Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01-12 Historic Resources Board Agenda PacketHISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, January 12, 2023 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM Pursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas are available at https://bitly.com/paloaltoHRB.  VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96800197512) Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. 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. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak on Study Sessions and Actions Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the  Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. CALL TO ORDER 1.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Historic Resources Board During Covid‐19 State of Emergency PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.  AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 2.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.3200 Park Boulevard/200 Portage/340 Portage [Files 22PLN‐00287 and 22PLN‐00288]: Consideration of Sobrato Organization, LLC (Sobrato)’s Proposed Redevelopment of a 14.65‐acre site at 200‐404 Portage Avenue, 3040‐3250 Park Boulevard, 3201‐3225 Ash Street and 278 Lambert. The Project Includes the Partial Demolition of the Former Bayside Canning Company Building (340 Portage) Which is Eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The City Circulated A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 200 Portage Townhome Development Project (91 units) on September 16, 2022, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR Comment Period Ended on November 15, 2022. The Proposed Development Agreement is Evaluated as Alternative 3 in the DEIR. Zoning District: RM‐30 (Multi‐Family Residential) and GM (General Manufacturing). This Hearing will Include Consideration of the Potential for Listing the Remaining Cannery Building/Site on the City’s Local Historic Resources Inventory. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of November 10, 2022 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833 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. 1 Regular Meeting January 12, 2023 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, January 12, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas areavailable at https://bitly.com/paloaltoHRB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96800197512)Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance tohrb@cityofpaloalto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak on Study Sessions andActions Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the  Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. CALL TO ORDER 1.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Historic Resources Board During Covid‐19 State of Emergency PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.  AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 2.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.3200 Park Boulevard/200 Portage/340 Portage [Files 22PLN‐00287 and 22PLN‐00288]: Consideration of Sobrato Organization, LLC (Sobrato)’s Proposed Redevelopment of a 14.65‐acre site at 200‐404 Portage Avenue, 3040‐3250 Park Boulevard, 3201‐3225 Ash Street and 278 Lambert. The Project Includes the Partial Demolition of the Former Bayside Canning Company Building (340 Portage) Which is Eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The City Circulated A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 200 Portage Townhome Development Project (91 units) on September 16, 2022, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR Comment Period Ended on November 15, 2022. The Proposed Development Agreement is Evaluated as Alternative 3 in the DEIR. Zoning District: RM‐30 (Multi‐Family Residential) and GM (General Manufacturing). This Hearing will Include Consideration of the Potential for Listing the Remaining Cannery Building/Site on the City’s Local Historic Resources Inventory. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 4.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of November 10, 2022 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833 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. 2 Regular Meeting January 12, 2023 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, January 12, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas areavailable at https://bitly.com/paloaltoHRB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96800197512)Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance tohrb@cityofpaloalto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak on Study Sessions andActions Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.CALL TO ORDER1.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Historic ResourcesBoard During Covid‐19 State of EmergencyPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS2.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and AssignmentsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.3.3200 Park Boulevard/200 Portage/340 Portage [Files 22PLN‐00287 and 22PLN‐00288]:Consideration of Sobrato Organization, LLC (Sobrato)’s Proposed Redevelopment of a14.65‐acre site at 200‐404 Portage Avenue, 3040‐3250 Park Boulevard, 3201‐3225 AshStreet and 278 Lambert. The Project Includes the Partial Demolition of the FormerBayside Canning Company Building (340 Portage) Which is Eligible for the CaliforniaRegister of Historical Resources (CRHR). The City Circulated A Draft EnvironmentalImpact Report (DEIR) for the 200 Portage Townhome Development Project (91 units) onSeptember 16, 2022, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIRComment Period Ended on November 15, 2022. The Proposed Development Agreement isEvaluated as Alternative 3 in the DEIR. Zoning District: RM‐30 (Multi‐Family Residential)and GM (General Manufacturing). This Hearing will Include Consideration of thePotential for Listing the Remaining Cannery Building/Site on the City’s Local HistoricResources Inventory.APPROVAL OF MINUTES4.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of November 10, 2022 COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833 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. 3 Regular Meeting January 12, 2023 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, January 12, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas areavailable at https://bitly.com/paloaltoHRB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96800197512)Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance tohrb@cityofpaloalto.org and will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak on Study Sessions andActions Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.CALL TO ORDER1.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Historic ResourcesBoard During Covid‐19 State of EmergencyPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Commission majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS2.Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and AssignmentsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.3.3200 Park Boulevard/200 Portage/340 Portage [Files 22PLN‐00287 and 22PLN‐00288]:Consideration of Sobrato Organization, LLC (Sobrato)’s Proposed Redevelopment of a14.65‐acre site at 200‐404 Portage Avenue, 3040‐3250 Park Boulevard, 3201‐3225 AshStreet and 278 Lambert. The Project Includes the Partial Demolition of the FormerBayside Canning Company Building (340 Portage) Which is Eligible for the CaliforniaRegister of Historical Resources (CRHR). The City Circulated A Draft EnvironmentalImpact Report (DEIR) for the 200 Portage Townhome Development Project (91 units) onSeptember 16, 2022, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIRComment Period Ended on November 15, 2022. The Proposed Development Agreement isEvaluated as Alternative 3 in the DEIR. Zoning District: RM‐30 (Multi‐Family Residential)and GM (General Manufacturing). This Hearing will Include Consideration of thePotential for Listing the Remaining Cannery Building/Site on the City’s Local HistoricResources Inventory.APPROVAL OF MINUTES4.Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of November 10, 2022COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1.Written public comments may be submitted by email to hrb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2.Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7 . Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3.Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above. 4.Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 968 0019 7512   Phone:1‐669‐900‐6833 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. 4 Regular Meeting January 12, 2023 Item No. 1. Page 1 of 3 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: January 12, 2023 TITLE Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Historic Resources Board During Covid-19 State of Emergency RECOMMENDATION Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the use of teleconferencing under Government Code Section 54953(e) for meetings of the Historic Resources Board and its committees due to the Covid-19 declared state of emergency. BACKGROUND In February and March 2020, the state and the County declared a state of emergency due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Both emergency declarations remain in effect. On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, a bill that amends the Brown Act, effective October 1, 2021, to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by teleconferencing during a state of emergency without complying with restrictions in State law that would otherwise apply, provided that the policy bodies make certain findings at least once every 30 days. AB 361, codified at California Government Code Section 54953(e), empowers local policy bodies to convene by teleconferencing technology during a proclaimed state of emergency under the State Emergency Services Act in any of the following circumstances: (A) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing. (B) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. 1 Packet Pg. 5 Item No. 1. Page 2 of 3 (C) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, pursuant to subparagraph (B) (B), that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. (Gov. Code § 54953(e)(1).) In addition, Section 54953(e)(3) requires that policy bodies using teleconferencing reconsider the state of emergency within 30 days of the first teleconferenced meeting after October 1, 2021, and at least every 30 days thereafter, and find that one of the following circumstances exists: 1. The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person. 2. State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing. ANALYSIS Although conditions have changed since the beginning of 2022, staff believe it is still reasonable to find that the circumstances in Section 54953(e)(1)(A) exist. The Santa Clara County Health Officer continues to recommend measures to promote outdoor activity, physical distancing, and other social distancing measures, such as masking, in certain contexts. In addition, the California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) has promulgated Section 3205 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires most employers in California, including in the City, to train and instruct employees about measures that can decrease the spread of COVID-19, including physical distancing and other social distancing measures. Accordingly, Section 54953(e)(1)(A) authorizes the City to continue using teleconferencing for public meetings of its policy bodies, provided that any and all members of the public who wish to address the body or its committees have an opportunity to do so, and that the statutory and constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting via teleconferencing are protected. The City Attorney’s office recently provided an updated analysis to the City Council regarding the ability to meet remotely under the Brown Act. That analysis is available at packet page 150 of the City Council’s October 3, 2022 agenda document: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2022/20221003/20221003accsm-amended- 1 Packet Pg. 6 Item No. 1. Page 3 of 3 presentations.pdf Adoption of the Resolution in Attachment A will make the findings required by Section 54953(e)(3) to allow the continued use of teleconferencing for meetings of the Historic Resources Board and its committees. Report Author & Contact Information HRB[1] Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2336 amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org [1] Emails may be sent directly to the HRB using the following address: hrb@cityofpaloalto.org ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official 1 Packet Pg. 7 NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. ____ Resolution Making Findings to Allow Teleconferenced Meetings Under California Government Code Section 54953(e) R E C I T A L S A. California Government Code Section 54953(e) empowers local policy bodies to convene by teleconferencing technology during a proclaimed state of emergency under the State Emergency Services Act so long as certain conditions are met; and B. In March 2020, the Governor of the State of California proclaimed a state of emergency in California in connection with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) pandemic, and that state of emergency remains in effect; and C. In February 2020, the Santa Clara County Director of Emergency Services and the Santa Clara County Health Officer declared a local emergency, which declarations were subsequently ratified and extended by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, and those declarations also remain in effect; and D. On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, a bill that amends the Brown Act to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by teleconferencing during a state of emergency without complying with restrictions in State law that would otherwise apply, provided that the policy bodies make certain findings at least once every 30 days; and E. While federal, State, and local health officials emphasize the critical importance of vaccination and consistent mask-wearing to prevent the spread of COVID-19, the Santa Clara County Health Officer has issued at least one order, on August 2, 2021 (available online here), that continues to recommend measures to promote outdoor activity, physical distancing and other social distancing measures, such as masking, in certain contexts; and F. The California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) has promulgated Section 3205 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires most employers in California, including in the City, to train and instruct employees about measures that can decrease the spread of COVID-19, including physical distancing and other social distancing measures; and G. The Historic Resources Board has met remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic and can continue to do so in a manner that allows public participation and transparency while minimizing health risks to members, staff, and the public that would be present with in-person meetings while this emergency continues; now, therefore, 1 Packet Pg. 8 NOT YET APPROVED The Historic Resources Board RESOLVES as follows: 1. As described above, the State of California remains in a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. At this meeting, the Historic Resources Board considered the circumstances of the state of emergency. 2. As described above, State and County officials continue to recommend measures to promote physical distancing and other social distancing measures, in some settings. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That for at least the next 30 days, meetings of the Historic Resources Board and its committees will occur using teleconferencing technology. Such meetings of the Historic Resources Board and its committees that occur using teleconferencing technology will provide an opportunity for any and all members of the public who wish to address the body and its committees and will otherwise occur in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting via teleconferencing; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Historic Resources Board staff liaison is directed to place a resolution substantially similar to this resolution on the agenda of a future meeting of the Historic Resources Board within the next 30 days. If the Historic Resources Board does not meet within the next 30 days, the staff liaison is directed to place such resolution on the agenda of the immediately following meeting of the Historic Resources Board. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: Staff Liaison Chair of Historic Resources Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: City Attorney Department Head 1 Packet Pg. 9 Item No. 2. Page 1 of 1 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: January 12, 2023 TITLE Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments 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: 2023 HRB Meeting Schedule Assignments AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official 2 Packet Pg. 10 Historic Resources Board 2023 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2023 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/12/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 1/26/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/09/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/23/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/09/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/23/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/13/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/27/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/11/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/25/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/08/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/22/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/13/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/27/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/10/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/24/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/14/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/28/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/12/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/26/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/09/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/23/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Cancelled - Thanksgiving 12/14/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/28/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Cancelled - Christmas 2023 Subcommittee Assignments January February March April May June July August September October November December 2 Packet Pg. 11 Item No. 3. Page 1 of 13 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: January 12, 2023 TITLE 3200 Park Boulevard/200 Portage/340 Portage [Files 22PLN-00287 and 22PLN-00288]: Consideration of Sobrato Organization, LLC (Sobrato)’s Proposed Redevelopment of a 14.65- acre site at 200-404 Portage Avenue, 3040-3250 Park Boulevard, 3201-3225 Ash Street and 278 Lambert. The Project Includes the Partial Demolition of the Former Bayside Canning Company Building (340 Portage) Which is Eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The City Circulated A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 200 Portage Townhome Development Project (91 units) on September 16, 2022, per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR Comment Period Ended on November 15, 2022. The Proposed Development Agreement is Evaluated as Alternative 3 in the DEIR. Zoning District: RM-30 (Multi-Family Residential) and GM (General Manufacturing). This Hearing will Include Consideration of the Potential for Listing the Remaining Cannery Building/Site on the City’s Local Historic Resources Inventory. RECOMMENDATION (1) Discuss and provide input on the proposed Development Plan especially as it involves the retention of part of the former cannery building, determined eligible for the CRHR; (2) Discuss and provide feedback on the use of interpretive signage and public art to facilitate the community’s understanding of the historical event (cannery) and notable person (Thomas Foon Chew) associated with the former cannery building. (3) Discuss the potential for the site and the remainder of the former cannery building to be listed on the City’s Local Historic Resources Inventory. That is, assess whether the modified building would merit listing on the City’s local inventory historic category as a Category 3 or 4 resource, due to the criterion (events) under which the building was found CRHR-eligible. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In Fall 2022, the Sobrato Organization, LLC (Sobrato) submitted an application for a development agreement, rezoning, tentative map, and architectural review associated with redevelopment of the 14.65-acre site at 200-404 Portage Avenue, 3040-3250 Park Boulevard, 3201-3225 Ash Street and 278 Lambert. In the course of reviewing the application, staff have identified that a comprehensive plan amendment and subdivision map exceptions would also be required. The 3 Packet Pg. 12 Item No. 3. Page 2 of 13 project includes 74 townhome housing units that would take the place approximately 84,000 square feet (sf) of the historic cannery building at 200-404 Portage Avenue. The plans presented to the HRB for this hearing are the initial plan sets that were presented to staff; resubmittal is anticipated soon, but the plans had not been submitted as of the writing of this report. The intent of this hearing is to obtain: (1) feedback on the proposed development plan, particularly with respect to the modifications/treatment to the remaining cannery building; (2) feedback on opportunities the property owner could be exploring to convey important aspects of the site’s history (e.g., plaque, ideas for public art, etc.); and (3) consideration of whether the remaining cannery building merits listing on the City’s local register despite the loss of integrity for the California Register. The Historic Resource Evaluation and Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Analysis are included in this report (Attachments B and C, respectively). Staff will return to the HRB for a formal recommendation, and, if desired, a formal listing The Development Agreement (Attachment E), which includes the Development Schedule is not subject to the HRB’s purview; however, a draft of the agreement is provided for informational purposes. A summary of the project description and the proposed rezoning is summarized in the applicant’s Development Statement (Attachment D). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of a Development Agreement between the Sobrato Organization and the City to allow for the redevelopment of 14.65 acres located at 200-404 Portage Avenue, 3040- 3250 Park Boulevard, 3201-3225 Ash Street & 278 Lambert Avenue, as shown in the Location Map in Attachment A. The project would include partial demolition of an existing building, the former Bayside Canning Company building (a portion of which was more recently occupied by Fry’s electronics). The building has been found eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Key components of the Development Agreement include: •Construction of the parking garage to facilitate dedication of a ~3.25-acre BMR/parkland dedication parcel (including relocation of an existing above-ground powerline) •Removal of approximately 84,000 sf of the former cannery building; •Restoration/rehabilitation of the remaining portions of the former cannery building, retaining the same approximate floor area of existing R&D uses in the building and, establishing a new retail tenant space with outdoor seating area; •Merger and re-subdivision of the property into five parcels (remaining cannery, townhomes, Ash Building, Audi Building, and Below Market Rate (BMR)/parkland dedication parcel to facilitate the project, and dedication of that parcel to the City for affordable housing and park purposes; •Retention of the existing office uses of the Ash Building; •Conversion of the Audi Building from existing automotive uses to R&D use; •Development of 74 three- and four-bedroom market-rate townhomes; and •A ten-year term during which the City may not modify the zoning or approved uses of the site Links to the project plans (Development Plan) and the Draft EIR are included in Attachment H. 3 Packet Pg. 13 Item No. 3. Page 3 of 13 Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested and are subject to HRB’s purview: •Historic Review: The historic review requirements are set forth in PAMC Section 18.49.050. Historic Resources Board (HRB) review is required for exterior modifications to Inventory Category 1-4 structures Downtown, Professorville Historic District homes, and significant structures (Category 1s and 2s) elsewhere in the City. The HRB forwards its recommendation on such modifications to the City Council for final action. The following additional applications are being requested and are not subject to the HRB’s purview: •Planned Community Rezoning. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.38.065. Planned Community rezoning applications require review by the PTC and the Architectural Review Board, a final review of a development plan for review and recommendation by the PTC, and a decision by the Council. The findings under 18.38.060 must be made in the affirmative for project approval. •Development Agreement: The requirements for a development agreement are set forth in Resolution No. 7104 (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/cityclerk/resolutions/reso7104.pdf). A development agreement must specify its duration, the permitted uses of the property, applicable development standards, and any public benefits, including reservation of land for public purposes. A development agreement generally “freezes” local regulations as they exist on the date that the agreement is executed. Development agreements were created to provide developers with additional certainty that approval would not lapse or become subject to new regulations before a project could be built; for that reason, they are particularly suited for large development projects that may occur over several phases. Development agreements require PTC Review and Council approval, as well as the agreement of the developer. A development agreement is a legislative act that is approved by ordinance and is subject to referendum. •Comprehensive Plan Amendment: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.80.080. This type of legislative change requires a prescreening before Council, which has been completed. A request for a zoning text amendment requires at least one public hearing before the PTC and shall forward its recommendations to the City Council for final action. •Vesting Tentative Map with Exceptions: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and California Government Code 66474. The process for approval of a Vesting Tentative Map for a condominium subdivision is outlined in PAMC Sections 21.12.010 and 21.13.020. Vesting Tentative maps require Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review. The PTC reviews whether the amended subdivision is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act (in particular Government Code 66474), Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code 3 Packet Pg. 14 Item No. 3. Page 4 of 13 and State Law. The PTC’s recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for final approval. The current project description and Development Agreement do not reflect a proposal or mutual agreement to designate the remainder of the Cannery building or the Ash building on the City’s local register. However, staff is interested in the HRB’s feedback as to whether there is an interest in nomination of these buildings, as they will exist following completion of the proposed modifications, for Council’s consideration to add them to the local register as part of the project. No modifications are proposed to the Ash building; modifications to the cannery building are discussed further throughout the report. BACKGROUND On April 7, 2021, Sobrato submitted an SB 330 housing application to construct 91 townhomes, replacing approximately 84,000 square feet (sf) of the historic cannery building at 200-404 Portage Avenue (“200 Portage Townhome Project” or “SB 330 Housing Project”). At approximately the same time, the City and Sobrato were engaged in a dispute regarding permitted commercial uses within the cannery building. To facilitate a resolution to this dispute, the City Council established an ad hoc committee (Committee). The Committee’s purpose was to negotiate with Sobrato regarding the future development of a 14.65-acre property located at 200-404 Portage Avenue, 3040-3250 Park Boulevard, 3201-3225 Ash Street, and 278 Lambert Avenue, as shown in Attachment A. Following completion of the ad hoc committee negotiations, the proposed negotiated terms were presented to Council in a closed session on June 20 and 21, 2022. The City Council voted 7-0 to direct staff to prepare a tolling agreement that would suspend the processing of the pending SB 330 housing application. The suspension was to allow Sobrato to pursue a Development Agreement, based on general terms negotiated with the Committee, for the redevelopment of the 14.65-acre property. The City and Sobrato executed a tolling agreement in July 2022,1 and Council held a study session on August 1, 2022, to allow for public comment and Council input on the general terms of the Development Agreement. The City, acting as the lead agency in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), published a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) on September 16, 2022, for the 200 Portage (91 unit) Townhome Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2021120444). The Draft EIR evaluates the proposed redevelopment of the site in accordance with the Development Agreement as Alternative 3 in the environmental analysis. Both the proposed project and the Development Agreement Alternative would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on a historic resource. Planning and Transportation Commission 1 The executed Tolling and Process Agreement is available here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development-services/new- developmentprojects/200-portage/tolling-and-process-settlement-agreement.pdf 3 Packet Pg. 15 Item No. 3. Page 5 of 13 The PTC held study sessions on October 12, 20222 and October 26, 2022, to provide feedback on the proposed Development Agreement project and associated discretionary actions. The study session also allowed for public comments on the Draft EIR. Following these study sessions and the close of the public comment period of the Draft EIR, the PTC held a hearing on November 30, 2022, and recommended submittal of the proposed Development Plan to the ARB for formal review (5-1, Summa dissenting, Lauing recused). Staff included a summary of PTC comments on the project in the ARB staff report3 for the December 15, 2022, study session. Architectural Review Board In accordance with the Planned Community (PC) Zoning process (PAMC 18.38.065), the Architectural Review Board (ARB) provides a recommendation to Council on the Development Plans associated with a Planned Community Rezoning following an initial review by the PTC. In order to facilitate early comments from the ARB, two study sessions are planned. The first, held on December 15, 2022, focused on the townhome design. The second study session will be held on January 19, 2023 and will focus on the remaining cannery building and proposed adjacent parking garage. HRB comments from this hearing will be conveyed orally to the ARB at the beginning of the January 19th study session to help inform the ARB’s feedback on the design. The project will return to the ARB for a formal recommendation on the full scope of the proposed project in Spring 2023. Historic Resource Evaluation As part of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan process, the City retained Page & Turnbull to evaluate the subject property, which is within the NVCAP boundaries. The cannery building located at 200-404 Portage/3200 Park (commonly referred to as 340 Portage) and the office building at 3201-3225 Ash Street were deemed eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) at the local level of significance under Criterion 1 (events) for association with the history of the canning industry in Santa Clara County. A separate evaluation was completed for the 3040 Park building (which is currently on a separate parcel); the building was deemed ineligible for the CRHR or National Register of Historical Places (NRHP). The buildings were constructed as part of the former Bayside Cannery company, which was owned by a prominent Chinese immigrant and a groundbreaking figure in the canning industry, Thomas Foon Chew. Mr. Chew made the Bayside Canning Company the third largest fruit and vegetable cannery in the world in the 1920s, only behind Libby and Del Monte. The former cannery site was initially developed in April 1918 and expanded over the next several decades. The site operated as the Bayside 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 2 October 12, 2022, Planning and Transportation Commission report ID #14779: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/planning-and- transportation-commission/2022/ptc-10.12.2022-sobrato.pdf 3 December 15, 2022. Architectural Review Board Report ID #14861: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural- review-board/2022/arb-12.15.2022-3200-park.pdf 3 Packet Pg. 16 Item No. 3. Page 6 of 13 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 it does today. Following the closure of the cannery, the site has been occupied by extensive retailers Maximart and Fry’s Electronics as well as other Research and Development and warehouse uses. The 84,000 sf of retail space previously occupied by Fry’s is currently vacant. The proposed Development Agreement project (including the 74-townhome proposal), as well as the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project (91 units), would require demolition of a portion of the cannery building. This has been identified as a significant and unavoidable impact in the Draft EIR and would require the Council to adopt overriding considerations in order to approve either of these proposals. Local Inventory Process, Criteria for Listing, and Categories Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 16.49, Section 16.49.040 sets forth the procedure for designating properties to the City’s local historic inventory. This section notes: “Any individual or group may propose designation as a historic structure/site or district. Such proposals shall be reviewed by the historic resources board, which will make its recommendation to the council. Designation of a historic structure/site or district must be approved by the City Council.” The HRB may propose the designation of the old Bayside Canning Company building and associated Ash Street office building as historic structures or as a historic site and recommend that the city council approve the proposed designation. Section 16.49.040 item (b) Criteria for Designation sets forth the criteria for designating additional historic structures/sites or districts to the historic inventory. Of the six listed criteria, three italicized criteria appear relevant to the cannery building/site and the HRB may wish to discuss these criteria: (1) The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state or nation (2) The structure or site is particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state or nation (3) The structure or site is an example of a type of building, which was once common, but is now rare (4) The structure or site is connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare (5) The architect or building was important (6) The structure or site contains elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. PAMC Section 16.49.020 provides definitions of four categories of historic resources for listing in the City’s local historic inventory. Staff believes the former cannery building as is would not meet the definitions for ‘exceptional building’ (Category 1) or ‘major building’ (Category 2) historic resources. However, the HRB could consider designating the remaining cannery building as well 3 Packet Pg. 17 Item No. 3. Page 7 of 13 as the associated Ash office building as a local historic resource under Category 3 or 4, contributing structures, as discussed further below. ANALYSIS In coordination with Rincon Consultants, staff analyzed the proposed project for consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (SOI Standards). The proposed project demolishes a portion of the cannery building, makes modifications to the remaining cannery building and site, and constructs new improvements adjacent to the remaining building, including a new parking garage and 74 new townhome units. The Ash office building would remain, and no changes are proposed to that building. The cannery building would be remodeled in order to bring the building into conformance with modern building, green building, and fire codes for the proposed occupancy and in conformance with the city’s requirements for a substantial remodel. The existing building includes an area that would continue to be occupied by Playground Global at the west end of the building; this area includes the portion of the building constructed with concrete. Structural retrofit would occur between the monitor roofs on the east end of the remaining building and the area occupied by Playground global. This central area is clad with a corrugated metal exterior. The phasing plan in the appendices of Attachment C show the area to be demolished, area to be retained and area proposed for structural retrofit. Proposed Development Plan The proposed project includes modifications to the existing cannery building that would not be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation because it includes demolition of the eastern portion of the historic warehouse building, resulting in a loss of approximately 40 percent of the building. Accordingly, this is identified as a significant and unavoidable impact on a historic resource in the DEIR. In addition, this demolition could be considered to deprive the building of its historic integrity and it therefore may no longer be eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). However, a portion of the cannery building will remain and there has been expressed interest from Councilmembers and members of the public to treat the remainder of the building in accordance with the standards to the extent feasible. The goal of this would be to identify and retain features of the site that help to convey to the public its historic use and association with events of the past. Following is a summary of the character defining features of the building, information on the building’s historic status, and a summary of the findings of the SOI Standards analysis prepared by Rincon Consultants analyzing the proposed modifications. Character Defining Features Character-defining features of 340 Portage Avenue include, but are not limited to: ▪Form and massing: long, linear massing; composition of multiple smaller buildings; primarily one story, double-height volumes with taller central cannery section 3 Packet Pg. 18 Item No. 3. Page 8 of 13 ▪Varied roofs and structures: prominent paired monitor roofs; arched roofs; visible gable roofs ▪Exterior wall materials: reinforced, board formed concrete; corrugated metal cladding ▪Exterior cannery features: concrete loading platforms; cooling porch at rear of building; exterior shed awnings with wood post-and-beam construction ▪Fenestration: wood frame windows; garage door openings; wire glass skylights over former warehouses ▪Landscape features: preserved curved path of the removed railroad spur tracks, represented in the shape of parking lot pavement; channel of Matadero Creek ▪Interior features: exposed wood truss ceilings; wood and concrete post and beam construction; concrete floors The HRE did not prioritize the importance of these character-defining features. However, the south side of the building (facing the creek and Ash office building) is identified as the primary façade. Modifications that are more noticable to the primary façade or that make changes to features that convey the building’s historic use as a cannery are generally seen as more important to the building’s historic character. Interpretive Signage and Public Art The EIR identifies mitigation measures to reduce impacts on a historic resource to the extent feasible, even though impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, as discussed further in the environmental section of this report. In accordance with the mitigation measures, the applicant must provide a high-quality, on-site interpretive display in a publicly accessible location, preferably near or within a portion of the retained warehouse building at 340 Portage Avenue. The display must focus on the property’s history, particularly the agricultural past of Santa Clara County and the canning operations of Bayside Canning Company. The City’s public art requirements require that the applicant pay an in-lieu fee, currently estimated at $840,000, or provide public art on site in an equivalent amount. Staff recommends that Sobrato utilize the public art funds to create public art on site to celebrate the history of the events that surrounded this site as they relate to the canning industry and the broader cultural context of those events. As such, there may be some overlap between public art and materials provided to comply with the mitigation measures. However, the mitigation measure and public art requirements remain separate obligations that serve different primary functions. While public art is not necessarily required to relate to the history of the site, it is expected that any public art provided on site will contribute to conveying the history of the site. A hearing will be held with the Public Arts Commission (PAC) on January 19, 2023 in order to obtain initial feedback from the commission that will help to guide the creation of this art. Staff would return to the PAC once an artist has been hired and a conceptual design has been identified. Historic Status and Nomination to Local Inventory 3 Packet Pg. 19 Item No. 3. Page 9 of 13 Page & Turnbull evaluated the building and determined that the building was eligible for inclusion in the California Register under Criterion 1 (Events), as discussed in further detail above under the background section. The building is not listed on the City’s historic inventory currently. The applicant has not requested nomination to the City’s inventory. However, staff is interested in obtaining the HRB’s feedback on their potential interest in nominating this site for the local register even if it loses its integrity for the California Register. Older buildings that are partially demolished or substantially remodeled may still be eligible for listing on a local historic inventory, even when the integrity of the original building has been compromised. The City’s historic resources inventory includes such buildings as Category 3 and 4 resources. The process to list this property would be to obtain the HRB’s nomination of the property for the Council’s consideration. The HRB is requested to consider local inventory listing, not under the criterion of architecture, but under the criteria of events that qualified the building as eligible for CRHR listing. The HRB may consider a Category 3 or 4 resource classification. A Category 3 or 4 resource is afforded limited protection under the City’s Historic Preservation ordinance (Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.49) when outside of the Downtown area or a Historic District. But, as a resource on the City’s local register, further modifications to the remaining building or demolition would require evaluation in accordance with CEQA prior to any demolition or modifications that affect the exterior. The HRB is encouraged to discuss whether the remaining building would be worthy of nomination based on the proposed treatment, or with modifications to the proposed design. Staff believes the remaining building, as well as the associated historic Ash building could fit within the definition for a Category 3 or 4 resource otherwise known as a “contributing building.” The Category 3 or 4 resource includes “any building or group of buildings which are good local examples of architectural styles, and which relate 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.” Project’s Consistency with SOI Standards Attachment C includes an analysis, prepared by Rincon Consultants, of the project’s consistency with the Secretary of the Interiors Standards. As discussed above and in the SOI standards analysis, the proposed demolition of roughly 40 percent of the cannery building would not be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation of a Historic Resource. Therefore, the proposed project would not retain its integrity and would not remain eligible for the California Register if the Development Agreement proposal is approved and constructed. However, Councilmembers and the public have expressed an interest in conveying the history of the events of the site and the historic character of the remaining cannery building, regardless of whether it has lost its integrity for the California Register. The SOIS Analysis in Attachment C identifies modifications to the cannery building that are not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. These are summarized in Table 1. 