: Historic Resources Board Discussion and Comments on 50 the Historic Resources evaluation of the Former Cannery Property Located at 340 Portage Avenue 51 commonly known to us Palo Altons as Frys, which is within the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan, which 52 you will see in the printed materials abbreviated as NVCAP. Okay, so I see that our consultant is here. 53 Please begin your presentation. 54 55 Ms. French: Amy French, Chief Planning Official. I’m introducing Elena Lee, who is the manager of the 56 project and is the long-range planning manager as well, and then, of course, we do have Christina Dikas, 57 Page & Turnbull. 58 59 Elena Lee, Manager of the Project and Long-Range Planning Manager: Thank you Amy. Good morning 60 Board Members. So, the purpose of today’s meeting is to review and discuss the Historic Resources 61 Evaluation prepared as part of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan. The Plan is in its initial stages and 62 discussion on plan options have just begun; however, we anticipate three alternatives to be developed, but 63 those have not been proposed or developed quite yet. There will be multiple future meetings at the next 64 following stages to discuss those in detail, and the outcome of those meetings or the materials prepared 65 for those meetings will depend definitely on the discussion and the feedback from you today. There will 66 also be a second community meetings to actually also carefully review all of these options. So, we anticipate 67 that this project will require an environmental impact report or supplemental EIR because that has been 68 discovered through this process that the 340 Portage is eligible for the California Registry, and that will 69 require its own lengthy process and analysis. So, I’ll provide a brief overview of the North Ventura 70 Coordinated Area Plan process and as Amy said, Christina is here to present an overview of the HRE. So, 71 the NVCAP is a direct outcome of the Comp Plan update that was adopted in 2017, and there’s actually an 72 overview of the site. So, it’s basically a 60-acre site around the, what’s known as the Frys property, or 340 73 Portage. So, Comp Plan has Policy 1.7 which says that you should use coordinated area plans to help guide 74 development, especially in areas where there is potential change, and 340 Portage is one of the more open 75 sites available likely for development. So, especially Comp Plan Program L-4 10.1 states that “a coordinated 76 area plan shall be developed for the North Ventura Area and surrounding California Avenue area”. So, in 77 terms of the brief overview of the process, so City Council adopted goals and objectives and initiated the 78 project with a schedule and boundaries. It also authorized the formation of a Working Group, and there 79 are several members of the Working Group here today, because there has been a lot of interest expressed 80 on this particular issue. So, there have been four Working Group meetings held between October 2018 and 81 April 2019. On February 5th the first community workshop was held where they kind of went over, where 82 we went over the site context and also identified issues developed through the Working Group meetings 83 as well as raised by the community members. March 11th was a joint meeting between the Working Group 84 and City Council, held as a town hall on Ventura topics in general, but specifically also discussing the 85 coordinated area plan process. And on August 19th we are proposing to go back to City Council as a follow 86 up from the March 11th town hall. And we are tentatively scheduled also to go back to the Working Group 87 probably around August 21st. We also do have a website that is dedicated to this project, paloaltonvcap.org, 88 and that provides an overview of the project as a whole, including all staff reports and will also include a 89 link to this particular hearing. So, the procedures for the NVCAP process are outlined in Chapter 19.10. Oh, 90 there, sorry about that. And it states that “the intent is to create enhanced opportunities for building a 91 sense of community through public involvement with meaningful opportunities to help shape the physical 92 components of their neighborhoods and community”. And so primary statement that is really important for 93 this project is that it is, its intent is to create enhanced opportunities for public involvement. So, the general 94 process is that City Council initiates the CAP process and established goals and objectives. A working group 95 is appointed to advise the process, and then it includes regular public meetings, including a community 96 meeting. The Planning and Transportation Commission will hear about the, have an opportunity to hear 97 about the plan and also make their recommendations to City Council, as well as any environmental 98 documents. And then, finally, it will return to City Council, and throughout the process we will also be 99 providing updates to the various Boards and Commissions that have a role in this process, and especially, 100 City of Palo Alto Page 3 since there is a historic resource involved, they will be coming back to the HRB eventually. So, Page and 101 Turnbull was hired to provide historic analysis, including evaluation of the entire site. So, they did a 102 Windshield Survey evaluating all the potential sites, and it was, the determination was that 340 Portage, 103 which is the subject of this HRE was the only identified potential historic resource. So, the HRE identified 104 the property, including the Frys building itself, and the associated office building as eligible for listing in the 105 California Register of Historic Places, and it also qualified as a historic resource per the California 106 Environmental Quality Act. And we did receive multiple comments from the public regarding this project, 107 ranging in diversity of opinions about what should be done with the site, so those were presented. Those 108 will also be made available to our Working Group members and on our project website as well. And in 109 particular, Staff also wanted to respond to some of the comments that were raised. So, again, as I stated 110 the purpose of this meeting is to discuss the HRE and to get feedback from the Board about this, and also 111 to emphasize the fact that options have not been developed or finalized yet, so the meeting, today’s 112 meeting will go into feeding that, into that process to develop the options which obviously will, what we’ll 113 do with 340 Portage will be an important component of that. And I think one of the things that was raised 114 in particular was the rail spur that’s located behind 340 Portage, so that was abandoned a while ago and 115 the rail spur was actually removed in 1964 when it was abandoned. And I also want to mention that we 116 have the honor today of Gloria Hom in the audience today. She is actually the granddaughter of Thomas 117 Foon Chew, so she has agreed to speak to us about the project, but also is here today in the audience, so 118 I just wanted to mention that. And with that, I will turn this to Christina. 119 120 Chair Bower: Can I interrupt for just a moment? You mentioned that the NVCAP goals would be formed in 121 the form the development of this site. Could you very briefly just tell the Board and the audience what 122 those goals are? 123 124 Ms. Lee: Sure. Let me locate that on our website. 125 126 Chair Bower: (inaudible) 127 128 Ms. Lee: Sure, but yeah, there were specific goals that, goals and objectives that the City Council adopted 129 earlier this year, and those are available on our… But basically, the goals are around housing, the creation 130 of additional housing opportunities and having a connected land use pattern. Making a basically a mixed-131 use neighborhood, because it’s proximate to the Caltrain Station, having good transit, pedestrian and 132 bicycle connections, having a connected street grid, having adequate community facilities and 133 infrastructure, balance of community interests, having strong urban design and design guidelines and a 134 neighborhood fabric and sustainability and the environment. 