HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-07-25 Historic Resources Board Agenda Packet_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Historic Resources Board
Regular Meeting Agenda: July 25, 2019
Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
Call to Order / Roll Call
Oral Communications
The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2
Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions
The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.
City Official Reports
1. 2019 Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and Assignments
Study Session
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
Action Items
Public Comment Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All
others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
2. Historic Resources Board Discussion and Comments on the Historic Resources
Evaluation of the Former Cannery Property Located at 340 Portage Avenue (Frys
site), Within the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP)
Approval of Minutes
Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3
3. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of June 13, 2019
Subcommittee Items
Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements
Adjournment
_______________________
1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the
time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided
that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually.
2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers.
3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.
Palo Alto Historic Resources Board
Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The HRB Boardmembers
are:
Chair David Bower
Vice Chair Brandon Corey
Boardmember Martin Bernstein
Boardmember Roger Kohler
Boardmember Michael Makinen
Boardmember Deborah Shepherd
Boardmember Margaret Wimmer
Get Informed and Be Engaged!
View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel
26.
Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card
located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Board
Secretary prior to discussion of the item.
Write to us. Email the HRB at: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning
& Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
94301. Comments received by 2:00 PM the Thursday preceding the meeting date will be
included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 3:00 PM the day before
the meeting will be presented to the Board at the dais.
Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the HRB after distribution of the
agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above.
Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a
manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an
appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs,
or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing
ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least
24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service.
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report (ID # 10521)
Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 7/25/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: 2019 HRB Meeting Schedule and Assignments
Title: 2019 Historic Resources Board Meeting Schedule and
Assignments
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) review and comment as appropriate.
Background
Attached is the HRB meeting schedule and attendance record for the calendar year. This is
provided for informational purposes. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from
a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item.
No action is required by the HRB for this item.
Attachments:
Attachment A: 2019 HRB Meeting Schedule and Assignments 07.25.19 (PDF)
2019 Schedule
Historic Resources Board
Meeting Schedule & Assignments
Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned
1/10/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Held with ARB
1/24/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
2/14/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
2/28/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
3/14/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Retreat
3/28/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
4/11/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
4/25/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
5/09/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
5/23/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
6/13/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Makinen
6/27/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Bower
7/11/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cancelled
7/25/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Cory, Shepherd
8/08/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Shepherd
8/22/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Bower, Shepherd
9/12/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
9/26/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Bower
10/10/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
10/24/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Bower
11/14/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
11/28/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
12/12/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular
12/26/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled
2019 Subcommittee Assignments
January February March April May June
Bower, Bernstein, Makinen:
Inventory list of historic materials
to be saved (redirected) in
demolitions
July August September October November December
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report (ID # 10499)
Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/25/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: HRE Cannery
Title: Historic Resources Board Discussion and Comments on the
Historic Resources Evaluation of the Former Cannery Property
Located at 340 Portage Avenue (Frys site), Within the North
Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP)
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): Review
the attached Historic Resources Evaluation and provide comments.
Background
The City is in the process of preparing the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) for a
60-acre area near the California Avenue Caltrain station. As part of the background and
environmental analysis, the City retained a consultant to prepare a Historic Resource Evaluation
(HRE) for 340 Portage Avenue, which is currently occupied by Fry’s Electronics and other
commercial tenants. The purpose of this meeting is to obtain comments from the Historic
Resources Board (HRB) on this HRE (Attachment A). Staff will forward the HRE and HRB
comments to the NVCAP Working Group and will incorporate these comments into future
reports on the draft plan as it is developed.
Project Initiation
The City Council initiated the NVCAP project on November 6, 2017, as it adopted a resolution of
local support with a commitment to complete the preparation of the plan. On March 5, 2018,
the City Council approved preliminary project goals, objectives, a schedule and plan boundaries.
Following a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process, Council selected Perkins+Will as
the project consultant on June 25, 2018. Additional background information regarding project
initiation, goals and objectives, and work effort to date is provided in staff reports1 and
1 March 11, 2019 Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/69619
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2
available on the project website2. The NVCAP is a direct outcome of the Comprehensive Plan
Update (Program L-4.10.1) adopted in November 2017 and the process to develop the plan is
governed by Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 19.10. The City Council also authorized the
formation of a working group to advise the City on the development of the plan. Work began
on the planning process in October 2018, when the City finalized the consultant contract and
issued a notice to proceed.
Project Site
The approximately 60-acre NVCAP project area is roughly bounded by Page Mill Road, El
Camino Real, Lambert Avenue, and the Caltrain tracks and represents a rare opportunity within
the City to plan proactively for a transit‐oriented mixed‐use neighborhood. The project area
includes one of the City’s largest housing opportunity sites, currently occupied by the cannery
building. The plan area is developed with a mix of small and large businesses and single-family
residences. To support this effort, the City obtained a federal transportation/priority
development area grant of $683,000 to fund the preparation of the NVCAP. The City maintains
a webpage providing details about the grant and history of the PDA and site area. The
November 6, 2017 City Council staff report is viewable at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=61631.
Purpose and Status of Project
The purpose of the NVCAP is to capture the City’s vision for this neighborhood into a regulatory
document that will guide future development and include land use policies, development
standards, and design guidelines. The NVCAP is intended to strengthen the neighborhood fabric
and consider infrastructure needs, providing for a mix of land uses that take advantage of the
proximity of the Caltrain station, the California Avenue business district area, and El Camino
Real.
The NVCAP project is approximately ten months into a two-year process. The development of
the plan could be viewed as a three-part process. The initial step is data gathering, the second
step is development of options/alternatives, and the final step is refinement and selection of
the preferred alternative. The City is nearing the end of the initial data gathering stage. The
next step is the development of plan options.
Public Meetings and Outreach
In addition to the project initiation public hearings, multiple meetings have been held on this
project, consistent with the project’s goal to be a community driven process. Between October
2018 and April 2019, the Working Group held four meetings. The project team also conducted
several stakeholder meetings over the past several months, including meetings with the Palo
Alto Unified School District, area residents, and property owners. The first of two planned
community workshops was also held on February 5, 2019.
2 Project website: https://www.paloaltonvcap.org/
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3
The community workshop provided an overview of the process and allowed the project team to
receive feedback from the public, who expressed varioius needs and interests. Several key
themes were found in the public comments. Among the themes were:
the need for housing with a range of incomes, including affordable housing,
an interest in naturalizing the creek as an open space amenity,
a desire to improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity instead of cars,
and quality design to create an interconnected neighborhood with community spaces.
Most recently, the City Council held a Town Hall meeting on March 11, 2019 to discuss the
Ventura neighborhood. The meeting included an update on the NVCAP and a joint meeting
with the Council-appointed Working Group. At that meeting, Council provided further direction
to staff regarding its expectations on future analysis.
Staff anticipates returning to Council in August to provide an update and to receive direction on
anticipated changes in the scope of consultant services, including likely increases in the budget.
Staff is seeking an extension of the funding deadline, as staff addresses the historic significance
of the property, explores options to re-naturalize Matadero Creek, and finalizes a contract for
feasibility and costing estimates for open space options. Throughout the process, staff has
heard interest in studying 340 Portage Avenue further as a potential historic resource. Staff
reports and summaries of these meetings are provided on the project website:
www.paloaltonvcap.org.
DISCUSSION
As part of the initial assessment of the NVCAP project area, staff retained Page and Turnbull to
prepare an evaluation of the project area which was conducted for potential historic resources
(Attachment B). There are no properties located within the project boundary that are listed in
the City of Palo Alto Historic Inventory, the National Register of Historic Places (National
Register), or the California Register of Historic Resources (California Register) nor are there any
recorded historic districts. Prior to the preparation of the attached HRE, there were no records
found of any properties identified as an eligible historic resource. Out of the entire 60-acre
area, only 340 Portage Avenue and the associated office building on Ash Street have been
found to be eligible historic resources, as further described in the HRE.
340 Portage Avenue HRE
Building Description & Defining Features
The HRE focused on 340 Portage Avenue, which was originally constructed as a cannery, and
the associated office building at 3201-3205 Ash Street. 340 Portage Avenue is located on an
irregularly shaped 12.5-acre parcel between Park Boulevard and El Camino Real. What appears
to be one large building at 340 Portage Avenue is composed of approximately ten buildings that
were constructed at various times between 1918 and 1949. The building is surrounded by a
narrow parking lot to the northwest and a larger parking lot to the southeast. The rectangular
former cannery building features walls that are concrete, corrugated metals or wood siding,
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4
with a variety of roof shapes. Some of the most distinctive features include the monitor roofs,
capped with composition shingles and clad with corrugated metal, wood clerestory ribbon
windows and wire glass skylights. The site’s landscaping features consist primarily of low
planting beds or medians around the parking lot. A fully channelized portion of Matadero
Creek borders the parking lot to the southeast.
The office building on Ash Street is a one-story, wood frame building located to the southeast
of the former cannery building. The building appears to have been initially built as a dormitory
for the cannery employees sometime between 1918 and 1925 and was moved to its current
location in 1940. The building features a front-gabled roof, wraparound porch with a shed roof,
and wood lap siding. The property has a small lawn with a wood fence, low hedges, and trees.
The former cannery site was initially developed in April 1918, by Thomas Foon Chew, the owner
of Bayside Canning Company. This was intended to be Mr. Chew’s second cannery; the first
cannery was built nearby in Alviso, California. The Palo Alto cannery was strategically located
alongside a railroad spur of the Southern Pacific Railroad’s Los Gatos branch, which facilitated
shipments, and Matadero Creek for a ready water supply. The cannery was expanded over the
next several decades. The site operated as the Bay Side Cannery and then as the Sutter Packing
Company in 1929. The cannery continued to grow through World War II and was closed in
1949. Although the building has undergone some exterior alterations throughout the
expansion, aerial photos show from 1965 that the building continues to have the same shape
and general form as now. Following the closure of the cannery, the site has been occupied by
an extensive retailer Maximart and other retail and office uses. The next significant and largest
tenant, Fry’s Electronics, continues to occupy the site. The HRE report provides a detailed
history and a construction chronology on pages 34-36.
Historic Significance
A significant component of the HRE is an evaluation of the site’s eligibility for the California
Register. In order for a site to be found eligible for the California Register, it must be found to
be significant at the local, state or national level under one or more of the following criteria:
Criterion 1 (Events)
Criterion 2 (Person)
Criterion 3 (Architecture)
Criterion 4 (Information Potential)
Criterion 1
340 Portage Avenue and the associated office building on Ash Street were found to be
individually significant under Criterion 1 and eligible for listing in the California Register because
of their association with the historic cannery industry in Santa Clara Valley, including Palo Alto.
The cannery is associated with the Bayside Canning Company, which was owned by a
prominent Chinese immigrant and a groundbreaking figure in the canning industry. Mr. Chew
was able to make the Bayside Canning Company the third largest fruit and vegetable cannery in
the world in the 1920s, only behind Libby and Del Monte.
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5
The cannery continued operations as the Sutter Packing Company, which included significant
expansion to meet the demands of World War II. Because the cannery is one of few remaining
remnants of Palo Alto’s and Santa Clara County’s agricultural history, 340 Portage Avenue and
the related office building appears to be significant under Criterion 1. Significance was not
found under Criteria 2-4.
Aspects of Integrity
In addition to the above criteria, a property must also be found have retained integrity.
Integrity is defined by the California Office of Historic Preservation as “the ability of a property
to convey its significance.” Authenticity is established by the “survival of certain characteristics
that existed during the resource’s period of significance.” The seven aspects that define
integrity are: Location, Design, Setting, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling, and Association.
The property was found to retain integrity in six of the seven categories, as further described
below.
The property retains integrity of location because the cannery and office building have
been maintained on site, although the office building was relocated within the property.
The property retains integrity of design because the buildings have been minimally
altered. Although alterations have been made over the years, much of the prominent
features, such as the monitor roofs, the original concrete loading docks and rear cooling
porch still exist and are features that were essential to the operation of the cannery.
The Ash Street office building has also had minimal alteration and retains integrity of
design.
The property retains integrity of the materials. The materials clearly relate to the
industrial character of the original use. The buildings continue to retain the original
reinforced concrete walls, concrete loading docks, wood post-and-beam construction,
upper-story wood windows and corrugated metal cladding.
The property also retains integrity of workmanship. Although the building has a
utilitarian appearance, the components that made up the building required skill and
craftsmanship. The craftsmanship is evident in the wood post-and-beam construction,
exposed wood truss ceilings and the monitor roofs.
The property retains integrity of feeling due to the scale and retention of recognizable
industrial features and materials, such as the concrete walls, corrugated metal, loading
docks and cooling porches. The buildings’ past as a cannery is evident in these features.
Similarly, the associated office building maintained its character of an early to mid-
twentieth century office building.
The Portage and Ash buildings retain integrity of association. The buildings have
maintained enough significant physical features that continue to clearly communicate
that they were formerly part of a historic cannery business. The site retains integrity in
materials, design, workmanship and feeling, establishing integrity of association
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6
HRE Conclusion
The HRE found that the subject site is significant at the local level under Criterion 1 (Events) for
its association with the historic Santa Clara County cannery industry and retains integrity in six
of the seven required categories. Accordingly, the property is now eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources. As such, the property qualifies as a historic resource
for the purposes of review under the California Environmental Quality Act.
NEXT STEPS
As noted, the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan is entering the next phase, the
development of plan options. The next Working Group meetings will focus on the development
and refinement of project alternatives, providing for a range of options. Once options have
been developed, the second community workshop will be held in early 2020 to introduce and
solicit feedback on the options from the public. The Working Group will then identify its
preferred option (or options). Staff will present these options and the Working Group’s
preferred option to the City Council for Council comment and direction. As noted above, the
Working Group meetings are also public meetings and members of the public can always
participate.
The HRB’s and public feedback on the HRE and the site’s historic character will be shared with
the project team and the Working Group and included in presentations to the City Council and
the Planning and Transportation Commission, to help inform the development of plan options.
Environmental Review
The actions recommended in this report are exempt from review under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3)
and Section 15262 (Feasibility and Planning Studies). The purpose of this meeting is to obtain
feedback on the Historic Resource Evaluation prepared for the project and that will be used as
part of the environmental review. The actions would not be determinative of any specific
outcome. The Coordinated Area Plan that would result from this effort will be subject to CEQA
review prior to adoption.
Report Author & Contact Information HRB3 Liaison & Contact Information
Elena Lee, Planning Manager Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official
(650) 617-3196 (650) 329-2336
elena.lee@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org
Attachments:
Attachment A: Draft HRE Report 340 Portage Avenue (PDF)
Attachment B: Preliminary Historic Eligibility Memorandum for NVCAP Area (PDF)
3 Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org
imagining change in historic environments through design, research, and technology
Page & Turnbull
340 PORTAGE AVENUE
HISTORIC RESOURCE EVALUATION
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
[16252P]
PREPARED FOR:
CITY OF PALO ALTO
APRIL 11, 2019
DRAFT
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 Page & Turnbull, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................... 2
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ....................................................................................................................... 3
II. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS .............................................................................. 4
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ............................................................................................ 4
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 4
CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE ............................................................................... 4
PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY .......................................................................................................... 4
PALO ALTO HISTORICAL SURVEY UPDATE .............................................................................................. 5
III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION ........................................................................ 7
340 PORTAGE AVENUE .......................................................................................................................... 7
SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD ...................................................................................................... 20
IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT .......................................................................................... 22
MAYFIELD/PALO ALTO HISTORY ............................................................................................................ 22
THE CANNING INDUSTRY IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY .......................................................................... 25
SITE HISTORY ....................................................................................................................................... 28
CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 34
BUILDING OWNERS AND TENANTS..................................................................................................... 36
V. EVALUATION ........................................................................................................ 44
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................. 44
INTEGRITY ............................................................................................................................................ 46
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES ...................................................................................................... 48
VI. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 50
VIII. REFERENCES CITED.......................................................................................... 51
PUBLISHED WORKS ............................................................................................................................. 51
UNPUBLISHED RECORDS .................................................................................................................... 51
INTERNET SOURCES ............................................................................................................................ 52
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES ......................................................................................................................... 53
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 1 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
I. INTRODUCTION
This Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) has been prepared at the request of the City of Palo Alto
Planning and Community Environment Department for the former cannery property (referred to as
the “subject property” in this report), which consists of the former cannery building at 340 Portage
Avenue and the associated former office building at 3201-3225 Ash Street (APN 132-38-071) in Palo
Alto, California (Figure 1). Other storefront addresses—including 200, 210, 220, 230, 336, 360, 370,
and 380 Portage Avenue and 3200 Park Boulevard—are used at the main cannery building; however,
340 Portage Avenue occupies the largest space in the building and is, therefore, being used to refer to
the building as a whole. The building at 340 Portage Avenue was initially built for the Bayside
Canning Company, owned by Thomas Foon Chew, in 1918 and subsequently expanded by the Sutter
Packing Company in the 1930s and 1940s. These expansions included the construction of the extant
office building at 3201-3225 Ash Street. The subject property is located on the west side of Portage
Avenue between Park Boulevard and El Camino Real, immediately west of Matadero Creek.
The subject property sits on an irregularly-shaped 12.5-acre lot; parking lots border 340 Portage
Avenue to the northwest and southeast.
Figure 1: Assessor Block map. The subject property, inclusive of the former cannery at 340 Portage
Avenue (shaded orange) and the former office building 3201-3225 Ash Street (shaded blue). Source:
Santa Clara County Assessor. Edited by Page & Turnbull.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 2 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 2: Aerial view of the subject property. The former cannery building is shaded orange. The
former office building is shaded blue. Source: Google Earth, 2019. Edited by Page & Turnbull.
The subject property has not been previously listed or found eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places (National Register), California Register of Historical Resources (California
Register), or local City of Palo Alto Historic Inventory, nor is it located within the boundaries of any
recorded historic district.
METHODOLOGY
This Historic Resource Evaluation provides a summary of previous historical surveys and ratings, a
site description, historic context, and an evaluation of the property’s individual eligibility for listing in
the California Register of Historical Resources.
Page & Turnbull prepared this report using research collected at various local repositories, including
the Palo Alto Historical Association, City of Palo Alto Development Center, Ancestry.com, and
various other online sources. Page & Turnbull conducted a site visit in January 2019 to review the
existing conditions and to photograph the property in order to prepare the descriptions and
assessments included in this report. All photographs were taken by Page & Turnbull in January 2019,
unless otherwise noted.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 3 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
Upon evaluation of the subject property, inclusive of the former cannery at 340 Portage Avenue and
the former office building at 3201-3225 Ash Street, Page & Turnbull finds the former cannery
property to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources at the local level of
significance under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with the history of the canning industry in
Santa Clara County. Thus, the property appears to qualify as a historic resource for the purposes of
review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 4 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
II. CURRENT HISTORIC STATUS
The following section examines the national, state, and local historical ratings currently assigned to
the subject property.
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
The National Register of Historic Places (National Register) is the nation’s most comprehensive
inventory of historic resources. The National Register is administered by the National Park Service
and includes buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural,
engineering, archaeological, or cultural significance at the national, state, or local level.
340 Portage Avenue and 3201-3225 Ash Street are not currently listed in the National Register of
Historic Places individually or as part of a registered historic district.
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant
architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be
listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and
National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can
also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens.
The evaluative criteria used by the California Register for determining eligibility are closely based on
those developed by the National Park Service for the National Register of Historic Places.
340 Portage Avenue and 3201-3225 Ash Street are not currently listed in the California Register of
Historical Resources individually or as part of a registered historic district.
CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL RESOURCE STATUS CODE
Properties listed by, or under review by, the State of California Office of Historic Preservation are
assigned a California Historical Resource Status Code (Status Code) between “1” and “7” to establish
their historical significance in relation to the National Register of Historic Places (National Register
or NR) or California Register of Historical Resources (California Register or CR). Properties with a
Status Code of “1” or “2” are either eligible for listing in the California Register or the National
Register, or are already listed in one or both of the registers. Properties assigned Status Codes of “3”
or “4” appear to be eligible for listing in either register, but normally require more research to
support this rating. Properties assigned a Status Code of “5” have typically been determined to be
locally significant or to have contextual importance. Properties with a Status Code of “6” are not
eligible for listing in either register. Finally, a Status Code of “7” means that the resource either has
not been evaluated for the National Register or the California Register, or needs reevaluation.
340 Portage Avenue and 3201-3225 Ash Street are not listed in the California Historical Resources
Information System (CHRIS) database as of 2012. This means the buildings have not been formally
evaluated using California Historical Resource Status Codes and/or the status code has not been
submitted to the California Office of Historic Preservation.