3 Packet Pg. 20 Item No. 3. Page 10 of 13 Table 1: Summary of Recommendations for Cannery Building for Consistency with SOI Standards Design Element SOIS Analysis Recommendations Proposed Demolition Does not meet Standard 1, 2, 5, and 6 To conform with the Standards, the proposed design should be updated to retain the portions of the historic building proposed for demolition. Structural Retrofit Potential to not meet Standard 2 and 6. In order to conform with the Standards, care should be taken to retain historic materials. New Storefronts, Entries, and Canopies South Elevation Entries Does not meet Standard 2, 5, 6, or 9 The extant former loading door, identified as a character- defining feature, should be retained. New entries at the proposed amenity space addition should be revised to not overwhelm the historic portion of the building to be retained. The proposed use of corrugated metal on the proposed amenity space should be updated to a different, compatible material to clearly distinguish the original historic building and the proposed alteration. North Elevation Entries Does not meet Standard 2 or 9 The proposed new entries should be reduced in scale, and be pulled in at least one structural bay from each end of the character-defining roofline in order to retain more of the building materials and the building’s spatial relationship. The existing loading door should be retained and reused instead of introducing new entries in the same general location. Canopies Meets the Standards at new entries Does not meet Standard 2 or 5 The proposed removal of existing character-defining shed awnings should be retained instead of being replaced with new canopies. New Window Openings North and South Elevations Does not meet Standard 2, 3, 5, 6, or 9 It is recommended that the north and south window configuration be updated to no longer include the fixed windows that follow the slope of the roofline. East Elevation and Skylights Meets the Standards No recommendation Existing Window Treatment Meets the Standards In order to comply with Standards 2 and 5, original windows should be retained where condition allows. If windows are deteriorated beyond repair, they should be replaced with windows in kind. New windows should match the historic in configuration and profile and be manufactured in an appropriate replacement material. 3 Packet Pg. 21 Item No. 3. Page 11 of 13 Existing Exterior Cladding Material Meets the Standards In order to comply with Standards 2 and 5, cladding material should be retained where condition allows. If it is deteriorated beyond repair, it should be replaced with material in kind and match the historic material in color and composition. Rooflines Does not meet Standard 2, 5, 6, and 9 The proposed design should be revised to retain the varied rooflines. If structural updates are necessary to meet code requirements, the roof’s overall form should be retained and replaced in kind. Loading Platforms Does not meet Standard 2, 5, 6, and 9 The revised design should be updated to retain more of the loading platform, including the change in grade from the adjacent parking lot. New Construction Townhouses Meet the Standards No recommendations Garage Addition Meets the Standards It is recommended that the proposed use of corrugated metal on the garage addition be revised to a different, compatible material to make it readily distinguishable from the historic building The proposal presents a unique challenge in evaluating the important features to be retained in order to better convey the history of the site and modifications that ultimately create a better urban design that aligns with the proposed use of the space, particularly the proposed retail use. In addition, some of the modifications are necessary to meet current building, fire, and/or green building code requirements and some modifications may be more impactful than others with respect to the feature’s importance to the historic character of the building, and therefore may be more important to retain. Staff is seeking guidance from the HRB to help in determining whether modifications to the proposed design should be considered to retain certain historic features of the building even if it has lost its integrity, and which features should be prioritized. Based on discussions with the City’s consultant as well as Sobrato’s historic architect, staff believes that, at minimum, modifications should be considered to retain a portion of the loading platform on the north side of the building and the associated change in grade because it is a critical feature that conveys the historic use of the building. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The City has received significant input with respect to the project area as part of the NVCAP process, including from members of the public, recommending bodies, Council, and the NVCAP working group. That input informed the objectives identified for the NVCAP process as discussed above and included in Attachment F. As part of the Notice of Preparation for the Draft EIR, the City received comments from one individual and three agencies, the Native American Heritage Commission, California Department of Transportation, and County Department of Parks and Recreation. The Notice of Preparation and Comments on the Notice of Preparation are included in Appendix A of the Draft EIR. 3 Packet Pg. 22 Item No. 3. Page 12 of 13 The Council study session on August 1, 2022, served as the prescreening meeting required for a proposed development agreement and legislative changes, including Planned Community rezoning and a Comprehensive Plan amendment, in accordance with PAMC Chapter 18.79. The session provided an opportunity for initial comments on the general development terms and public benefits. Public comments received during that study session were summarized in previous PTC staff reports as well as the August 15, 2022 report to the ARB. PTC comments from the November 30, 2022 study session were summarized in the August 15th ARB staff report. The comment period for the Draft EIR ended on November 15, 2022. In addition to comments received prior to and during the PTC hearing, the City received written comments from Valley Water, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the property owner, and six individuals. These comments are included in Attachment G. The City will provide written responses to all oral and written comments on the Draft EIR in the Final EIR. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The City, acting as the lead agency in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), published a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) on September 16, 2022, for the 200 Portage (91 unit) Townhome Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2021120444). The Draft EIR evaluates the proposed redevelopment of the site in accordance with the Development Agreement as Alternative 3 in the environmental analysis. Staff provided a link to the Draft EIR to members of the City Council, the HRB, and other City boards/com/commissions, to enable comments on the document during the public comment period. The PTC also held two study sessions to allow for opportunity for oral comment during the DEIR comment period. A link to the Draft EIR is available in Attachment H. The Development Agreement, as well as the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project, would require the demolition of a portion of the cannery building. This has been identified as a significant and unavoidable impact in the Draft EIR and will require Council adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. In addition, although mitigation would not reduce impacts to a less than significant level, two mitigation measures were identified to reduce impacts on the historic resource. CR-1 Building Recordation: Impacts resulting from the partial demolition of the warehouse building at 200 Portage Avenue, also known as 340 Portage Avenue, shall be minimized through archival documentation of as-built and as-found condition. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the lead agency shall ensure that documentation of the buildings and structures proposed for demolition is completed that follows the general guidelines of Historic American Building Survey (HABS)- Level III documentation. The documentation shall include high resolution digital photographic recordation, a historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation shall be completed by a qualified architectural historian or historian who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History and/or Architectural History. The original archival-quality documentation shall be offered as donated material 3 Packet Pg. 23 Item No. 3. Page 13 of 13 to repositories that will make it available for current and future generations. Archival copies of the documentation also would be submitted to the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Public Library, where it would be available to local researchers. Completion of this mitigation measure shall be monitored and enforced by the City of Palo Alto. CR-2 Interpretive Display: Impacts resulting from the partial demolition of the warehouse building at 200 Portage Avenue, also known as 340 Portage Avenue, shall be minimized through the installation of a high-quality, on-site interpretive display in a publicly- accessible location, preferably near or within a portion of the retained warehouse building at 200 Portage Avenue at the applicant’s expense. The display could focus on the property’s history, particularly the agricultural past of Santa Clara County and the canning operations of Bayside Canning Company. The interpretive display should be prepared by a professional exhibit designer and historian; historic information contained in Page & Turnbull’s HRE can serve as the basis for the interpretive display. The goal of the interpretive display would be to educate the public about the property’s historic themes and associations within broader cultural contexts. The content of the display shall be approved by the Director of Planning & Development Services or designee. Adaptive Reuse Alternative The Draft EIR also evaluates an alternative that retains the entirety of the existing building and reuses the existing building to provide up to 281 units for housing, consistent with Council’s preferred Alternative for the NVCAP as it relates to this portion of the plan area. This alternative assumed that an additional floor would need to be added to the building in order to accommodate the proposed number of units. This alternative was identified as the environmentally superior alternative because it did not involve demolition of a portion of the building and it involved less construction and demolition, which in turn, reduced short-term construction emissions and other impacts related to construction. However, the EIR still concluded that this alternative would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on a historic resource because without project plans and further evaluation of the modifications that would be necessary to meet current code requirements to accommodate a residential use, it is unclear whether this alternative could be realized in a manner that is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. Report Author & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner (650) 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org HRB Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official 650-329-2336 Amy.French@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 24 24 10 4 24 24 24 24 2 FOR_MIXEDUSE_HOTEL_USES_3200_ECR_PAMC20_08_20 PARKING GARAGE 199.7' 149.7' 65.6' 149.7' 65.7' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 166.4' 32.5' 1.9' 108.2' 6.6' 270.2' 100.0' 149.8' 150.0' 149.8' 150.0' 100.0' 40.0' 149.7' 200.0' 150.0' 199.7' 10.0' 49.9' 150.0' 4 150.0' 49.9' 200.0' 200.0' 198.3' 100.0' 199.7' 98.9' 148.9' 71.4' 179.8' 75.8' 199.4' 98.2' 144.3' 58.1' 68.3' 90.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 50.0' 199.7' 276.0' 100.0' 242.1' 29.5' 54.7' 26.3' 49.9' 200.0' 200.0' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 105.0' 25.0' 105.0' 25.0' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 9.8' 69.0' 4.6' 45.4' 78.8' 50.0' 75.0'105.0' 75.0'105.0' 105.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 90.0' 55.0' 120.0' 25.0' 47.1' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 25.0' 120.0' 25.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 44.0' 120.0' 44.0' 120.0' ' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 56.0' 120.0' 56.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 45.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 28.8' 105.0' 28.8' 105.0' 25.0' 105.0' 25.0' 105.0' 78.8' 55.0' 78.8' 55.0' 50.0' 51.6' 3.4'.1'.1'.4' 49.5' 105.0' 50.0' 55.0' 120.0' 25.0' 47.1' 90.0' 90 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 50.0' ' 120.0' 55.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 12 120.0' 120.0' 50.0' 47.1' 90.0' 80.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 40.0' 120.0' 40.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 45.0' 120.0' 45.0' 120.0' 120.0' 45.0' 120.0 120.0' 45.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 60.0' 120.0' 65.0' 120.0' 65.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 60.0' 55.0' 30.0' 47.1' 25.0' 60.0' 55.0' 60.0' 55.0' 120.0' 52.0' 120.0' 52.0' 90.0' 47.1' 25.0' 120.0' 55.0' 120.0' 63.0' 120.0' 63.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 115.7' 119.7' 115.7' 139.5' 50.0' 139.5' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 567.5' 754.2' 570.4' 755.8' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 66.9' 200.0' 66.9' 200.0' 233.0' 282.3' 116.5' 151.0' 143.4' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 55.4' 116.5' 55.4' 116.5' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 120.0' 75.0'120.0' 75.0' 120.0' 75.0'120.0' 75.0' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 137.6' 158.7' 39.0' 88.7' 78.0' 7.3' 50.1' 94.5' 50.0' 98.9' 50.1' 98.9' 50.0' 103.2' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 98.6' 24.1' 67.5'105.0' 121.4' 105.0' 47.0' 105.0' 47.0' 105.0' 75.0'105.0' 75.0' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 53.0' 91.0' 54.7' 81.5' 85.9' 49.9' 81.5' 49.8' 90.2' 50.1' 85.9' 50.0' 94.5' 50.1' 90.2' 50.0' 80.2' 103.2' 79.9' 110.2' 116.5' 49.2' 116.5' 49.2' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 134.7' 115.6' 55.3' 65.0' 79.4' 60.3' 79.4' 52.7'95.9' 50.0' 95.9' 51.8' 109.3' 50.0' 109.3' 51.1' 119.7' 50.0' 119.3' 55.3' 105.6' 119.7 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.6' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 32.0' 17.5' 34.6' 97.9' 165.0' 137.0' 163.0' 138.8' 20.3' 19.0'17.0' 17.0' 101.7' 113.0' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5'60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 48.7' 134.5' 48.7' 134.5'48.8' 134.5' 48.8' 134.5'48.8' 134.5' 48.7' 134.5' 60.0' 269.0' 60.0' 269.0' 170.0' 67.3' 170.0' 67.3' 75.0' 134.5' 75.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 50.0' 134.5' 90.0' 67.8'90.0' 67.8' 90.0' 66.7'90.0' 66.7' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 31.0' 134.5' 31.0' 134.5' 59.0' 134.5' 59.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 52.5' 134.5' 52.5' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 98 120.0' 29.6' 33.1' 50.0' 120 50.0' 50.0' 100.4' 50.0 52.3' 100.4' 54.0' 91.0' 52.5' 134.5' 52.5' 134.5' 52.5' 134.5' 52.5' 75.0' 134.5' 149.5' 75.0' 149.5' 12.0' 252.5' 142.5' 9.0' 281.1' 60.0' 134.5'0.0'45.0'134.5 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5'134.5' 30.0' 134.5'134.5' 70.0' 60.0' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 45.0' 134.5' 35.0' 134.5' 35.0' 134.5' 35.0' 134.5' 35.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 65.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 90.0' 44.8' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'134.5' 60.0' 60.0' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 6 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 70.0' 134.5' 50.0' 119.7' 65.7' 119.7' 65.6' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7'119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 47.9' 150.0' 9' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 200.0' 72.6' 200.0' 72.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.7' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.7' 28.8' 36.8' 498.2' 4.0' 60.0' 54.0' 105.0' 50.0' 221.4' 221.4' 6.2'10 76.4' 186.2' 186.2' 159.0' 159.0'159.0' 159.0' 98.0' 98.0'159.0'159.0'159.0' 159.0' 24.6' 24.6' 77.9' 77.9' 159.0' 159.0' 91.7' 91.7' 75.0'52.3' 170.0' 60.5' 134.5' 134.5' 48.8' 48.8' 67.9' 67.9' 90.0' 90.0'90.0' 90.0' 66.7' 66.7' 148.7' 51.0' 51.0' 148.7' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 150.0' 150.0' 99.8' 99.8' 199.7' 165.4 85.1 34.6 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 149.7' 149.7' 149.7' 115.7' 165.7' 100.0'50.0' 85.1 199.7' 149.7' 250.0' 151.5' 275.2' 14.4' 108.7' 108.7' 52.8' 52.8' 98.8' 67.2' 166.4' 166.4' 30.0' 30.0' 18.0' 18.0' 275.2' 185.2' 190.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 250.0' 20.0' 20.0' 78.5'78.5' 5.8' 500 50.0' 120.0' 50.0' 90.0' 47.1' 25.0' 450.4' 263.1' 452.' 223.8' 223.8'292.1' 198.4'291.2' 370.9' 188.2' 427.3' 13.9' 56.2' 123.4' 164.9 199.7 109.85' 458.75' 239.70' 150.05' 129.85' 308.64' 129.85' 102.65' 129.85' 102.56 129.85' 205.99' 129.85' 206.05' 478.7' 109.8' 150.0' 21.8' 109.8' 19.8' 38.4' 38.4' 15.1' 15.1' 43.1' 47.3' 50.2' 133.3' 49.2' 49.2' 92.2'92.2' 116.5'116.5' 110.8' 78.3' 22.4' 35.9' 45.0'134.5' 60.0' 60.0' 134.5' 134.5 30.0' 134.5' 30.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5' 134.5' 60.0' 134.5'134.5 60.0' 0.0' 3150 3170 3200 447 452- 460 448 418 440 434 420 429 439 379 3550 369 411 399 283 3159 411 435 3250425 435 3200 455 460 3200 3201 395 385 375 450 430 268 274 325 3421 284 3394 320 358 356 401 411 425 320 3290 300 280 271 261 251 231 221 211 201 210 220 230 241 231 221 3300211 291 3101 210 365 345 315 305 295 285 245 265 275 3040 3045 395 178 2822 2832 2840 2858 130 120 110 2800 2876 2886 2896 2906 2914 2920 2891 2831- 2835 2901- 2907 2893- 2899 231 3401 3395 3389 3389A 2931 2905 2904 2898 2 3381 2865 195 2619 2621 2631- 2639 2640 2666 2676 2690 2698 2704 2730 2746 180 190 2820 198189 2791 2643- 2651 2701 2705 2707 2709 2711 2715 287 2825 2830 2843 2859 2819 282 250 412 420 430 440 450 451 441 431 421 411 2904 456 470 2999 3128 3225 400 620 441 445 3250 286 7 286 9 277 7 265 3 - 266 1 252 3360 3215 3275 27 410 299 9 3348 3333 3201 3051 290 292 2687 3260 3265 3225 3239 3255 3295 455 3305 3337 3339 415 409 416 424 421 435 441 337-343 345-351 417 415 389 380 293 405 397 391 370 380 390 400 451 441 431 421 411 405 399 400 360 381 3420 350 3370 307 355 365 3395 281 3350 281 289 260 252 315 309 268 270 3275 3261 3251 220 230 336 340 370 380 3396 230 250 240 264 260 274 290 270 271 260 281 255 250 3371 3363 3357 3341 3350 3346 279 9 149 129 278 0 276 6 3197 272 5 - 2741 274 5 - 2757 277 3 - 2781 400408 179 281 7 282 9 281 1 284 5 288 8 287 6 286 0 287 5 289 5 286 1 284 4 288 9 3291 3241 282 1 - 2825 281 1 - 2815 287 7 - 2885 287 1 286 5 285 7 - 2863 284 1 - 2845 101-107 109-115 3410 253 253A275 242 2 260 9 - 261 1 259 2599 261 5 - 261 7 279 6 278 6 276 0 274 0 277 7 275 1 274 1 2741A 273 1 272 1 271 1 269 7 267 3 - 268 1 272127192717 271 0 268 9 2691 2693 2695 2830 461 3017 3001 412 200 2747 2785 2917 3127 3111 3333 440 3180 360 200 429 3390 3335 3360 3335 220 2858 3101 3160 278 419 FERNANDO AVENUE LAMBERT AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL ANSEN WAY EL DORA EL DORAD O AVENUE RAMONA STREET EMERSON STREET MARGARITA AV FERNANDO AVENUE LAMBERT AVENUE CHESTNUT AVENUE ASH STREET BIRCH STREET BIRCH STREET PARK BOULEVARD PARK BOULEVARD ALMA STREET ALMA STREET ACACIA AVENUE PORTAGE AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE ASH STREET ALMA STREET ORINDA STREET PAGE MILL RO AD PAGE MILL ROAD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL RM-30 -2952 PF RM- PF RM-30 R-1 R-2 GM M-30 RM-20 CS CS ROLM GM GM GM (AD) CS (AD) CS John Boulware Park Park Blvd Substation Parcels merged for condos Aug 2016 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Development Agreement Project Area 0'293' Attachment A: Development Agreement Area (14.65 acres) CITYOF PALO ALTOI N C O R P O R A T E D CAL I F OR N I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f A P R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2022-09-30 12:29:30 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 3 Packet Pg. 25 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 FEBRUARY 26, 2019 3 Packet Pg. 26 3 Packet Pg. 27 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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 3 Packet Pg. 28 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 29 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 30 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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). 3 Packet Pg. 31 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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 3 Packet Pg. 32 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 33 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 34 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 35 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 36 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 37 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 38 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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 3 Packet Pg. 39 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 40 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 41 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 42 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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). 3 Packet Pg. 43 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 44 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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 55). This building appears to have been built as an office for the cannery operations at 340 Portage Avenue. 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. 3 Packet Pg. 45 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 46 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 47 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. Clair 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. 