135 136 Chair Bower: Thank you. 137 138 Christina Dikas: Good morning members of the Board. I think a little bit of my presentation on the left side 139 might get cut off, but hopefully, nothing of vital importance. I’m here to present the work that Page and 140 Turnbull did. We were contracted to the City to do this work. As Elena prefaced, Page and Turnbull looked 141 at the entire plan area to understand whether there were historic resources, and then as a result of that, 142 we drilled into the largest property on the site at 340 Portage and wrote a separate historic resource 143 evaluation for that property. So, just to explain a little bit about the survey that we did, we called this a 144 Windshield Survey. We went out, we had property data with construction dates, so we looked at every 145 building that was at least 50 years old, which is the threshold for potential historic significance for the 146 California Register and for CEQA. We took a picture of each of those and we created a table with some 147 basic property information. We also put together a historic context for the Mayfield Area and this Ventura 148 Neighborhood Area of Palo Alto to understand the development patterns and the people who lived there 149 over time. And so, though we didn’t do individual property research for all of these properties, we did have 150 a sense of their potential historic context and architecture based on the site visit that we did. Through that 151 process we found that none of the residences and commercial buildings in the area, aside from 340 Portage 152 appeared to be eligible for listing in the California Register. Most of the houses, particularly on Olive Avenue, 153 were built in 1946, after the War, so it appears that there was a lot of post-war housing construction which 154 was happening throughout Palo Alto and the Bay area, and that a lot of this neighborhood was really built 155 City of Palo Alto Page 4 out in the mid to late 40’s, though there were a smattering of earlier buildings before that time. We had 156 received a question quite a while ago that we responded to in an earlier draft of a report before we finalized 157 it asking whether these houses were associated with the canning company. We didn’t uncover any historical 158 information that associated the construction of the houses with the canning company. Many of them, as I 159 just mentioned, were built in 1946, which was towards the end of the canning company’s period, which 160 ended in 1949. So, if the residences were associated, they likely were not historically significant for that 161 association. And while the Ventura neighborhood had more African-American and Latino residents than 162 other areas of Palo Alto in the mid-twentieth century, which was another topic that we dove into a little 163 bit, preliminary research did not find that the area’s history of accommodating under-represented 164 communities rises to a level of significance to warrant historic designation in the California Register. And 165 just to note, this aerial photo in the slide is from 1941, so you can see, you can kind of see the boundary 166 of the plan area, and that a large amount of the area was not yet developed until after 1941. All right, 167 actually, I’m going to go back to our first slide just for a moment. The large building that’s shaded orange 168 in this picture is 340 Portage, and then there’s a smaller building just to the right and bottom that’s shaded 169 blue by Ash Street, and that is the office building that I’m going to discuss. So, this is 340 Portage, former 170 cannery building that was built in stages between 1918 and the 1940’s, and this is the office building which 171 we, it was moved to its current location in 1940, and we believe that it may have been previously used as 172 a dormitory for the cannery and was built between, if that’s the case, was built between 1918 and 1925, 173 1918 being the date that the cannery was originally constructed and 1925 is when this dormitory building 174 shows up in the first Sanborn Fire Insurance map. So, I’m going to just describe a Statement of Significance 175 for this property. Agricultural industries, including fruit and vegetable canning were once the dominant 176 industries in Santa Clara County. The oldest portions of the cannery building were constructed in 1918 for 177 the Bayside Canning Company, which was owned by Chinese immigrant and prominent canning 178 businessman, Thomas Foon Chew. Under Chew the Bayside Canning Company rose to become the third 179 largest fruit and vegetable cannery in the world in the 1920’s behind only Libbey and Del Monte. After 180 Chew’s death, the cannery was subsequently purchased and operated for more than 20 years by the Sutter 181 Packing Company, another fruit and vegetable cannery. The Sutter Packing Company significantly expanded 182 the cannery building and its operations throughout the 1930’s and 40’s, as it prepared for and raced to 183 meet the demands of World War II. For a time, the cannery was the largest employer in the mid-peninsula, 184 and when it closed in 1949 it was the largest employer in Palo Alto. My understanding is that Safeway had 185 bought the Sutter Packing Company in 1946 and though the company was still very profitable, it didn’t fit 186 within their company profit scheme, so they closed it. The trajectory of canning operations at the plant, 187 which began in the early 20th Century, peaked in the 1920’s, increased production to meet the demands of 188 World War II, and then quickly declined as residential development and new industries began to replace 189 agricultural industries in the post-war period. This corresponds closely to the broad pattern of the history 190 of the canning industry in Santa Clara County. The building is a rare surviving example of Palo Alto’s and 191 Santa Clara County’s agricultural past, so we identified this property to be significant under Criterion 1 for 192 events with a period of significance between 1918 to 1949, the full period in which it operated as a cannery. 193 Just to comment on the other couple of potential criteria for the California Register, one is Criterion 2, 194 which is association with significant people. For a property to be found eligible for the California Register 195 under Criterion 2, it must be associated with a person who has contributed significantly to local, state and 196 national history and the property must be the best representation of the reason for which the person is 197 significant. The building at 340 Portage Avenue was originally built by Thomas Foon Chew in 1918 as a 198 second canning plant for his Bayside Canning Company, and continued under his ownership until his death 199 in 1931. Although Chew’s father had founded the cannery in Alviso, an earlier cannery as well in San 200 Francisco, Thomas Foon Chew is regarded as the primary driving force behind the Bayside Canning 201 Company’s growth into the third largest fruit and vegetable cannery in the world by 1920. In spite of his 202 association with 340 Portage Avenue, the building was not the first canning plant constructed by Chew, 203 which is part of the National Register listed Alviso Historic District. In addition, and this is the most important 204 for this Criterion, the building was extensively expanded after Chew’s death, primarily when it was owned 205 and operated by the Sutter Packing Company. The building, therefore, does not retain enough integrity to 206 Chew’s period of association to be eligible under Criterion 2 for direct association with him, though his 207 contribution to the industry and this property is reflected during the early period of the Criterion 1 period 208 of significance, which I’ve already discussed, so it includes both the Bayside Cannery and the Sutter Packing 209 Company period. I’m happy to answer any questions, if that’s a little confusing. To be eligible for the 210 City of Palo Alto Page 5 California Register you need both significance and integrity, and so essentially what I’m saying is that there 211 wasn’t enough integrity only to Thomas Foon Chew’s period to be found eligible under that Criterion 212 because there were so many changes made after that. Yes. (crosstalk) I have a little bit more on my 213 presentation. 214 215 Board Member Bernstein: Okay, thank you Christine. 216 217 Ms. Dikas: Just to mention Criterion 3, which is significant architecture. We did not find that the property 218 was significant under Criterion 3, 340 Portage Avenue consists of what were originally several connected 219 cannery facilities and associated warehouse buildings. It’s primarily constructed of reinforced concrete with 220 utilitarian wood posts and beam construction and no ornamentation, consistent with its functional design. 221 The former office building at 3201 to 3225 Ash Street is a plain wood frame building built in a vernacular 222 style. Neither of the buildings appear to exhibit artistic value, nor are they particularly distinctive examples 223 of cannery building or industrial warehouse typology such that they would rise to a level of individual 224 significance for the California Register. So, for the purposes of CEQA, we found that 340 Portage was a 225 qualified historic resource and I will also mention, because it’s come up in a couple of public comments 226 about the National Register, that the State Office of Historic Preservation generally provide guidance that 227 the California Register and National Register have an equal footing, essentially the same criteria and the 228 Office of Historic Preservation doesn’t see any difference between levels of significance, so though we did 229 not specifically evaluate this property in our report for eligibility for the National Register, it’s assumed that 230 it would also be eligible for the National Register. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. 