PALO ALTO HISTORIC INVENTORY
The City of Palo Alto’s Historic Inventory, completed in 1979, lists noteworthy examples of the
work of important individual designers and architectural eras and traditions as well as structures
whose background is associated with important events in the history of the city, state, or nation. The
survey that produced the inventory encompassed approximately 500 properties and was largely
limited to areas in and near the historic core of Palo Alto. The inventory is organized under the
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 5 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
following four Categories:
▪ Category 1: An “Exceptional Building” of pre-eminent national or state importance. These
buildings are meritorious works of the best architects, outstanding examples of a specific
architectural style, or illustrate stylistic development of architecture in the United States.
These buildings have had either no exterior modifications or such minor ones that the
overall appearance of the building is in its original character.
▪ Category 2: A “Major Building” of regional importance. These buildings are meritorious
works of the best architects, outstanding examples of an architectural style, or illustrate
stylistic development of architecture in the state or region. A major building may have some
exterior modifications, but the original character is retained.
▪ Category 3 or 4: A “Contributing Building” which is a good local example of an
architectural style and relates to the character of a neighborhood grouping in scale, materials,
proportion or other factors. A contributing building may have had extensive or permanent
changes made to the original design, such as inappropriate additions, extensive removal of
architectural details, or wooden facades resurfaced in asbestos or stucco.
The subject property is not listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory under any category.1
PALO ALTO HISTORICAL SURVEY UPDATE
Between 1997 and 2000, a comprehensive update to the 1979 Historic Inventory was undertaken by
the historic preservation firm Dames & Moore. The goal of this update was to identify additional
properties in Palo Alto that were eligible to the National Register. This effort began with a
reconnaissance survey of approximately 6,600 properties constructed prior to 1947. The
reconnaissance survey produced two Study Priority lists. In January 1999, Dames & Moore prepared
an interim findings report that listed preliminary evaluations of the National Register and California
Register eligibility of Study Priority 1 and 2 properties.2 Approximately 600 properties were identified
as Study Priority 1, indicating they appeared individually eligible for listing in the National Register
under Criterion C (Architecture). Approximately 2,700 properties were identified as Study Priority 2,
representing those properties that did not appear individually eligible to the National Register under
Criterion C (including common local building types) but retained high integrity.
The reconnaissance survey was followed by an intensive-level survey of all Study Priority 1
properties.3 Historic research was conducted on the owners, architects/builders, and past uses of the
Study Priority 1 properties. Research also informed the preparation of historic context statements on
topics such as local property types, significant historical themes, and prolific architects and builders,
in order to identify any potential significant associations of Study Priority 2 properties. Dames &
Moore found 291 properties to be potentially eligible as individual resources to the National Register
and California Register. The survey found that 1,789 other properties were potentially eligible to the
California Register only.
The survey update effort concluded with California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523
forms prepared for those 291 properties that initially appeared eligible for listing in the National
1 “Palo Alto Historic Buildings Inventory.” http://www.pastheritage.org/inventory.html
2 Dames & Moore. “Study Priority 1 and Study Priority 2 Properties: Preliminary Assessments of Eligibility for
the National Register or California Register.” Prepared for the City of Palo Alto Planning Division. January
1999.
3 Dames & Moore. “Final Survey Report – Palo Alto Historical Survey Update: August 1997-August 2000.”
Prepared for the City of Palo Alto Planning Division. February 2001.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 6 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Register. Of the 291 properties, 165 were ultimately found to be eligible to the National Register.
These DPR 523 forms were submitted to the California Office of Historic Preservation. Because the
survey focused on determining National Register eligibility, the project did not finalize the
preliminary evaluations regarding potential California Register eligibility. The City of Palo Alto did
not formally adopt any findings from the Dames & Moore study.
The subject property was not surveyed in either the Study Priority 1 or 2 categories, and thus was not
identified as a property for preliminary evaluation.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 7 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
III. ARCHITECTURAL DESCRIPTION
340 PORTAGE AVENUE
340 Portage Avenue is located on an irregularly shaped, 12.5-acre parcel at the north end of Portage
Avenue between Park Boulevard and El Camino Real in Palo Alto. Although 340 Portage Avenue
appears to consist of a single, large building, it is composed of roughly ten buildings that were
constructed at various times between 1918 and 1949 and are attached, in some form, to one another.
Some of these buildings are almost entirely encased between other structures and have very limited
exterior exposure; sometimes only a single wall is visible. The buildings range in size but generally
have a regular, rectilinear plan and concrete foundations. Access into the site is achieved through
large surface parking lots that are accessible via Park Boulevard to the northwest, Ash Street to the
southeast, and Portage Avenue and Acadia Avenue to the southwest. The separate, yet associated
building to the southeast of 340 Portage Avenue is described in the “Landscape Features and
Outbuildings” section that follows.
The façades of the building, as described in this report, are outlined in the diagram below (Figure 3).
The main volume of the building features a pair of monitor roofs, which are capped with
composition shingles (Figure 4); the remainder of the building features a variety of roof shapes,
including flat, gabled, shed, and arched roofs. The building is primarily clad in concrete or corrugated
metal with some sections on the rear clad in wood siding. Fenestration is minimal but includes some
metal doors and fixed metal windows on the first story, wood clerestory ribbon windows, and wire
glass skylights.
Figure 3: 340 Portage Avenue, facades labeled and colored. Source: Google Maps, 2019. Edited by
Page & Turnbull.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 8 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Primary (Southeast) Façade
The primary (southeast) façade faces a surface parking lot on Portage Avenue. To further describe
the physical characteristics that are visible along the southeast façade, it will be divided into three
sections: south (left), middle, and north (right).
The far left (south) portion of the southeast façade is clad in board formed concrete and features two
arched roofs with a flat parapet fronting Portage Avenue (Figure 5 and Figure 6). A raised concrete
platform with a simple metal railing extends north from an entry for 380 Portage Avenue. The entry
consists of an aluminum frame glass door, sidelight, and transom windows that appear to have
replaced an earlier garage door opening. A metal ladder with safety cage to permit roof access is
located to the north of this entry (Figure 7). To the north of this ladder, the concrete platform is
covered by a long, shed awning with a wood post-and-beam and horizontal wood railing; the awning
is covered in corrugated metal and asphalt (Figure 8).
The middle portion of the southeast façade features the building’s most distinctive feature: a pair of
monitor roofs covered with composition shingles and clad with corrugated metal (Figure 9). The
monitor roofs run perpendicular to the façade. Exterior walls throughout this section are also clad in
corrugated metal siding. Below the monitor roofs, the shed awning, wood post-and-beam supports,
concrete platform, and horizontal wood railing continue from the south along the full length of this
section (Figure 10). A number of entries permit access to the interior of the building from this
section of the southeast façade. The primary entrance to the building consists of a pair of aluminum
frame, automatic glass doors and a single aluminum frame glass door, both with exterior wood trim;
the entries are situated below a roll-up garage door opening (Figure 11). Fenestration to the left
(south) and right (north) consists of a number of metal doors, aluminum frame glass doors, and
fixed, aluminum frame windows. In several locations, a combination of aluminum frame glass doors,
sidelights, and transoms have been installed to fill former garage door openings (Figure 12). In
other locations, larger, earlier openings have been filled with simple metal doors and blind transoms
with wood trim (Figure 13). Concrete ramps and steps permit access to the concrete platform from
the parking lot in a number of locations and at the platform’s extreme north and south ends.
The far right (north) portion of the southeast façade features painted concrete block cladding, a
parapeted roof, and two sets of aluminum frame, double glass door entries (Figure 14). The entry to
the left also features large glass sidelites and two rows of transom windows beneath an arched metal
awning with two metal supports; this appears to have replaced a former garage door opening (Figure
Figure 4: 340 Portage Avenue. View northwest from the parking lot located southeast of the building.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 9 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
15). The entry to the right, the furthest entrance to the north on this façade, is smaller and features
narrow sidelites and a concrete walkway framed by landscaping (Figure 16). Additional roof shapes
and materials were not visible from street level in this location.
Figure 5. Southeast façade. View north.
Figure 6. The south end of the southeast façade
features two arched roofs. View southwest.
Figure 7. Concrete platform extends from an
aluminum frame glass entry at the far south end
of the southeast façade. View northeast.
Figure 8. A shed awning with wood post-and-
beam supports extends nearly the full length of
the southeast façade. View northeast.
Figure 9. A pair of monitor roofs dominate the
middle section of the southeast façade. View
southwest.
Figure 10. Concrete steps permit access to
entries located on the concrete platform. View
northwest.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 10 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 11. The primary entrance to the building
from the southeast façade at Fry’s Electronics.
View northwest.
Figure 12. Many historic doors and openings
have been replaced with aluminum frame glass
windows and doors. View northwest
Figure 13. A metal door with blind transom and
wood trim. View northwest.
Figure 14. The north end of the southeast
façade. Breezeblocks have been added beneath
the awning in some locations. View north.
Figure 15. An arched metal awning over an
altered entry at the far north end of the
southeast façade. View northwest.
Figure 16. An altered aluminum frame glass
entry and oncrete walkway framed by
landscaping at the far north end of the southeast
façade. View northwest.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 11 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Northeast Façade
The northeast façade faces Park Boulevard and features corrugated metal cladding, a taller central
portion, and two entries (Figure 17). The primary entrance is for 3200 Park Boulevard and is located
approximately at the center of the façade. It is set into a curved recess that is supported by two
square concrete pillars. The lintel above features graduated horizontal lines, which, along with the
recess’s curved shape, are reflective of the Streamline Moderne style. Aluminum frame double glass
doors with multilite sidelights and a transom above sit at the center of this recessed entry; a large
multilite window is located immediately to its right (west). This entry is accessed by a small set of
concrete steps and a curved concrete ramp, both of which have metal railings (Figure 18 and Figure
19). The second entry is located at the left (east) end of the façade and consists only of a single
aluminum frame glass door with a single sidelite to its left and a narrow transom window above
(Figure 20). Much of the façade is covered in ivy.
Figure 17. Northeast façade. View west. Figure 18. Recessed entry. View southwest.
Figure 19. Curved, recessed entry with concrete
ramp and steps, and aluminum frame glass doors
and windows. View west.
Figure 20. The second entry on the northeast
façade. View southwest.
Rear (Northwest) Façade
The rear façade of 340 Portage Avenue displays a variety of roof forms, structures, and features
(Figure 21 and Figure 22). To further describe the physical characteristics that are visible along the
northwest façade, the façade will be broken down into three sections: north (left), middle, and south
(right).
Starting at the far north end of the façade, a wide, raised concrete platform, originally used as a
loading platform or part of the cannery’s cooling porch, extends south for nearly the entire length of
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 12 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
the property. The platform is covered by a long, shed awning with wood post-and-beam supports
and wood trusses. At the extreme north end of the building, the concrete platform has been
converted for use as a patio. Here, a horizontal metal or wood railing and stairs have been installed at
the edge of the platform, exterior walls have been clad in vertical wood siding, and former garage
door openings or truck loading bays have been replaced with aluminum frame glass windows and
doors (Figure 23). An asphalt ramp rises up to the height of the concrete platform, reflecting some
continued use for loading and unloading. Above this section, a parapet with a clipped north corner
rises above the awning, which is covered in acrylic roofing material. Exterior walls on the rest of the
façade that have not been previously mentioned are clad in corrugated metal siding.
Proceeding along the façade to the south, the height of the building increases; the first raised section
is fronted by a square parapet that obscures a shallow gabled roof (Figure 24). This is followed by a
smaller gabled roof and then by the large pair of monitor roofs that are the building’s dominant
feature. As at the primary southeast façade, these monitor roofs run perpendicular to this façade, are
clad with corrugated metal siding, and are covered with composition shingles. A gabled rooftop
addition and a smaller addition with a flat roof are attached to the south side of the south monitor
roof and set back from the rear façade (Figure 25). These additions are also clad with corrugated
metal siding. A low wood chimney is visible on the south slope of the gabled structure, and a ribbon
of wood sash clerestory windows wraps around its northwest and southeast sides. Similar windows
are present on the smaller flat-roofed section (Figure 26). As one proceeds south along the façade,
shallow gabled roofs are visible in some places above the awning. The concrete platform and shed
awning with wood post-and-beam construction continue at the middle section of the façade;
however, some sections to the north are fenced in and are not visible from street level. A larger
section further to the south remains open (Figure 27). Doors in this location are primarily paired
and made of metal. The outline of small, shallow gabled roofs that have been incorporated into the
larger existing structure are visible beneath the awning (Figure 28). At the end of the concrete
platform, two gabled warehouses clad with corrugated metal are visible (Figure 29).
The south section of the northwest façade is taller than and protrudes forward (northeast) from the
previously described sections. The double-height walls of this section are clad with board formed
concrete (Figure 30). It features four arched roofs that are covered in acrylic roofing material and a
broad awning with a flat roof that extends the entire length of the section (Figure 31). The area
beneath the left (north) portion of this awning is enclosed by a chain-link fence that rises from the
pavement to the underside of the roof. The area beneath the right (south) portion of the awning has
been converted into a patio and landscaped with planting boxes and tall hedges to create a privacy
screen (Figure 32).
Figure 21. Middle section of the northwest
facade. View southeast.
Figure 22. Middle section of the northwest
façade. View northeast.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 13 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 23. The loading platform or cooling
porch converted into a patio with replacement
aluminum frame garage door window. View
northeast.
Figure 24. Rooftop parapet and small gabled
roof in middle section of northwest façade.
View northeast.
Figure 25. Gabled addition attached to the
southernmost monitor roof of 340 Portage
Avenue. View northeast.
Figure 26. Close-up of the gabled and flat-
roofed additions. View northeast.
Figure 27. A portion of the concrete loading
platform or cooling porch with its shed awning
and wood post-and-beam supports in the
middle section of the northwest façade. View
northeast.
Figure 28. Outlines of shallow gabled roofs are
visible along the concrete platform. View
southeast.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 14 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Southwest Facade
The southwest façade consists of a solid double height board formed concrete wall that has been
painted. The façade is accessed via Ash Street, a narrow street located between 340 Portage Avenue
and a neighboring property at 411 Portage Avenue (Figure 33). The remnants of numerous filled
and repaired cracks cover the surface of the wall (Figure 35). A lighted channel letter sign for Fry’s
Electronics is mounted on the upper corner of the wall at the far east end of the façade (Figure 36).
Figure 33. Southwest façade. View southeast. Figure 34. Painted board formed concrete on the
southwest facade. View northeast
Figure 29. Gabled structures at the south end
of the middle section of the northeast façade.
View northeast.
Figure 30. Double-height concrete structure
with a wide flat-roofed awning and chain-link
fence at the far south end of the northeast
façade. View south.
Figure 31. Arched roofs at the south end of the
northwest facade. View southeast.
Figure 32. Wood post-and-beam construction
under the awning at the south end of the
northeast façade. View south.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 15 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 35. Repaired cracks on the southwest
façade. View northeast.
Figure 36. Southwest façade with lighted sign
for Fry’s Electronics. View north.
Interior
The following is a brief description of the interior spaces within the former cannery building that
were accessed during the site visit. These include the publicly accessible interior spaces of 340
Portage Avenue, occupied by Fry’s Electronics, and the primary interior space of 380 Portage
Avenue, occupied by Playground Global and which was opened to the surveyor during the site visit.
The interior of 340 Portage Avenue has been converted for commercial use and features a large,
open plan layout with wood post-and-beam construction and an exposed wood truss ceiling (Figure
37). The wood truss of one of the monitor roofs is visible from the main store area (Figure 38).
Ceilings are typically covered with corrugated metal; however, in some areas, ceiling material is
obscured by insulation. Upper sections of the interior walls are also clad with corrugated metal, while
those that are at ground level typically consist of painted drywall. Floors are covered in linoleum and
fluorescent lights have been suspended from the ceiling. Other features related to the space’s
commercial use include the addition of offices, bathrooms, a café, and other store display areas,
particularly around the perimeter (Figure 39).
The interior of 380 Portage Avenue has been converted for use as an office space and design studio
for technology start-ups. Like the 340 Portage Avenue retail space, it features a large, open plan with
wood post-and-beam construction and an exposed wood truss ceiling; however, the wood trusses in
this space consist of rows of repeated bowstring trusses (Figure 40). According to the occupants,
the space retains its original concrete floors and wood and concrete support columns, which were
purposely left unfinished and unpainted; painted numbers and letters remain visible on the upper
sections of these posts (Figure 41, Figure 42, and Figure 43). While original concrete floors have
been left exposed in many locations, others have been covered in carpeting. Other visible alterations
include the construction of glass and drywall partition walls along the perimeter to create private
office spaces and laboratories; the addition of a kitchen, café, and restrooms; and the installation of
new HVAC equipment on the ceiling (Figure 41).
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 16 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 37. Interior of 340 Portage Avenue,
occupied by Fry’s Electronics.
Figure 38. Exposed wood of a monitor roof,
visible in 340 Portage Avenue.
Figure 39. Interior of 340 Portage Avenue with
café addition on right.
Figure 40. Interior of 380 Portage Avenue,
occupied by Playground Global.
Figure 41. Interior of 380 Portage Avenue with
kitchen, dining area, and partitioned office
additions.
Figure 42. Preserved concrete floors in 380
Portage Avenue.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 17 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Landscape Features
340 Portage Avenue fills roughly half of the northwestern portion of its irregularly-shaped parcel and
is oriented along a northeast-southwest axis. Landscape features primarily consist of low planting
beds or medians with concrete curbs that are part of the landscaping of large surface parking lots that
are located to the northwest and southwest of the building. The southwest parking lot is dotted with
these landscaped medians and bordered by planting beds along Park Boulevard (Figure 45).
Matadero Creek borders the parking lot to the southeast (Figure 47). The northwest parking lot,
meanwhile, contains landscaped medians that are planted with rows of evenly spaced, mature
eucalyptus trees (Figure 48 and Figure 49). These plantings roughly follow the route of a removed
spur railroad track that formerly bordered the building. The parking lot is bordered by a concrete
block wall and additional planting beds with small trees to the northwest (Figure 50).
Planting beds have also been installed directly against the façades of 340 Portage Avenue in a number
of locations. At the extreme northeast corner of the building, a concrete walkway is framed by low
planting beds, which are filled with small bushes, cypress trees, and a tall evergreen tree (Figure 51).
At the southeast corner, planting beds are filled with tall evergreen trees, and a smaller planting bed
in front of a sign for Fry’s Electronics is planted with flowers (Figure 52). At the rear, northwest
façade, a planting bed with a row of small deciduous trees is located along a stretch of the concrete
loading platform (Figure 53). Landscaped park strips, typically planted with sycamore trees, border
the building’s northeast façade along Park Boulevard (Figure 54).
Former Office Building at 3201-3225 Ash Street
A one-story, wood frame building with a long, multipart floorplan is located to the southeast of the
340 Portage Avenue (Figure 2; Figure 55). This building appears to have been built as a dormitory
for cannery employees sometime between 1918-1925, and was moved in 1940 to its current location.
Its primary, northwest façade features a front-gabled roof, wraparound porch with a shed roof, and a
symmetrical arrangement of windows and doors (Figure 56). The building has double-hung wood
sash windows and wood lap siding. It is surrounded by a wood fence on the northeast side, which
separates the building from the southeast parking lot. The house is landscaped with a small lawn that
is interspersed with low hedges and deciduous trees (Figure 57 and Figure 58).
Figure 43. Original wood and concrete posts
and concrete floors in 380 Portage Avenue.
Figure 44. Painted numbers and letters remain
visible on unfinished wood posts in 380 Portage
Avenue.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 18 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 45. The parking lot to the southwest of
340 Portage Avenue is landscaped with planting
beds and trees. View northwest.
Figure 46. A landscaped park strip borders the
southwest parking lot along Park Boulevard.
View southeast.
Figure 47. Matadero Creek borders the
southwest parking lot. View south.
Figure 48. The parking lot to the northwest of
340 Portage Avenue is landscaped with curving
rows of planting beds and eucalyptus trees.
View southwest.
Figure 49. Eucalyptus trees in the northwest
parking lot. View southeast.
Figure 50. A concrete block wall borders the
parcel to the northwest. View northwest.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 19 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 51. Planting beds are planted with trees
at the northeast corner of the building. View
southwest.
Figure 52. A planting bed with flowers is located
in front of a sign for Fry’s Electronics at the
southeast corner of the building. View north.
Figure 53. A planting bed with small deciduous
trees along the cement loading platform at the
rear façade of the building. View southeast.