3 Packet Pg. 48 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 49 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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 The Rancho Rinconada del Arroyo de San Francisquito encompassed more than 2,200 acres and covered all of the original Palo Alto town site. The northern boundary of the rancho was defined by San Francisquito Creek, while the southwestern boundary was located near El Camino Real, and the southeastern boundary lay parallel to the current-day Embarcadero Road.5 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. 4 “Palo Alto, California,” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California#cite_note-12. 5 Ward Winslow and the Palo Alto Historical Association, Palo Alto: A Centennial History (Palo Alto Historical Association: Palo Alto, CA, 1993), 16-17. 6 “Mayfield,” Palo Alto Wiki. Website accessed 11 June 2013 from: http://www.paloaltowiki.org/index.php/Mayfield 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. 3 Packet Pg. 50 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 2019 - 23 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. 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 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 7 “Palo Alto, California,” Wikipedia. Website accessed 11 June 2013 from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Alto,_California 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 3 Packet Pg. 51 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 52 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 53 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 54 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 55 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 56 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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 ▪ Installing a 50-ton, 60-foot scale in front of the new loading platform “being erected” on Portage Avenue 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. 3 Packet Pg. 57 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 2019 - 30 - Page & Turnbull, Inc. ▪ 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. Bordering it to the south, along First Street, was a one-story office building. 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. 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. 3 Packet Pg. 58 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 59 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 60 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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 WSP 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. 3 Packet Pg. 61 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 62 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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 3 Packet Pg. 63 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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 3 Packet Pg. 64 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 65 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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/ 3 Packet Pg. 66 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 67 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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, peaches, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 68 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 69 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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.” 3 Packet Pg. 70 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 71 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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 3 Packet Pg. 72 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 73 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 74 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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, 3 Packet Pg. 75 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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 3 Packet Pg. 76 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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 3 Packet Pg. 77 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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). 3 Packet Pg. 78 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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 2007. 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). 3 Packet Pg. 79 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 80 Historic Resource Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue Palo Alto, California February 26, 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. 3 Packet Pg. 81 417 S. Hill Street, Suite 211 Los Angeles, California 90013 213.221.1200 / 213.221.1209 fax 2401 C Street, Suite B Sacramento, California 95816 916.930.9903 / 916.930.9904 fax 417 Montgomery Street, 8th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415.362.5154 / 415.362.5560 fax ARCHITECTURE PLANNING & RESEARCH PRESERVATION TECHNOLOGY www.page-turnbull.com 3 Packet Pg. 82 Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 510 834 4455 OFF IC E info@rinconconsultants.com www.rinconconsultants.com E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s December 14, 2022 Project No: 21-11331 Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 via email: Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Analysis Update – Revised 200 Portage Avenue Condominium Project, Palo Alto, California Dear Ms. Raybould: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) was retained by the City of Palo Alto (City) to conduct a historical resources impacts analysis for a project at 3200 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, California. The proposed project involves the demolition of a portion of the existing commercial building at 200 Portage Avenue, originally built for the Bayside Canning Company beginning in 1918. The property, inclusive of the warehouse building and related office building located at 3201-3225 Ash Street, was evaluated in a Historical Resources Evaluation (HRE) by Page & Turnbull on behalf of the City of Palo Alto in February 2019 and recommended eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) at the local level under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with the canning industry in Santa Clara County. Therefore, the property is considered a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Rincon prepared a Historical Resources Assessment and Impacts Finding Memorandum for the proposed project in February 2022, and found that the proposed project, which included demolition of approximately 40 percent of the warehouse building would constitute material impairment to the historical resource, and would not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards). The memorandum further found that several elements of the treatment for the portion of the warehouse building proposed to be retained were inconsistent with the Standards due to the planned removal of distinctive and character-defining features that characterize the property (Attachment 1). Rincon’s February 2022 memorandum prepared for the purposes of the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project (which included a 91-unit townhome development) analyzed impacts of that proposed project on the identified historical resource. This memorandum analyzes the proposed Development Agreement alternative, which includes further modifications to the cannery building as well as the addition of a parking garage at the rear of the property. This assessment considers how the proposed modifications under the Development Agreement Alternative conforms to the Standards and provides recommendations, where appropriate, on how the modified design can more successfully adhere to the Standards.1 Methods for the current assessment included a review of Development Agreement project plans as well as a memorandum 1 Pursuant to Section 15064.5(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, projects that comply with the Standards are generally considered to mitigate impacts to historical resources to a less than significant level. 3 Packet Pg. 83 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project Page 2 completed by the project applicant’s historic consultant, Architectural Resources Group (ARG) in July 2022, which provided guidelines for the treatment of the property intended to be incorporated into the Development Agreement for the property (Attachment 2). It also included review of a phasing plan the project applicant submitted to the city in December 2022 (Attachment 3). This review was also informed by guidance documents from National Park Service, including a series of documents published by the Technical Preservation Services division called “Interpreting the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation” (ITS). The Rincon team included Architectural Historian JulieAnn Murphy, who served as primary author of this memorandum. Senior Architectural Historian and Program Manager Steven Treffers and Principal Shannon Carmack provided oversight and assisted with the analysis. Ms. Murphy, Mr. Treffers, and Ms. Carmack meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (PQS) for architectural history and history (26 CFR Part 61). Brief Project Description As described in the February 2022 memo, the project site encompasses approximately 14.27 acres across four parcels (Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 132-38-071, 132-32-036, 132-32-042, and 132-32-043) that would be developed with 91 new condominium townhouse units and associated site improvements. To accommodate the proposed residential development, a portion of the historic warehouse building would be demolished. The portion of the warehouse building proposed to be retained would be updated for retail and Research and Development uses and updated to comply with the current building and green building codes, a requirement under state law and the City’s municipal code for substantial modification of a commercial building. Proposed improvements would include modifications to existing entries and windows, replacement of corrugated metal siding, new storefront windows and skylights, new canopy awnings at entries, and floorplan modifications at building’s southeast and northeast elevations for a new amenity space. The retained warehouse portion would be connected to a two-story parking garage addition at its north elevation. Brief Property Background and Chronology As described in the HRE prepared by Page & Turnbull, the oldest portions of the warehouse building were constructed in 1918 for the Bayside Canning Company, which was owned by Chinese immigrant and prominent canning mogul, Thomas Foon Chew. After Chew’s death, the cannery was subsequently purchased and operated for more than 20 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 warehouse building. 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 property had a number of owners following Sutter Packing Company including the following: Safeway (1946-1949); unknown (1949-1978); WSJ Properties (c. 1978-1998); Unknown (c.1998-2002); Robert Wheatley Properties (c. 2002-2010); and the Sobrato Organization (Present). A number of different tenants occupied the portion of the warehouse building proposed to be retained during the years following Sutter Packing’s closure including Basket Galleria, Inc., MaxiMart, and most recently Playground Global and Nauto. A portion of the building proposed to be retained as well as a portion of which would be demolished was last occupied by Fry’s Electronics. 3 Packet Pg. 84 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project Page 3 The period of significance of the property, including the warehouse building, 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. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards The Standards provide guidance on the preservation and protection of historic properties and make broad-brush recommendations for maintaining, repairing, and replacing historic materials, as well as designing new additions or making alterations. They cannot, in and of themselves, be used to make essential decisions about which features of a historic property should be saved and which might be changed. Rather, they provide philosophical consistency to the work.2 There are Standards for four distinct, but related, approaches to the treatment of historic properties: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. The Rehabilitation Standards are the appropriate treatment standards for this analysis because the proposed project involves the new use of a historic building. Furthermore, only Rehabilitation Standards allow alterations and the construction of new additions, if necessary for a historic building’s continued or new use.3 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation state: 1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships. 2. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided. 3. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken. 4. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved. 5. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved. 6. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence. 7. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used. 2 Anne E. Grimmer and Kay D. Weeks, “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings,” National Park Service, 2017, 3. 3 National Park Service, “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: Rehabilitation as a Treatment and Standards for Rehabilitation, https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/treatment- standards-rehabilitation.htm, access November 10, 2022. 3 Packet Pg. 85 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project Page 4 8. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken. 9. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment. 10. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in a such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired. Character-Defining Features The intent of the Standards is to provide for the long-term preservation of a property’s significance through the preservation of its historic materials and features. These historic materials and features are commonly referred to as character-defining features and are indispensable in a historic property’s ability to convey the reasons for its historical significance. The warehouse building at 200 Portage is significant for its association with the canning industry in Santa Clara County. As such, its character-defining features relate to its representation of its industrial canning history, and include the following, as identified in the HRE prepared by Page & Turnbull: ▪ Form and massing  Long, linear massing  Composition of multiple smaller buildings  Primarily one story, double-height volumes with taller central cannery section ▪ Varied roofs and structures  Prominent paired monitor roofs  Arched roofs  Visible gable roofs ▪ Exterior wall materials  Reinforced, board formed concrete  Corrugated metal cladding ▪ Exterior cannery features  Concrete loading platforms  Cooling porch at rear of building  Exterior shed awnings with wood post-and-beam construction ▪ Fenestration  Wood frame windows  Garage door openings  Wire glass skylights over former warehouses ▪ Landscape features  Preserved curved path of the removed railroad spur tracks, represented in the shape of parking lot pavement 3 Packet Pg. 86 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project Page 5  Channel of Matadero Creek ▪ Interior features  Exposed wood truss ceilings  Wood and concrete post and beam construction  Concrete floors To ensure a proposed project’s compliance with the Standards, a historic property’s character-defining features should be preserved as part of the final design. In rehabilitation, historic building materials and character-defining features are protected and maintained as they are in the Preservation Standards. However, greater latitude is given in rehabilitation to replace extensively deteriorated, damaged, or missing features using the same or compatible substitute materials. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Analysis The following presents an analysis of the proposed project’s modified design’s adherence to the applicable Rehabilitation Standards by proposed scope item. Proposed Demolition The Development Agreement Alternative proposes to demolish the eastern portion of the historic warehouse building, resulting in a loss of approximately 40 percent of the building, consistent with the 200 Portage Avenue (91 Unit) Townhome Project. As discussed in the February 2022 analysis, the demolition of the building would not be consistent with the Standards which recommends avoiding loss of historic materials through demolition and removal and encourages the retention of distinctive materials that characterize a property. The proposed demolition would cause a loss of several of the property’s character-defining features outlined above, including its form and massing and varied roof forms and structures. The modified design for the proposed project, similar to the Townhome Project, would still be inconsistent with Standard 1, 2, 5, and 6. Structural Retrofit In November 2022 the project applicant provided clarification to City staff that a portion of the building between the tenant space for Playground global and west of the monitor roofs may require further modifications than originally anticipated. The phasing plan reflects that this area would be rehabilitated. However, the applicant has indicated that the extant roof would require complete reconstruction, discussed in more detail below, to accommodate the weight of required solar panels and HVAC equipment upgrades. To allow for the upgrades, the applicant would install an interior support to stabilize the exterior walls while this work is completed. The exterior walls are corrugated metal, much of which has deteriorated over time. The applicant is proposing a salvage study to determine whether any of the exterior material could be retained, or whether replacement with like material is necessary. Ultimately, if the material must be replaced, these modifications may be more extensive than originally anticipated. Ultimately, these additional modifications necessary to accommodate structural upgrades, which could amount to demolition depending on how much of the exterior could actually be retained, and could potentially be inconsistent with Standard 2 and 6. 3 Packet Pg. 87 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project Page 6 New Storefronts, Entries and Canopies The proposed modified design includes new storefront entries at the north and south elevations. Storefront entries will be topped with flat, metal canopies at select locations on the north and south elevations. South Elevation Entries The building’s south elevation ground floor openings are proposed to be updated. Existing openings at the west end of the elevation will be retained, while all other existing openings are proposed to be removed. The HRE identified the south elevation as the primary, or most important, elevation. The central portion of this elevation’s bays are proposed to receive five fully glazed storefront systems, two of which will feature single-entry glazed doors. One of the character-defining features identified for the building were the garage doors at former loading bays, one of which is present on the south elevation. As described in the National Park Service’s guidance document ITS Number 16: New Infill for Historic Loading Door Openings, retaining loading doors in buildings such as warehouses and other industrial and manufacturing buildings is important for maintaining the historic character of these structures.4 The current modified design, which proposes to remove the former loading entry does not meet Standard 2, 5, 6, or 9. In order to fully meet the Standards, the design should be refined to retain the existing openings, inclusive of the intact roll-up doors. The final bays, below the monitor roof portion of the building are proposed to include two entries within a new amenity space that will be established by enclosing the area below the existing canopy at the west end of the elevation and include a one-story portion at the east end of the elevation. One portion of the proposed amenity space would extend for two stories, ending below the monitor roof portion of the building and feature a double-height storefront system and a paired door entry. It would extend to a one-story portion at the building’s corner and would feature a storefront system with a second, paired entry, and both would be clad in a new, corrugated exterior material. Rehabilitation of buildings allows for additions and alterations for new uses, but encourages preservation or minimal change to primary elevations, as provided in NPS Preservation Brief 14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns.5 When additions cannot be added to a secondary elevation, additions and alterations to primary elevations should be designed to be compatible with the historic building and should not become the primary focus. This can be achieved by being designed in the appropriate scale and should be visually distinguishable from the historic building. The alterations for the proposed new amenity space at the south elevation do not meet Standard 9. The proposed change materially alters the remaining historic elevation. The modified design should be revised to not include a substantial alteration to the primary elevation. It should not obscure the historic building proposed to be retained. Additionally, and as noted in the HRE, the building’s corrugated metal exterior is a character-defining feature. It is recommended that the proposed use of corrugated metal on the substantially altered portion of the building be revised to a different, compatible material to clearly distinguish the original historic building and the later modifications. 4 Kaaren R. Staveteig, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, ITS Number 2: New Infill for Historic Garage Openings, 1999. 5 Anne E. Grimmer and Kay D. Weeks, National Park Service, Preservation Brief 14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns, 2010. 