231 232 Board Member Bernstein: Thank you Christine. You said something about, if you look on packet page 15, 233 please. And for members of the public, that’s the entire 340 Portage building. You said something about, 234 one of your last sentences, you said… Is it the entire structure on the orange on packet page 15, that is 235 eligible, right, for…? 236 237 Ms. Dikas: Correct. Both the orange and the blue buildings together are what we have identified as 238 significant on this site. 239 240 Board Member Bernstein: Okay, great. Thank you. 241 242 Chair Bower: Any other Board comments at this time? Maybe we’ll open it up to the public and hear what 243 our audience has to say about this. I have three, four cards. The first card is Laura. Please come up to the 244 podium and state your name and try to keep the microphone close to your mouth because it works better 245 and we’re recording. 246 247 Laura Bajuk: And I promise no singing. My name is Laura Bajuk. I’m the Executive Director of the Palo Alto 248 Museum, and I’m a resident of Palo Alto since I fell in love with one of your native sons 20 years ago. I 249 love this community. I love exploring its history. The statement I wanted to make was that first of all, the 250 Museum stands by to assist the City and the community in the interpretation of the history of, well, the 251 history of the community in general. So, as you address these issues, if there are things relating to history 252 interpretation, we can help with that, and we stand by to assist. We feel that’s part of our job. I think one 253 of our goals is to answer the questions behind the community, why does it look the way it does, why is the 254 railroad here? I think understanding the past layout of the community really answers those questions. One 255 of the things that ties into the cannery community for me is the economic impact of the railroad. The fact 256 that Southern Pacific comes to this area has to figure out how to get people to live here, and they decided 257 that orchards are going to be the most profitable opportunity. Profitable for small families who can support 258 their family, support themselves on a relatively small piece of land, grow the fruit, truck it down to the 259 railroad, which is where the canneries are located, and this is one of the biggest. Valley fruit fed the world. 260 Before tech, I’d say 180 years ago, or in the 1920’s, we would have talked about orchards and fruit the 261 way we talk about tech today. It makes me wonder, you know, 100 years from now how we’ll be talking 262 about out tech era that we’re in the middle of, as I look at my screen where I have my notes. We were 263 just as big to the rest of world at that time with fruit. So, there’s a tendency to be sentimental and think, 264 oh, it was so lovely when we had all those trees, but it was big business and it was a sticky business cutting 265 City of Palo Alto Page 6 apricots. It employed teenagers, minorities, women had jobs. People could afford to support their families 266 by working in the canneries. And it was immensely profitable for the railroad, because it was one of the 267 most expensive things you could ship. Gravel could sit by the side of the railroad and wouldn’t be harmed, 268 but fruit had to go quickly. And our fruit went all around the world thanks to Southern Pacific and their 269 global network, which predates those we have today. But the bottom of the market was reached after 270 World War II. During World War II you could sell all your fruit. Eighty per cent of the fruit in this area, I 271 believe, went to the military efforts to feed the troops. So, when the war ended, that was really the end of 272 this market, and at that same time we have people here who don’t want to leave California, and for good 273 reason. My family was one of them. We wanted to stay. We needed housing, so there was a huge boom. 274 Tech is building up, again influenced by World War II. People have jobs, this is where the jobs are. So, 275 where we are today is directly connected to what happened really not so long ago. And again, we stand 276 by to help in any way you would like to interpret it. Thank you. 277 278 Chair Bower: Thank you for sharing that. Next card I have is Karen Holman. Welcome. 279 280 Karen Holman: Good morning, and thank you for bringing this to the HRB and thank you for answering 281 some of the questions I had submitted. I appreciate that very much. I think it’s really important, several 282 things are important here. One of the things I think is important that, yes, clarifying that California National 283 Register, it’s presumed that if you’re California you’re also eligible for National Register. I think in many 284 people’s minds it makes a difference though, because National Register carries a lot more aplomb, if you 285 will, in people’s minds, so if sometimes we’re talking about this, California and by reference, National 286 Register, something like that. It also in the Staff presentation, I think it’s going to lead to some confusion 287 if it’s stated as one property has been identified as historic, when actually it is the cannery building and the 288 associated office. And I can understand that it might be one property, considered as one property, however, 289 it’s two different addresses, and I think that can lead to confusion if it’s only referred to as one history 290 building or property. I think there are many, many opportunities at this site. I’ve been following Ventura 291 very closely, because I care a great deal about it, as many people in the neighborhood do. Some people 292 are out of town because of vacations and such, that are committed to this project. And I think a lot of the 293 goals of the work of the plan can be accomplished in more creative ways than maybe are being considered 294 to this point in time. I did mention in my email yesterday this plan map. It’s a working tool that was handed 295 out to the Working Group, and I do want you all to see it. I don’t think you have been provided this. And 296 what’s important about this is that this was provided by Staff, not the property, major property owner. It 297 shows as areas parcels that may be redeveloped within the plan horizon. It shows the office building under 298 that color overlay, and it shows all of the cannery building except for two sections that are being proposed 299 for retention as being redeveloped, and I think that’s really important for you all to know, and I don’t know 300 where this came from or where the basis could be in CEQA or the Secretary Standards. Those proposals, 301 especially around the cannery building, one is to provide a street, which is right directly in front of the 302 existing cannery building, and two pedestrian/bicycle paths that run through where the building is now. 303 People who are walking and biking can make turns. I’m going to hand this, through Staff I’ll hand this to 304 you all. And I’d like to get that back if I could. And then the other thing is culturally. Thomas Foon Chew, 305 and I’m glad Gloria Hom is here today, Thomas Foon Chew accomplished not only what he did by this 306 cannery being the largest behind Del Monte and Heinz. Thank you to Page and Turnbull for discovering 307 that, but he was, this was one of the largest employers on the mid-peninsula under his ownership. Consider 308 that this was in a time when, this was not the most welcoming of environments, and he had, and photos 309 clarify this, he hired multi-cultural employees, and he accomplished that with an open, I’m kind of a little 310 bit interpreting here but not a lot. The photos demonstrate that he had multi-cultural employees, and I 311 think, you know, that kind of acceptance, that kind of model we could, especially at this time and place, 312 could really appreciate and benefit from that kind of model. And when it comes to the industrial buildings, 313 and then I’ll wrap up with this, when it comes to the industrial buildings, adaptive reuse has not been 314 considered for any of these buildings as far as I can tell, and I have gone to every one of the Working 315 Group meetings, and stayed to all of the meetings except for one, when I had to leave early. Consider 316 things like in Sebastopol the Barlow. The Barlow is a retail and commercial area that is industrial buildings 317 that were there and some in-fill buildings that were developed in keeping with that style, and it’s hopping 318 busy. It was flooded this last year in the rains, and I was there just recently again. Almost everyone has 319 come back and new companies have, new businesses have taken place there too. So, I think, we, you 320 City of Palo Alto Page 7 know, no working group and no plan are going to be able to accomplish everything, but I think much can 321 be accomplished while retaining these buildings, and I think it’s critical that we respect our cultural diversity 322 and the history that represented on this site, especially given its rarity, because most of the Valley of Heart’s 323 Delight relics have disappeared. Thank you very much for your time. 324 325 Chair Bower: Thank you. The next person is Terry Holzemer. 