Figure 54. Park strips planted with sycamore
trees are located along the northeast façade of
the building. View southwest.
Figure 55. The one-story, wood frame former
office building to the southeast of 340 Portage
Avenue. View south.
Figure 56. The primary façade of the former
office building to the southeast of 340 Portage
Avenue. View southeast.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 20 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 57. A portion of the southwest façade of
the former office building. View northeast.
Figure 58. The rear portion of the southwest
façade of the former office building. View
northwest.
SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD
The subject property is located in the Ventura neighborhood, which is surrounded by the Evergreen
Park, St. Claire Gardens, Charleston Meadow, Barron Park, Neal, and College Terrace
neighborhoods in Palo Alto. The immediate surroundings of the subject property consist of office
and commercial buildings, several of which appear to have been influenced by the industrial
architecture of the property at 340 Portage Avenue, and parking lots associated with these properties
(Figure 59 to Figure 62). Single-family residential buildings along Olive Avenue border the subject
property to the west (Figure 63).
Figure 59. A neighboring property on Park
Boulevard to the east of Matadero Creek. View
southeast.
Figure 60. An office building at 3101 Park
Boulevard. View northeast.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 21 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 61. Neighboring properties to the south
of the subject property on Portage Avenue. View
south.
Figure 62. A row of commercial and office
buildings to the south of the subject property on
the block between Acacia Avenue, Ash Street,
Portage Avenue, and El Camino Real.
Figure 63. Single-family houses border the subject property to the
northwest along Olive Avenue. View northwest.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 22 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
IV. HISTORIC CONTEXT
MAYFIELD/PALO ALTO HISTORY
The earliest known inhabitants of the current-day location of Palo Alto area were the Ohlone people.
The region was colonized by Gaspar de Portola in 1769 as part of the Spanish territory of Alta
California. The Spanish and Mexican governments carved the area into large ranchos, and the land
that later became Palo Alto belonged to several of these land grants, including Rancho Corte Madera,
Rancho Pastoria de las Borregas, Rancho Rincon de San Francisquito, and Rancho Rinconada del
Arroyo de San Francisquito.4 These land grants were honored in the cession of California to the
United States during the 1840s, but parcels were subdivided and sold throughout the nineteenth
century.
The township of Mayfield was formed in 1855 in what is now southern Palo Alto. It was the earliest
settlement in the Palo Alto area and grew up around James Otterson’s hotel, which opened on El
Camino Real at California Avenue in 1853. The hotel was patronized by travelers en route between
San Francisco and San Jose and by lumbermen driving down from the mountains. Mayfield received
its name from Mayfield Farm, owned and developed by Elisha Crosby. The land was originally
owned by Don Secundino Robles.6
In 1875, French financier Jean Baptiste Paulin Caperon, better known as Peter Coutts, purchased
land in Mayfield and four other parcels, which comprised more than a thousand acres extending
from today's Page Mill Road to Serra Street and from El Camino Real to the foothills. Coutts named
his property Ayrshire Farm.
Leland Stanford began buying land in the area in 1876 for a horse farm, called the Palo Alto Stock
Farm. Stanford bought Ayrshire Farm in 1882. By that time, Mayfield was home to a stately row of
houses on Lincoln Street (now California Avenue).7
4 “Palo Alto, California,” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California#cite_note-12.
6 “Mayfield,” Palo Alto Wiki. Website accessed 11 June 2013 from:
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Mayfield
7 “Palo Alto, California,” Wikipedia. Website accessed 11 June 2013 from:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California
Figure 64. Corner of Sherman Avenue and 3rd
Street (now Park Boulevard), Mayfield, 1887.
Source: William H Myrick, 052-066 Palo Alto
Historical Association, Guy Miller Archives (1887-
02-05)Source: Palo Alto Historical Association.
Figure 65. Main Street (now El Camino Real) in
Mayfield, 1909.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 23 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
According to local historian and resident Matt Bowling,
In 1886, Senator Leland Stanford met with local Mayfielders on the corner of
California and El Camino Real (then known as Lincoln and Main) to inform the
locals about his big plans for a university in their town. He wanted the entrance
gates to the university to be situated on Stanford Avenue near Hanover Street. One
catch though --- Stanford wanted the town to go “dry” --- no more alcohol.
Mayfield, with its 13 saloons, voted no thanks. Rejected, Stanford turned his eyes
north and convinced his friend, Timothy Hopkins of the Southern Pacific Railroad,
to buy 700 acres of private property and sell lots. The collection of homes that grew
up around the university (originally called University Park) eventually became Palo
Alto…
Mayfield soon fell on hard times. Workers who had lived in Mayfield during the
building of Stanford University eventually chose to live in Palo Alto --- free from
liquor, home to a university and a better place to raise children. As the wet, poorer
in relation to Palo Alto, Mayfield began to acquire an unsavory reputation. As grocer
Frank Backus said at a Board of Trustees Meeting in 1904, “Mayfield people are
tired of having the roughs from all around the country come here, get drunk and
raise a row. We’re tired of renting our cottages for $5 and $6 a month…when a
house can’t be had in Palo Alto for $20-$25.” …
In 1904, Mayfield voters, realizing their earlier mistake, finally did ban the saloons.
… But Mayfield continued to be overshadowed in competition with their northerly
neighbor. In 1905, Mayfield accused Palo Alto of “unsisterly conduct,” claiming
Palo Alto had blocked the building of a road from Mayfield to Stanford’s main
quad.
… Plagued by money problems, bad roads and little leadership, a group of residents
began an effort in 1918 for Mayfield to be annexed by Palo Alto. A first attempt at
annexation was voted down in 1924, but a second passed, 357 to 288, less than a
year later. Palo Altans agreed to the annexation, and the two communities officially
consolidated on July 6, 1925.8
8 Matt Bowling, “The Meeting on the Corner: The Beginning of Mayfield’s End,” Palo Alto History.com.
Website accessed 11 June 2013 from: http://www.paloaltohistory.com/the-beginning-of-mayfields-end.php
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 24 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
The depression of the 1930s impacted the design, construction, and financing of buildings across the
nation. In many areas, there was little to no building in the 1930s; however, this was not the case in
Palo Alto. While Palo Alto did suffer through the Great Depression, new development did not come
to a halt. The United States government assisted in providing housing through several programs in
the 1930s. Architectural journals and newspapers showed a substantial amount of construction
between 1931 and 1944. Eight hundred buildings were built between these years, most before 1941.9
The United States’ involvement in World War II brought an influx of military personnel and their
families to the San Francisco Peninsula. When the war ended, Palo Alto saw rapid growth. Many
families who had been stationed on the Peninsula by the military or who worked in associated
industries chose to stay. Palo Alto’s population more than doubled from 16,774 in 1940 to 33,753 in
1953.10 Stanford University was also a steady attraction for residents and development in the city.
The city greatly expanded in the late 1940s and 1950s, as new parcels were annexed to house new
offices and light industrial uses (Figure 67). As a result of this development, the city evolved
somewhat beyond its “college town” reputation.11
Palo Alto annexed a vast area of mostly undeveloped land west of the Foothill Expressway
(Interstate 280) between 1959 and 1968. This area has remained protected open space. Small
9 Dames & Moore Final Survey Report Update pg. 1-9.
10 “Depression, War, and the Population Boom,” Palo Alto Medical Foundation- Sutter Health, accessed
March 24, 2016, http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/depression.html.
11 “Comprehensive Plan,” section L-4.
Figure 66. Sanborn Fire Insurance Map, December 1924, showing the extent of Mayfield in red with
Stanford University campus and Palo Alto to the left. Edited by Page & Turnbull.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 25 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
annexations continued into the 1970s. Palo Alto remains closely tied to Stanford University, its
largest employer. The technology industry currently dominates other sectors of business, as is the
case with most cities within Silicon Valley.
THE CANNING INDUSTRY IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Before the technology industry rose to prominence in Palo Alto in the 1960s, growing and canning
fruit were the city’s largest industries.12 In fact, agriculture and its related industries dominated the
regional economy and everyday livelihoods of residents across Santa Clara County prior to this
period. The Santa Clara Valley possesses over 1,300 square miles of some of the most fertile land in
the country that stretches south for approximately 60 miles from the southern end of the San
Francisco Bay. In the early twentieth century, the Santa Clara Valley gained a reputation as “one of
the richest and best known agricultural and horticultural districts not only in California, but in the
world,” a reputation that earned the valley the nickname, “The Valley of Heart’s Delight.”13
During the Spanish and Mexican periods, the economic activity in the region was based largely on
cattle-raising and limited agriculture that took place at the expansive ranchos that covered the Santa
Clara Valley. These ranchos primarily consisted of vast tracts of unfenced land on which cattle
roamed but also typically included houses, corrals, a garden, grain fields, and a small orchard.14
missionaries recognized the valley’s agricultural potential and planted some of the first orchards and
12 Douglas L. Graham, “The Story of Our Local Bayside Sutter Cannery, Featuring Barron Park Apricots, Pears
and Tomatoes,” Barron Park Association Newsletter, Summer 2010, 9.
13 Ibid., 2.
14 Archives and Architecture, LLC, County of Santa Clara Historic Context Statement, 2012 , 30.
Figure 67. The expansion of Palo Alto from 1894 to 1952.
Source: Branner Earth Sciences Library and Map Collections, Stanford University.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 26 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
vineyards. Cuttings from these early
orchards and vineyards were later
used to establish some of the
earliest commercial orchards and
vineyards in the Santa Clara Valley
after California achieved statehood
in 1850. In 1853, B.F. Fox
established a plant nursery at the
Rancho El Potrero. The nursery
imported fruit trees to the Santa
Clara Valley and, for a time, was the
major supplier for plant material in
the valley. Growers began to
experiment with planting different
types of fruit trees, and by the
1860s, orchards were being set out
in East San Jose, Milpitas, and in
northern parts of the valley.15 By
1890, over 4 million fruit trees had
been planted in the Santa Clara Valley.16 In 1920, the United States census recorded the value of all
farm property in the county at over $149 million and estimated the income from fruit and nuts at
over $19 million, easily beating out all other industries as the largest in the region. 17
With such an abundance of fruits being grown in the region, canning and packing companies sprung
up alongside Santa Clara County’s orchards to take advantage of being in close proximity to one of
the most lucrative fruit producing regions in the state. Canned goods were an essential food product
during the Gold Rush, when floods of newcomers, with little knowledge of the land and its climate,
entered California with the hope of striking it rich in the gold fields. Prospective miners brought
canned goods with them to sustain them as they traveled west and continued to rely upon them upon
their arrival in California’s boomtowns and mining camps, where food supplies were often limited
and unreliable. Canned goods also allowed California’s newcomers to enjoy the comforting taste of
familiar foods from the homes they had left behind.18
Canning, however, required a factory setting and a high degree of precision in order to produce
enough product to make a profit. Repackaged processed foods were initially shipped to San
Francisco by Provost & Co. of New York during the Gold Rush. In the 1860s, Cutting & Company
became the first company to can fresh fruit in California. The industry soon spread throughout the
San Francisco Bay Area, with a number of other major canneries emerging throughout the region in
the 1870s and 1880s.19 In 1871, Dr. James Dawson established the first successful commercial
canning operation in Santa Clara County.20
15 Ibid., 38-39.
16 Mark Robertson, “Looking Back: Canning in the Valley of Heart’s Delight,” San Jose Public Library blog,
May 23, 2013, accessed February 5, 2019, https://www.sjpl.org/blog/looking-back-canning-valley-hearts-
delight.
17 San Jose Chamber of Commerce, “Valley of Heart’s Delight” pamphlet, 1922, San Jose Public Library,
California Room, 11, accessed at Online Archive of California, 7.
18 Stephanie Esther Fuglaar Statz, “California’s Fruit Cocktail: A History of Industrial Food Production, the
State, and the Environment in Northern California” (PhD diss., University of Houston, 2012), 16, 41.
19 Ibid., 43.
20 Archives and Architecture, LLC, 41.
Figure 68: Santa Clara Valley prune orchards in bloom, ca.
1910-1920. Source: California State Library.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 27 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
The completion of the transcontinental railroad through San Jose in 1869 also aided the growth of
the canning and fruit production industries in Santa Clara County. The railroad connected the valley’s
cities, towns, and rural areas to new markets across the country and opened up new opportunities for
land use and development.21 Initially, transporting goods by railroad was too expensive for most
companies and business owners in the county. Industrial development, including canning operations,
instead centered around ports and bodies of water from which goods could more affordably be
shipped by boat. As railroad transportation became more affordable, canneries were increasingly
constructed along railroad lines. In addition to access to transportation, canneries also required a
large and reliable supply of water to operate. This requirement also played a role in determining
where many canneries were built.22
Fruit production, packing, and canning
continued to expand in Santa Clara County
through the turn of the twentieth century, as
the industries increased production to meet
the region’s growing population. By the early
twentieth century, these industries were the
county’s primary economic focus. The
canning industry reached its peak in the
1920s.23 In 1922, a pamphlet published by the
San Jose Chamber of Commerce on Santa
Clara’s “Valley of Heart’s Delight” boasted
that the region was home to “both the largest
fruit drying houses and the largest fruit
canneries in the world.”24 It added, “Beyond
question, this valley is the very center of the
nation’s fruit industry, having more canning
and packing plants than any other county in
the United States.” At the time, 40 canning
plants were located in Santa Clara County,
which produced approximately one-third of
California’s entire output of canned foods.
The region’s influence stretched beyond California, as well. It was estimated that of the
approximately 100,000 tons of canned products that Santa Clara County produced each year, 20
percent was exported abroad.25
The United States’ involvement in World War II created an increased demand for food products
both on the home front and to feed American and Allied troops fighting abroad. The agricultural
sector of the national economy, including the canning industry, expanded greatly to meet the
demand.26 Canned goods, in particular, were ideal for feeding soldiers, who might find themselves in
locations where freshly cooked meals were not always available and were rationed.27 Consumers were
21 Ibid., 40.
22 Statz, 86.
23 Robertson.
24 San Jose Chamber of Commerce, 1-2.
25 Ibid., 9.
26 Dr. Kelly A. Spring, “Food Rationing and Canning in World War II,” National Women’s History Museum,
September 13, 2017, accessed February 13, 2019, https://www.womenshistory.org/articles/food-rationing-
and-canning-world-war-ii.
27 Tanfer Emin Tunc and Annessa Ann Babic, “Food on the home front, food on the warfront: World War II
and the American diet,” Food and Foodways 25, no. 2 (2017): 101-106,
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07409710.2017.1311159; Statz, 144.
Figure 69: Postcard image of workers at Flickinger's
Orchard Cannery in Santa Clara County, ca. 1915-
1920. Source: San Jose Public Library.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 28 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
encouraged to grow “victory gardens” and can their own
food to reduce their reliance on commercially produced
canned goods, which were reserved for the troops.28 The
military purchased large quantities of the canning
industry’s total output, and government contracts
provided a stimulus for the industry throughout the war.
In the end, canned goods accounted for roughly 70
percent of the food items eaten by American troops
during World War II.29
After the war, the food processing industry in Santa Clara
County went into decline. During this period, the local
business community began to shift its attention toward
attracting non-agricultural industries to the region.
Attracted by new job opportunities, increasing numbers
of people moved into the county, causing its population
to grow from 95,000 to 500,000 between 1950 and 1975.
Orchards and farmland that had characterized much of
the landscape and economic livelihood of Santa Clara
County for nearly a century were uprooted and replaced
with new residential subdivisions and shopping centers to
meet the demand for housing for this expanding
population.30 Continued development has since removed much of the physical vestiges of Santa
Clara County and Palo Alto’s agricultural and canning past.
SITE HISTORY
Prior to the first decades of the twentieth century, the site on which 340 Portage Avenue sits appears
to have been largely undeveloped land, located outside of the main developed center of Mayfield.
The site was not included in maps of the town created by the Sanborn Map Company prior to 1925
(Figure 71). Development of the site began on April 24, 1918, when Thomas Foon Chew, a Chinese
immigrant and owner of the Bayside Canning Company in Alviso, purchased four acres of land in
Mayfield for $200,000 and announced that he planned to build a second canning plant on the site.31
According to articles published in the local Daily Palo Alto newspaper, progress on the construction
of the cannery was well underway in June that same year, and operations began at the cannery in
July.32 Just one year later, Chew was already expanding his operations. Before the start of the canning
season that year, nineteen houses were constructed for the Bayside Canning Company’s workers on
land to the south of the cannery, and a large new warehouse was added.33 The workers’ houses, four
larger dwellings, and a rooming house are shown as part of the complex of “employee cabins”
located at the cannery site in the 1925 Sanborn fire insurance map of Mayfield. At the time, the
28 Jessica Stoller-Conrad, “Canning History: When Propaganda Encouraged Patriotic Preserves,” NPR, August
3, 2012, accessed February 13, 2019, https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/08/02/157777834/canning-
history-when-propaganda-encouraged-patriotic-preserves.
29 “Canning Industry,” in Dictionary of American History, ed. Stanley I. Kutler (New York: Charles Scribner’s
Sons/The Gale Group, 2003), accessed at Encyclopedia.com, February 13, 2019,
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-releases/canning-industry.
30 Archives and Architecture, LLC, 46-47.
31 Lillian Ledoyen Kirkbride, “Bayside Canning Company – Sutter Packing Company,” The Tall Tree, October
1992, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2.
32 “New Cannery to Start July 8,” Daily Palo Alto, July 3, 1918. Accessed at Newspapers.com.
33 Graham, 10.
Figure 70. Boxes of Santa Clara Valley
prunes. Source: San Jose State
University Library Special Collections &
Archives.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 29 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
cannery consisted of a large cooking and preparing facility with a two-story staging section and a
warehouse connected to its north side, both with concrete floors and roofs supported by rows of
wood posts. The buildings were sited alongside a spur track of the Southern Pacific Railroad’s Los
Gatos branch at the intersection of Third Street (now Park Boulevard) and Portage Avenue. To the
south of the preparing facility, there was a loading platform and small syrup room. Four small
outbuildings, including a restroom and office, were located to the southeast of these buildings. A
scale was situated along Portage Avenue, and an in-ground oil tank was located alongside the railroad
spur. A separate one-story dwelling and small outbuilding were located to the north of the cannery,
facing Third Street.34
Over the next several decades, the canning complex continued to expand. Records of historic
building permits at the Palo Alto Historical Association reveal that in 1929, the Sutter Packing
Company, which by then operated the cannery although it continued to be owned by Thomas Foon
Chew, had received a permit to build another warehouse on the site at 310 Portage Avenue. A permit
to build yet another cannery building, this time at 300 Portage Avenue, was issued in 1937. The role
or purpose of this building was not recorded.
Just three years later in 1940, the Sutter Packing Company received another permit to spend $13,000
on a warehouse expansion at 380 Portage Avenue; however, newspaper articles show that
construction work at the site was much more extensive. In June 1940, The Palo Alto Times reported
that the company was planning to spend $175,000 on improvements to the canning plant that would
result in 50,000 square feet of additional storage and increase the plant’s capacity 25 to 30 percent.
These improvements included:
▪ Extending two warehouses at a cost of $13,000
▪ Erecting a new 140 x 250-foot, reinforced concrete storage warehouse on Portage
Avenue at a cost of $27,675
▪ Relocating an office building from Portage Avenue to a site fronting on First Street
▪ Moving the cafeteria to the opposite side of First Street
▪ Replacing the kitchen
▪ Erecting a new timekeeper’s building adjacent to the main office
▪ Installing a third water tube boiler with a 500-horsepower capacity
34 Sanborn Map Company, “Mayfield, Santa Clara Co., Cal.” February 1925, Sheet 1, Sacramento Public
Library.
Figure 71. 1925 Sanborn map. Source: Sacramento Public Library. Edited by Page & Turnbull.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 30 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
▪ Installing a 50-ton, 60-foot scale in front of the new loading platform “being erected” on
Portage Avenue
▪ Adding a “catsup” bottling line
▪ Landscaping work, including setting out 120 trees and 300 ornamental shrubs35
A photograph of the cannery, taken the same year, shows the middle section of the main cannery
building, although it is not clear if the extensive improvement work had started when it was taken
(Figure 72). The two-story cannery is visible with two parallel monitor roofs and ribbons of
windows on the first and second stories. The smaller, one-story buildings to its right also have a mix
of roof shapes including two additional monitor roofs, gabled roofs, and what appears to be a flat
roof with a shed awning. The small peeling shed is visible to the left, and the separate warehouse to
the southeast of the main building is visible in the foreground.