3 Packet Pg. 88 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project Page 7 North Elevation Entries The north elevation’s ground floor openings will be updated for the proposed new use. The existing paired and single door below the monitor roof portion of the building will be removed. The remaining paired entries to the west of the monitor roof portion of the building will also be removed, while the single entry, final paired entry, and what appear to be existing storefronts at the southernmost portion of the building will be retained. New, fully glazed storefront systems with three entries will be installed in and area below monitor roofs at the first floor. The elevation will continue with three new storefront systems with full-height glazing at the first floor and a transom above. The final bay of the grouping will feature a central, paired entry. The proposed design for the remainder of the elevation appears to be retain the existing configuration. As described in NPS ITS Number 22: Adding New Entrances to Historic Buildings, in order to meet the Standards, new entrances should be simple in design, should not appear historic, should blend in with the historic façade, and should be modestly scaled.6 The proposed storefront entries below the monitor roof portions of the building would result in the removal of the corrugated exterior that characterizes the property. The installation of expanses of glazing in new openings would result in the loss of historic material and create visual access to the interior of the building that did not historically exist. The proposed openings do not meet Standard 2 or 9. In order to more successfully meet the Standards, proposed new entries at these locations should be reduced in scale, and be pulled in at least one structural bay from each end of the character-defining roofline in order to retain more of the historic materials the building’s spatial relationship. Similarly, the large full-length glazing proposed at the remainder of the elevation do not meet Standard 2 or 9 and should be reconfigured. Current site conditions not reflected in the most current plan set show that an existing loading door opening is present in portion of the elevation. As discussed above, existing garage doors were identified as one of the building’s character-defining features related to its historic use as a cannery. In order to adhere to the Standards more closely, the design should be updated to retain and reuse the existing framed opening instead of introducing three new openings. Canopies The proposed metal canopies at new entries are simple in design, consistent with building’s historic industrial character and generally meet the Standards. However, the proposed removal of existing character-defining shed awnings with post and beam construction does not meet Standard 2 or 5. Shed awnings should be retained instead of being replaced with new canopies. Where shed canopies are deteriorated beyond repair, they should be replaced in kind instead of receiving a new canopy design. New Window Openings To accommodate the new use, several new window openings are proposed for the warehouse building at the north, south, and east elevation. 6 Anne Grimmer, Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service, ITS Number 22: Adding New Entrances to Historic Buildings, 2001. 3 Packet Pg. 89 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project Page 8 North and South Elevations At the building’s north and south elevations, new windows are proposed at double-height portion of the warehouse, below the distinctive, character-defining monitor roofs. Windows at the north elevation will include a central, fixed widow, each flanked by fixed windows with sloped openings, following the shape of the roofline. Windows at the south elevation will mimic what is proposed at the north elevation on one bay and will include a double-height storefront glazing system at the adjacent bay. While rehabilitating historic buildings for new uses occasionally requires creating new window openings, the proposed location, design, and materials have to be consistent with the historic character of the building in order to meet the Standards. The windows proposed for the north and south elevations are not consistent with the building’s historic, industrial character. As explained in NPS ITS Number 14: New Openings in Secondary Elevations or Introducing New Windows in Blank Walls, introducing new windows must not make a strong architectural statement as to radically change the appearance of the building or overwhelm the composition of the historic façade.7 The scale, number, and placement of proposed windows makes a strong architectural statement that is incompatible with the historic character of the simple, industrial building and is therefore inconsistent with Standards 2, 5, and 9. Furthermore, the proposed new window openings at the north and south elevations, would introduce an embellishment to an otherwise simple façade that is not substantiated by historical evidence. Per guidance in NPS ITS Number 38: Alterations without Historical Basis, when there is no record of the historic appearance of a building, the rehabilitation should take into consideration its historic use and remaining evidence to design a compatible new or replacement feature.8 One available photograph from the building’s period of significance (1918-1949) was uncovered by Page & Turnbull during the preparation of the HRE. That photograph of what appears to be building’s south elevation shows that the building’s historic window configuration included a punched window opening below the monitor roof and some band windows below (Figure 1). The modified window design for the double-height portions of the north and south elevations does not meet Standards 2, 3, 5, 6, or 9 for the reasons described above. It is recommended that the north and south window configuration be updated to no longer include the fixed windows that follow the slope of the roofline. 7 Kaaren R. Staveteig, National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, ITS Number 14: New Openings in Secondary Elevations or Introducing New Windows in Blank Walls, 2000. 8 National Park Service, Technical Preservation Services, ITS Number 38: Alterations Without Historical Basis, 2006. 3 Packet Pg. 90 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project Page 9 Figure 1 1940 Image of Sutter Packing Plant Source: Palo Alto Historical Association, Page & Turnbull HRE East Elevation Windows and Skylights The modified design includes a series of punched openings along the building’s east elevation, on an area of the building that is currently obscured by an adjacent addition. It also proposes to include new skylight openings along the east and west slopes of the monitor roof portion of the building. As described above, rehabilitating historic buildings for new uses may require inserting openings. Also, available historic documentation suggests that the east elevation likely had windows in the same location as generally proposed for the new windows. The proposed new window openings for the east elevation are, therefore, consistent with Standards 6 and 9. Similarly, the addition of skylights, proposed to be one structural bay from the building’s edge on each end is consistent with the Standards. Care should be taken, however, to choose a window that is slim in profile as to not detract from the distinctive roofline that characterizes this portion of the building. Existing Window Treatment The modified design plans indicate that windows at the building’s distinctive monitor roof will be replaced with new windows. In order to comply with Standards 2 and 5, original windows should be retained where condition allows. If windows are deteriorated beyond repair, they should be replaced with windows in kind. New windows should match the historic in configuration and profile and be manufactured in an appropriate replacement material. Existing Exterior Cladding Treatment The modified design plans indicate that the existing corrugated metal siding is proposed to be removed and replaced with new material where present. Similar to the replacement of existing windows, the historic exterior cladding material should be retained where condition allows in order to comply with Standards 2 and 5. If material is deteriorated beyond repair, it should be replaced with material in kind and should match the historic in color and composition. 3 Packet Pg. 91 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project Page 10 Rooflines One of the character-defining features identified for the building was the varied roofs and structures. The modified design proposes to significantly alter the roofline of the building adjacent to the monitor roof portion of the building and replace it with a flat roof. As explained in NPS Preservation Brief 17: Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character, changes to a roofline can damage the visual character of a building and alter a feature that is crucial to understanding the character of a building.9 It is understood that some of the proposed changes to the roofline are intended to meet code requirements, including the installation of solar panels. Guidance from NPS provides that solar panels can be accommodated on many existing roof forms, so long as they are not visible from the right of way.10 The proposed treatment is not consistent with Standard 2, 5, 6 and 9. The removal of the historic roofline will result in the loss of historic material and the alteration of an important physical features of the building. The proposed design should be revised to retain the varied rooflines. If structural updates are necessary to meet code requirements, the roof’s overall form should be retained and replaced in kind. Loading Platforms The building’s loading platforms along the north elevation, which appear to have been used as part of the cannery’s cooling platform, were identified in the HRE as a character-defining feature. The modified design proposes to remove a large portion of the platform and replace it with a new covered amenity area at grade between the building and a proposed parking garage. The proposed treatment is not consistent with Standard 2, 5, 6, and 9. The removal of the loading platform will result in the loss of historic material and an element of the building critical to understanding its historic use. The revised design should be updated to retain more of the loading platform, including the change in grade from the adjacent parking lot. New Construction In order to accommodate the proposed new residential use, several elements of new construction are proposed for the site, including the addition of 12 townhouse buildings along east edge of the site, adjacent to the historic building and a two-story parking garage addition adjacent to and connect to the historic building’s north elevation. Townhouse Buildings Proposed new townhouse buildings will be constructed along the east and northeast side of the historic building and will be arranged in a grouping of 12 buildings in a grid of private streets, providing access to each building. Townhouse buildings will be three stories with a ground floor garage and have a combination of painted stucco, fiber cement, and wood-look horizontal siding exteriors with variations 9 Lee H. Nelson, National Park Service, Preservation Brief 17: Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings as an Aid to Preserving Their Character. 10 National Park Service, “Solar Panels on Historic Properties, https://www.nps.gov/orgs/1739/solar-panels-on- historic-properties.htm, accessed November 2022. 3 Packet Pg. 92 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project Page 11 in design application between proposed buildings. They will feature alternating bays and have flat roofs. The addition of new construction within the boundaries of historic properties is possible, but needs to be built in a manner that protects the integrity of the historic building and the property’s setting, as provided for the in NPS’ Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Properties.11 In order to conform to the Standards, the new construction cannot alter the historic character of the property, and the historic function must be evident. The location of new construction should follow the setbacks of the historic building and avoid obscuring, damaging or destroying character-defining features of the building, and the massing size, scale, and features of new construction must be compatible with those of the historic building. The proposed townhouses are along the historic building’s secondary elevations and will not obscure or interfere with the building’s primary, or south, elevation. Furthermore, the distinctive monitor roof of the historic building will remain visible from the right of way. Though the buildings introduce a new, residential use, the proposed exterior materials and simple design for the townhouses is generally consistent with the historic character of the property. At three stories, the new townhouse buildings are less massive than the historic building are consistent with the double-height volume of the historic building. Finally, the historic building would remain if the townhouses were later removed. The proposed new townhouse construction is, therefore, generally consistent with Standard 9 and 10. Garage Addition The two-story parking garage addition is proposed for the historic building’s secondary, or north, elevation. It will be two stories and connect to the historic building with a wood pergola that will be affixed to the adjacent new canopy proposed for this portion of the building’s elevation, thereby creating a new outdoor amenity space at grade. The garage will have a concrete structure, horizontal cable railings at the second story, and be clad in corrugated metal at select locations. The proposed scale, location, and massing of the proposed garage is consistent with the Standards. It will not obscure the historic building’s primary elevation and generally proposes materials that are compatible with the historic building’s industrial character. As provided in Standard 9 and explained in NPS Preservation Brief 14: New Exterior Additions to Historic Buildings: Preservation Concerns, a new addition to a historic building should protect those visual qualities that made the building historic.12 As noted in the HRE, the building’s corrugated metal exterior is a character-defining feature. It is recommended that the proposed use of corrugated metal on the garage addition be revised to a different, compatible material to make it readily distinguishable from the historic building. The proposed new garage construction is consistent with Standard 9 and 10. 11 Grimmer and Weeks, 2017. 12 Grimmer and Weeks, 2010. 3 Packet Pg. 93 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project Page 12 Conclusions As detailed above, the proposed demolition of a large portion of the historic building is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Similarly, several elements of the proposed new design include the removal of distinctive or character-defining features on the portion of the building proposed to be retained including the loading platforms, shed awnings with post and bean supports, varied roof forms, and garage door openings. In other instances, proposed alterations detract from the building’s historic industrial character, including the location and configuration of proposed storefronts, the introduction of new openings and entries, and changes to the proposed primary elevation. The proposed construction of the new garage and townhouse buildings are generally consistent with the Standards. Where project elements do not comply with the Standards, Rincon has provided recommendations as detailed above and in the attached table (Attachment 4). Although incorporation of these recommendations would bring the project more in compliance with the Standards, the proposed demolition would still result in the material impairment of the historic building and therefore a significant impact as defined in Section 15064.5(b) of the CEQA Guidelines. Should you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 925-326-1159 or at jmuprhy@rinconconsultants.com. Sincerely, Rincon Consultants, Inc. JulieAnn Murphy, MSHP Architectural Historian Project Manager Steven Treffers, MHP Architectural Historian Program Manager Shannon Carmack Principal Attachments Attachment 1 Historical Resources Assessment and Impacts Findings, Rincon Consultants, Inc., February 2022 Attachment 2 Historic Design Guidelines Memorandum, Architectural Resources Group, July 2022 Attachment 3 Applicant Phasing Plan Attachment 4 Summary Table of Recommendations 3 Packet Pg. 94 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Attachment 1 Historical Resources Assessment and Impacts Findings 3 Packet Pg. 95 Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 510 834 4455 OFF IC E info@rinconconsultants.com www.rinconconsultants.com Page 1 February 17, 2022 Project No. 21-11331 Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 via email: Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: Historical Resources Assessment and Impacts Findings 200 Portage Avenue Condominium Project, Palo Alto, California Dear Ms. Raybould: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) was retained by the City of Palo Alto (City) to conduct a historical resources assessment and impacts finding for the proposed 200 Portage Avenue Condominium Project in Palo Alto, California. The proposed project would involve the demolition of a portion of the existing commercial building at 200 Portage Avenue and the commercial building at 3040 Park Boulevard, and the construction of 91 new condominium units distributed throughout 16 three-story buildings. The current assessment was prepared to support to compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and to identify potential project-related impacts to historical resources. A previous historical resources evaluation was prepared by Page & Turnbull in 2019 on behalf of the City, which concluded the former Bayside Canning Company canning/warehouse building (340 Portage Avenue)1 is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) at the local level under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with the history of the canning industry in Santa Clara County (Attachment 1). Therefore, the building is considered historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.2 To supplement the 2019 analysis, Rincon has completed a cultural resources records search, a field survey and historical resources evaluation, a review of project plans, and preparation of this memorandum to present the results. The Rincon team included Architectural Historian JulieAnn Murphy, who conducted the site visit and served as primary author of this report, which addresses the potential impacts for the project and Architectural Historian James Williams who conducted additional archival research. Senior Architectural Historian and Program Manager Steven Treffers and Principal Shannon Carmack provided oversight and assisted with the analysis. Ms. Murphy, Mr. Williams, Mr. Treffers, and Ms. Carmack meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (PQS) for architectural history and history. 1 There are 15 addresses associated with the property. The proposed project, including the area of proposed development uses the address 200 Portage Avenue. The historic resources evaluation refers to the site, including the former canning/warehouse building and the associated office building as 340 Portage Avenue. Herein and for consistency, the historic canning/warehouse building will be referred to 340 Portage Avenue. 2 Page & Turnbull, Historic Resource Evaluation for 340 Portage Avenue, Prepared for City of Palo Alto, February 26, 2019. 3 Packet Pg. 96 2 Project Location and Description The project site encompasses approximately 14.27 acres across four parcels. The project site includes all of Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 132-38-071, 132-32-036, 132-32-042, and 132-32-043 in the City of Palo Alto. The project site is roughly bounded by Park Boulevard to the north, Christopher Circle and Ash Street to the south, residences to the west, and commercial uses to the east. The proposed townhome project would be located on the “area of proposed development” as indicated on Figure 1, which includes portion of the project site. The area of development encompasses approximately 4.86-acres and is generally bounded by Park Boulevard to the north, commercial development to the south, Olive Avenue and residences to the west, and Matadero Creek to the east. The area of development includes all of APNs 132-32-036, 132-38-01, and portions of APNs 132-32-042 and 132-32-043. The proposed project would involve a vesting tentative map to subdivide and merge portions of the four parcels into two parcels. On one of the new parcels (4.86 acres), the project would involve a condominium subdivision to create 91 new condominium units. The other parcel (9.41 acres) would include the remaining portions of the existing commercial building. The proposed townhome project would involve demolition of the portion of the existing commercial building at 200 Portage Avenue and the commercial building at 3040 Park Boulevard within the area of proposed development and construction of 91 new residential units within 16 three-story buildings (Figure 2). The proposed project would also involve improvements to an existing portion of the on-site, two-story commercial building at 340 Portage Avenue. The area of improvements for the existing commercial building is shown on Figure 3. The improvements would involve architectural changes to add new skylights, new gable windows, corrugated siding, and other architectural details (Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6). 3 Packet Pg. 97 3 Figure 1 Project Location 3 Packet Pg. 98 4 Figure 2 Proposed Townhome Project Site Plan 3 Packet Pg. 99 5 Figure 3 Work Area for Improvements to Existing Building 3 Packet Pg. 100 6 Figure 4 Rendering of Proposed View Facing Northeast Figure 5 Proposed North Elevation Design 3 Packet Pg. 101 7 Figure 6 Proposed South Elevation Design Methodology The following sections identify the steps taken to inform analysis of the proposed project and its potential impacts. As discussed above, a previous historical resources evaluation was prepared in 2019 by Page & Turnbull, which concluded that the former Bayside Canning Company canning/warehouse building at 340 Portage Avenue, which is in the current project site, is eligible for listing in the CRHR. That evaluation also confirmed an associated office building located at 3201-3225 Ash Street contributes to the significance of 340 Portage Avenue; however, this small office building is located outside the area of proposed development. The City, as the lead agency under CEQA, directed Rincon to rely on the previous historical resources eligibility findings to inform the impacts assessment presented below. In addition to these efforts, Rincon conducted background research, a site visit, and prepared a historical resources evaluation of another property within the area of proposed development at 3040 Park Boulevard, which had not been subject to previous evaluation. The project site also contains the concrete-lined Matadero Creek and two one-story office buildings on the east side of the creek at 3250 Park Boulevard and 278 Lambert Avenue. Because these two properties are less than 45 years of age, they do not meet the age threshold generally triggering the need for historical resources evaluation per the guidelines of the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) and they were not recorded as part of this study (OHP 1995). This portion of Matadero Creek was lined with concrete in 1994, does not meet the age threshold for evaluation and the proposed project does not include any direct alterations to the creek (WRA 2020). The proposed development is also consistent with the surrounding urban environment and would not negatively affect the existing setting. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur to Matadero Creek and it was not recorded or evaluated as part of this study. Background Research The following documents were referenced to inform the history of the 200 Portage Avenue site and its historical significance and to ensure an understanding of the project. ▪ Page & Turnbull, Inc. Historic Resource Evaluation for 340 Portage Avenue, prepared for the City of Palo Alto, February 26, 2019. 3 Packet Pg. 102 8 ▪ Page & Turnbull, Inc. Memo: NVCAP Windshield Survey and Preliminary Historic Resource Eligibility Analysis, April 11, 2019. ▪ KTGY Architecture and Planning. 200 Portage Avenue Townhomes, August 3, 2021. ▪ The Sobrato Organization. 200 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306, June 16, 2021. ▪ Historic aerial photos accessed via University of California, Santa Barbara Map & Imagery Lab and NETRonline. ▪ Historic topographic maps accessed via United States Geological Survey. ▪ Sanborn Fire Insurance Company Maps accessed digitally via Los Angeles Public Library. ▪ Historical newspaper articles and advertisements accessed online at newspapers.com. ▪ Historic permits, City of Palo Alto. Site Visit On September 15, 2021, Rincon Architectural Historian JulieAnn Murphy, MSHP conducted a site visit to the project site. The site visit included a detailed inspection of the buildings on the project site, which is approximately 14.27 acres and is comprised of four Santa Clara County Assessor’s parcels (132-38-071, 132-32-36, 132-32-42 and 132-32-43). The survey included a visual inspection of all built environment features of the former Bayside Canning Company to document any changes since its last evaluation and confirm that it retained integrity to for listing in the CRHR at the local level under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with the history of the canning industry in Santa Clara County. Additionally, the site visit included the visual inspection of all other buildings within the project site including buildings, structures, and associated features to assess their overall condition and integrity and to identify and document any potential character-defining features. Ms. Murphy documented the field survey using field notes and digital photographs. To confirm the potential historical resources eligibility of the commercial building at 3040 Park Boulevard the building was recorded and evaluated for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), CRHR, and local listing on California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms, which is included in Attachment 2 and summarized below. Historical Resources Identification Findings As discussed above, the proposed project site contains four commercial buildings and a concrete-lined creek. Two of the commercial buildings at 3250 Park Boulevard and 278 Lambert Avenue are outside the area of proposed development and do not exceed 45 years of age. They therefore were exempted from further analysis. Similarly, Matadero Creek is also outside the area of proposed development and would not be directly or indirectly impacted by the project; it therefore was also exempted from further historical resources analysis. As previously described, the former canning/warehouse building at 340 Portage Avenue and the office building located at 3201-3225 Ash Street, were previously found eligible for listing in the CRHR at the local level under Criterion 1 (Events) for their association with the history of the canning industry in Santa Clara County and are considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. The property is within the proposed project site and are described in more detail below. The field survey and background research also identified one historic-era building, 3040 Park Boulevard, within the project boundary and the area of proposed development that was not previously evaluated and is proposed to be demolished under the project. 3 Packet Pg. 103 9 Figure 7 Site Map 3040 Park Boulevard The field survey of the project site identified one historic-era building within the project area that was not formerly evaluated. The building, 3040 Park Boulevard, is a one-story former auto garage building in the North Ventura neighborhood of Palo Alto, constructed in 1964. A full architectural description and additional historical information is presented in the attached DPR forms (Attachment 2). Physical Description The subject property consists of a one-story commercial building exhibiting no discernible architectural style. It is rectangular in plan, sits on a concrete foundation, and is capped with a flat roof with composition cladding. Its exterior consists alternately of stuccoed and bare structural concrete-block walls. Entrances are located on the north and east elevations and are accessed via two large vehicle entries with metal roll-up garage doors on the east and a standard-size wood-panel on the north. Windows are nonoriginal fixed multi-pane vinyl sashes. A non-original gabled open-frame shelter is attached to the south elevation. The building is in good condition with no notable alterations other than the replacement windows and south-elevation shelter (Figure 8). 3 Packet Pg. 104 10 Figure 8 South Elevation of 3040 Park Boulevard, View North Site Development The subject property was constructed as an auto service shop in 1964. Historical topographic maps and aerial photographs show that by the late 1940s, the property was an undeveloped piece of land situated between Park Boulevard and the corner of a railroad wye crossed, a location that defined the parcel’s roughly triangular shape. The surrounding area was largely developed for industrial and residential uses, though several lots were not built out until the 1950s and 1960s (NETROnline 1948; 1956; 1958; 1960 ). The subject address’ earliest documentation, a newspaper advertisement published in 1965, identifies the property as Stan Tordeson General Tire, a dealer Gurley-Lord Tire Company automotive products. At the time, Stan Trodeson operated two such shops, the other located at 895 Emerson St. in Palo Alto (San Francisco Examiner 5/10/1965). Newspaper advertisements from 1966 indicate that Trodeson no longer owned the subject property by that time but continued to operate the Emerson Street location and had also opened an American Motors dealership at 623 Alma Street, Palo Alto (San Francisco Examiner 7/8/1966 and 11/7/1966). In addition to being a local business owner, Trodeson was involved in other business and civic ventures, including the founding of the members-only PALO Club and the construction of a Little League baseball diamond in Los Altos that was eventually named in his honor (San Francisco Examiner 12/7/1963). The subject property has been subject to few changes. The railroad wye tracing the property’s east and west boundaries was removed by 1987 (NETROnline 1982; 1987). Historical aerial photographs taken between 1965 and 2002 depict an apparent ancillary building just southeast of the subject building, 3 Packet Pg. 105 11 which was removed circa 2004 (UCSB 1965; NETROnline 2002; 2004). Circa 2015, wall-mounted signage reading “PARK AUTOMOTIVE” was removed from the building and by 2017 was replaced with lettering reading “Functional Lifestyles,” signaling the property’s conversion from an automotive services shop to a commercial fitness center. Vinyl-sash replacement windows were installed around this time as part of the building’s conversion (Google Maps 2014; 2015; 2016; 2017). The gabled shelter was constructed adjacent to the south elevation circa 2019 and the wall-mounted signage replaced with the existing signage circa 2020.The subject property continues to operate as the Functional Lifestyles fitness center. Background research, including a review of historical newspapers, city directories, and other sources, did not identify any additional information of consequence regarding the property or its former owners or occupants. Previous Evaluations In 2019, Page & Turnbull identified the subject property in a windshield survey as part of the Preliminary Findings of Historic Resource Eligibility in the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan project, a planning area identified by the City of Palo Alto that is bounded by Page Mill Road, El Camino Real, Lambert Avenue, and the Caltrain tracks. Although not formally recorded and evaluated, the property was subject to preliminary research and recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR based on this evidence. It was also found not to be part of any historic district. Historical Resources Evaluation The property at 3040 Park Boulevard is not eligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or as City of Palo Alto Historic Structure. The property was constructed in the 1960s as part of Palo Alto’s post-World War II-era population boom. However, it was one of many numerous buildings constructed during this period to help serve a growing population and research for this evaluation did not find the property is singularly important in the context of Palo Alto’s postwar growth or in the context any other event significant to the history of the city, region, state, or nation. As such, the property is recommended ineligible under NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1. The person most closely associated with the property is Stan Troedson, a successful businessman and active community member. Although Troedson enjoyed some success in commerce and civic affairs, there is no evidence that his endeavors in these areas constitute significant contributions to the history of the city, region, state, or nation. Archival research also found no evidence that any subsequent owner or occupant of the property made historically significant contributions. Therefore, the property is recommended ineligible under NRHP Criterion B and CRHR Criterion 2. Architecturally, the property is a commercial building bearing no discernible architectural style. It does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or possess high artistic values. Although archival research did not identify the building’s designer, its simple, functionalistic design would not exemplify the work of any master architect. Therefore, the property is recommended ineligible for listing under NRHP Criterion C and CRHR Criterion 3. A review of available evidence and records search results did not indicate that the property may yield important information about prehistory or history. The property is therefore recommended ineligible for listing under NRHP Criterion D and CRHR Criterion 4. The property is also not recommended eligible as a contributor to any existing or potential historic districts. 3 Packet Pg. 106 12 Based on the above reasoning, the property is also recommended ineligible designation locally as a Historic Structure. It is not identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state or nation (Criterion 1); is not particularly representative of an architectural style or way of life important to the city, state or nation (Criterion 2); is not an example of a type of building which was once common, but is now rare (Criterion 3); and is not connected with a business or use which was once common, but is now rare (Criterion 4). In addition, research conducted for this study did not find that the building’s architect or building itself was important (Criterion 5). Finally, the property does not possess elements demonstrating outstanding attention to architectural design, detail, materials or craftsmanship (Criterion 6). 340 Portage Avenue Physical Description The former cannery/warehouse building at 340 Portage Avenue is the result of an accretion of additions for use as a packing and warehouse facility and is comprised of approximately 10 sections that are attached to one another, with some earlier additions having been completely enveloped in later additions. The parcel also includes a c. 1930s former office building at the southeast corner of the of the site at 3201-3225 Ash Avenue. Since that time, the former cannery/warehouse facility served a number of commercial uses and is presently partially vacant. The former office building has been leased by other businesses. The buildings are in good condition. Figure 9 South Elevation of the former canning/warehouse building at 340 Portage Avenue 3 Packet Pg. 107 13 Figure 10 Primary Elevation of the former office building at 3201-3225 Ash Avenue Site Development As outlined in the historical resources evaluation prepared by Page & Turnbull, the site was largely undeveloped prior to the first decades of the twentieth century. It was first developed in April 1918 by Thomas Foon Chew, a Chinese immigrant and owner of the Bayside Canning Company in Alviso. Chew planned to, according to articles published in the local Daily Palo Alto newspaper, build a second canning plant on the site and construction began in June of that year. By the following year Chew was expanding his operations and added nineteen houses for workers south of the cannery, and a large warehouse was added. 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. 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. Just three years later in 1940, the Sutter Packing Company received another permit 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 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. 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 build a warehouse at 300 Portage Avenue. 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. In 1945, additional improvements took place at the cannery. Work included: ▪ Building a 42.5 x 70-foot jam and jelly housing facility; 3 Packet Pg. 108 14 ▪ 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. 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. 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. By the 1960s, 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. By 1978, Maximart had moved out, and the site was under the ownership of WSP Properties. Since that time, the buildings have been leased for a number of commercial uses, including a Fry’s Electronics which occupied a portion of the warehouse space until closing in 2019. Historical Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Avenue and the associated office building were previously recorded and evaluated for historic significance for the City of Palo Alto by Page & Turnbull, Inc. and found eligible for listing in the CRHR. The site’s significance was described in the Page & Turnbull evaluation as follows: 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 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. 3 Packet Pg. 109 15 Character-Defining Features Analysis Page & Turnbull, Inc., in their historic resource evaluation, also assessed the character-defining features of 340 Portage Avenue, which are those physical features which collectively convey the significance of the property and is tied to its association with the history of canning in Santa Clara County (CRHR Criterion 1). The character-defining features therefore relate to its history as an operating canning facility and warehouse and are presented in Table 1. Table 1 Character-Defining Features – 340 Portage Form and Massing (long, linear massing; composition of multiple smaller buildings; primarily one-story, double- height volumes with taller central cannery section) Varied roof forms and structures (prominent paired monitor roofs; arched roofs; visible gabled roofs) Exterior wall materials (reinforced board-form concrete; corrugated metal cladding) Exterior cannery features (concrete loading platforms; cooling porch at rear of building; exterior shed awnings with wood post-and-beam construction) 3 Packet Pg. 110 16 Fenestration (wood frame windows; garage door openings; wire glass skylights over former warehouses) Landscape features (preserved path of removed railroad track, represented in the shape of the parking lot pavement and following the channel of Matadero Creek) Interior Features (exposed wood truss ceiling; wood and concrete post-and-beam construction) Photo Source: Page & Turnbull, 2019 Rincon Consultants, Inc., 2021 3 Packet Pg. 111 17 Project Impacts As detailed above in the historical resources identification findings, the project site contains four commercial buildings and a concrete-lined creek. The existing buildings at the southeast corner of the site, 3250 Park Boulevard and 278 Lambert Avenue, have not reached and age of eligibility and, therefore, do not qualify as historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. Furthermore, both buildings are outside of the area of proposed development. Matadero Creek is also outside the area of proposed development. Furthermore, it was lined with concrete in 1994 and has not reached the age of eligibility to qualify as a historical resource. As detailed above, 3040 Park Boulevard is recommended ineligible for listing in the NRHP, CRHR, or local designation. As such, it does not qualify as a historical resource and its demolition would not result in a significant adverse impact as defined by Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. 340 Portage Avenue and the associated office building with a listed address of 3201-3225 Ash Avenue have been found eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1 for significant associations with the canning industry in Santa Clara County; as such the property is considered a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines. To support the development of 91 new residential units within 16 three-story buildings, the project includes the demolition of the eastern portion of the existing warehouse building. In addition, the project would rehabilitate small portion of the building just east of the centerline of the former cannery/warehouse building. The remaining portions of the former cannery/warehouse building, as well as the associated office building 3201-3225 Ash Avenue are outside the area of proposed development and are not otherwise included in the proposed project actions. Pursuant to Section 10564.5(b) of the CEQA guidelines a project may result in substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource if it causes physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired. Material impairment is defined as demolition or alteration “in an adverse manner [of] those characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the [CRHR].”3 Additional guidance on assessing impacts to historical resources is defined in Section 15064.5(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, states that impacts to historical resources are generally considered mitigated to a less than significant level when they meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards) (Attachment 3). The Secretary’s Standards establish professional standards and provide guidance on the preservation and protection of historic properties. The intent of the Secretary’s Standards is to provide for the long-term preservation of a property’s significance through the preservation of its historic materials and features. These historic materials and features are commonly referred to as character-defining features and are indispensable in a historic property’s ability to convey the reasons for its historical significance. The Bayside Canning Company’s character-defining features were assessed by Page & Turnbull in their historic resource evaluation, as outlined above. To ensure a proposed project’s compliance with the Secretary’s Standards, a historic property’s character-defining features should therefore be identified and preserved as part of the final design. In consideration of impacts to the 340 Portage Avenue property, the most substantial impact would occur through the demolition of 89,639 square-feet of the eastern portion of the Bayside Canning Company canning/warehouse building, constituting a loss of approximately 40 percent of the building. The proposed demolition would result in the removal of distinctive materials, the loss of several 3 CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][2][A]. 