326 327 Terry Holzemer: Good morning. I am a member of the NVCAP or what you want to call the North Ventura 328 Working Group; however, I’m not representing them here today. I’m representing myself, okay. I would 329 like to take a moment first of all to support my view that the Frys Bayside Cannery site is not only historical, 330 historically significant to Palo Alto’s own history, but significant to this State’s, and even of national 331 significance. As you may have read in the Page and Turnbull Historic Resource Evaluation Report, the site 332 does meet Criterion 1, but does not, apparently, does not meet Criterion 2 and 3. I personally have done 333 research on this site and have done significant research on the past history, and have interviewed and 334 talked to not only Mrs. Hom, but to other people who were involved. I disagree with the Criterion, the Page 335 and Turnbull of Criterion 2 and 3, as well, which was not even really mentioned. I believe Criterion 2, the 336 significance of Thomas Foon Chew cannot be overestimated at all. I think this gentleman, he created 337 something out of literally nothing. In many ways I believe that he could be called in Chinese-American 338 history, the first great entrepreneur, American entrepreneur in America. I think that he came to this country 339 with really nothing and he created a business that became, like other people have said, the third largest 340 cannery in the world. And the significance of that is kind of lost over history. We don’t realize that before 341 there was high tech in this area, there was a growing business, the cannery and fruit business, which really 342 dominated this area. And also, was significant for the entire world, not only this country. I think Thomas 343 Foon Chew and his ability to not only cross barriers as other people have mentioned, but also to find 344 solutions to problems. He was one of the unique creators and inventors of the cannery industry. He created 345 a machine, for example, that automatically washed cannery wood boxes. This was something they had to 346 do every time they had new fruit, they had to wash the boxes. But he created a device that would do it 347 automatically. Probably the first invention of such a thing in the history of this area and maybe of the world, 348 actually. I think there is other significance of him as well. I think the idea that he created a business that 349 really made significance throughout the world. I would like to encourage you, if you have not seen this, 350 and I don’t know if it’s in your report or not, there is a story called, The Story of our Local Bayside Cannery, 351 that was published in 2010, and I would be glad to share that with you as well, and show you that. Finally, 352 I would just like to mention really quickly, if you’ve not seen this exhibit, it’s a great exhibit to go see. It’s 353 currently at the Los Altos History Museum, which I think you probably all have been there, but right now 354 it’s called Silicon Valley Eats, and it tells a little bit about the history of how this area became known as the 355 Heart’s Delight, you know, the Valley of Heart’s Delight. But in that exhibit, there’s a great exhibit on 356 Thomas Foon Chew, and I encourage you, if you have not seen it, to definitely go and observe and visit it 357 as well. Again, I’m also available if you would like to talk to me, since my research might be helpful to you 358 as well. Okay, thank you. 359 360 Chair Bower: Great. Thank you. If you could, if you’re willing to share the article that you, 2010 article you 361 were referring to, if you could give it to Staff. 362 363 Mr. Holzemer: I think Staff already has it; they do. 364 365 Chair Bower: Okay, great. Thank you for your comments. I’m going to go a little bit out of order here and 366 Kirsten Flynn. 367 368 Kirsten Flynn: Hello, I’m Kirsten Flynn. I’m a life-long resident of Palo Alto and a member of the North 369 Ventura Community Area Plan Team. And I want to say something to this subject. I, when I’m working 370 with the group and I work with the NVCAP because I have lived here so long and I’m so ingrained into the 371 community, and even though it kind of stresses me out to work with in a political setting. But what I try to 372 do is I try to focus on the overall goals and shared values of what the group is trying to accomplish, and I 373 think that we can all agree that the goals of redevelopment effort is to create affordable housing, because 374 you cannot open a newspaper without realizing that California is in an affordable housing crisis. And I have 375 City of Palo Alto Page 8 three young adult children who I would dearly love to live close to me, which they cannot presently do. We 376 enjoy the benefits of and enjoy being around the vibrant small office space environment were many startups 377 originate here in Palo Alto. And that’s part of something I think we do not want to necessarily quash; 378 however, we have been hurt by it because of the jobs/housing imbalance. And we all want a high-quality 379 place to live and work. So those are the overarching goals, sort of, and stay focused on those and we’ll 380 come out okay. And as far as that last point, I think that this building really has a huge effect on quality of 381 life. It really resonates for me as a Palo Alton, because I’ve seen that California is obsessed with the new, 382 we are obsessed with the new. We don’t have a lot of history because we’re a young state compared to 383 Europe or the East Coast. Perhaps we don’t have the most significant architectural resources, but what we 384 have is what we have. That’s what’s left is what is left. What has not already been erased. And a plaque 385 does not bring history to life. I’m not sure if you’ve noticed that the way a building does. And so what I’d 386 like to say is, I believe, I’m a designer in my private life and I believe design thinking, good design thinking 387 can solve a lot of problems if we say with an open mind and a creative confrontation to achieving these 388 goals, I believe we can achieve all of these goals and also preserve this building. And I would hope that 389 we make the best, most creative effort we can to do so. Okay, that’s all. Thank you. 390 391 Chair Bower: Thank you for those comments. And finally, I think we’re honored to have Thomas Foon 392 Chew’s granddaughter, Gloria Hom, here to speak. Welcome. 393 394 Gloria Hom: Thank you very much and thank you Elena for inviting me to the meeting. And I am Thomas 395 Foon Chew’s granddaughter, and I also am a fifty-plus years resident of Palo Alto. And I’m here to just say 396 that I’d like to maintain and retain the historical value of, and highlight Bayside Cannery. In the 1920’s 397 when it was in its heyday, it was the only large business in Palo Alto. I mean, Palo Alto was the University, 398 but in terms of a large business, Bayside Cannery was actually it. And I think it’s really an important 399 historical contribution to the area and certainly I would like to see it highlighted in some fashion and 400 certainly maintained. It was, it canned primarily peaches, apricots, pears and the Alviso Cannery canned 401 primarily tomatoes, but this area was mainly the fruits and fruit salads and, you know, used the train 402 system to transport the cans to other areas of the world. So, thank you very much for your time and if you 403 wanted any more information on the cannery, I would be very happy to submit it to you. 404 405 Chair Bower: Great. Thank you and I particularly appreciate the fact that you’ve come today to talk to us. 406 So, I don’t have any other cards. Maybe we’ll move on to Staff report. 407 408 Ms. Lee: If I may, I can respond to some of the questions that were raised during the public comments. 409 410 Chair Bower: Certainly, go ahead. 411 412 Ms. Lee: First of all, what I wanted to bring your attention to is that the project goals are up here. I can 413 send the link separately and post it up, but, so they do list what the goals are on housing and land use, 414 transit, pedestrian and bicycle connections, connected street grid, community facility, infrastructure, 415 balance of community interests, urban design and guidelines, sustainability and the environment. And just 416 quickly back to the top, there it goes. So, we have a section about the project engagement, which is where 417 you will find links to all of the reports and materials, resources and contact information. This is where we 418 list all upcoming meetings. And the article that Mr. Holzemer referenced is also included under the 419 engagement sections under the April 17th Working Group Meeting. and I can provide the link afterwards. 