An aerial photograph from 1941 shows the newly expanded canning plant (Figure 73). By this time,
the Sutter Packing Company’s cannery filled the entire block stretching from Third Street on the
north to First Street (now Ash Street) on the south and from the curving banks of Matadero Creek
on the east to the Southern Pacific Railroad spur tracks on the west. Additions and new canning
facilities had been constructed one next to the other with no space between them so that, although it
is possible to discern multiple distinct rooflines and facilities in the aerial photograph, the cannery
largely appeared as one solid mass. The site also consisted of a number of smaller, detached
buildings. Three long narrow buildings were sited along Matadero Creek. One, oriented parallel to
the main cannery complex, was attached by what appears to be an enclosed bridge. A fourth building
with two attached gabled roofs, identified as a warehouse in the 1945 Sanborn map of the site, was
located to the south of these narrow buildings. On the northwest side of the main cannery complex,
two additional buildings, a machine shop and boiler house, sat alongside the spur tracks.36 A single
row of employee cabins remained intact to the south of the cannery.
Also shown in the 1941 aerial photograph is the extant one-story office building on First Street. This
was likely the office building that was moved from Portage Avenue to First Street in 1940. It is
possible that it was formerly a dormitory constructed sometime between 1918-1925 that was
originally located by the employee cabins. The dormitory appears in the 1925 Sanborn map as a long
building with a covered porch on one short end, fronting Portage Avenue, in reverse orientation to
the extant office building.
The cannery continued to grow as production ramped up in response to World War II. In 1942,
Sutter Packing Company was issued a permit to spend $39,500 on another warehouse at 300 Portage
Avenue. 37 This building is likely the southernmost portion of the existing building that extends
across Ash Street over the site of the last row of employee cabins; it does not appear in the 1941
aerial but shares the same reinforced concrete construction, massing, and arched wood truss roof
structure as the warehouse on the north side of Ash Street. In 1945, additional improvements took
place at the cannery. Work included:
▪ Building a 42.5 x 70-foot jam and jelly housing facility;
▪ Converting a loading platform into an office building and laboratory near Second Street;
▪ Constructing of a shed over the loading platform near Third Street;
▪ Adding a one-story office building on Portage Avenue near First Street; and
▪ Repairing the roof.38
35 “Sutter Packing Co. Spends $175,000 on Improvements,” Palo Alto Times, June 6, 1940.
36 Sanborn Map Company, “Mayfield, Santa Clara Co., Cal.,” May 1945, Sheet 1, Sacramento Public Library.
37 Palo Alto Citizen, August 7, 1942.
38 “Sutter Plant,” Palo Alto Times, January 27, 1945; “New Building Projects at Sutter,” Daily Palo Alto Times,
March 15, 1945.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 31 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Figure 73: 1941 aerial photograph of the Sutter Packing Company. Subject property outlined in
orange. Office building outlined in blue. Source: Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Flight C-7065, Frame 92,
Collection of UC Santa Barbara. Edited by Page & Turnbull.
Figure 72. Sutter Packing Plant, 1940. Source: Palo Alto Historical Association.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 32 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
A Sanborn map from 1945 only shows the portion of the site that contained the main cannery
complex; the area along Matadero Creek, most of the office and warehouse buildings to the
southeast, and the south side of First Street are cut off (Figure 74). The map reveals that after years
of extensive expansion at the site, the main cannery building contained roughly 24 spaces, including
the cannery at the center, sandwiched between four general warehouses, one large packing
warehouse, a box and nailing shop, a peeling shed, a staging area, retorts (area for sterilizing food
cans), and a small syrup room. These spaces were separated by standard fire doors. The complex was
primarily one-story tall, except at the cannery in the center, where it rose up to two-stories, and was
primarily constructed with concrete floors and roof structures supported by rows of wood posts. The
newest warehouses, located at the far south end of the complex along First Street, were made of
reinforced concrete with plastered walls, and wire glass skylights in the roof.39
In spite of decades of nearly constant activity and expansion of the operations at the cannery site,
Sutter Packing Company went into decline after World War II and finally closed its doors in 1949.40
A portion the larger cannery complex on Lambert Avenue was initially leased to Coca-Cola to
function as a bottling plant, but records do not confirm Coca-Cola’s presence at the subject
property.41 Research did not uncover any additional information about the use or changes to the site
until the 1960s, by which time the former cannery had been subdivided into several smaller spaces,
which were leased to a variety of tenants. In 1964, the Southern Pacific Railroad removed its spur
tracks from the site. The same year, a portion of the building was occupied by Maximart, a large
commercial store that sold home goods and appliances.42
The building at 340 Portage Avenue appears to have undergone some exterior alterations between
the construction of the Bayside Canning Company’s first building in 1918 and the closure of the
39 Sanborn Map Company, “Mayfield, Santa Clara Co., Cal.,” May 1945, Sheet 1, Sacramento Public Library.
40 Kirkbride, 6.
41 Graham, 11.
42 “More Holiday Fun with These New Kelvinators to Help You,” San Francisco Examiner, November 16, 1964.
Accessed at Newspapers.com.
Figure 74: 1945 Sanborn map of subject site. 340 Portage Avenue is outlined in orange. The office
building is outlined in blue. Source: Sacramento Public Library. Edited by Page & Turnbull.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 33 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Sutter Packing Company in 1949. The limited number of historic photographs of the building make
it difficult to discern which alterations date to the company’s extensive expansion and improvement
program during the 1940s or were completed after the cannery’s closure. An aerial photograph from
1948 appears to show that the existing parapet was added along the front façade prior to this date,
perhaps as part of an effort to unify the building’s many facades. Additionally, 340 Portage Avenue
appears to have the same shape and general form in a 1965 aerial of the site as it does in the 1941
aerial, with the exception of the additional warehouse from 1945 on the south side of First (Ash)
Street (Figure 75). By then, the three long buildings along Matadero Creek had been removed and
the area to the southeast of 340 Portage Avenue had been converted into a parking lot. The
surrounding area shows the effects of rapid residential growth in Palo Alto during the post war
period and is densely packed with single family houses.43 No building permits were uncovered for the
period between 1949 and 1985, indicating that alterations to the building were minimal during the
decades immediately after canning operations ceased.
By 1978, Maximart had moved out, and the site was under the ownership of WSJ Properties. One-
third of the buildings were vacant, and the company proposed to redevelop the property for mixed
use development with 175,000 square feet of office space and 117 apartment units. The project does
not appear to have come to fruition, as no apartment units were built. Alterations that are
documented in recent building permits primarily document interior tenant improvement work to
convert the building’s many spaces for commercial and office use; however some exterior
modifications are recorded, including re-roofing, the addition of a few external doors and wheelchair
accessible ramps, the installation of metal framed windows and doors, the addition of insulated wood
frame walls, removal of unreinforced elements as part of seismic stabilization, modifications to the
parking lot, and landscaping work.
43 April 30, 1965
Figure 75: 1965 aerial of the subject property. 340 Portage Avenue outlined in orange. Related office
building outlined in blue. Source: Cartwright Aerial Surveys, Flight CAS_65_130, Frame 4-10,
Collection of UC Santa Barbara. Edited by Page & Turnbull.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 34 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
CONSTRUCTION CHRONOLOGY
The following table and accompanying narrative provide a timeline of construction activity at 340
Portage Avenue based on historic building permits on file at the Palo Alto Historical Association,
building permits and plans available at the City of Palo Alto Development Center, and historic
newspaper articles. It focuses primarily on exterior construction work but also includes permits that
document notable interior alterations.44
Date Permit # Scope of Work
April 1918 N/A Thomas Foon Chew buys four acres of land in Mayfield for
$200,000 and announces plans to build a cannery on the site.45
July 1918 N/A Bayside Canning Company Plant No. 2 and begins operation.
1919 N/A A warehouse and 19 houses for workers are constructed before
the start of the canning season.46
1928 N/A $20,000 is spent to renovate and purchase new machinery for
the cannery.47
8/31/1929 PAT 8/31/1929 Warehouse at 310 Portage. Sutter Packing Co, owner; R.O.
Summers, builder.
2/16/1937 PAT 2/16/1937 Cannery building at 300 Portage. Sutter Packing Co., owner and
builder.
6/7/1940 PAT 6/7/1940 Warehouse expansion at 380 Portage, $13,000. Sutter Packing
Co., owner; WP Goodenough, builder.
7/2/1942 PAT 7/2/1942 Warehouse at 300 Portage, $39,500. Sutter Packing Co., owner.
5/8/1946 PAT 5/8/1946 Plant and lab building at 300 Portage, $2,500. Sutter Packing
Co., owner and builder.
5/5/1948 PAT 5/5/1948 Alterations at 300 Portage, $3,000. Sutter Packing Co., owner;
Preston Construction Co., builder.
3/21/1985 85-ARB-52, no.
S 6148
Installation of a wood sign at the loading dock at 210 Portage
Avenue.
3/21/1985 85-ARB-52, no.
S 6149
Installation of a wood sign at the loading dock at 220 Portage
Avenue.
44 Work recorded in the construction chronology table focusses primarily on exterior alterations. A limited
number of interior modifications have been included
45 Kirkbride, 2.
46 Kirkbride, 2.
47 “$20,000 to be Spent on New Machinery of Cannery in Mayfield,” Palo Alto Times, May 17, 1928.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 35 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Date Permit # Scope of Work
3/21/1985 85-ARB-52, no.
S 6150
Installation of a wood sign at the loading dock at 230 Portage
Avenue.
4/17/1985 85-ARB-52, no.
S 6151 Wood sign for Basket Galleria, Inc. on loading dock
5/2/1990 90-1057
Alterations for new Fry’s Electronics facility. Exterior alterations
include parking modification, new ramps, new guardrails, a new
door opening, and filling in an existing concrete ramp.
7/19/1990 90-ARB-105 Installation of wall and free-standing signs and associated
landscaping for Fry’s Electronics.
5/12/1994 94-1237 Alterations for conversion to Fry’s Corporate Offices.
9/19/1994 Unpermitted Sign at driveway at 320-380 Portage Avenue.
10/5/1994 94-1237
Alterations for corporate expansion of Fry’s Electronics.
Exterior alterations include a new exterior door and
handicapped parking area on rear of building.
11/26/1997 97-3263
Expansion of Fry’s Electronics store, including the construction
of wood framed walls with fiberglass insulation at all exterior
facades and ceiling, interior demising walls, roofing alterations,
and installation of metal windows.
6/30/1998 98-1846 Earthquake stabilization work
7/9/1998 98-1846 Relocation of supporting post and replacement of damaged
beam of storefront canopy
7/31/1998 97003262 Replacing damaged columns and beams and putting back
columns that had been taken out
7/31/1998 97003262 Structure for handicap exist ramp at back exterior of building
12/18/1998 98001065 Add ADA guardrail from entry to ramp at 210 Portage Avenue
5/29/2003 03-0533 Addition of rear mandoor and exterior stair; Title 24 accessibility
upgrade, installation of “teak patio” at 230 Portage Avenue.
7/19/2006 06-1520
New rooftop, modifications to lobby, and expansion of 210
Portage Avenue into 3180 Park Boulevard by adding two
restrooms at rear of building,
8/9/2007 07-1908 Re-roofing at 230 Portage by overlaying foam coating over
existing metal decking
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 36 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Date Permit # Scope of Work
5/14/2008 08-315 Repair cracks in bottom chord of roof truss at 380 Portage
Avenue
8/8/2008 08-2009 Install acrylic polyester roof system over existing built-up cap
sheet
10/2/2009 09-1857 Reinforce existing bow string truss at 370 Portage Avenue where
bottom chord and web member cracks have been observed
10/2/2009 09-1858 Reinforce existing bow string truss at 380 Portage Avenue where
bottom chord and web member cracks have been observed
3/16/2010 10-0330 Voluntary reinforcing of existing bow string trusses
4/12/2010 10-525 Voluntary reinforcing of existing bow string trusses, total of 9 in
“Lyncean” tenant space
8/12/2010 10-1539
Removal of unreinforced CMU walls and parapets. Replacement
with wood frame walls, connect new wood frame wall to existing
CMU wall with bolts and epoxy
4/4/2016 15-2594
Interior remodel for Playground Global, including installation of
metal suspended ceiling system, seismic bracing, and addition of
a variety of interior facilities.
2/16/2017 16-3216
Removal of existing accessible ramp, wooden guardrail, exterior
wall, and storefront doors and glazing at 200 Portage Avenue.
Doors and glazing salvaged for re-use and re-installation.
Visual observation indicates that additional alterations, which are not recorded in recent building
permits, have occurred. Notably, nearly all of the windows and doors that are visible in the 1941
photograph of the cannery have been filled in or covered. More recently, historic window and door
openings appear to have been replaced with aluminum frame glass features in a number of locations.
BUILDING OWNERS AND TENANTS
Ownership History
The Santa Clara County Assessor was not visited during research for this report, and therefore,
detailed deed transactions are not known. The following table is based on historic building permits
on file at the Palo Alto Historical Association, building permit applications available at the City of
Palo Alto Development Center, and historic newspaper articles. Biographies of the Bayside Canning
Company and Sutter Packing Company are included below.
Years of
Ownership/Occupation Name(s) of Owner Occupant Occupation (if listed)
1918 - 1933 Bayside Canning
Company
Bayside Canning
Company
Fruit and vegetable
canning
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 37 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Years of
Ownership/Occupation Name(s) of Owner Occupant Occupation (if listed)
1933 - 1946 Sutter Packing
Company
Sutter Packing
Company
Fruit and vegetable
canning
1946-1949 Safeway Sutter Packing
Company
Grocery stores and
food processing
1949 - ca. 1978 Unknown Various tenants Unknown
ca. 1978 – ca. 1998 WSJ Properties Various tenants Real estate and
development
ca. 1998 – ca. 2002 Unknown Various tenants Unknown
ca. 2002 – ca. 2010
Robert Wheatley
Properties (El
Camino Center)
Various tenants Real estate and
development
Unknown – Present The Sobrato
Organization
Various tenants Real estate and
development
Occupant History
Occupants of the subject property have generally consisted of canning, packaging, and distribution
companies and, more recently, commercial businesses and offices.
The following record of occupants is based on historic building permits on file at the Palo Alto
Historical Association, building permit applications available at the City of Palo Alto Development
Center, and Palo Alto city directories available at Ancestry.com.48 It begins with businesses that
occupied the entire cannery building at 340 Portage Avenue and then proceeds alphabetically by the
address within the building under which the occupant was listed in the records listed above.
Entire Building
1918-ca. 1928 Bayside Canning Company, fruit and vegetable canning
ca. 1928-1949 Sutter Packing Company, fruit and vegetable canning
3200 Park Boulevard
ca. 1964 – ca. 1978 Maximart, home goods
203 Portage Avenue
1962 James R W Packaging, packing, crating, and shipping
210 Portage Avenue
1997 Euphonics
250 Portage Avenue
1969 Malanco of California Inc, paper converters
48 Years of occupation are approximate based on Palo Alto city directories, public records available through
Ancestry.com, and building permits at the City of Palo Alto Development Center. These records do not always
specify the exact date of occupation. For the purpose of this table, only the known years of ownership or
occupation are included.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 38 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
1972 Bemiss & Jason Corp, shipping, receiving, paper products
manufacturing
300 Portage Avenue
1962 Tubes & Cores Inc, paper products
1976 Ceilcote Company Inc, distribution office
303 Portage Avenue
1961-1965 Advance Transformer Co
1961-1976 James R W Packaging, packing, crating, and shipping
340 Portage Avenue
1985 Basket Galleria, Inc.
ca. 1990-Present Fry’s Electronics
370 Portage Avenue
2002-2004 Lyncean Technologies
380 Portage Avenue
2006 Danger, Inc.
2016 – Present: Playground Global, technology
Select Owner and Occupant Biographies
The following biographies have been researched for longer-term owners and occupants.
Thomas Foon Chew (1887-1931) and the Bayside Canning Company (1918-1936)
Thomas Foon Chew was born in
China around 1887, likely in the
Loong Kai District of Guangdong
Province, and became one of the
richest and most influential Chinese-
Americans in California. His father,
Sai Yen Chew, emigrated to San
Francisco when Thomas was a child,
where he founded a small canning
operation, Precinta Canning, around
1890. According to family members,
Chew brought his son, Thomas,
from China to San Francisco
sometime around 1897, where he
gained his first introduction to the
canning business. Precinta Canning
was located near Broadway and
Sansome in San Francisco’s old Chinatown. The small cannery was equipped with a single 40-
Figure 76: Thomas Foon Chew with two foremen at his
canning plant in Alviso. Source: Our Town of Palo Alto.
https://ourtownofpaloalto.wordpress.com/2016/12/30/histor
y-of-mayfields-chinatown/
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 39 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
horsepower boiler, focused solely on canning tomatoes, and produced no more than 100,000 cases of
canned goods a year.49
During the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, the cannery was destroyed. Sometime after, Sai Yen
Chew moved his business and family to the town of Alviso in Santa Clara County, where land was
more affordable, weather was better, and where his business could be closer to the source of
agricultural products for canning. Alviso had another advantage. As the main port town for shipping
products from Santa Clara County to San Francisco, it offered the benefit of being able to more
cheaply and efficiently transport goods. It was in Alviso that Sai Yen Chew brought Thomas into the
family business and renamed it the Bayside Canning Company (Figure 76).50
While Sai Yen Chew’s cannery operation had been modest in size and output, Thomas brought a
vigorous energy, determination, and innovative new methods to the business that transformed
Bayside Canning into one of the largest companies in the region and, eventually, the world. Many of
his innovations were aimed at improving production and efficiency. They included creating a
machine to wash tomato boxes on an assembly line, using the cannery’s trucks to help workers from
the surrounding region commute to his factories, and building boarding houses and cabins near his
canneries to provide housing for his workers in a time when racial discrimination made it difficult for
many Chinese immigrants to find housing. However, the innovation Chew is most known for is one
that also gave him his nickname, “The Asparagus King.” Around 1920, Chew and his employee
William de Back devised a method for canning green asparagus, something that had never been done
successfully up to that point because the fragile vegetable would break or turn to mush using existing
canning methods. By carefully sorting and trimming the asparagus and using square-shaped cans,
Chew was able to surmount these challenges and begin canning asparagus for market.
During his lifetime, Chew greatly expanded Bayside Canning beyond the first plant in Alviso. In
1918, he built the company’s second canning plant, the subject of this report, in the town of Mayfield
near Palo Alto. This new cannery was strategically located along a spur of the railroad tracks known
as the old “Los Gatos Cutoff,” where the Southern Pacific Railroad’s branch line to Los Gatos split
off from the Southern Pacific’s main line. Railroad access was essential to the cannery’s operation, as
it allowed for easy shipment of the plant’s canned goods to markets across the country.51 It was also
built beside Matadero Creek, which provided a vital source of water that was necessary for the
cannery’s operation.
The Daily Palo Alto newspaper celebrated the arrival of the company and its new cannery as “a credit
to the community which it graces” and a development that would “provide a dominant factor in the
future prosperity of the Palo Alto section.”52 When the cannery opened in July of 1918, it employed a
workforce of 350 workers, many of whom were women, who earned $4.75 a day.53
In addition to employing large numbers of workers at the plant itself, the cannery was also
anticipated that it would create new employment opportunities at nearby farms and orchards. “It
means that all untilled land will eventually be brought under cultivation, which is bound to result in
the entire district feeling a beneficial effect from the prosperity that will surely accrue,” the
newspaper predicted. “New homes will necessarily have to be erected in the vicinity of Mayfield and
in South Palo Alto.”54 The cannery appears to have also spurred the construction of additional
49 Robin Chapman, “Thomas Foon Chew: The Vision of the Entrepreneur,” in Historic Bay Area Visionaries
(Charleston, SC: The History Press, 2018), Kindle edition.
50 Ibid.
51 Graham, 9.
52 “New Cannery to Start July 8.”
53 Kirkbride, 2.
54 Ibid.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 40 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
canneries in the Palo Alto area. As construction neared completion on the Bayside cannery in 1918,
three groups of investors sought to secure land in Palo Alto to build new canneries.55
Chew continued to expand his business, eventually operating another cannery in Isleton on the
Sacramento River, and purchasing interest in the Field and Gross fish cannery in Monterey. He also
started Tom Foon Chew Land Co., under which he bought extensive tracts of land in Yuba City and
Merced County on which he planted rice and peach orchards.56 The Mayfield and Alviso canneries
focused on the canning of peaches, pears, and tomatoes, while the cannery in Isleton specialized in
packing asparagus.