3 Packet Pg. 112 18 character-defining features, and would, therefore constitute material impairment to the historical resource. The proposed demolition would be in an adverse manner of those characteristics of the historical resource that convey its historical significance and justify its eligibility for listing in the CRHR. Additionally, the proposed treatment of the building would not be consistent with the Secretary’s Standards which recommends avoiding loss of historic materials through demolition and removal and encourages the retention of distinctive materials that characterize a property. The proposed would cause a loss of several of the the property’s character-defining features outlined above, including its form and masing and varied roof forms and structures through the proposed demolition. Additionally, the treatment proposed for the portion of the building that is to remain and be rehabilitated for continued use also does not meet the Standards. That Standards provide that the removal of distinctive materials should be avoided, alterations should not destroy historic materials, and that deteriorated features should be repaired or replaced in kind, where necessary. The proposed project includes the removal of distinctive materials like the character-defining exterior cannery features such as the loading platforms and cooling porches. The proposed changes to the building’s fenestration, most notably the addition of new window openings and the alterations to the entrances on the north and south elevations also do not meet the Standards. The addition of the proposed aluminum canopies above the entries and the proposed addition to the warehouse’s south elevation are not compatible with the warehouse’s historic character and would obscure historic materials that characterize the property and is, therefore, inconsistent with the Standards. Additionally, the proposed bisection of the canning/warehouse building would result in unknown and undefined treatment of a substantial portion of the building. The unidentified treatment of the remaining portion of the warehouse building could result in additional material impairment. Furthermore, the proposed demolition of the portion of the building included in project site would impair the building’s physical characteristics that convey the property’s historical significance such that the historic resource would not retain sufficient integrity for listing. The goals of rehabilitation are to make possible the compatible new use of a historic property while preserving those portions or features that convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. The project, as proposed, would result in material impairment to the resource and would not preserve the building’s historical value. The proposed project would result in substantial changes to the historic canning/warehouse building and would destroy distinctive materials, features, and spatial relationships that define its historic character. The partial demolition of the building and the proposed exterior updates would result in the removal of distinctive building materials. Finally, the proposed new additions and adjacent construction are proposed in a manner that requires the demolition of part of the historic building. If the proposed new construction were removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic building and its environment would be impaired and would not, therefore, meet the Standards. The proposed partial redevelopment of the warehouse building fails to meet the Standards for the reasons outlined above. The project as proposed would result in significant impact to a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Recommendations To inform the alternatives analysis for CEQA compliance and identify measures to mitigate potential impacts, Rincon has provided the following recommendations. In order to meet the Standards, thereby avoiding a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, the project would have to be redesigned to avoid subdivision of the historic resources on separate parcels as well as the partial demolition of the historic resource at 340 Portage 3 Packet Pg. 113 19 Avenue. The buildings could be rehabilitated for a new use that would require minimal change to their distinctive features. For a successful rehabilitation, the design would have to retain the building’s character-defining features, as previously outlined. The project may also be revised to mitigate the substantial adverse change. Mitigation of significant impacts must lessen or eliminate the physical impact the project will have on the historical resource. Mitigation could be accomplished through the redesign of the project to eliminate the proposed partial demolition of the historic resource while accommodating the proposed development on the portion of the site that is not currently occupied by buildings. Alternatively, the project could proceed largely as designed to retain more of the warehouse building’s character-defining features to continue to convey its historic context, in part. Revisions could include design updates that would more closely align with the Standards. The revised design could avoid the addition proposed for the south elevation and instead of introducing new storefront entries, reuse historic entries. It would also be more successful in aligning with the Standards if it retained the loading platforms and cooling porches instead of continuing the building elevations to grade and introducing aluminum canopies. The building would further comply with the Standards through avoiding adding aluminum frame windows in favor of wood or wood clad construction in the historic fenestration. The recommended changes, however, would not mitigate the impacts below a level of significance. Another mitigation option is to carryout Historic American Building Survey (HABS) level documentation of the site. HABS documentation could include archival copies of historical building plans, if available and photos of all the buildings and site. Similar to the scope outlined above, site documentation would not mitigate the impacts below a level of significance. The proposed project could be designed to include a permanent, high-quality on-site interpretive display in a publicly-accessible location, preferably near or within a portion of the retained warehouse building. The display could focus on the property’s history, particularly the agricultural past of Santa Clara County and the canning operations of Bayside Canning Company. The interpretive display should be prepared by a professional exhibit designer and historian; historic information contained in Page & Turnbull’s HRE can serve as the basis for the interpretive display. The goal of the interpretive display would be to educate the public about the property’s historic themes and associations within broader cultural contexts. The interpretive design could incorporate elements of public art. The recommended mitigation, however, would not mitigate the impacts below a level of significance. Conclusions The field survey and archival research conducted for this study identified three properties over 45 years of age within the project area, the former Bayside Canning Company canning/warehouse building at 340 Portage Avenue, its associated office building at 3201-3225 Ash Street (APN 132-38-071), and a commercial building at 3040 Park Boulevard (APN 132-32-036). The project site also contains the concrete-lined Matadero Creek and two one-story office buildings on the east side of the creek at 3250 Park Boulevard and 278 Lambert Avenue, all of which were determined to not meet the age threshold generally triggering the need for historical resources evaluation were not recorded as part of this study. The two other parcels included in the project do not contain buildings (APNs 132-32-042 and 132-32- 043). In 2019, the canning/warehouse building and its associated office building were determined eligible for listing in the CRHR at the local level under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with the history of the canning industry in Santa Clara County. Therefore, the buildings are considered historical 3 Packet Pg. 114 20 resources as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines.4 As a part of this study, the building at 3040 Park Boulevard was evaluated for its potential historic significance and found to be ineligible for listing and is not considered a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. The proposed project involves the subdivision and merger of four existing parcels into two parcels – one for the development of 91 townhomes and a remainder lot that is not part of the proposed development. Work proposed on the project parcel includes the partial demolition of the canning/warehouse building and updates to the remaining portion of the building for use as common space. As detailed above, this impacts analysis finds that the project would result in the material impairment to a historical resource and result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a resource. Furthermore, it does not comply with the Secretary’s Standards and as proposed and would result in a significant impact to a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. The recommendations above provide guidance for the project to meet the Standards thereby reducing the impacts to less than significant levels. Alternatively, it provides a suite of mitigation measures that would mitigate the project’s impacts to the historic resources, but would not mitigate said impacts to below a level of significance. Should you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 925-326-1159 or at jmuprhy@rinconconsultants.com. Sincerely, Rincon Consultants, Inc. JulieAnn Murphy, MSHP Shannon Carmack Architectural Historian Principal/Senior Architectural Historian Steven Treffers, M.H.P. Senior Architectural Historian References California Office of Historic Preservation 1995 Instructions for Recording Historical Resources, March. KTGY Architecture and Planning 2021 200 Portage Avenue Townhomes, August 3. 4 Page & Turnbull, Inc. Historic Resource Evaluation for 340 Portage Avenue, prepared for the City of Palo Alto, February 26, 2019. 3 Packet Pg. 115 21 Page & Turnbull 2019 Historic Resource Evaluation for 340 Portage Avenue, prepared for the City of Palo Alto, February 26. 2019 Memo: NVCAP Windshield Survey and Preliminary Historic Resource Eligibility Analysis, April 11. The Sobrato Organization 2021 200 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306, June 16. WRA Environmental Consultants 2020 Matadero Creek Renaturalization: Conceptual Alternative Analysis. Prepared for the City of Palo Alto, September. Attachments Attachment 1 Page & TurnbullHistoric Resource Evaluation for 340 Portage Avenue Attachment 1 DPR Forms for 3040 Park Boulevard Attachment 2 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards 3 Packet Pg. 116 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Attachment 2 Historic Design Guidelines Memorandum 3 Packet Pg. 117            HISTORIC DESIGN GUIDELINES  340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto  Revised, July 2022        Introduction  At the request of the Sobrato Organization, Architectural Resources Group (ARG) has prepared the  following guidelines regarding the future treatment of the property at 340 Portage Avenue in Palo Alto,  California. As documented in the Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE) that the City of Palo Alto had  completed for the property in April 2019, 340 Portage Avenue is considered historically significant as the  former home of the Bayside Canning Company and Sutter Canning Company, an association that  extended from the original 1918 construction of portions of the property until Sutter’s departure in  1949. The property was not found to be architecturally significant. The purpose of the guidelines is to  foster rehabilitation and redevelopment of the site in a manner that retains the property’s identified  historic character and is in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. The  guidelines are intended to ultimately be incorporated into the Development Agreement (DA) associated  with the property.      To complete these guidelines, ARG conducted a site visit of the property on March 9, 2022 to note and  photograph current features and conditions. ARG also met with representatives of the Sobrato  Organization and project architect Architectural Technologies (ARC TEC) to gain a sense of the future  redevelopment of the site, the design of which is still under development. The drawings and renderings  that illustrate the guidelines were taken from materials that ARC TEC submitted to ARG in June 2022.         Sutter Packing Plant, 1940, looking northwest (Palo Alto Historical Society, 022‐050).     3 Packet Pg. 118 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto    Architectural Resources Group  Historic Design Guidelines    Revised, July 2022       2    Preliminary project rendering, south and east façades (ARC TEC, “340 Portage Avenue,” July 26, 2022).     Preliminary project rendering, east and north façades (ARC TEC, “340 Portage Avenue,” July 26, 2022).           3 Packet Pg. 119 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto    Architectural Resources Group  Historic Design Guidelines    Revised, July 2022       3  Project Summary  The subject building extends southwesterly from Park Boulevard in the North Venture Coordinated Area  Plan (NVCAP) area of Palo Alto. ARG’s understanding is that the future redevelopment of the property  will generally consist of the following components:     200 Portage Avenue: The portion of the building closest to Park Boulevard will be removed,  exposing the east elevation of the 340 Portage Avenue portion of the building.   340 Portage Avenue: The monitor roofed bays at the building’s east end will be retained and  rehabilitated; the portion of the building to the west of those bays will be rebuilt within the  existing footprint.   380 Portage Avenue: The westernmost portion of the building, which is clad in board formed  concrete and features bow truss roofs, is included in the current project site but currently  includes no proposed exterior improvements.   3201‐3225 Ash Street: No exterior improvements are proposed to this portion of the property.    New construction: Approximately 74 townhomes will be added to the eastern half of the project  site, along Park Boulevard in place of 200 Portage Avenue and the parking lot to the north.     These historic design guidelines focus on the exterior treatment of the 340 Portage Avenue portion of  the site, with special attention to the monitor roofed bays at the building’s eastern end, which are the  most visually prominent historic features on the site.     Character‐defining Features  A character‐defining feature is an aspect of a building’s design, construction, or detail that is  representative of the building’s function, type, or architectural style.1 Generally, character‐defining  features include specific building systems, architectural ornament, construction details, massing,  materials, craftsmanship, site characteristics and landscaping within the period of significance. An  understanding of a building’s character‐defining features is a crucial step in developing a rehabilitation  plan that is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic  Properties by incorporating an appropriate level of restoration, rehabilitation, maintenance, and  protection.     In April 2019, the City of Palo Alto commissioned Page & Turnbull to complete a Historic Resource  Evaluation (HRE) for 340 Portage Avenue that identified the following character‐defining features for the  property:     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  o Arched roofs  o Visible gabled roofs     Exterior wall materials    1 Nelson, Lee H. Architectural Character: Identifying the Visual Aspects of Historic Buildings As an Aid to Preserving  Their Character. Washington, D.C: Technical Preservation Services, National Park Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior,  1988, 1.   3 Packet Pg. 120 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto    Architectural Resources Group  Historic Design Guidelines    Revised, July 2022       4  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    Careful consideration of these identified features informed the development of the following historic  design guidelines.       3 Packet Pg. 121 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto    Architectural Resources Group  Historic Design Guidelines    Revised, July 2022       5  Historic Design Guidelines  In general, the approach to rehabilitating 340 Portage Avenue should maintain the building’s character‐ defining features to the extent feasible in maintaining and continuing the property’s office and research  and development (R&D) uses. The following guidelines address specific aspects of the project design.     Height and Bulk  The building’s long, linear massing should be  maintained.        On the south elevation, new construction  should remain at or below the top of the  existing parapet height.        On the north elevation, where a new slightly  higher parapet is proposed, both the new  parapet and any new construction should  remain below the height of the outermost edge  of the monitor roofs.        Continuous lot frontage along the north and  south elevations should generally be  maintained, with possible small‐scale  deviations to accommodate slightly recessed or  projecting entry bays.        3 Packet Pg. 122 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto    Architectural Resources Group  Historic Design Guidelines    Revised, July 2022       6  Roof Forms  The monitor roof forms should be maintained.  Other roofs should remain invisible behind the  parapet walls along the north and south  elevations.        New rooftop mechanical units should be kept  below the parapet line where feasible. Where  infeasible, rooftop mechanical units should  situated toward the center of building footprint  in order to minimize visibility from the public  right‐of‐way.        The bow truss roof forms in the western half of  the building should be retained.   Cladding  The following wall cladding materials are  encouraged as being compatible with the  historic character of the existing building: metal  panels, corrugated metal (painted or  unpainted), and metal screens. In addition,  board formed concrete is appropriate at the  westernmost portion of the building, which is  currently clad in board formed concrete.   The following wall cladding materials are  discouraged: wood, masonry, and ceramic tile.       3 Packet Pg. 123 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto    Architectural Resources Group  Historic Design Guidelines    Revised, July 2022       7  Fenestration  A window condition assessment should be  completed to identify the location and  condition of extant (1) wire glass skylights and  (2) clerestory monitor windows in the monitor  roof portion of the building. This assessment  should be completed with the assistance of one  or more professionals meeting the Secretary of  the Interior’s Professional Qualification  Standards in Historic Architecture. Historic  windows and skylights should be repaired if  feasible.         If the extant clerestory monitor windows are  too deteriorated to repair, or occupy less than  half of the extant window openings, new  windows that are similar in scale, profile and  appearance of the original windows should be  installed. Wood or metal/aluminum windows  that mimic the thickness and muntin pattern of  the historic wood windows is encouraged; use  of vinyl windows is discouraged.        New fenestration elsewhere on the building  (including the east elevation and the areas on  the north and south elevations immediately  below the monitor roofs) should be metal or  aluminum windows with simple surrounds,  befitting the industrial history of the property.        Entries and Canopies  New entries should consist of simple aluminum  storefront assemblies with full‐height  sidelights. The entry to the retail space on the  south elevation should be similar in design to  entries elsewhere in the building.   3 Packet Pg. 124 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto    Architectural Resources Group  Historic Design Guidelines    Revised, July 2022       8  Canopies at the north and south elevations  should be thin and metal‐clad, either  cantilevered out from the building or  supported from above by tension cables or  from below by simple metal brackets.        Retaining portions of the existing shed awnings  with post‐and‐beam construction should be  considered.        Interior  New interior construction should be configured  in such a manner that the original volume of  the roof monitor portion of the building is still  conveyed; wholly subdividing that portion of  the building into smaller spaces or introducing  intermediate floors should be avoided.        At the new retail space on the south elevation,  interior skylights should be incorporated to  afford views of the historic monitor roofs.  Lighting conditions in the retail space and at  the monitor roofs should be investigated to  ensure the visibility of the roof elements  through the skylights.        3 Packet Pg. 125 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto    Architectural Resources Group  Historic Design Guidelines    Revised, July 2022       9  Public Exhibit  The site should incorporate a publicly accessible display featuring historic photos of the property and a  description of its historical significance arrayed onto as many as four panels. The content of the panels  could be adapted from the recently completed HRE.     This display panel, which should be composed of durable materials, should be developed with the  assistance of one or more professionals meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional  Qualification Standards in Architectural History or History and experienced in creating such historical  exhibits.    For ease of installation and maintenance, we recommend the display panel(s) be located inside the  retail space at the south end of the monitor roof portion of the building. This could be supplemented  by a commemorative plaque, placed on the building exterior, that indicates the property is the former  home of the Bayside Caning Company and Sutter Canning Company.      3 Packet Pg. 126 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Attachment 3 Applicant Phasing Plan 3 Packet Pg. 127 E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Attachment 4 Summary Table of Recommendations 3 Packet Pg. 128 50'-0" A ---- REMOVE EX TRANSFORMER EX TRANSFORMER TO BE RELOCATED; ALL PLAYGROUND GLOBAL ELECTRICAL LOAD TO BE SERVED HERE REMOVE EX TRANSFORMER EX TRANSFORMER TO REMAIN ON TEMPORARY BASIS E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EEEE EEEE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Description Area of Demolition Demolish Existing Building Electrical Equipment to be Removed Electrical Equipment to Remain Existing Building to Remain R20 per Palo Alto Power Structural Retrofit Temporary Building NEW CMU FENCE TO MATCH EXISTING TRANSFORMER TO REMAIN FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. E E E E E INTERNALLY REROUTE ELECTRICAL TO BOTH CABINETS PALO ALTO POWER FOR R20 WORK ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FROM PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING PERMIT FOR NEW ELECTRIC SERVICE FOR PLAYGROUND GLOBAL (380 Portage) DEMOLITION PERMIT FOR PARKING LOT AND BUILDING TO BE REMOVED (INCLUDING PARK BUILDING) 340 PORTAGE BUILDING PERMIT WARM SHELL & STRUCTURAL RETROFIT OF BUILDING TO REMAIN (ORANGE) TEMP POWER PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION RECONSTUCTION OF CMU FENCE AT PROPERTY LINE EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN PERMANENTLY STURCTURAL RETROFIT FOR EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN PHASE A PERMITS: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN ON TEMPORARY BASIS NOV 2022 MC NM EX BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED   3     Packet Pg. 129   B ---- PREVIOUSLY RELOCATED TRANSFORMER; ALL PLAYGROUND GLOBAL ELECTRICAL LOAD TO BE SERVED HERE EX TRANSFORMER TO REMAIN ON TEMPORARY BASIS E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E Description Electrical Equipment to Remain Existing Building to Remain Garage Limits R20 per Palo Alto Power (completed) Temporary Building CONSTRUCT GARAGE INSTALL MAINLINE UTILITIES INSTALL MAINLINE UTILITIES TRANSFORMER TO REMAIN FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN ON TEMPORARY BASIS 340 PORTAGE EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN PERMANENTLY BUILDING PERMIT - GARAGE ENCROACHMENT PERMITS FOR UTILITY CONNECTIONS Proposed Storm Drain Main Proposed Sewer Main Proposed Water Main PHASE B PERMITS: 1. 