420 And then there were a few other items that I wanted to mention. And there was a plan that was shared 421 today that was shown at one of our Working Group meetings in the past. Just to clarify, yes, exactly that 422 one. That is also available at our website. But I wanted to clarify that the purpose of that plan was to start 423 a conversation about what the potential options are. It’s not a proposed option. We have not developed 424 one, but the purpose is to show what the potential pattern could be. We will be again going back to the 425 Working Group with more on that, but you know, it’s still early in the process. We’re still, we’re just about 426 finishing the data gathering stage right now. But the plan options are going to depend on a number of 427 factors, including the historic discussion, so, that discussion we’re having now. So, we need to have that 428 done before we can actually develop options. The other option, the other item is also looking at the creek. 429 One of the things that City Council mentioned was they wanted to look at naturalizing the creek, and that’s 430 City of Palo Alto Page 9 also an item that has to be done and analyzed in order for us to actually come up with options for discussion. 431 So, that is good information to have in the plans, that plan set, but it's just one piece of the background. 432 And again, as I have mentioned, adaptive reuse hasn’t been discussed because we actually haven’t come 433 to discussion. But, certainly, that’s something we will be considering when we come back with more on the 434 options. Thanks. 435 436 Chief Bower: Great. Thank you for pulling that page of goals up. I was sorry that we didn’t see on that list 437 of goals, historic preservation as part of it, considering that the cannery building is such an integral part of 438 this redevelopment process. I wanted to ask a couple of questions of Christina, if I could. I was interested 439 in the evaluation of the railroad siding. If you could pull up the aerial view of the site so we could look at 440 it? I’m wondering what, when you evaluate the significance of a siding, what’s the cutoff level of 441 significance? In the aerial view you can clearly see where it was and it hasn’t had railroad tracks there for 442 years, but the Highline Park in New York City, which is a former rail, elevated railway has some rails in 443 some portions and doesn’t, and yet it’s one of the most successful sort of rehabilitated uses to create a 444 park in New York City. So, could you comment on that a little bit? 445 446 Ms. Dikas: Sure. We didn’t find the rail spur specifically to be historically significant, but it contributes to 447 the history of the site overall and the building as part of its cannery function. As Elena mentioned and it’s 448 in our report, the tracks themselves were removed by Southern Pacific in 1964, so what remains is kind of 449 a pattern that’s reflected in the parking area currently. So, we mentioned that pattern as a character to 450 finding future of the site along with just a few landscape site features that contribute to the significance of 451 the cannery property. But we didn’t call out the track specifically. Does that answer your question? 452 453 Chair Bower: Yeah. I’m just concerned that just because we don’t have track there, that that particular 454 space loses significance and then becomes, it just basically disappears. By the way, that spur, I think, that’s 455 the spur that went, continued all the way down to Los Gatos and that the current Foothill Expressway 456 space, at least near Gunn High School used that abandoned spur, the County used that spur to develop 457 Foothill Expressway. So, it was, I remember as a child watching the trains come to Arastradero Road where 458 Gunn High School is now located every day in the afternoon, dropping off commuters to San Francisco. 459 Okay, another question. You had mentioned a, that the cannery buildings didn’t, I don’t want to 460 mischaracterize what you said, but maybe you could talk about how the architecture of the cannery building 461 was not significant, or am I remembering that correctly? 462 463 Ms. Dikas: That’s correct. We found that the buildings were, in their nature quite utilitarian and functional 464 and that there wasn’t anything that was specifically unique compared to other types of industrial buildings 465 to rise to an individual level of significance for the California Register under that Criterion. 466 467 Chair Bower: So, I guess I’m puzzled by that conclusion, because it seems to me that what that suggests 468 is that the only way a building, in this case a cannery building could be considered significant is if it was 469 unique or almost one of a kind, and the fact that this building has the characteristics of multiple canning 470 buildings, I mean, even ones down in Sunnyvale look similar to this one, or they are similar. I’m just now 471 sure why that wouldn’t be, rise to a level of significance that would add to support for a greater level of 472 importance. 473 474 Ms. Dikas: The building, the physical building is important in that it represents the reason for significance 475 which we’ve identified as the cannery operation under Criterion 1. So, that’s not do discount that the 476 physical building is not important. It must physically represent its reason for significance in its period of 477 significance, which we identified as 1918 to 1949. But we just didn’t find it to be individually significant for 478 its architecture itself, its design. It was a conglomeration of a series of additions over time that were really 479 made for the purpose of the cannery function and its development and growth, which reflects the Criterion 480 related to events and use that we identified more than like an architectural style or period typology. Things 481 of that nature that usually fall under the Criterion 3 discussion. 482 483 Chair Bower: Okay, so I’m thinking about Pier 70 in San Francisco, which is the oldest West Coast shipping 484 facility. It still operates today as a repair place. It is a huge conglomeration of buildings that occurred and 485 City of Palo Alto Page 10 were built over a long period of time in the early 1900’s. It’s being repurposed, all the old buildings that 486 are still standing, I think, are going to be repurposed and then there’s going to be infill. So, again, I’m 487 thinking in the case of this entire building at 340 Portage, it is an initial cannery building that is added on 488 to over a period of years, and each of those building additions become significant because the latest on is 489 only 79 years old, and the earliest one, 1918, now it’s 101 years old. So, again, I would think that this 490 would be significant, the entire building is significant and one of the things that troubled me most about 491 this initial proposal to get the conversation started is that it was going to cut the building up, and create 492 certain sort of preserved parts, and then basically destroy the rest. And I’m just wondering if you can… 493 Well, that’s okay. I think we’ve had enough conversation about this because I think it’s going to come back. 494 I don’t want to, I want to give my colleagues an opportunity to weigh in. I wonder if Staff could talk about 495 the Matadero Creek changes and how that might affect, you know, the historic buildings that we’re 496 considering. 497 498 Ms. Lee: Sure. So, right now we are in process of trying to select a consultant for the analysis if the creek. 499 So, the consultant’s analysis will let us know what is actually feasible to be improved. Some of the items 500 that were discussed would be fully naturalizing the creek, because right now it’s completely channelized in 501 that portion of it. However, it gets complicated because of the right-of-way issues and it’s, you know, and 502 impact on drainage further down the creek watershed. We’ve started conversations with Santa Clara Valley 503 Water District, but we’ll have to involve multiple other jurisdictions in terms of what’s feasible. So, once we 504 understand the feasibility of what we can do, then it can range from partial naturalization, no naturalization 505 where we would leave the creek alone, but we would improve on either side, so providing more of a 506 connectivity through the site, especially as it leads down south to the park. Or it could be partial 507 naturalization or it can be fully improving and naturalizing the site. So, as we look over the, as we develop 508 the plans for the site, it could be a range of things. It could be just by itself or we could try to help create 509 some sort of connection to whatever we propose for the other buildings within the plan site. 510 511 Chair Bower: So, if I understand correctly, the idea of naturalizing the creek channel would only occur 512 within this, the boundaries of this particular study are? 513 514 Ms. Lee: At this point, because that’s what this, we’re limited to the 60-acre site of this project. So, it would, 515 the creek runs through only the southern portion of the site. 516 517 Chair Bower: Okay. Colleagues, comments, questions? Martin. 