Despite continued discrimination against Chinese immigrants and Chinese-businesses, by 1920,
Thomas Foon Chew had turned his Bayside Canning Company into the third largest canning
company of fruits and vegetables in the world, behind only Del Monte and Libby.57 At its peak, the
company produced 600,000 cases of canned goods a year and employed thousands of workers
throughout California. For a time, the Mayfield cannery was the largest employer in the mid-
Peninsula.58 The company hired not only Chinese workers, but also employed Japanese, Filipino, and
European immigrant as well (Figure 77).
55 “Palo Alto May Get Another Cannery,” Palo Alto Times, May 7, 1918.
56 “Wealthy San Jose Canner Succumbs,” Oakland Tribune, February 24, 1931. Accessed at Newspapers.com.
57 “Santa Clara Valley Lives: Thomas Foon Chew: The Man who Made a Difference,” Los Altos Town Crier,
October 10, 2018, accessed February 1, 2019,
https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/sections/community/177-features/58700-santa-clara-valley-lives-
thomas-foon-chew-the-man-who-made-a-difference
58 Jon Kinyon, “Mayfield’s Chinatown and Palo Alto’s Earliest Chinese Entrepreneurs,” Our Town of Palo
Alto, December 20, 2016, accessed February 1, 2019,
https://ourtownofpaloalto.wordpress.com/2016/12/30/history-of-mayfields-chinatown/.
Figure 77: Workers at the Bayside Canning Company's plant in Mayfield in 1918. Source: Palo
Alto Historical Association.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 41 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Chew, himself, became an influential figure in his community. He was the first Chinese-American
man in Santa Clara Valley to join the Masons and was also a Shriner. By the time of his death, he was
the richest Chinese-American in California.
The company’s success was largely due to Chew’s drive and acumen as a business leader. He worked
tirelessly and dealt with near-constant stress from running his business. He was also a smoker and
suffered from asthma. In 1931, he died suddenly of pneumonia. Local newspapers reported that he
was 42-years-old at the time. His death was a notable event across the state. Twenty-five thousand
people attended his funeral, including the mayor of San Francisco, city manager of San Jose, and
president of the California Chamber of Commerce.59
Without Chew at the head and with the effects of the Great Depression worsening, the Bayside
Canning Company slid into receivership soon after Chew’s death. The company sold off its second
plant in Mayfield section of Palo Alto in 1933 and finally ended operations at all of its facilities,
including its first plant in Alviso plant, in 1936, just five years after Chew’s death. In 1973, the
Bayside Canning Company’s Plant No. 1 in Alviso was listed on the National Register of Historic
Places as part of the Alviso Historic District, which is now within the city limits of San Jose. The City
of San Jose has renamed a street in Alviso his honor and placed four bronze historical markers to
commemorate him.60
Sutter Packing Company (1928-1949)
The Sutter Packing Company was a consortium of the largest peach growers from Sutter County that
was based in Yuba City. The company formed in order to maximize the growers’ profits by cutting
out the middle man and purchasing and running their own cannery. Around 1928, the Sutter Packing
Company began operating the Bayside Canning Company’s cannery in Mayfield.61 As mentioned
previously, the company spent $20,000 on new machinery at the cannery and on office renovations
with the intention of tripling the plant’s capacity and increasing its workforce to 400 employees.62
In 1933, after Thomas Foon Chew’s death and the end of Bayside Canning Company’s operations at
the site, the Sutter Packing Company purchased the cannery.63 Henry Carmean was the manager of
the cannery from 1934 until the cannery’s closure in 1949.64 Employees largely consisted of local
residents, migrant workers, and high school students, who often worked at the cannery during the
summer months. Migrant workers lived in company cottages next to the cannery; and single men
slept in a two-story bunkhouse nearby.65
The packing season began with spinach in spring, followed by apricots, peaches, pears, and lastly
tomatoes in the summer. Peaches arrived at the cannery by rail from Yuba City, while spinach and
tomatoes were transported by truck. After being sterilized in the retorts, trays of cans were
transported to a cooling porch at the rear of the cannery. The following day, the cans were taken to
the warehouses, where they were labeled and packed into cases to fill orders. Afterward, the cases
would be loaded onto freight cars on the spur tracks along the cooling porch. The plant also included
59 Chapman.
60 Ibid.
61 Kirkbride, 3.
62 “$20,000 to be Spent on New Machinery of Cannery in Mayfield,” Palo Alto Times, May 17, 1928.
63 Graham, 10.
64 “Packing Company Has New Executive,” Palo Alto Times, December 18, 1934; “Prospective Buyer is Not Yet
In Sight,” Palo Alto Times, 1949. The date of this article was cut off.
65 Kirkbride, 4.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 42 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
a laboratory where hot sauce and ketchup was tested for its bug content.66 The cannery’s machinery,
meanwhile, was leased on a royalty basis.67
By 1940, it had become clear that the United States was headed for involvement in World War II.
Recognizing that the war would mean an increased demand for canned goods around the world,
Sutter Packing Company began a series of largescale improvement projects at the cannery complex
on Portage Avenue. As mentioned previously, the company spent $175,000 in 1940 alone on
improvements at the cannery, including constructing a new warehouse, extending two additional
warehouses, relocating an office building, purchasing new machinery, and landscaping the site. The
goal of these improvements was to increase the cannery’s capacity by 25 to 30 percent and expand its
output by 50 percent.68
The company succeeded in increasing its production during the war, reserving 35 percent of its total
production at the plant for the armed forces. In 1942, the company employed 1,500 men and
women. Nevertheless, with so many men fighting in the war, the company struggled to find enough
workers to meet the increased demand and repeatedly published urgent appeals in the local
newspapers for more labor.69 In an effort to attract more laborers, the company constructed a tent
city across from the cannery on El Camino Real to provide housing for 300 nightshift workers,
complete with toilets, showers, and laundry facilities.70 The company was commended for its
contribution to the war effort, receiving the “A” flag for its “outstanding food production” in 1942.71
After the war ended, the demand for canned goods remained high, as soldiers returned home and
started families. The Sutter Packing Company continued to appeal for more workers to maintain its
high levels of production during this period.72 In 1946, Sutter Canning Company came under the
management, and later the ownership, of Safeway. Safeway used the cannery to supply canned goods
for its chain of grocery stores. However, the relationship was short-lived. Just three years later, in
1949, Safeway closed the cannery on Portage Avenue. Spokesmen from Safeway cited the high price
of wages to farmers and union workers in Palo Alto compared to San Jose and towns in the Central
Valley.73 Safeway was also shifting its attention to backward integration and looked to acquire its
suppliers, believing it could “obtain canned goods from other packers cheaper than it [could] process
its own foods.”74
At the time of its closure, the company was the largest employer in Palo Alto, with approximately
1,000 workers on its staff. When the Palo Alto Times announced the closure of Sutter Packing
Company, it lamented the loss of a “million-dollar industry” in Palo Alto due of the one million
dollars in payroll that would disappear. The end of Sutter Packing Company, the newspaper wrote,
meant the “unemployment of thousands of cannery workers who for a quarter of a century
depended on the plant for their livelihood,” as well as the loss of an important buyer for local
farmers.75 When the company finally closed its doors, approximately 1.5 million cases of processed
foods were stored in its warehouses, which had to then be quickly shipped to other Safeway sites.76
66 Ibid.
67 Kirkbride, 4-5.
68 Graham, 10.
69 Kirkbride, 5.
70 Graham, 10.
71 Kirkbride, 5; “Sutter Packing Co. Given Army Award,” Palo Alto Citizen, August 11, 1942.
72 Graham, 11.
73 Million Dollar Industry Closes Down in Palo Alto,” Palo Alto Times, March 19, 1949; Graham, 9.
74 “Hope to Avert Shutdown At Sutter Co.,” Palo Alto Times, March 21, 1949.
75 Graham, 9, 11; “Million Dollar Industry Closes Down in Palo Alto.”
76 “Million Dollar Industry Closes Down in Palo Alto.”
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 43 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Since the end of canning operations at 340 Portage Avenue, the building has had a number of
owners, primarily real estate developers, and the smaller buildings of which it is comprised have been
leased out to a variety of commercial tenants. In 1949, at least a portion of the Sutter Packing
Company complex was leased to Coca-Cola, who used it as a bottling plant for a time. In the 1960s
and 1970s, tenants largely consisted of shipping, packaging, distribution, and paper product
manufacturing businesses. Since the 1980s, the building has primarily been occupied by technology-
related stores and offices.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 44 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
V. EVALUATION
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is an inventory of significant
architectural, archaeological, and historical resources in the State of California. Resources can be
listed in the California Register through a number of methods. State Historical Landmarks and
National Register-listed properties are automatically listed in the California Register. Properties can
also be nominated to the California Register by local governments, private organizations, or citizens.
The California Register of Historical Resources follows nearly identical guidelines to those used by
the National Register, but identifies the Criteria for Evaluation numerically.
In order for a property to be eligible for listing in the California Register, it must be found significant
at the local, state, or national level, under one or more of the following criteria.
▪ Criterion 1 (Events): Resources that are associated with events that have made a significant
contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of
California or the United States.
▪ Criterion 2 (Persons): Resources that are associated with the lives of persons important to local,
California, or national history.
▪ Criterion 3 (Architecture): Resources that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, region, or method of construction, or represent the work of a master, or possess
high artistic values.
▪ Criterion 4 (Information Potential): Resources or sites that have yielded or have the potential to
yield information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the
nation.
The following section examines the eligibility of 340 Portage Avenue for listing in the California
Register.
Criterion 1 (Events)
340 Portage Avenue and the associated former office building to the southeast appear to be
individually significant under Criterion 1 in association with historical events important to the history
of Palo Alto. Agricultural industries, including fruit and vegetable canning, were once the dominant
industries in Santa Clara County. The oldest portions of the cannery building, itself, were constructed
in 1918 for the Bayside Canning Company, which was owned by Chinese immigrant and prominent
canning mogul, Thomas Foon Chew. Under Chew, the Bayside Canning Company rose to become
the third largest fruit and vegetable cannery in the world in the 1920s, behind only Libby and Del
Monte.
After Chew’s death, the cannery was subsequently purchased and operated for more than twenty
years by the Sutter Packing Company, another fruit and vegetable cannery. The Sutter Packing
Company significantly expanded the cannery building and its operations throughout the 1930s and
1940s as it prepared for and raced to meet the demands of World War II. The expansion projects
included the construction of the extant office building at 3201-3225 Ash Street to the southeast of
cannery building at 340 Portage Avenue. For a time, the cannery was the largest employer in the Mid-
Peninsula, and when it closed in 1949, it was the largest employer in Palo Alto. The trajectory of
canning operations at the plant —which began in the early twentieth century, peaked in the 1920s,
increased production to meet the demands of World War II, and then quickly declined as residential
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 45 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
development and new industries began to replace agricultural industries in the postwar period—
corresponds closely to the broad pattern of the history of the canning industry in Santa Clara County.
The building is a rare surviving example of Palo Alto’s and Santa Clara County’s agricultural past. As
a result, the building at 340 Portage Avenue does appear to be individually significant at the local
level under Criterion 1. The period of significance under this criterion begins in 1918, when canning
operations began at the site under the Bayside Canning Company, and ends in 1949, when the Sutter
Packing Company’s canning operations at the building ended.
Criterion 2 (Persons)
The building at 340 Portage Avenue was originally built by Thomas Foon Chew in 1918, as the
second canning plant for his Bayside Canning Company, and continued under his ownership until his
death in 1931. Although Chew’s father had founded the cannery in Alviso (and an earlier cannery in
San Francisco), Thomas Foon Chew is regarded as the primary driving force behind the Bayside
Canning Company’s growth into the third largest fruit and vegetable cannery in the world by 1920.
Chew introduced pioneering techniques and innovations that not only paved the way for his
company’s success, but also impacted the wider canning industry, notably through his introduction of
a successful method for canning green asparagus. “The Asparagus King,” as he became known, was
one of the richest and most influential businessmen in the region at the time of his death and is
commemorated regionally today through historical markers and a street in San Jose that bears his
name.
In spite of his association with 340 Portage Avenue and its continued use as a cannery until 1949, the
building was not the first canning plant constructed by Chew, which is part of the National Register-
listed Alviso Historic District, nor was it the site of his pioneering asparagus canning innovations,
since the Bayside Canning Company primarily canned asparagus as its plant in Isleton. It is not clear
from the historic record how the scale of operations or production at the Mayfield plant compared to
Chew’s numerous other canning facilities and properties. In addition, the building was extensively
expanded after Chew’s death, primarily when it was owned and operated by the Sutter Packing
Company, and no longer bears a resemblance to its appearance during his lifetime. The building,
therefore, does not retain enough integrity to be significant for its association with Thomas Foon
Chew. Research did not identify any significant individuals related to the Sutter Packing Company or
later occupants or owners of the building. As a result, the subject property, inclusive of the former
cannery at 340 Portage Avenue and the former office building at 3201-3225 Ash Street, does not
appear to be individually significant under Criterion 2.
Criterion 3 (Architecture/Design)
340 Portage Avenue consists of what were originally several connected cannery facilities and
associated warehouse buildings. It is primarily constructed of reinforced concrete with utilitarian
wood post-and-beam construction and no ornamentation, consistent with their functional design.
The former office building at 3201-3225 Ash Street, meanwhile, is a plain wood-frame building built
in a vernacular style. Neither of the buildings appear to exhibit artistic value, nor are they distinctive
examples of cannery building or industrial warehouse typologies. They also do not display innovative
engineering or design elements. Therefore, the buildings do not appear to be individually eligible for
listing in the California Register under Criterion 3.
Criterion 4 (Information Potential)
The “potential to yield information important to the prehistory or history of California” typically
relates to archeological resources, rather than built resources. Evaluation of the subject property
under Criterion 4 (Information Potential) is beyond the scope of this report.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 46 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
A windshield survey and preliminary research of buildings 50 years of older within the NVCAP
Planning Area did not identify any potential historic resources or districts. The subject property,
therefore, would not qualify as a contributor to a potential historic district.
INTEGRITY
In order to qualify for listing in any local, state, or national historic register, a property or landscape
must possess significance under at least one evaluative criterion as described above and retain
integrity. Integrity is defined by the California Office of Historic Preservation as “the authenticity of
an historical resource’s physical identity by the survival of certain characteristics that existing during
the resource’s period of significance,” or more simply defined as “the ability of a property to convey
its significance.”77
In order to evaluate whether 340 Portage Avenue retains sufficient integrity to convey its historic
significance, Page & Turnbull used established integrity standards outlined by the National Register
Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Seven variables, or aspects, that define
integrity are used to evaluate a resource’s integrity—location, design, setting, materials, workmanship,
feeling and association. A property must stand up under most or all of these aspects in order to retain
overall integrity. If a property does not retain integrity, it can no longer convey its significance and is
therefore not eligible for listing in local, state, or national registers.
The seven aspects that define integrity are defined as follows:
Location is the place where the historic property was constructed.
Design is the combination of elements that create the form, plans, space, structure
and style of the property.
Setting addresses the physical environment of the historic property inclusive of the
landscape and spatial relationships of the building(s).
Materials refer to the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a
particular period of time and in a particular pattern of configuration to form the
historic property.
Workmanship is the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people
during any given period in history.
Feeling is the property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular
period of time.
Association is the direct link between an important historic event or person and a
historic property.
Location: The subject property retains integrity of location because the former cannery and office
buildings have not been moved since their construction.
Setting: The subject property does not retain integrity of setting. Throughout the period during
which the property was in use as a cannery, it was set between a railroad spur and Matadero Creek in
77 California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Series No. 7: How to Nominate a Resource to the
California Register of Historical Resources (Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, 4 September 2001) 11.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 47 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
a largely undeveloped area outside the main urban core of Palo Alto and surrounded primarily by
farmland and scattered single-family residences. The subject parcel, itself, contained smaller ancillary
warehouses and industrial buildings that were part of the cannery’s operation. Although Matadero
Creek remains, the railroad tracks and majority of these associated industrial buildings have since
been removed. Additionally, the surrounding area has become densely packed with residential and
commercial development. Although there appears to have been an effort to incorporate industrial
design elements into recently constructed infill, the area no longer reflects the sparsely developed
industrial character of its historic setting.
Design: The subject property retains integrity of design. Sanborn maps and historic and current aerial
photographs indicate that the overall shape and massing of 340 Portage Avenue and 3201-3225 Ash
Street have been minimally altered since the end of their use as a cannery in 1949. 340 Portage
Avenue also retains a number of important exterior features that were essential to its function as a
working cannery, including its original concrete loading docks and rear cooling porch with wood
supports and an overarching shed awning. The prominent monitor and arched roofs, reinforced
concrete walls, and interior wood truss ceilings and concrete floors remain intact and are visible
evidence of its utilitarian, industrial design.
340 Portage Avenue has been repeatedly altered throughout its history; however, the majority of
these alterations appear to date to the building’s period of use as a cannery. The building retained an
appearance of several individual buildings in 1941; however, extensive construction and alterations
were undertaken by the Sutter Packing Company over the following years that appear to have made
an effort to unify the exterior appearance so that it appeared as a single building, much as it does
today. The alignment of the building’s front facade along a common axis and raising of shorter,
earlier rooflines appears to date to this period. A comparison of aerial photographs from the late
1940s and 1960s also indicates that the parapet across the primary northeast façade was present in
1948, when the building was still in use by the Sutter Packing Company. No building permits were
found that identify major construction work at the building between 1949 and 1985. More recent
alterations since the 1990s have been primarily limited to the replacement or filling in of windows
and doors; re-roofing; addition of paved surface parking lots, wheelchair accessible ramps, and
landscaping elements; earthquake stabilization; replacement of a small area of cladding with wood
siding; and interior tenant improvements.
The overall design of the former office building at 3201-3225 Ash Street appears to have been
minimally altered since its use as part of the canning operations at the subject property. A
comparison of the 1945 Sanborn map with historic and current aerial photographs show that the
building has retained almost the same size, scale, and overall footprint over time. It remains a long,
linear one-story wood frame building with double-hung wood windows and a wraparound porch.
Despite the previously mentioned alterations, the subject property retains its most important design
features, including the division of interior spaces at 340 Portage Avenue that represent the accretion
of additions during its cannery use, and retains overall integrity of design.
Materials: The subject property retains integrity of materials. 340 Portage Avenue continues
to display its identity as an industrial building through its use of utilitarian materials,
including its original reinforced concrete walls, concrete loading docks, wood post-and-beam
construction, upper story wood frame windows, and corrugated metal cladding. Recent
exterior material alterations identified by building permits and visual observations include the
replacement of several exterior openings with aluminum frame windows and doors, re-
roofing, and replacement of some sections of cladding along the rear façade with wood
siding. Although they do not affect the building’s overall integrity, interior spaces also retain
their original concrete floors and wood roof structures and supports, which, in some cases,
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 48 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
also display their original finishes. These strengthen the building’s overall retention of
original materials. The former office building also retains its essential material character,
including wood lap siding, double-hung wood windows, a wood wraparound porch, and
shingled roof. Based on the known record of alterations and overall scale of the individual
buildings, the subject property appears to retain the majority of its key exterior materials
dating from its period of use as a cannery.
Workmanship: The subject property retains integrity of workmanship. The skill and
craftmanship required to construct 340 Portage Avenue remain visible in its wood post-and-
beam construction and exposed wood truss ceilings, most prominently its paired monitor
roofs and four bowstring trusses. Horizontal markings and indentations on the building’s
walls, particularly at the south end of the building, are evidence of the process of creating the
building’s board formed, reinforced concrete walls.
Feeling: The subject property retains integrity of feeling. With its prominent monitor roofs,
massive scale, and retention of recognizable industrial features and materials, such as
corrugated metal and reinforced concrete walls, wood post-and-beam construction, and
concrete loading docks and cooling porches, 340 Portage Avenue continues to convey its
identity as an industrial building. Despite alterations to the building’s fenestration and
setting, the building’s overall aesthetic and historic sense has been retained. Likewise, the
building at 3201-3225 Ash Street also continues to convey the character of an early to mid-
twentieth century office building, particularly in its orientation toward the cannery building,
and retains its integrity of feeling.
Association: The subject property retains integrity of association. Through its industrial
materials, design, workmanship, and feeling, the building at 340 Portage Avenue retains
enough physical features to convey its historic character as a historic canning facility, dating
from the early to mid-twentieth century. Likewise, the former office building retains enough
elements of its original design, materials, workmanship, location, and feeling to convey its
association with the cannery at the subject property.
Overall, the subject property retains integrity.
CHARACTER-DEFINING FEATURES
For a property to be eligible for national or state designation under one of the significance criteria,
the essential physical elements (or character-defining features) that enable the property to convey its
historic identity must be evident. To be eligible, a property must clearly contain enough of those
characteristics, and these features must also retain a sufficient degree of integrity. Characteristics can
be expressed in terms such as form, proportion, structure, plan, style, or materials.
As an individually significant historic resource under Criterion 1 with a period of significance of
1918-1949 (date of cannery operations), the character-defining features that convey the building’s
association with the history of canning in Santa Clara County, include:
340 Portage Avenue (Main Former Cannery Building)
▪ Form and massing
o Long, linear massing
o Composition of multiple smaller buildings
o Primarily one-story, double-height volumes with taller central cannery section
▪ Varied roof forms and structures
o Prominent paired monitor roofs
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 49 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
o Arched roofs
o Visible gabled roofs
▪ Exterior wall materials
o Reinforced, board formed concrete
o Corrugated metal cladding
▪ Exterior cannery features
o Concrete loading platforms
o Cooling porch at rear of building
o Exterior shed awnings with wood post-and-beam construction
▪ Fenestration
o Wood frame windows
o Garage door openings
o Wire glass skylights over former warehouses
• Landscape Features
o Preserved curved path of the removed railroad spur tracks, represented in shape of
parking lot pavement
o Channel of Matadero Creek
• Interior features
o Exposed wood truss ceilings
o Wood and concrete post and beam construction
o Concrete floors
3201-3225 Ash Street (Former Office Building for the Sutter Packing Company)
▪ Form and massing
o One-story, three-part linear massing
o Orientation along Ash Street (formerly First Street) with primary entrance facing
340 Portage Avenue
o Front-gabled roof
o Wrap-around porch starting at front, northwest façade, and extending along the
southwest façade.
▪ Exterior wall materials
o Wood lap siding
▪ Fenestration
o Double-hung, multi-lite, wood frame windows
• Landscape Features
o Channel of Matadero Creek
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 50 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
VI. CONCLUSION
The former cannery building at 340 Portage Avenue was initially constructed in 1918 and greatly
expanded during its continued use as a cannery through 1949, when the cannery closed. The
property, including the former cannery and an associated former office building at 3201-3225 Ash
Street, is eligible for individual listing in the California Register at the local level of significance under
Criterion 1 for its association with the history of the canning industry in Santa Clara County. The
buildings retain integrity. Thus, the property appears to qualify as a historic resource for the purposes
of review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 51 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
VIII. REFERENCES CITED
PUBLISHED WORKS
California Office of Historic Preservation. Technical Assistant Series No. 7, How to Nominate a Resource to
the California Register of Historic Resources. Sacramento: California Office of State Publishing, 4
September 2001.
“Canning Industry.” In Dictionary of American History, edited by Stanley I. Kutler. New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons/The Gale Group, 2003. Accessed at Encyclopedia.com. February 13, 2019.
https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/dictionaries-thesauruses-pictures-and-press-
releases/canning-industry.
Chapman, Robin. “Thomas Foon Chew: The Vision of the Entrepreneur.” In Historic Bay Area
Visionaries. Charleston, SC: The History Press, 2018. Kindle edition.
Graham, Douglas L. “The Story of Our Local Bayside Sutter Cannery, Featuring Barron Park
Apricots, Pears and Tomatoes.” Barron Park Association Newsletter (Summer 2010) 9-11:.
Kirkbride, Lillian Ledoyen. “Bayside Canning Company – Sutter Packing Compan..” The Tall Tree 16,
no. 1 (October 1992): 2-6.
Sawyer, Eugene T. History of Santa Clara County. Los Angeles: Historic Record Co. 1922.
Tunc, Tanfer Emin and Annessa Ann Babic. “Food on the home front, food on the warfront: World
War II and the American diet.” Food and Foodways 25, no. 2 (2017): 101-106.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07409710.2017.1311159.
Ward, Winslow and the Palo Alto Historical Association. Palo Alto: A Centennial History. Palo Alto
Historical Association: Palo Alto, CA, 1993.
UNPUBLISHED RECORDS
Archives and Architecture, LLC. County of Santa Clara Historic Context Statement. 2012.
Brown, Mary. San Francisco Planning Department, San Francisco Modern Architecture and Landscape
Design, 1935-1970, Historic Context Statement, Final Draft. January 12, 2011.
City of Palo Alto Building Inspection office. Building permits.
“Comprehensive Plan.” City of Palo Alto. Revised 2017.
Dames & Moore. “Final Survey Report – Palo Alto Historical Survey Update: August 1997-August
2000.” Prepared for the City of Palo Alto Planning Division. February 2001.
Dames & Moore. “Study Priority 1 and Study Priority 2 Properties: Preliminary Assessments of
Eligibility for the National Register or California Register.” Prepared for the City of Palo
Alto Planning Division. January 1999.
Palo Alto Historical Association (Research notes and Property file collection, untitled news clippings
from Palo Alto Daily News, Palo Alto Times, and Palo Alto Live Oak).
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 52 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
Palo Alto Planning Department Files (NA (93-ARB-19)).
INTERNET SOURCES
“A Flash History of Palo Alto.” Quora. http://www.quora.com/How-is-the-historical-city-Mayfield-
CA-related-to-Palo-Alto-CA.
Bowling, Matt. “The Meeting on the Corner: The Beginning of Mayfield’s End.” Palo Alto
History.org. http://www.paloaltohistory.com/the-beginning-of-mayfields-end.php.
Danner, Peter. “A Timeline of the Palo Alto Lawn Bowls Club,”
https://www.palbc.org/history/.
“Depression, War, and the Population Boom.” Palo Alto Medical Foundation- Sutter Health.
http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/depression.html.
“Gamble, Edwin and Elizabeth L. House,” PCAD.
http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/building/16676/.
“History of Stanford.” Stanford University. http://www.stanford.edu/about/history/.
Kinyon, Jon. “Mayfield’s Chinatown and Palo Alto’s Earliest Chinese Entrepreneurs.” Our Town of
Palo Alto, December 20, 201. Accessed February 1, 2019.
https://ourtownofpaloalto.wordpress.com/2016/12/30/history-of-mayfields-chinatown/.
“Leslie I. Nichols,” PCAD. http://pcad.lib.washington.edu/person/5922/
“Mayfield,” Palo Alto Wiki. Website accessed 11 June 2013 from:
http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Mayfield
“Old Palo Alto.” www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2009/01/19/old-palo-alto
“Palo Alto, California.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California#cite_note-
12.
“Palo Alto Historic Buildings Inventory.” http://www.pastheritage.org/inventory.html
Robertson, Mark. “Looking Back: Canning in the Valley of Heart’s Deligh.,” San Jose Public Library
blog. May 23, 2013. Accessed February 5, 2019. https://www.sjpl.org/blog/looking-back-
canning-valley-hearts-delight.
“Roller Hapgood Tinney.”
http://www.shoppaloalto.com/rollerhapgoodtinney/?listing.action=about
Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps. http://archive.org.
San Jose Chamber of Commerce. “Valley of Heart’s Delight” pamphlet. 1922. San Jose Public
Library, California Room. Accessed at Online Archive of California.
Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue
Draft Palo Alto, California
April 11, 2019 - 53 - Page & Turnbull, Inc.
“Santa Clara Valley Lives: Thomas Foon Chew: The Man who Made a Difference.” Los Altos Town
Crier. October 10, 2018. Accessed February 1, 2019.
https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/sections/community/177-features/58700-santa-
clara-valley-lives-thomas-foon-chew-the-man-who-made-a-difference
Spring, Dr. Kelly A. “Food Rationing and Canning in World War II.” National Women’s History
Museum. September 13, 2017. Accessed February 13, 2019.
https://www.womenshistory.org/articles/food-rationing-and-canning-world-war-ii.
Statz, Stephanie Esther Fuglaar. “California’s Fruit Cocktail: A History of Industrial Food
Production, the State, and the Environment in Northern California.” PhD diss., University
of Houston, 2012.
Stoller-Conrad, Jessica. “Canning History: When Propaganda Encouraged Patriotic Preserves.” NPR.
August 3, 2012. Accessed February 13, 2019.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2012/08/02/157777834/canning-history-when-
propaganda-encouraged-patriotic-preserves.
United States federal census records. Ancestry.com. www.ancestry.com.
“Webster Wood Apartments.” https://www.apartmentfinder.com/California/Palo-Alto-Wood-
Apartments.
NEWSPAPER ARTICLES
“$20,000 to be Spent on New Machinery of Cannery in Mayfield.” Palo Alto Times. May 17, 1928.
“Hope to Avert Shutdown at Sutter Co.” Palo Alto Times. March 21, 1949.
“Million Dollar Industry Closes Down in Palo Alto.” Palo Alto Times. March 19, 1949.
“More Holiday Fun with These New Kelvinators to Help You.” San Francisco Examiner. November
16, 1964.
“New Building Projects at Sutter.” Daily Palo Alto Times. March 15, 1945.
“New Cannery to Start July 8.” Daily Palo Alt. July 3, 1918.
“Palo Alto May Get Another Cannery.” Palo Alto Times. May 7, 1918.
Palo Alto Citizen. August 7, 1942.
“Sutter Packing Co. Given Army Award.” Palo Alto Citizen. August 11, 1942.
“Sutter Packing Co. Spends $175,000 on Improvements.” Palo Alto Times. June 6, 1940.
“Sutter Plant.” Palo Alto Times. January 27, 1945.
“Wealthy San Jose Canner Succumbs.” Oakland Tribune. February 24, 1931.
417 S. Hill Street, Suite 211Los Angeles, California 90013
213.221.1200 / 213.221.1209 fax
2401 C Street, Suite BSacramento, California 95816
916.930.9903 / 916.930.9904 fax
417 Montgomery Street, 8th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94104
415.362.5154 / 415.362.5560 fax
ARCHITECTURE
PLANNING & RESEARCH
PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY
www.page-turnbull.com
MEMORANDUM
DATE April 11, 2019 PROJECT NO. 16252
TO Elena Lee, Planner PROJECT 340 Portage Avenue
OF
CC
City of Palo Alto
Ruth Todd, Principal, Page &
Turnbull
FROM
Christina Dikas, Senior
Architectural Historian,
Page & Turnbull, and
Robert Watkins, Project Assistant,
Page & Turnbull
REGARDING: NVCAP Windshield Survey and Preliminary Historic Resource
Eligibility Analysis
Introduction & Purpose
Page & Turnbull has prepared this memorandum at the request of the City of Palo Alto to assess the
potential historic significance of properties within the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
(NVCAP). Coupled with an in-depth Historic Resource Evaluation for the former cannery property
that comprises 340 Portage Avenue and 3201-3225 Ash Street, the purpose of this study is to
identify potential historic resources that may be affected by the implementation of the NVCAP. This
document offers a brief historic context of Palo Alto and, in particular, the vicinity of the present
NVCAP Planning Area. Page & Turnbull conducted a windshield survey of the buildings that are 50
years or older within the Planning Area and made a preliminary determination of their eligibility as
individual resources or as contributors to a potential historic district eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources. Results from this survey are contained in an attached table
(Attachment A). A short analysis follows that briefly characterizes the area’s construction dates,
building types, and architectural styles.
Methodology
Page & Turnbull staff conducted a windshield survey of the Planning Area on November 23, 2019.
Windshield surveys are the most high-level of historic resource survey types, followed by
reconnaissance surveys and intensive surveys. When a windshield method is employed, surveyors
drive or walk the streets of a community to take representative photos and make notes of the
buildings, structures, and landscape characteristics they see. The main goal of a windshield survey
is to get a general picture of the property types, architectural styles, and the character of the
neighborhood and/or to gain a preliminary understanding of individual properties.
The windshield survey for the NVCAP Planning Area was conducted for properties 50 years or older
because this is the age threshold specified by the National Register of Historic Places and typical
practice for considering buildings for potential historic significance as part of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review.
NVCAP Windshield Survey and Signfiicance Assessment Memorandum
Page 2
Aided with a list of parcels and construction dates in the NVCAP from Palo Alto’s GIS database,
Page & Turnbull photographed each age-eligible property. A historic context previously prepared by
Page & Turnbull on the development of Mayfield and Palo Alto was referenced (and is included in
the following section). Page & Turnbull also undertook limited historic research, including historic
aerial photographs, to develop a brief context for the Ventura neighborhood. Following limited
historic research, Page & Turnbull recorded preliminary findings of historic resource eligibility in the
survey spreadsheet.
Historic Context
Mayfield/Palo Alto History and Development
The earliest known inhabitants of the land that now makes up Palo Alto were the Ohlone people.
The region was colonized by Gaspar de Portola in 1769 as part of the Spanish territory of Alta
California. The Spanish and Mexican governments carved the area into large ranchos, and the land
that would become Palo Alto spanned across several of these land grants. The land grants were
honored in the cession of California to the United States during the 1840s, but parcels were
subdivided and sold throughout the nineteenth century.
The Planning Area is situated within what once constituted Mayfield, the earliest township within the
current boundaries of Palo Alto. Mayfield was established around the present intersection of
California Avenue and El Camino Real in 1855 and developed into the California Avenue
commercial district. In 1882, railroad magnate and California politician Leland Stanford purchased
1,000 acres adjacent to Mayfield to add to his large estate in northwestern Santa Clara County.
Stanford’s vast holdings became known as the Palo Alto Stock Farm. After Leland and Jane
Stanford’s teenage son, Leland Jr., died in 1884, the couple chose to create a university in his
honor. Using their Stock Farm land, the Stanfords established Leland Stanford Junior University,
which opened in 1891.
In 1886, Stanford considered siting the university’s entrance in Mayfield to bolster ties between the
fledgling institution and the existing town. However, when Stanford requested the town become a
Temperance Town, Mayfield declined the benefactor’s support, reluctant to close its 13 saloons.
Accordingly, Stanford looked elsewhere to develop a dry college town and his friend and Southern
Pacific Railroad colleague, Timothy Hopkins, developed 740 acres of private land into a new
townsite northwest of Mayfield, called University Park, later to become Palo Alto by 1894.
Mayfield and Palo Alto continued to develop independently of one another, enlarging their respective
boundaries through a patchwork of grid additions, divided by the railroad tracks that ran between
San Jose and San Francisco. In the first decade of the twentieth century, a local streetcar and
interurban railway more integrally linked Mayfield and Palo Alto. However, the two cities developed
distinct identities, with Palo Alto attracting wealthier residents, often associated with the university,
while Mayfield was considered less affluent. By 1925, Palo Alto annexed its smaller neighbor.
Palo Alto was one of the first California cities to establish a City Planning Commission (CPC). In
1917, zoning matters were tasked to this advisory commission in order to control development and
design. Regulations on signage, public landscaping and lighting, and appropriateness within
NVCAP Windshield Survey and Signfiicance Assessment Memorandum
Page 3
residential areas fell under the purview of the CPC. From this early period, Palo Alto maintained
control over the built environment, which resulted in its relatively low density and consistent
aesthetic. However, the zoning controls in the early part of the twentieth century played a part in the
racial segregation of the city and the exclusion of certain groups from residential areas. Several
neighborhoods were created with race covenants regarding home ownership and occupation, until
this practice was ruled unconstitutional in 1948.1 The university’s precedence in Palo Alto prevented
factories or other large industries from developing in the city, limiting the range of people who would
populate the area.
Like the rest of the nation, Palo Alto endured the Great Depression in the 1930s and did not grow
substantially. World War II brought an influx of military personnel and their families to the Peninsula
and when the war ended, Palo Alto saw rapid growth. Many families who had been stationed on the
Peninsula’s military bases or who had worked in associated industries chose to stay. During the
post-war Baby Boom, Palo Alto’s population more than doubled, from 16,774 in 1940 to 33,753 in
1953.2 Stanford University also steadily attracted residents and development throughout the
twentieth century. Palo Alto’s University Avenue commercial center greatly expanded in the late
1940s and 1950s with new offices and light industry that diminished the city’s strict “college town”
reputation.3
Palo Alto annexed a vast area of mostly undeveloped land between 1959 and 1968. This area, west
of the Foothill Expressway, has remained protected open space. Small annexations continued into
the 1970s, contributing to the city’s current irregular footprint. Palo Alto remains closely tied to
Stanford University, which remains the city’s largest employer. It is also an essential Silicon Valley
city, and technology remains integral to Palo Alto’s economy. Palo Alto consciously prides itself in its
extensive conservation of open land, and the city’s built environment is characterized by gridded
streets and a generally suburban density.
Ventura History and Development
Though the town of Mayfield predates its more prosperous neighbor to the north, southern Palo Alto
neighborhoods remained largely undeveloped in the early twentieth century. While a historic aerial
photography from 1941 indicates that many gridded streets had been laid out, few houses populated
these new roads (Figure 1). The highest concentration of houses was near Mayfield’s historic core,
at the intersection of California Avenue and El Camino Real. Commercial buildings lined these two
roads, and industrial activities, such as Bayside Canning Company, were situated near the railroad
tracks.
After World War II, residential development in southern Palo Alto neighborhoods accelerated rapidly,
as new homeowners flocked into ubiquitous, modestly-sized tract housing that was constructed on
previously undeveloped streets. While official and de facto practices continued to regulate and
ensure the physical separation of Palo Alto’s white, black, and Latino residents through the early
1960s, some areas of the city were more accommodating; for instance, the Ventura neighborhood
1 Corbett and Bradley, “Palo Alto Historic Survey Update,” 1-7.
2 “Depression, War, and the Population Boom,” Palo Alto Medical Foundation- Sutter Health, website accessed 11 June 2013
from: http://www.pamf.org/about/pamfhistory/depression.html. 3 “Comprehensive Plan,” section L-4.
NVCAP Windshield Survey and Signfiicance Assessment Memorandum
Page 4
had a substantial number of black and Latino residents.4 Historic aerial photography suggests that
by the 1960s, Ventura’s residential lots were largely built out (Figure 2).
Figure 1: 1941 aerial photograph of Ventura and
surrounding area. NVCAP Planning Area highlighted in
orange. Source: UCSB Historic Aerials Collection.
Figure 2. 1965 aerial photograph of Ventura and
surrounding area. NVCAP Planning Area highlighted in
orange. Source: UCSB Historic Aerials Collection.
NVCAP Windshield Survey
On January 23, 2019, Page & Turnbull conducted a survey of properties 50 years or older within the
NVCAP bounds. Attachment A contains the results of the survey, including addresses, construction
dates, preliminary historic resource eligibility findings, and photographs.
Survey Analysis
Construction Dates
The former cannery at 340 Portage Avenue represents the oldest surviving development within the
NVCAP bounds and was constructed in 1918. Residential lots on Pepper Avenue were largely built
out by World War II, but most other surveyed structures in the Planning Area were erected following
the war. For example, of the properties 50 years or older on Olive Avenue, 17 were constructed in
1946, while one was built in 1904, one in 1940, one in 1942, one in 1948, and two in 1968.
Commercial buildings along Lambert Avenue, Park Boulevard, and El Camino Real were built in the
following decades, especially in the early 1960s.
4 Hilbert Morales, “What is happening,” El Observador, San Jose, April 1, 2016, https://el-observador.com/2016/04/01/what-is-
happening-is-gentrification/;
NVCAP Windshield Survey and Signfiicance Assessment Memorandum
Page 5
Building Types & Massing
Most surveyed residences in the Planning Area are stucco-clad, one- and one-and-a-half-story
buildings. The houses have unelaborated rectangular massing and simple gable roofs, oriented
either parallel with or perpendicular to the street. Most of the residences have small front porches
with gable or shed roofs, as well as small, attached single-car garages. The houses have little to no
ornamentation, and nearly all the houses along Olive Avenue adhere to three or four common plans.
The residential architecture within the NVCAP Planning Area is representative of mid-twentieth-
century mass-produced tract housing found in suburban communities around the United States.
Non-residential development in the Planning Area that is 50 or more years old is clustered along El
Camino Real, Lambert Avenue, and Park Boulevard. The buildings adhere to development patterns
common to the mid-twentieth century, with an assortment of unadorned concrete block or stucco
commercial buildings and garages, as well as a two-story courtyard motel. Most of the commercial
buildings have no ornamentation; at most, variations in roof massing or wall cladding provide
primary visual interest. Some concrete block buildings have brick cladding on their primary facades,
and two otherwise unassuming buildings along El Camino Real have clay-tile mansard roofs.