518 519 Board Member Bernstein: Thank you Chair Bower. I was very interested in Laura Bajuk’s comments today 520 about what was significant when this building was first put into business, and that being the connection 521 between how famous this business was and our current Silicon Valley businesses. You know, the company 522 SPRINT, that stands for Southern Pacific Railroad Interconnection, so very interesting connection there. 523 Laura Bajuk was saying what was considered old then is now, we’re using the same words, Southern Pacific 524 Railroad, the internet SPRINT. Also, let’s see, when I was probably about 13 years old, I was a farm worker 525 and I picked green beans. It is now the property called Oakmead Industrial Park, so certainly one industry 526 down from farming to high tech. So, it certainly is part of the regional history. Did I hear Chair Bower say 527 something about historic preservation was not a goal for this area? 528 529 Ms. Lee: Um, it’s not, oh, sorry. 530 531 Chair Bower: Actually, what I said was I was unhappy not to see historic preservation as part of the listed 532 goals in that, but it might have been there because (crosstalk). 533 534 Board Member Bernstein: So, just a clarification, is historic preservation a listed goal? 535 536 Ms. Lee: It’s not listed by itself, but it is, you know, it is part of the neighborhood fabric and it also goes to 537 sustainability, so there is, it has been identified as something important by Council, but it isn’t listed 538 separately as a goal. 539 540 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Board Member Bernstein: Okay. For future meetings with the Working Group, would Staff consider including 541 that as a goal? 542 543 Ms. Lee: We can certainly bring that up. We are going back to Council in August and the Council does have 544 the ability, the prerogative to make changes to the goals and objectives. 545 546 Board Member Bernstein: Thanks. I’m going back to the railroad spur. There are a lot of communities on 547 the peninsula that still have actually the tracks themselves. For example, in San Carlos there are a lot of 548 metal fabrication companies all through that area, Corey Road for example, where the railroad tracks are 549 still in the parking lots, and they’re really fantastic. In Danville, I think it’s called the Iron Horse Trail, I 550 believe, and that used to be a railroad. The tracks have been removed but now it became actually a 551 parkway. So, there is still, the right-of-way is gone but it’s, but the use is still there. So, there would be 552 opportunities to have that railroad spur somehow recognized physically. I think that would be a nice 553 character-defining element to retain. The map that Ms. Holman presented to us, it did show it looks like 554 two cut throughs on the 340 Portage Street, but I assume that’s not the plan to do that, right? 555 556 Ms. Lee: It’s just brought up as a discussion point, so it hasn’t been actually proposed or selected. But it’s 557 just one of the items that we wanted the Working Group to consider, because connectivity was one of the 558 goals that City Council raised. 559 560 Board Member Bernstein: Right, yeah. So that’s obviously with removal of historic fabric, of course. 561 562 Ms. Lee: Yes. 563 564 Board Member Bernstein: Because once, hopefully historic preservation becomes a stated goal. 565 566 Ms. Lee: Right. Well, you know, so basically the goals and objectives really span a range of items. There’s 567 no way that we, as mentioned before, there’s no way that we can meet all of the goals, but it’s going to 568 be a balance of meeting some of the goals and then making other goals more important. So, it will be an 569 interesting discussion. 570 571 Board Member Bernstein: Sure, yeah. I’m looking at the photos on packet page 29. I don’t know if members 572 of the public can see. It’s a very small drawing. I’ll let Staff get to packet page 29. And looking at the upper 573 right-hand photograph of all the steel trusses there, I’m reminded when the project of the Creamery on 574 the 800 block of High Street came to the Historic Resources Board. Similar kind of structure, and the Board 575 discussed is there any way to get adaptive reuse of the structure so that that magnificent architectural 576 features can be retained. It was determined by enough of the different working groups and committees, 577 that the structure could not be saved physically because of deterioration. So, that was sadly torn down. 578 So, here’s an opportunity where the building is not deteriorating to the point where it is demolition by 579 neglect. So, that would support, I think, the idea that perhaps the structure itself is historically significant, 580 combined with the other significant aspects of integrity. That’s my comments for now. Thanks. 581 582 Chair Bower: Thank you Martin. Margret. 583 584 Board Member Wimmer: Yes. Thank you for all this great information because I always thought of the, I 585 mean, obviously Frys being a consumer in this area, going to Frys to shop, that was my sort of, the extent 586 of my experience there, so having a little bit more insight into the history of the site has been really 587 educational for me. I am just thinking about, for me I just think that there are three options for the 588 redevelopment of this site. Either to completely see it as a historic resource and preserve it. Or to completely 589 neglect the historic significance of the site or the buildings and just develop it as any developer would 590 probably go forth and do. Or find a common ground somewhere in between. I think to preserve this and 591 readapt it into something that is, community resource is a great idea, and I know that a lot of people have 592 said this could be a great artist colony. It could have open studios. I was reading some of the public 593 comments. But I think that just given the fact that we’ve already established that the building itself is not, 594 doesn’t have a historic quality, that I think to be able to remodel it in a way that it would be of use to the 595 City of Palo Alto Page 12 public, with public safety, fire issues. Obviously, there’s ADA issues because a lot of those buildings are 596 highly elevated because there were loading docks. I think that for a building to go through that process, 597 it’s basically going to be so drastically redesigned that I think a lot of the original aspects of the building 598 would just simply be lost. So, I think that Chair Bower and Martin’s comments about, let’s inject the fact 599 that we want to preserve this site in some way. I think that should be part of the criteria for the 600 redevelopment. I think, I don’t really see that we can preserve these buildings as they are now and make 601 them useful, but we don’t want to see everything lost and everyone just ignore the fact that the site does 602 exist. I think we need to find a common ground, and I think that there’s a creative way to do that, either 603 by keeping the footprint of the building, keeping some of the architectural features that are existing in the 604 building. Maybe the interior trusses or maybe this, I don’t know what we call this roofline, the monitor 605 roofs. I think that’s, I mean that’s sort of an iconic… You had some really great photos of it. Like this photo. 606 I mean, maybe just the, we take images of the existing site and have them, and have that as a design 607 element, part of the design criteria, and incorporate some of these historic elements. Maybe they’re not 608 the original historic elements, but maybe we can creatively adapt so we don’t lose this, I mean, it is a 609 resource because of the events that happened there. So, I think we should make a huge effort to retain it 610 in some way to honor it, pay homage to it. That’s what I would like to see. 611 612 Chair Bower: Thank you Margaret. Roger, comment? 613 614 Board Member Kohler: Yeah. I’m having a little trouble here, but in my old days, younger days I worked 615 for a company that used to blow stuff up into the air and we tried to figure out where the wind was blowing 616 and this kind of thing. And we were one block over, just right next to there, I think it’s Olive. I’m not sure 617 it that’s the corner. I’m just disclosing that as, that’s my notice there. And I just want to declare that I 618 know that property. I don’t know if I have… My question is, where do we go from here? What happens 619 from our discussion today? Does this go before the Council or how far a process, where are we in the 620 process? 621 622 Ms. Lee: So, basically we are going back to Council, you know, as part of the background we’ll let them 623 know that we’ve taken the HRE to the Historic Resources Board, but what we’re going to do is we’re going 624 to present a summary of what was discussed here to our Working Group. Staff will also take this information 625 as we prepare for the meeting, so, the Working Group will have your input as they consider different, the 626 plan alternatives that they’re going to be developing with Staff. 627 628 Board Member Kohler: I guess. 