Preliminary Evaluation
Based on the windshield survey and preliminary research, none of the buildings that were surveyed
in the Planning Area appear to be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources, either
as individual resources or contributors to a potential historic district. Most of the houses were built at
the end of the Sutter Packing Company cannery’s operation, which continued to 1949 (see Page &
Turnbull’s Historic Resource Evaluation for 340 Portage Avenue). No historical information has been
uncovered for this preliminary memorandum that associates the construction of the houses along
Olive and Pepper Avenues with the cannery, nor would such an association have been particularly
significant at the end of the canning company’s operation. More likely, the residences are
representative of suburban postwar development in Palo Alto. However, there are numerous other
examples of post-World War II tract housing in Palo Alto, the Bay Area, and across the United
States. The commercial and industrial buildings within the NVCAP Planning Area are similarly of
little architectural note, and many similar mid-twentieth-century commercial buildings can be found
elsewhere.
While the Ventura neighborhood had more African American and Latino residents than other areas
of Palo Alto in the mid-twentieth century, preliminary research did not find that the area’s history of
accommodating underrepresented communities rises to a level of significance to warrant historic
designation in the National Register or California Register. Cursory research on the Ventura
neighborhood was difficult because few newspaper articles, webpages, or other sources refer to the
area as a distinct neighborhood. Further research into the developers of the Pepper and Olive
Avenue houses, their housing policies in comparison with other Palo Alto neighborhoods, and
relevant community organizations including the Ventura Neighborhood Association may uncover
additional historic contexts that have the potential to distinguish the neighborhood for its
associations with the city’s African American or Latino communities.
Otherwise, the windshield survey of buildings 50 years or older within the NVCAP Planning Area did
not identify any potential individual historic resources or districts.
NVCAP Windshield Survey and Signfiicance Assessment Memorandum
Page 6
Attachment A
Preliminary Findings of Historic Resource Eligibility in the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
Page & Turnbull
FEBRUARY 21, 2019
DRAFT
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF HISTORIC RESOURCE ELIGIBILITY IN THE NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN
2
APN ADDRESS LAND
USE
ZONE ZONE
TYPE
HRB Category Historic
District
Building
SF
Lot
Dimensions
Year
Built
Preliminary Finding of
Eligibility for NRHP or
CRHR (Y/N)
Notes Photo
132-26-076 3197 Park Boulevard LI GM Commercial/
Manufacturing
none 10215 170x147 1961 N
132-32-024 395 Olive Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
none 801 50x119 1946 N
132-32-025 385 Olive Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
Deemed NOT
eligible for the CRHR
or the NRHP in 1998
none 801 50x119 1946 N
132-32-026 375 Olive Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
Deemed NOT
eligible for the CRHR
or the NRHP in 1998
none 801 50x119 1946 N
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF HISTORIC RESOURCE ELIGIBILITY IN THE NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN
3
APN ADDRESS LAND
USE
ZONE ZONE
TYPE
HRB Category Historic
District
Building
SF
Lot
Dimensions
Year
Built
Preliminary Finding of
Eligibility for NRHP or
CRHR (Y/N)
Notes Photo
132-32-027 365 Olive Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
none 801 50x119 1946 N
132-32-028 345 Olive Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
Deemed NOT
eligible for the CRHR
or the NRHP in 1998
none 801 50x119 1946 N
132-32-029 315 Olive Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
none 801 50x119 1946 N
132-32-030 305 Olive Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
none 801 50x120 1948 N
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF HISTORIC RESOURCE ELIGIBILITY IN THE NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN
4
APN ADDRESS LAND
USE
ZONE ZONE
TYPE
HRB Category Historic
District
Building
SF
Lot
Dimensions
Year
Built
Preliminary Finding of
Eligibility for NRHP or
CRHR (Y/N)
Notes Photo
132-32-031 295 Olive Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
none 1601 50x110 1946 N
132-32-032 285 Olive Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
none 801 50x98 1946 N
132-32-033 275 Olive Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
"Deemed NOT
eligible for the CRHR
or the NRHP
in 1998"
none 801 50x83 1946 N
132-32-034 265 Olive Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
"Deemed NOT
eligible for the CRHR
or the NRHP
in 1998"
none 801 50x63 1946 N
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF HISTORIC RESOURCE ELIGIBILITY IN THE NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN
5
APN ADDRESS LAND
USE
ZONE ZONE
TYPE
HRB Category Historic
District
Building
SF
Lot
Dimensions
Year
Built
Preliminary Finding of
Eligibility for NRHP or
CRHR (Y/N)
Notes Photo
132-32-036 3040 Park Boulevard LI GM Commercial/
Manufacturing
none 1740 130x95 1964 N
132-37-004 430 Pepper Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
"Deemed NOT
eligible for the CRHR
or the NRHP
in 1998"
none 942 50x134 1940 N 1940 house demolished; new building
under construction.
132-37-005 440 Pepper Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
none 2400 50x135 1953 N
132-37-024 420 Olive Avenue LI GM Commercial/
Manufacturing
none 2450 50x120 1968 N
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF HISTORIC RESOURCE ELIGIBILITY IN THE NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN
6
APN ADDRESS LAND
USE
ZONE ZONE
TYPE
HRB Category Historic
District
Building
SF
Lot
Dimensions
Year
Built
Preliminary Finding of
Eligibility for NRHP or
CRHR (Y/N)
Notes Photo
132-37-025 430 Olive Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
none 1021 50x119 1946 N
132-37-027 450 Olive Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
none 1651 50x119 1942 N House largely obscured by vegetation
132-37-028 456 Olive Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
none 832 50x119 1904 N
132-37-029 470 Olive Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
none 3710 50x120 1968 N
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF HISTORIC RESOURCE ELIGIBILITY IN THE NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN
7
APN ADDRESS LAND
USE
ZONE ZONE
TYPE
HRB Category Historic
District
Building
SF
Lot
Dimensions
Year
Built
Preliminary Finding of
Eligibility for NRHP or
CRHR? (Y/N)
Notes Photo
132-37-033 2905 El Camino Real CS CS Commercial/
Residential
"Deemed NOT
eligible for the CRHR
or the NRHP
in 1998"
none 6400 96x150 1950 N
132-37-034 473 Pepper Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
none 1360 50x119 1920 N Alternate address for 471 Pepper
Avenue. See entry below.
132-37-034 471 Pepper Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
none 1360 50x119 1920 N 1920 house demolished; new building
under construction.
132-37-035 461 Pepper Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
"Deemed NOT
eligible for the CRHR
or the NRHP
in 1998"
none 1065 50x119 1940 N
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF HISTORIC RESOURCE ELIGIBILITY IN THE NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN
8
APN ADDRESS LAND
USE
ZONE ZONE
TYPE
HRB Category Historic
District
Building
SF
Lot
Dimensions
Year
Built
Preliminary Finding of
Eligibility for NRHP or
CRHR (Y/N)
Notes Photo
132-37-036 451 Pepper Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
"Deemed NOT
eligible for the CRHR
or the NRHP
in 1998"
none 995 50x119 1939 N
132-37-037 441 Pepper Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
"Deemed NOT
eligible for the CRHR
or the NRHP
in 1998"
none 995 50x119 1939 N
132-37-039 421 Pepper Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
"Deemed NOT
eligible for the CRHR
or the NRHP
in 1998"
none 1256 50x119 1940 N
132-37-042 399 Olive Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
"Deemed NOT
eligible for the CRHR
or the NRHP
in 1998"
none 801 50x139 1946 N
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF HISTORIC RESOURCE ELIGIBILITY IN THE NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN
9
APN ADDRESS LAND
USE
ZONE ZONE
TYPE
HRB Category Historic
District
Building
SF
Lot
Dimensions
Year
Built
Preliminary Finding of
Eligibility for NRHP or
CRHR (Y/N)
Notes Photo
132-37-044 411 Olive Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
"Deemed NOT
eligible for the CRHR
or the NRHP
in 1998"
none 819 50x119 1940 N
132-37-045 421 Olive Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
none 1021 50x119 1946 N
132-37-046 431 Olive Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
none 801 50x119 1946 N
132-37-047 441 Olive Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
none 960 50x119 1946 N
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF HISTORIC RESOURCE ELIGIBILITY IN THE NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN
10
APN ADDRESS LAND
USE
ZONE ZONE
TYPE
HRB Category Historic
District
Building
SF
Lot
Dimensions
Year
Built
Preliminary Finding of
Eligibility for NRHP or
CRHR (Y/N)
Notes Photo
132-37-048 451 Olive Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
"Deemed NOT
eligible for the CRHR
or the NRHP
in 1998"
none 749 50x119 1946 N
132-37-053 405 Olive Avenue SF R-1 Residential
Single-Family
none 1137 55x139 1946 N
132-37-055 3017 El Camino Real CS CS Commercial/
Residential
none 2988 69x150 1968 N
132-37-055 3051 El Camino Real CS CS Commercial/
Residential
none 2988 69x150 1968 N Alternate address for 3017 El Camino
Real. See entry above.
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF HISTORIC RESOURCE ELIGIBILITY IN THE NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN
11
APN ADDRESS LAND
USE
ZONE ZONE
TYPE
HRB Category Historic
District
Building
SF
Lot
Dimensions
Year
Built
Preliminary Finding of
Eligibility for NRHP or
CRHR (Y/N)
Notes Photo
132-37-056 3001 El Camino Real CS CS Commercial/
Residential
none 6112 71x200 1930 N
132-38-011 3275 Ash Street CS CS Commercial/
Residential
none 1122 100x90 1900 N
132-38-013 3251 Ash Street CS CS Commercial/
Residential
none 4760 50x141 1952 N
132-38-017 460 Lambert Avenue CS CS Commercial/
Residential
none 900 50x199 1937 N
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF HISTORIC RESOURCE ELIGIBILITY IN THE NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN
12
APN ADDRESS LAND
USE
ZONE ZONE
TYPE
HRB Category Historic
District
Building
SF
Lot
Dimensions
Year
Built
Preliminary Finding of
Eligibility for NRHP or
CRHR (Y/N)
Notes Photo
132-38-020 3265 El Camino Real CS CS Commercial/
Residential
none 0 50x150 1960 N Parcel contains a hotel pool, hidden by
a construction fence.
132-38-021 3255 El Camino Real CS CS Commercial/
Residential
none 7988 100x150 1953 N
132-38-042 3201 El Camino Real CS CS Commercial/
Residential
none 7000 150x150 1959 N Alternate address for 3225 El Camino
Real. See entry below.
132-38-042 3225 El Camino Real CS CS Commercial/
Residential
none 7000 150x150 1959 N
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF HISTORIC RESOURCE ELIGIBILITY IN THE NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN
13
APN ADDRESS LAND
USE
ZONE ZONE
TYPE
HRB Category Historic
District
Building
SF
Lot
Dimensions
Year
Built
Preliminary Finding of
Eligibility for NRHP or
CRHR (Y/N)
Notes Photo
132-38-042 3215 El Camino Real CS CS Commercial/
Residential
none 7000 150x150 1959 N Alternate address for 3225 El Camino
Real. See entry above.
132-38-046 3250 Ash Street CS CS Commercial/
Residential
Deemed potentially
eligible for the CRHR
in 1998
none 4412 100x166 1948 N
132-38-048 270 Lambert Avenue CS CS Commercial/
Residential
none 6228 98x159 1963 N The addresses of 270 Lambert
Avenue and 268 Lambert Avenue
share a building and an APN.
132-38-048 268 Lambert Avenue CS CS Commercial/
Residential
none 6228 98x159 1963 N The addresses of 270 Lambert
Avenue and 268 Lambert Avenue
share a building and an APN. See
entry above for photo.
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF HISTORIC RESOURCE ELIGIBILITY IN THE NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN
14
APN ADDRESS LAND
USE
ZONE ZONE
TYPE
HRB Category Historic
District
Building
SF
Lot
Dimensions
Year
Built
Preliminary Finding of
Eligibility for NRHP or
CRHR (Y/N)
Notes Photo
132-38-056 450 Lambert Avenue CS CS Commercial/
Residential
none 26320 1961 N The addresses of 450 Lambert
Avenue and 430 Lambert Avenue
share a building and an APN.
132-38-056 430 Lambert Avenue CS CS Commercial/
Residential
none 26320 1961 N The addresses of 450 Lambert
Avenue and 430 Lambert Avenue
share a building and an APN.
132-38-062 435 Acacia Avenue CS CS Commercial/
Residential
none 24240 108x120 1956 N
132-38-068 425 Portage Avenue CS CS Commercial/
Residential
none 8120 100x175 1954 N
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF HISTORIC RESOURCE ELIGIBILITY IN THE NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN
15
APN ADDRESS LAND
USE
ZONE ZONE
TYPE
HRB Category Historic
District
Building
SF
Lot
Dimensions
Year
Built
Preliminary Finding of
Eligibility for NRHP or
CRHR (Y/N)
Notes Photo
132-38-070 3127 El Camino Real CS CS Commercial/
Residential
none 7525 159x120 1955 N Several addresses are provided for
this APN. Photos are provided for the
addresses associated with structures:
3159 El Camino Real and 3111 El
Camino Real.
132-38-070 440 Portage Avenue CS CS Commercial/
Residential
none 7525 159x120 1955 N Several addresses are provided for
this APN. Photos are provided for the
addresses associated with structures:
3159 El Camino Real and 3111 El
Camino Real.
132-38-070 3101 El Camino Real CS CS Commercial/
Residential
none 7525 159x120 1955 N Several addresses are provided for
this APN. Photos are provided for the
addresses associated with structures:
3159 El Camino Real and 3111 El
Camino Real.
132-38-070 3159 El Camino Real CS CS Commercial/
Residential
none 7525 159x120 1955 N Several addresses are provided for
this APN. Photos are provided for the
addresses associated with structures:
3159 El Camino Real and 3111 El
Camino Real.
PRELIMINARY FINDINGS OF HISTORIC RESOURCE ELIGIBILITY IN THE NORTH VENTURA COORDINATED AREA PLAN
16
APN ADDRESS LAND
USE
ZONE ZONE
TYPE
HRB Category Historic
District
Building
SF
Lot
Dimensions
Year
Built
Preliminary Finding of
Eligibility for NRHP or
CRHR (Y/N)
Notes Photo
132-38-070 3111 El Camino Real CS CS Commercial/
Residential
none 7525 159x120 1955 N Several addresses are provided for
this APN. Photos are provided for the
addresses associated with structures:
3159 El Camino Real and 3111 El
Camino Real.
132-38-071 340 Portage Avenue SMF RM-30 Residential
Multi-Family
None 240056 1900 Y For a more in-depth evaluation of 340
Portage Avenue’s historic resource
eligibility, please refer to “340
Portage Avenue Historic Resource
Evaluation,” prepared by Page &
Turnbull (San Francisco, 2019).
Historic Resources Board
Staff Report (ID # 10522)
Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 7/25/2019
City of Palo Alto
Planning & Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2442
Summary Title: Approval of HRB draft Minutes of June 13, 2019
Title: Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of June 13,
2019
From: Jonathan Lait
Recommendation
Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) adopt the attached meeting minutes.