629 630 Chair Bower: Great. I wanted to, before we leave this topic, since we don’t have any Board Motions to 631 share with all the people here, this book that Amy French shared with me. And it’s titled Historic Bay Area 632 Visionaries and it described in the book, it actually has an entire chapter about the cannery and six other 633 people who are significant to the local history of Palo Alto and the peninsula. It was fascinating reading. 634 Juana Briones is in here and several other people, including Charlie Chaplin. Anyway, it has a very good 635 chapter about this building. 636 637 Ms. Lee: Thanks. I just wanted to kind of go back to that earlier topic. So, basically in terms of process, so 638 the process would be we would take all this input, we would present it to the Working Group. The Working 639 Group will work together with Staff to come up with the options, the different alternatives. We’ll take that 640 to the community at a community meeting sometime early next year. Then all of that goes to the City 641 Council for their review. City Council will come up with a preferred alternative. That preferred alternative 642 would then become the basis of the plan itself, and once a preferred alternative is chosen, then that will 643 go, that will help us start the work on the EIR for the project. So, at that point, it’s at that point when we 644 actually have project alternatives that will work with our environmental consultants as well as Page and 645 Turnbull to evaluate the impact, the historic impact of the proposed project. And then that will then go 646 through the process and up to Council for final adoption. 647 648 Chair Bower: Great. Thank you. I think that the Board, I hope all of the members that are not here today 649 can participate in the EIR review which will come when this project moves forward. I think our comments 650 City of Palo Alto Page 13 today would suggest that we feel that this project needs to take into consideration the historic character 651 of the cannery building and the office, and how that is expressed in the project development would be, of 652 course subject to all of the Working Group input, lots of other input, but our input, I think, is that somehow 653 these buildings need to be preserved and incorporated into a new project. I think that my colleagues here 654 today share that. So, Martin? 655 656 Board Member Bernstein: Yes. Thank you, Chair Bower. I have a question for Staff. Is this considered a, in 657 terms of historic preservation ordinances, is this considered a Group A or Group B? And so, Group A requires 658 it to be located in some historical category, which right now it’s not a historic category, correct? So, it’s not 659 a Group A, right? 660 661 Ms. French: So, that’s a handy document that needs updating, that is very helpful for the single-family 662 residential projects that we see coming through. In this case, you know, this is a non-residential project 663 that is subject to architectural review. So, there’s going to be a discretionary project on this site which then 664 kicks it into the CEQA review. This document you’re holding, the bulletin is really helpful for Staff to 665 understand, you know, single-family residential which often is not subject to discretionary reviews. 666 (crosstalk) 667 668 Board Member Bernstein: So, Group A and Group B only refers to residential properties, not, is that correct? 669 670 Ms. French: Well, that’s the focus of that bulletin. Yeah. So, it’s been identified now as an eligible resource, 671 so we consider it a CEQA resource for the purpose of review. 672 673 Board Member Bernstein: Okay, all right. Just following up my thoughts about this, so it says under Group 674 B Historic Resource, it’s listed in the National. So, right now it’s not listed, correct? Okay. 675 676 Ms. French: Correct. And only the property owner can petition the State to have their property listed 677 actually. So, the eligibility is the thing that kicks it into CEQA review. But the listing itself is up to the 678 property owner. 679 680 Board Member Bernstein: Okay, all right. So, thank you for clarifying that. I did not know that this only 681 refers to, am I correct, this only refers to residential properties, Group A and Group B? Is that correct? 682 683 Ms. French: I think we should schedule a separate meeting for this bulletin, if you don’t mind. So, have 684 further discussion. I’m not prepared to discuss that. 685 686 Board Member Bernstein: I see, okay. I do see that on today’s agenda that this is actually not listed as a 687 study session. This is an action item, according to this agenda, right? This is an action item meeting, not a 688 study session. 689 690 Ms. French: I mean, to the extent that your comments will be considered in the next steps in this process, 691 I think it’s an action item. There’s no project under CEQA currently to make a recommendation to Council, 692 for instance, but I guess it’s kind of a study session, but you know, because… I don’t think we need a vote, 693 straw poll or anything. 694 695 Ms. Lee: No, I don’t think we need a formal vote, but we’ll definitely be forwarding on your comments and 696 recommendations to the Working Group. 697 698 Chair Bower: So, it’s an action item that doesn’t require any action. 699 700 Ms. French: Yeah. 701 702 Board Member Bernstein: Can Staff assure the Board that, again, it is because of potential eligibility… It’s 703 potential eligibility correct? 704 705 City of Palo Alto Page 14 Ms. French: It’s no long potentially eligible, it is eligible. 706 707 Board Member Bernstein: Okay. 708 709 Ms. French: Because this study has been done. Once a study has been done to find it eligible, I mean, I 710 would from your comments surmise that you are concurring that it’s eligible and as you’ve read through 711 the report this is, one of your functions is to review an important document such as this and weigh in, I 712 guess, if you’d like. 713 714 Board Member Bernstein: Okay, so we’re guaranteed that this is tied into CEQA then? 715 716 Ms. French: Correct. 717 718 Board Member Bernstein. And that ties into the Secretary of Interior Standards for any alterations to historic 719 resource, correct? 720 721 Ms. French: Well, I think again, that’s got a more… Lower-level projects, yes, but because environmental 722 impact report would be prepared, that would weigh the, you know, retention versus demolition, let’s say, 723 of the existing buildings on this site, that go up to Council. Then Council makes a decision. You know, if 724 the Council decision is to retain the buildings, then, you know, then modifications there too would be 725 mitigated or what have you. 726 727 Board Member Bernstein: Okay. Well, thanks for clarifying that. When I was the words ‘potentially eligible’ 728 I thought, okay, so that doesn’t mean it’s eligible, but you’re saying it is eligible, therefore, CEQA is 729 guaranteed, it would have to respond to CEQA requirements. Okay, thank you. 730 731 Ms. French: Yes. 732 733 Chair Bower: So, just… One second Margaret. Just so it’s clear, I think I’d like to take a pole of Board 734 Members and just to verify that we do feel that this is eligible, it meets the criteria for listing, so that there’s 735 no ambiguity about that in the record. Anybody disagree with that, that this is an eligible building? The 736 criteria qualifies it? 737 738 Board Member Bernstein: I agree that it is, yeah. 739 740 Chair Bower: Margaret? 741 742 Board Member Wimmer: Yeah. Just a quick question. So, if Page and Turnbull has reviewed the, all the 743 findings and they’ve clearly stated that it’s, the building itself is not… I mean, I think the site and the event 744 of the site is, makes it eligible, but if we have a professional that has found, has done this report, how does 745 that weigh in? 746 747 Ms. Dikas: It was not found to be significant for its architecture or design, but that doesn’t mean that the 748 building is not significant. The building itself represents the significance associated with the use and events 749 of the cannery function, and so we did still call out character-defining features of the building as well as 750 the site. So, there is still a physical representation that, when it comes down to it there isn’t really a 751 difference when you’re evaluating a project, which Criterion was found to be the significant one. 752 753 Board Member Wimmer: Thank you. That makes it more clear. Yeah, I agree. 754 755 Chair Bower: Roger, you concur? 756 757 Board Member Kohler: Yeah. 758 759 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Chair Bower: Yeah, all right. So, all of us concur that this building is significant and should, could be listed, 760 so that that’s clearly transmitted to the Council. Okay. 761 762 Board Member Wimmer: I have one quick question. Is this project going to circle back to us as the plans 763 develop, or is this the last time we’ll review this project? 764 765 Ms. Lee: No, this will come back. So, once we’ve developed plan alternatives and we’ll be doing the CEQA 766 analysis, so that will come back to you for your recommendation. 767 768 Chair Bower: All right. 