Background
Attached are minutes for the following meeting(s):
June 13, 2019
Attachments:
Attachment A: HRB draft minutes June 13, 2019 (PDF)
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
2
Call to Order/Roll Call 3
4
Present: Chair Bower, Vice Chair Corey, Board Member Kohler, Board Member Shepherd, 5
6
Absent: Board Member Bernstein, Board Member Makinen, Board Member Wimmer 7
8
Chair Bower: Okay, I’m assuming Margaret is stuck in traffic, so we can begin the meeting. I see the light’s 9
on, so would you please read the roll, Robin. 10
11
Ms. Robin Ellner: Four present. 12
13
Chair Bower: Thank you. 14
15
[The Board moved to Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions] 16
17
Oral Communications 18
19
Chair Bower: Okay, oral communications. I don’t see anyone here besides Bo, who we’re going to hear 20
from in a moment. 21
22
[The Board moved to City Official Reports] 23
24
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions 25
26
Chair Bower: Are there any changes to the agenda? 27
28
Ms. Ellner: None. 29
30
[The Board moved to Oral Communications] 31
32
City Official Reports 33
34
1. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments. 35
36
Chair Bower: So, we will move on to Official Reports, which is our schedule of meetings. I will now be 37
available on June 27th, should a meeting occur, because my trip was cancelled. 38
39
Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Can I ask a question about August 22nd? Is that trip of yours still 40
on? 41
42
Chair Bower: Yeah, it’s still, it is for now. 43
44
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING
DRAFT MINUTES: June 13, 2019
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 A.M.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Ms. French: I can’t say lucky you, but maybe (crosstalk). We do have an item targeted for that date, and 45
we do have, we did have an item targeted for July 11th, which was going to be the – it’s probably not going 46
to go, I would say, is the Cannery/Fry’s Historic Resource evaluation. 47
48
Chair Bower: That’s going to go after that goes to Planning or? 49
50
Ms. French: Well, no. We do still plan to bring that to the HRB for discussion. It’s just that some of these 51
NVCAP meetings have been cancelled, and there’s other, you know, other reasons why it’s delayed, so… 52
53
Chair Bower: Okay. 54
55
Ms. French: That may push to September. So, I don’t know that we’re going to have a meeting in July. I 56
think it wouldn’t be the end of the world, right? It’s a nice month to take a break and a vacation. 57
58
(off mic) 59
60
Chair Bower: Right, so you know. 61
62
Ms. French: You’re going to be gone, yeah. So, I do have that Shepherd is gone for the second meeting of 63
July. 64
65
Vice Chair Corey: I will be out the 8th of August if we have a meeting that day, a well. 66
67
Ms. French: Okay, let’s not have a meeting that day. Since we’re looking at the 22nd for…(crosstalk) and 68
I’ll just say that’s the targeted date for the Castilleja Draft Environmental Impact Report presentation to 69
the Historic Resources Board. The week before it will be presented to the Planning and Transportation 70
Commission, where folks will have, you know, a night meeting to make all the comments and more of the 71
comments, but here we will be focused on the Cultural Resource Chapter and the Historic Resource 72
evaluation for that project. Okay. (crosstalk) 73
74
75
Study Session 76
77
2. Guest Speaker Bo Crane Presents ‘Ticket to Rock’ Booklet Regarding Palo Alto Rock 78
History. 79
80
Chair Bower: So, we can move to our Study Session. So, I’d like to introduce Bo Crane who is going to talk 81
to us about the book that he’s written called ‘Ticket to Ride. Bo is a member of the Palo Alto Stanford 82
Heritage Group. He’s also a member of Palo Alto Historic Association. I think that’s what PAHA stands for. 83
I’m a Board Member with Bo and past, so intimately familiar with this, but Bo, please join us at the… 84
85
Board Member Kohler: I probably have to… 86
87
(unknown speaker): Disclose. 88
89
Board Member Kohler: Yeah. 90
91
Mr. Bo Crane: I can stand. 92
93
Board Member Kohler: I should disclose that I live two doors from the speaker, Bo. 94
95
Chair Bower: From Bo. 96
97
Board Member Kohler: Yeah, I just want to make sure, you know, for the record, yes. 98
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Mr. Crane: Okay. Thank you, Board for having me. Thank you, Amy, for inviting me. I met with Amy in her 99
office and we talked about the book. It’s actually called ‘Ticket to Rock’, which is a spin on ‘Ticket to Ride’. 100
David has ‘Ticket to Ride’ in mind because that’s how, I had that as a typo. It’s supposed to be ‘Ticket to 101
Rock’. We, the Palo Alto, Stanford Heritage, of which I’m the secretary, we had a meeting. We were 102
deciding what other historical things can we include in our organization, other than just architecture, and 103
we came up with people, with Rock and Roll people. And we were going to do a map of the homes of 104
different Rock players in Palo Alto, but they’re so far scattered about, from North Palo Alto to South Palo 105
Alto, too far for a walking tour. We’re not about to have show buses. So, instead, we identified the homes 106
and we include a map of where they are, if people want to tour them and we have them listed house by 107
house number. But then we thought that, should we contact the owners of these homes and let them 108
know, Grace Slick lived in your house, Jerry Garcia lived in your house. Something that may have been a 109
surprise to them. And at that point we thought, well, rather than put the burden on them to say yes or 110
now, we identified the neighborhoods, when was the tract developed. A lot of these were Eichler’s in the 111
50’s. Cubberly was developed in the 50’s. We did identify one house, which was sold last year by DeLeon 112
Realty on 1012 High Street, and it’s where Jerry Garcia picked the name Grateful Dead. It’s 1012 High 113
Street. It was advertised as the house where the Grateful Dead name was chosen. They have a plaque on 114
the wall, the Grateful Dead had been the Warlocks. The plaque on the wall that says the Warlocks is part 115
of the advertising if you go on site. Amy, for a while had a panicked look and went through her notes and 116
said, “oh, it’s right there in the disclosure.” So, my point in bringing all this up is that we’re starting to get 117
to where historic personages and peoples’ memory, are in peoples’ memory, and these things may affect 118
your decisions. The other big Rock and Roll star, who I consider big, is Grace Slick. She came here from 119
Highland Park near Chicago. She moved into, her family moved into a house that was built in 1946, older 120
than 50 years, not very historic. It’s on a block, a block off of Channing, and when the time comes, if that 121
house gets identified as people want to do something, it’s a two story, it’s in good shape. That would 122
probably undoubtedly be something for the Board to consider, just like they included the fact that the 123
Grateful Dead name choosing house was included in the information about that house. They did add a two 124
story to that house. The porch remains as it was back when the Grateful Dead name was chosen. They 125
were, the Warlocks were practicing on the porch and they, Jerry Garcia went inside and found a dictionary, 126
folklore dictionary, stuck his finger in on the Grateful Dead, and they became the Grateful Dead. So, this is 127
our booklet. There’s several Rock and Rollers here. Again, it’s about their neighborhoods, who they are, 128
their biographies and it’s being marketed for sale now by the Palo Alto, Stanford Heritage, otherwise known 129
as PAST. So, that’s my talk. Are there any questions? 130
131
Board Member Shepherd: So, we just go on the PAST website and we can order it? How do we buy it? 132
133
Mr. Crane: You can buy it through, you can contact the PAST site, P-A-S-T. It’s $10 and we’re going to get 134
the marketing information out. But it will be on the PAST website. We’re getting another – this first one 135
has pretty much sold out. I do have some with me today. The first issue was $5. If you would like one, I 136
will, David can talk to you afterwards. He’s a PAST Member and he can sell you his copy and I’ll give him 137
back one. 138
139
Board Member Shepherd: So, Bo, are there plans to interpret some of this at the Palo Alto History Museum? 140
141
Mr. Crane: We may be occupying a space at the Palo Alto History Museum. I gave a talk at the Palo Alto 142
Historical Association on June 5th, as David mentioned. So, they’re also involved with this booklet, not in 143
the publication, but in the presentation. And lot of us are joint past and PAHA members. 144
145
Chair Bower: Anything else? 146
147
Mr. Crane: Well, thank you for inviting me this morning and good luck with the Board. Thank you for 148
serving. 149
150
Chair Bower: Thanks Bo. It’s a, I know how hard you worked on this, and it was, it is a really important 151
treasure that we now have as part of our Palo Alto history, so I appreciate your doing that. 152
153
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Mr. Crane: You’re very welcome. I’m happy that I’m a native Palo Alton, and this was exciting for me as 154
well. 155
156
Chair Bower: That’s right. Bo was a graduate of Paly High School. 157
158
Mr. Crane: Yeah, Waterchase, Jordan, Paly, then… 159
160
Chair Bower: Stanford. 161
162
Mr. Crane: Across El Camino. 163
164
Chair Bower: Right. 165
166
Board Member Shepherd: And I recently learned that Grace Slick went to Castilleja. 167
168
Mr. Crane: Yeah, Grace Slick, she was a sophomore at Paly. She then transferred to Castilleja. I haven’t 169
found the reason, but she transferred to Castilleja. There’s a picture of her year book photo from Castilleja, 170
and her younger brother was at Paly, a senior when I was a sophomore. 171
172
Chair Bower: And I presume that if someone stumbles upon your, this presentation in some archive and 173
has other musicians or people in the music business who we have not seen, that you’d welcome their 174
contacting you to add. 175
176
Mr. Crane: Yeah, as everybody knows, a lot about at least one person in here who has contacted me. 177
There’re people among us who have also toured Europe as musicians. I won’t name any names, but there’s 178
– so people are connected one way or another with music. 179
180
Chair Bower: Yeah. Okay, well great. Thank you very much. 181
182
Board Member Kohler: Oh, he’s talking about bands? Is that what you’re saying, musical bands? 183
184
Mr. Crane: Yes, we have bands and individuals. 185
186
Board Member Kohler: You didn’t get my band in. 187
188
Mr. Crane: And Roger Kohler himself was… 189
190
Chair Bower: No, we didn’t include garage bands. 191
192
Board Member Kohler: I played in a band for 10 years, yeah. 193
194
Mr. Crane: There’s a lot of high school bands… 195
196
Board Member Kohler: Our favorite people who loved us… Let’s see, my mind is now working. We used to 197
play at the… 198
199
Mr. Crane: There were a lot of Rock and Roll bands. The Beatles came to the Cabana in 1965. That was a 200
huge thing. I was here then. Roger was already playing music by then, so the Rock and Roll band for the 201
Beatles really set it off. Just to elaborate a little bit more, they played at the Cow Palace, Ken Kesey and 202
his group went to the Cow Palace. They were blown away by all the hoopla and the noise and the screaming. 203
But he later had his own concerts called Acid Tests. He knew Jerry Garcia from the days of Menlo Park and 204
he got Garcia’s band to play at the Acid Test. So, here you had the Beatles at the Cabana in ’65, August, 205
the Acid Test at the Big B, which was a nightclub near San Antonio and 101 in December. So, you had the 206
British Invasion, pop music, and then four months later and two miles away you have the start of the 207
psychedelic music era. So, you had these clashes and who won out? Well, the Beatles later went to Sergeant 208
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Pepper’s, Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. They were affected by what was happening in Palo Alto. And 209
there’s a lot in the book that, where I mention that there’s no coincidence you have Palo Alto, Stanford and 210
Silicon Valley all at the same locale, and they all contributed to what we know in the world today. 211
212
Board Member Kohler: Yeah, I was, it’s the Association for the Retarded there on Middlefield Road was 213
where we played for 10 years. 214
215
Chair Bower: Every Friday night. 216
217
Board Member Kohler: No, it was once or twice a month. But I remember they just thought we were the 218
greatest. They kept yelling, “you’re better than the Beatles”, of which we were not. 219
220
Mr. Crane: If only you had Brian Epstein behind you. Okay, thanks again. 221
222
Action Items 223
224
Chair Bower: All right, Action Items. This is, I think, going to be relatively straightforward. 225
226
Approval of Minutes 227
228
3. Approval of the Draft Minutes for April 265, 2019 Meeting of the Historic Resources 229
Board. 230
231
Chair Bower: We need to approve the Minutes from our meeting of April 25th. I would like to say that I 232
thought the Minutes, I think the transposition of these minutes has significantly improved, so I don’t know 233
what happened, but I read through them and I didn’t find, you know, any context issues that were wrong. 234
So, I’m praising whoever is doing this now. Good software. All right, any changes, deletions or omissions 235
in the Minutes? I don’t see anybody putting their hands up, so I’m looking for a motion to approve. 236
237
MOTION 238
239
Board Member Shepherd: I’ll move to approve the minutes. 240
241
Chair Bower: Is there a second? 242
243
Vice Chair Corey: I’ll second. 244
245
Chair Bower: All right. All in favor say aye. Okay, good. Thank you. 246
247
MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0 WITH BOARD MEMBERS MAKINEN, BERNSTEIN AND 248
WIMMER ABSENT 249
250
Subcommittee Items 251
252
4. SUBCOMMITTEE: 526 Waverley Street (17PLN-00454): Subcommittee Formation for 253
On-Site Review of Finishes and Colors to Address Conditions of Approval. 254
255
Chair Bower: So, the next item on our Agenda is Creation of a Subcommittee for Approval of Finishes at 256
526 Waverley, and I see that the developer is here, just in time. So, I think as background for this, you 257
know, our packet, the terms of conditions for our prior approval for this project included bringing to the 258
Board the stucco texture, the tile selections and the paint colors, which would be approved by a 259
subcommittee and then approved by the full Board on a consent item. Amy learned what, two weeks ago 260
or more, that the stucco was finished, the tile was set and we had no submissions or approvals. The paint 261
is not on, but that’s an easy solution. So, John Shenk, the developer, I think that’s the appropriate way to 262
describe your role? 263
City of Palo Alto Page 6
264
(off mic) 265
266
Chair Bower: Owner, okay. John is here, I presume to talk about the, this item. So, first let’s find the people 267
who would be willing to do, serve on the subcommittee. I think it’s, I’d like to be on that. I’ve already been 268
out there and looked at it. We need two other people who are willing? I need two other people. Debbie, 269
okay. And 270
271
(off mic) 272
273
Chair Bower: Okay, Roger. Okay, so it will be Debbie, me and Roger as the subcommittee. So, John, if you 274
want to join us and talk about what happened here. 275
276
Mr. John Shenk: Sure. Thank you very much. Yes, John Shenk representing the Thoits family, the owners 277
of the property. Hi. Doggone, I think what happened here is a lapse of follow-through and attention to 278
detail in terms of the approval conditions between, I think it’s a collective dropping of the ball between 279
myself and our architect, Randy Popp. Not that it helps and if my kids started down this path, I would catch 280
them quickly, but you give me a few minutes so I can pretend to be my kids without somebody boxing 281
them in. I think in our zeal we’re so excited about this, and I don’t know if you recall, there was a lot of 282
excitement when we just got started with it and sort of sharing with Amy around, this will be so great and 283
finding the old plans and all this good stuff, we just started following this trail of information and old 284
pictures and these sorts of things. And then Randy, to his credit, realized, oh, oh, we’ve gone a step too 285
far and reached out to Amy and then with David. You guys started to figure out, okay, where are we and 286
we recognize that we didn’t follow some of the prescriptive steps. We will do as you guys desire. Our 287
request is that you form this subcommittee and come on out and take this – I can’t bring it to you because 288
it’s on the building in terms of the tiles. The paint colors, even if they were up on the building, we could 289
change them and would. We have some samples on the building. I have brush outs of them and such, but 290
I think it’s best for the subcommittee to go and take a peek. We have spent an inordinate amount of time 291
trying to get the plaster just right, over and over, and as you can imagine going into a building that’s as 292
old as this one is and all the old signs that have been on and off the building and all these old things. Every 293
time you kind of move a layer in, you realize, oops, now we’ve found an old patch and we found this and 294
that, and just the artisans who have been out there climbing around and smoothing and slightly adjusting 295
the sand mix and all these things. It’s part of the fun of it, but we’re just hopeful that you all can come out 296
and say, yup, we love these paint colors, wp like the tile. There is one point I’ll make to all of you. Our 297
contractor, with our approval, but we didn’t give much thought to it, put in some tile on the ground plane 298
at the entries. There are some of the entries that had, in our restoration part of this, they are now recessed 299
back to their original design, so we were left with some mix match of things on the ground, so we put 300
some tile in there. It is, from our perspective, it is temporary. The sidewalk is a hodgepodge of patches 301
and designs, etc. We’ve worked with Public Works. They’re okay with us not addressing that now. Our 302
intention is to move forward with a bigger scale project behind the historic part of the building. So, the 303
tiles, they’re just a bridge between the subpar sidewalks and the level of the interiors. It’s not great. I think 304
the ultimate design is that the sidewalk and its design, which, to the degree Public Works buys off on it, 305
would have kind of a cobblestone look to it. We’ll go – it would be a seamless finish to the front doors out 306
to the sidewalk when we’re all done. But that is another thing that was a call in the field. We don’t think 307
it’s historic. We don’t think it’s fantastic, but it’s serving a purpose. 308
309
Chair Bower: So, if I could, I don’t want to interrupt you, but I wanted to ask Amy something about this. 310
So, it says in Randy’s letter, which is part of our packet and is part of this hearing, that the replacement of 311
the sidewalk, Staff agreed that it would be deferred until some future date. It’s on page 39 of our packet, 312
the paragraph right after the half page. It says “In discussion with Planning Staff, when the project 313
conditions of approval were under development, we agreed, reached an agreement to replace the sidewalk 314
or the replacement of the sidewalk would be deferred.” I just want to be sure that that’s… 315
316
Ms. French: I was not part of that discussion. The Planner, Haleigh, has left the City, so I can’t ask her, but 317
possibly she worked it out with Jodie Gerhardt, the current Planning Manager. I can verify with her, but we 318
City of Palo Alto Page 7
know that this is the initial stage of restoring the building, and then an application, the intent is to move 319
this to Category II from Category III because of the rehabilitation. That goes to Council to put the seal of 320
approval on that. That allows then a bonus area to put housing on the… 321
322
Mr. Shenk: Back on the property. 323
324
Ms. French: On the second, you know, make a second floor or, it has a second floor – third floor, at the 325
back part of it. So, that project would require replacement of sidewalk along the front, the curb, gutter, 326
sidewalk. 327
328
Mr. Shenk: Yeah. And if I could maybe add to that, it was really, as a part of that – I forget the people who 329
were around in that, but the sidewalk being the City’s property, it was really the Public Works Department, 330
it was that part of the negotiation. Planning Staff acquiesced to Public Works. It started out Public Works 331
said replace everything, you know, replace the utilities, redo half the street, this sort of thing. And then 332
they realized this was really an historic restoration, so they backed – which was great, I think it’s the right 333
thing for the City to, in a way, help facilitate the historic restoration, and then if you want to do something 334
to the building, add area, so something, then come the more typical conditions. 335
336
Chair Bower: So, I am confident you want to do this. I guess what makes me slightly uncomfortable is that 337
in this particular project, we now have a material that is supposed to be temporary, but sadly, some 338
temporary materials become permanent, and I guess I’m uncomfortable about the fact that we’re being 339
asked to basically close out this portion of your project with the understanding that something will happen 340
in the future which may or may not come back before the Board. And so, because this is an historic 341
renovation which will change categories, which is very significant… 342
343
Mr. Shenk: Yes. 344
345
Chair Bower: Glad it’s being done, but there’s a disconnect between this surface that - those little one-inch 346
tiles, which I find, I have problems with them… 347
348
Mr. Shenk: Fair. 349
350
Chair Bower: Not being addressed until a future date which may never occur. I mean, I can’t imagine the 351
number of circumstances where it just doesn’t happen. So, I’m uncomfortable about that, that’s why I was 352
asking if there is a record of this. And I’m not sure that I have a solution at this moment, but I just want – 353
it’s a process thing here. (crosstalk) 354
355
Mr. Shenk: And I respect, and if the decision is, hey, we’re not okay with that. I know we didn’t ask you. 356
We’ll pull those tiles out. We can put in some concrete so that it looks, you know, on our property, right, 357
which is where this tile exists now and do some of the matching of the finish. As I recall, and I’ve been 358
looking at this, the conditions, there isn’t anything specific to that area. I don’t think we’d really 359
contemplated, well, what are we going to find when we push the wall back to its original position. There 360
was a thought, well, we’ll find the original concrete underneath the old tiles that, the interior tiles that were 361
put on top. Well, we didn’t, so we put something in. 362
363
Chair Bower: Okay, so, I’m just raising this because… 364
365
Mr. Shenk: Very fair. 366
367
Chair Bower: As a Board and a City process, I don’t think that it’s a good idea to, you know, to complete 368
one section of review without having all of the, you know, the scope of that project be complete, so I’ll, 369
maybe Amy, you and I can talk about what the right process is, the subcommittee can go out there and 370
look at this. 371
372
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Ms. French: Yeah, so just to address one piece of what you said earlier, the project that would involve 373
adding to a Category II, that is the goal, would, in the downtown, would absolutely come to the HRB for 374
review. So, you know, there would be conditions that the HRB could weigh in on certainly at that time. 375
Regarding the subcommittee and figuring this out, if we could adjourn from here and go out this morning, 376
we’re all here, that was my hope that that would be… Yeah, and you’re here. 377
378
Mr. Shenk: I turned the temperature down a little bit, so we’re okay today. 379
380
Ms. French: (crosstalk) is not here. 381
382
Mr. Shenk: He’s out of town, yes. 383
384
Chair Bower: I know Roger and I can do that, because Roger and I are in the same cart. Okay, good. I 385
was hoping we would do that, so that’s a good thing. And then we can talk about it. I just want to make 386
sure that the process here is consistent with other City work, and having built housing here, interacted with 387
Public Works for 45 years, they never let us do, put anything off in the future. So, we’ll work this out some 388
way, John, so that we can move forward, and certainly encourage your project to move to the next phase. 389
390
Ms. French: And one thing I would just say, generally speaking for conditions and modifications, so for 391
instance, packet page 45 are the Public Works and 46 are the Public Works Engineering Conditions that 392
talk about work and the right-of-way, saying the plans must clearly indicate any work proposed in the 393
public right-of-way. This is not in the public right-of-way. This is on private property. So, it gets a little like 394
squishy there and unclear. So, the Public Works doesn’t actually need to, you know, modify their own 395
condition and response to this, because it’s not in the public right-of-way. 396
397
Chair Bower: I totally understand where, you know, the jurisdiction lies. And I don’t want to prolong this 398
conversation, because I’d rather have the subcommittee bring this back to the full Board. But it was my 399
understanding Public Works does not like sidewalks that are not… 400
401
Mr. Shenk: They don’t. 402
403
Chair Bower: Weren’t conventional, and this is not conventional, and so maybe because this is an historic 404
building, they have an exemption or some other method that allows them to do this, but I think that’s a 405
future discussion. 406
407
Mr. Shenk: I think you’re right, and at that time my hope is, I go to Public Works with your recommendation, 408
your collective thought around, hey, it would be great if the sidewalk in this section were allowed to be 409
finished the way that it used to be. Public Works is tough. They want flat, grey, smooth. 410
411
Chair Bower: Yeah, and there are legitimate safety reasons for their standards. I’m not making any 412
comment other than that. I’m aware that they have very precise standards. So, any other Board Members 413
have any comments? If not, we can – I guess, I think that’s our entire meeting? 414
415
Ms. French: Yes, we’re done. (Off mic) 416
417
Chair Bower: So, let’s – the subcommittee will go out with you after we adjourn, and we’ll proceed. 418
419
Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements 420
421
Chair Bower: I did want, so, in I guess we’re at Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements, 422
I wanted to say that Martin and Michael and I have created a list of historic materials that could be, that 423
should be looked for in demolition of any buildings, and I forwarded to you, and so I’m hoping that we’ll 424
get on to an agenda soon, and actually I presume you’ve sent that to Phil Bobel and asked him to look at 425
that, because it’s really part of his initiative there. So, we’ve made progress in that we’ve tried to get this 426
City of Palo Alto Page 9
done quickly so that it could be blended into the demolition proposal that Phil is bringing to Council. So, 427
does anyone else have any comments or announcements? No. 428
429
Ms. French: None from Staff. 430
431
Board Member Kohler: I was just going to say that Martin and I have been on the Board a long time, and 432
it’s interesting that when we first came on board and all the things we did. You weren’t here and this and 433
that, but it’s pretty amazing that we’re still functioning here and doing – and I think the Board over all 434
these years has had a pretty big impact, and it has been a good thing to have and I think most citizens are 435
glad that we’re here. Because a lot of folks that live in older homes and everything, do like to, are impressed 436
that we are watching over things, is what I guess I’m trying to say. And we’re kind of a subtle Board. We’re 437
not big names and things like that, but I just think it’s been quite a long ride for me, especially, but I think 438
we’re important people in what goes on here in town, and I’m glad to have staff that’s so good. So, thank 439
you. 440
441
Chair Bower: I’d second that. 442
443
Ms. French: In turn, I will thank the Board for your service. Thank you. 444
445
Chair Bower: So, our next Board Meeting might be August 22nd? 446
447
Ms. French: It’s looking more like that. The reason to meet in July would be to, if you wanted to discuss 448
these materials, or just approval of minutes from today, which, you know, can wait till August. 449
450
Chair Bower: I think that these demolition materials should be piggy-backed on some other program. It’s 451
not a large enough topic to warrant an independent… 452
453
Ms. French: I think the only reason we would meet July 11th would be if the Cannery/Fry’s Site were to 454
come forward. I’m kind of in the process of verifying it this week about that, to see if that’s possible. 455
456
Chair Bower: So, the one thing I’m thinking about in terms of the demolition materials is if, for some reason, 457
that information would need to be part of the Council process, which I think Phil’s already submitted, then 458
maybe we would want to have a brief meeting to talk about that. So, I guess we’d let Phil advise on that. 459
460
Ms. French: All right. I’ll reach out to Phil today. 461
462
Adjournment 463
464
Chair Bower: Okay. All right. With that, I think we’re adjourned. Thank you. Nice to see you. I hope you 465
enjoy the rest of the summer. I hope it’s not as hot as last week. 466