769 770 Ms. French: Ideally, we would come back during the public comment period, like we’re doing with the 771 Castilleja Project, for instance. So, you would have a public meeting during the comment period, if we can 772 swing that to have a coordinated discussion. 773 774 Board Member Bernstein: Chair Bower, I see there’s, since the public hearing is still open, I see a member 775 of the public who would like to make a comment please. 776 777 Chair Bower: Oh, please. 778 779 (inaudible, no mic) 780 781 Ms. Bajuk: So, as I mentioned earlier, housing was a pressing concern at the end of the war. It’s still a 782 pressing concern. It’s amazing how things don’t really change too much. But as a suggestion, orchards 783 were replaced by housing at that time period, but we’ve retained a few throughout the County. Los Alto is 784 still fighting to protect its trees around that civic center and the museum I used to manage. Thank you, 785 Martin, for mentioning it, to go to that exhibit. So, a few have been kept as living monuments. I think 786 there’s an opportunity here to keep a portion of the real facility. I’m going to back up a minute and say I 787 was very disappointed when we went to Europe to learn that castles didn’t look like what Disney had taught 788 me they looked like. And so, there’s a sentimentalization that can happen or sort of a fauxness that can 789 come with trying to emulate our past. But we can’t preserve all of it. We need this space to be used for the 790 betterment of the community. But, perhaps a corner, maybe the corner that talks the most about Thomas 791 Foon Chew and his contributions to our community. You know, the cannery was expended after his death. 792 It was expanded by later owners, but what’s the piece that most attaches to him, and is there some section 793 of that that could speak to that history. And also, the railroad history. I’m actually active because my 794 husband is, with railroad museums and I know we could do something interesting about the interpretation 795 of the fruit industry. For example, Southern Pacific employed the Stanford swim team, I think in the 40’s 796 or so, for publicity shots where they were stoking ice into the top of the refrigerator units that would carry 797 the fruit. They weren’t wearing much. It was sort of the beefcake of the day. This was their promotion’s 798 department thinking this was wise. These are the sorts of stories that are attached here that people aren’t 799 familiar with and bring a smile to our faces too, when we think how things haven’t changed. Industrial 800 buildings aren’t sexy. They’re not meant to be. They’re functional and even the Eiffel Tower was considered 801 too industrial, too commercial, too boring. It didn’t reflect the aesthetic of the day. Perhaps, as time passes, 802 that would change with an industrial building like this. But perhaps a small corner can be kept. Again, real 803 places are the ones that teach history, not the recreated ones. So, even, not matter how fabulous our 804 museum is, and it’s going to be fabulous, it is going to an historic site that gives the greatest impression 805 to people when they’re thinking about history, and it is the most trusted source of history. History museums 806 come second. And third on that list, from a survey from Indiana is someone who was actually at an historic 807 site or in an historic occurrence, like a World War II veteran. So, try to keep a piece of the authentic history. 808 A small corner would be my hope. Thank you. 809 810 Chair Bower: Thank you Laura, and I’m not sure I can pronounce your last name. Bajuk. Anyway, you are 811 our first and our last commentator. Do you want to make a comment? 812 813 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Board Member Kohler: I just wanted to make one quick comment. I forgot to mention that I can remember 814 seeing the train come off and go up and then you’d go up to Los Altos. You know, the main drag is up 815 there. The train used to run along that area as well. I guess I’m old enough to remember some of that. 816 817 Chair Bower: Okay, I’d like to point the public or anyone who is going to read the transcript of this meeting 818 to page eight and nine in our packets where the Staff has very cogently summarized the significance of 819 this building in terms of Criterion 1, which is events. And then second, aspects of integrity, there are seven 820 of them that define integrity, location, setting, design setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and 821 association, and this set of buildings retains six of the seven. I think that’s one of the strongest statements 822 about any building that’s come before this Board since I’ve been on here, and that’s rather, I think that’s 823 significant, not to overuse the term. So, I want to thank all of you who are here. We’re going to go into 824 basic Board business after this. And in particular, I thank Gloria Hom for coming to the meeting. It is 825 particularly, to me, meaningful to have somebody who is related to people who we’re talking about in an 826 historic sense. Thank you, Christina and Page and Turnbull and Staff, for your help in this, and I do think 827 we all look forward to having it come back. And thank everyone who has commented. It’s the first time 828 we’ve had a meeting with anybody in the audience in several meetings. 829 830 Approval of Minutes 831 832 3. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of June 13, 2019. 833 834 Chair Bower: So, we’re going to move on to housekeeping, approval of minutes. Once again, I slogged 835 through the minutes. They’re getting better, but… Any Board Members that have any… 836 837 Board Member Bernstein: So, I can’t vote on it. I was not here. 838 839 Chair Bower: No, you can abstain, which is what I do. So, do I have a motion to approve? 840 841 Board Member Wimmer: I’d like to make a motion to approve what we discussed today. 842 843 Chair Bower: Yeah. Roger second? 844 845 Board Member Kohler: Sure. 846 847 Chair Bower: All right, all in favor of approving the minutes from June 13, 2019 say aye. Roger? 848 849 Board Member Kohler: Yeah, aye. 850 851 Board Member Bernstein: I abstain. I was not participating in that meeting. 852 853 Chair Bower: Okay, so we have three. 854 855 (off mic) 856 857 Chair Bower: Well, so, Martin wants to abstain from the minutes, does that mean... 858 859 (off mic) 860 861 Chair Bower: Yeah, so we have a quorum. He doesn’t have to vote for or against or, yeah, okay. So, it’s 862 three yes and one abstention. 863 864 MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 3-0, BOARD MEMBER BERNSTEIN ABSTAINED, VICE CHAIR 865 COREY, BOARD MEMBERS MAKINEN AND SHEPHERD ABSENT 866 867 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Board Member Wimmer: Actually, David, it says that I was absent during that meeting, and I came late 868 because I was in traffic, but I did come. Should, can I change that? Can we change that in the minutes? 869 870 Chair Bower: Oh yeah. 871 872 Board Member Wimmer: I was actually, it says that I was absent for the meeting on June 13th. 873 874 Chair Bower: She came late. 875 876 Board Member Wimmer: When, in fact, I… 877 878 Ms. French: Are you speaking about packet page four? 879 880 Board Member Wimmer: We’re just looking at the minutes, so page 92. It says that I was absent for that 881 meeting, but I was actually present, a little tardy. 882 883 Ms. French: Okay, we’ll make that correction. Thank you. 884 885 Subcommittee Items 886 887 Chair Bower: Okay, subcommittee items. After this meeting Roger and I will meet with Amy to discuss the 888 520, is it 527 Waverley? Is that the right address? 889 890 Ms. French: 526. 891 892 Chair Bower: 526 Waverly, right. The tile and entry. There are no other subcommittee reports that I’m 893 aware of. 894 895 Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements 896 897 Chair Bower: So, Board Member questions, comments, announcements? 898 899 Board Member Kohler: I guess I forgot to let people know you could look at, I happened to grab these on 900 my way in. These are things I put together over the years and so… 901 902 Chair Bower: Right, so Roger is referring to the photographs that he has laid out on the dais behind Amy 903 that have pictures of, historic pictures of Palo Alto. I have a question. What’s the deadline for our in-service 904 training for this year? You know, we have to go to, we have certain requirements. 905 906 Ms. French: I don’t know the deadline offhand. I mean, you know, we want to make sure we keep going 907 to trainings. 908 909 Chair Bower: Well, I think that the report (crosstalk) October first. I mean, we file it in February, but I 910 think, but it’s a look back period and I want to be sure. I haven’t been able to get to one. 911 912 Ms. French: Whatever you attend between now and February, or whatever, January when I bring it to you, 913 I’ll put it on the list. 914 915 Adjournment 916 917 Chair Bower: Okay, if we have no other comments or questions, then we’ll adjourn the meeting at 10 918 o’clock. Thank you all. 919 920 921