2. BUILDING PERMIT FOR NEW GARAGE CONSTRUCTION NOV 2022 MC NM   3     Packet Pg. 130   3 ---- Description Electrical Equipment to Remain Existing Building to Remain New Electrical Equipment Temporary Building TI for 340 Portage C ---- E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 26' WIDE AISLE AND SITE WORK BUILD OUT DRIVE AISLE AND ALL FINSIHED SURFACE ELEMNTS. EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN PERMANENTLY EX TRANSFORMER TO REMAIN ON TEMPORARY BASIS TRANSFORMER TO REMAIN FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES. E E E E E E E E FEED NEW TRANSFORMER FROM PARK GRADING PERMIT FOR SITE WORK TI FOR 340 PORTAGE PHASE C PERMITS: 1. 2. Proposed Storm Drain Main Proposed Sewer Main Proposed Water Main EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN ON TEMPORARY BASIS TI FOR 340 PORTAGE NOV 2022 MC NM   3     Packet Pg. 131   Description Electrical Equipment to be Removed Limits of Demolition E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EE E E E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E D ---- E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EEE E EE E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E DEMOLISH TEMPORARY BUILDING CONNECT TO PREVIOUSLY INSTALLED MAINS WITHIN PORTAGE AVE P.U.E. REMOVE TEMPORARY TRANSFORMERS EE DEMOLITION PERMIT FOR TEMP BUILDING UTILITY CONNECTIONS TO 340 PORTAGE GRADING PERMIT FOR TEMP BUILDING TO BE DEMOLISHED UPON CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE GARAGE AND TCO FOR 340 PORTAGE, RECORD FINAL MAP & MAKE ALL REQUIRED DEDICATIONS PHASE D PERMITS: 1. 2. 3. 4. Proposed Storm Drain Main Proposed Sewer Main Proposed Water Main EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN PERMANENTLY NOV 2022 MC NM   3     Packet Pg. 132   TOWNHOME PERMITS & CONSTRUCTION PHASE E PERMITS: 1. Proposed Storm Drain Main Proposed Sewer Main Proposed Water Main E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EEE E EE E E E E E E E E E E EE Description R20 per Palo Alto Power E ---- NOV 2022 MC NM   3     Packet Pg. 133   E n v i r o n m e n t a l S c i e n t i s t s P l a n n e r s E n g i n e e r s Table 1 Summary Table of Recommendations Design Element SOIS Analysis Recommendations Proposed Demolition Does not meet Standard 1, 2, 5, and 6 To conform with the Standards, the proposed design should be updated to retain the portions of the historic building proposed for demolition. Structural Retrofit Potential to not meet Standard 2 and 6. In order to conform with the Standards, care should be taken to retain historic materials. New Storefronts, Entries, and Canopies South Elevation Entries Does not meet Standard 2, 5, 6, or 9 The extant former loading door, identified as a character-defining feature should be retained. New entries at the proposed amenity space addition should be revised to not overwhelm the historic portion of the building to be retained. The proposed use of corrugated metal on the proposed amenity space should be updated to a different, compatible material to clearly distinguish the original historic building and the proposed alteration. North Elevation Entries Does not meet Standard 2 or 9 The proposed new entries should be reduced in scale, and be pulled in at least one structural bay from each end of the character-defining roofline in order to retain more of the building materials and the building’s spatial relationship. The existing loading door should be retained and reused instead of introducing new entries in the same general location. Canopies Meets the Standards at new entries Does not meet Standard 2 or 5 The proposed removal of existing character-defining shed awnings should be retained instead of being replaced with new canopies. New Window Openings North and South Elevations Does not meet Standard 2, 3, 5, 6, or 9 It is recommended that the north and south window configuration be updated to no longer include the fixed windows that follow the slope of the roofline. East Elevation and Skylights Meets the Standards No recommendation Existing Window Treatment Meets the Standards In order to comply with Standards 2 and 5, original windows should be retained where condition allows. If windows are deteriorated beyond repair, they should be replaced with windows in kind. New windows should match the historic in configuration and profile and be manufactured in an appropriate replacement material. Existing Exterior Cladding Material Meets the Standards In order to comply with Standards 2 and 5, cladding material should be retained where condition allows. If it is deteriorated beyond repair, it should be replaced with material in kind and match the historic material in color and composition. Rooflines Does not meet Standard 2, 5, 6, and 9 The proposed design should be revised to retain the varied rooflines. If structural updates are necessary to meet code requirements, the roof’s overall form should be retained and replaced in kind. Loading Platforms Does not meet Standard 2, 5, 6, and 9 The revised design should be updated to retain more of the loading platform, including the change in grade from the adjacent parking lot. 3 Packet Pg. 134 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project Page 18 New Construction Townhouses Meet the Standards No recommendations Garage Addition Meets the Standards It is recommended that the proposed use of corrugated metal on the garage addition be revised to a different, compatible material to make it readily distinguishable from the historic building 3 Packet Pg. 135 200 Park Boulevard Project - Planned Community Rezoning Development Program Statement Because The Sobrato Organization ("Sobrato" or the "Owner") is donating significant acreage to the City, its Parcels 1, 3, 4, and 5 will no longer comply with existing City zoning standards, including for example with regard to open space, lot size, and floor area ratio. The City is also interested in restricting the uses of Parcels 1, 3, 4, and 5 to a greater extent than is possible with the use of existing base zoning districts. Accordingly, the following provides Sobrato's Development Program Statement in support of its request for four separate Planned Community Districts that would apply to Parcels 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the 200 Park Boulevard Project. Please see the enclosed Project Description for further information regarding the Project. We understand that the City separately proposes to redesignate the dedication parcel (Parcel 2) to PF. Necessity and Support for Findings Regarding Planned Community District •Parcel 1: Because Sobrato is donating significant acreage to the City, Parcel 1 will no longer comply with existing City zoning standards. Further, approval of Planned Community zoning for Parcel 1 would allow for greater flexibility and excellence in design, and allow the City to restrict use to townhome development. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment would also be processed for Parcel 1, to redesignate the small portion of the site that is currently designated Light Industrial to Multiple Family Residential, consistent with the remainder of the site which is already designated Multiple Family Residential. The Multiple Family Residential designation is consistent with the uses and development standards proposed for the Parcel 1 Planned Community district. •Parcel 3: Because Sobrato is donating significant acreage to the City, Parcel 3 will no longer comply with existing City zoning standards. Approval of Planned Community zoning for Parcel 3 will also allow retail use in the Cannery Building and allow the City to restrict the remainder of its use to R&D, as existing commercial zones all allow greater flexibility. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Service Commercial Designation would also be processed for Parcel 3, along with a minor text amendment for the designation, which would make the Parcel 3 Planned Community district consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. •Parcel 4: Because Sobrato is donating significant acreage to the City, Parcel 4 will no longer comply with existing City zoning standards. Further, approval of Planned Community zoning for Parcel 4 will allow the City to restrict use to office, as existing commercial zones all allow great flexibility. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Service Commercial Designation would also be processed for Parcel 4, along with a minor text amendment for the designation, which would make the Parcel 4 Planned Community district consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. •Parcel 5: Because Sobrato is donating significant acreage to the City, Parcel 5 will no longer comply with existing City zoning standards. Further, approval of Planned Community zoning for Parcel 5 will allow the City to restrict use to R&D use, as existing commercial zones all allow great flexibility. A Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the 3 Packet Pg. 136 2 #177083191_v3 Service Commercial Designation would also be processed for Parcel 5, along with a minor text amendment for the designation, which would make the Parcel 5 Planned Community district consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Permitted Uses in Each District •Parcel 1: Restricted to 74 townhomes and all associated improvements including landscaping, parking, and circulation elements. Development would consist of the following, and sales prices would be market rate: •Parcel 3: Restricted to R&D use and up to 2,600 square feet of retail use, and all associated improvements including landscaping, a 2-story parking garage, and circulation elements •Parcel 4: Restricted to office use •Parcel 5: Restricted to R&D use Development Plan Please see the enclosed plan set submitted for the Project's Major Architectural Review as well as its Planned Community Rezoning, which satisfies the requirements for a Development Plan contained in Palo Alto Zoning Code Section 18.38.090. Development Schedule With regard to Parcels 4 and 5, the Project does not propose any development, and the sole change at this time is associated with the uses permitted within the existing structures. The uses noted above would be permitted as of the effective date of the Project's Development Agreement, subject to all applicable provisions of the Development Agreement. With regard to Parcels 1 and 3, development will occur as described in the Phasing Plan contained in the Project's Development Agreement. The first phase (beginning with the submission of applications for permits) will commence within 90 days of the Development Agreement's effective date, with remaining phases progressing as specified in the Phasing Plan. The townhomes will be constructed at the time dictated by the market, and subject to further applicable provisions of the Development Agreement regarding the length of its term and the City's remedies in the event of non-construction. Please see the Development Agreement for further details. 3 Packet Pg. 137 #179495350_v2 This document is recorded for the benefit of the City of Palo Alto and is entitled to be recorded free of charge in accordance with Section 6103 of the Government Code. After Recordation, mail to: OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, Ca 94303 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT By and Between CITY OF PALO ALTO, A Chartered City and SI 45, LLC, A Delaware Limited Liability Company 3200 Portage Avenue Effective Date: _________________________ 3 Packet Pg. 138 -i- #179495350_v2 ARTICLE I — DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................................3 1.1 3 ARTICLE II - PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT; BINDING EFFECT; NEGATION OF AGENCY ...............................................................6 2.1 Property Subject to the Development Agreement .......................................................6 2.2 Binding Effect. ............................................................................................................6 2.3 Negation of Agency. ....................................................................................................6 ARTICLE III — TERM; FORCE MAJEURE; CANCELLATION ...............................................6 3.1 Basic Term ...................................................................................................................6 3.2 Force Majeure ..............................................................................................................6 3.3 Extension of Term Due to Moratoria. .........................................................................7 3.4 Cancellation by Mutual Consent .................................................................................7 ARTICLE IV — DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY............................................................7 4.1 Vested Development Rights ........................................................................................7 4.2 Subsequent Approvals. ................................................................................................8 4.3 Sequence of Development. ..........................................................................................8 4.4 Permitted Uses. ............................................................................................................9 ARTICLE V — OWNER PROMISES............................................................................................9 5.1 Construction of the Parking Garage and Existing R&D Tenant Relocations .............9 5.2 Demolition of Portion of Cannery and Completion of Retail/Display and Outdoor Seating Area ................................................................................................10 5.3 Recordation of Final Map and Dedication of BMR/Parkland Dedication Parcel. ....10 5.4 Environmental Conditions. ........................................................................................10 5.5 Switch Building. ........................................................................................................11 5.6 Development of Townhomes and Audi Building. .....................................................11 5.7 Transportation Demand Management Program. .......................................................11 5.8 Payment of Fees. .......................................................................................................12 ARTICLE VI — CITY PROMISES..............................................................................................12 6.1 Processing of Subsequent Approvals ........................................................................12 6.2 Acceptance of BMR/Parkland Dedication Parcel .....................................................13 ARTICLE VII - EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS .................................................................13 7.1 Subsequent Applicable Rules ....................................................................................13 7.2 Supervening Rules of Other Governmental Agencies ...............................................13 7.3 Building Codes. .........................................................................................................14 7.4 Utility Services. .........................................................................................................14 7.5 No General Limitation of Future Exercise of Power .................................................14 7.6 Alternative Approvals. ..............................................................................................14 ARTICLE VIII - ANNUAL REVIEW ..........................................................................................15 8.1 Annual Review. .........................................................................................................15 3 Packet Pg. 139 -ii- #179495350_v2 ARTICLE IX DEFAULT, REMEDIES, TERMINATION ..........................................................15 9.1 Remedies for Breach .................................................................................................15 9.2 Notice of Breach ........................................................................................................15 9.3 Applicable Law .........................................................................................................16 ARTICLE X —AMENDMENTS..................................................................................................16 10.1 Modification Because of Conflict with State or Federal Laws .................................16 10.2 Amendment by Mutual Consent ................................................................................17 10.3 City Costs for Review ...............................................................................................17 10.4 Minor Amendments ...................................................................................................17 10.5 Amendment of Approvals .........................................................................................18 ARTICLE XI — COOPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION .................................................18 11.1 Cooperation ...............................................................................................................18 11.2 City Processing ..........................................................................................................18 11.3 Other Governmental Permits .....................................................................................19 ARTICLE XII — TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS .............................................................19 12.1 Transfers and Assignments ........................................................................................19 12.2 Covenants Run with the Land ...................................................................................19 ARTICLE XIII — MORTGAGE PROTECTION; CERTAIN RIGHTS OF CURE....................19 13.1 Mortgage Protection ..................................................................................................19 13.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated ..........................................................................................20 13.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee .................................................................................20 ARTICLE XIV — GENERAL PROVISIONS .............................................................................20 14.1 Project is a Private Undertaking ................................................................................20 14.2 Notices, Demands, and Communications between the Parties ..................................20 14.3 Severability ................................................................................................................21 14.4 Section Headings .......................................................................................................21 14.5 Entire Agreement .......................................................................................................21 14.6 Estoppel Certificate ...................................................................................................21 14.7 Statement of Intention ...............................................................................................22 14.8 Indemnification and Hold Harmless ..........................................................................22 14.9 Recordation ................................................................................................................22 14.10 No Waiver of Police Powers or Rights ......................................................................23 14.11 City Representations and Warranties ........................................................................23 14.12 Owner Representations and Warranties ....................................................................23 14.13 Counterparts ..............................................................................................................24 14.14 Waivers ......................................................................................................................24 14.15 Time is of the Essence ...............................................................................................24 14.16 Venue .........................................................................................................................24 14.17 Surviving Provisions .................................................................................................24 14.18 Construction of Agreement .......................................................................................24 3 Packet Pg. 140 -iii- #179495350_v2 EXHIBIT A – Legal Description EXHIBIT B – [_________________] 3 Packet Pg. 141 Page 1 of 26 #179495350_v2 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND SI 45, LLC THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter “Agreement”) is entered into as of [date], by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a chartered city of the State of California (“City”), and SI 45, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“Owner”). City and Owner are each a "Party" and collectively, the "Parties." RECITALS THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT is entered into on the basis of the following facts, understandings and intentions of the parties: A. In order to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and reduce the economic costs of development, the Legislature of the State of California enacted Sections 65864 et seq. of the Government Code, which authorizes the City and any person holding a legal or equitable interest in the subject real property to enter into a development agreement, establishing certain development rights in the property, which is the subject of the development project application. B. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65865, the City has adopted Resolution No. 7104, establishing procedures and requirements for consideration of development agreements in Palo Alto. This Development Agreement has been processed, considered, and executed in accordance with such procedures and requirements. C. Owner has a legal interest in certain real property located in the City consisting of approximately 14.65 acres and commonly known as 200-404 Portage Avenue, 3201-3225 Ash Street, 3040-3250 Park Boulevard and 278 Lambert Street in Palo Alto, California (collectively, the “Property”), which Property is described in the attached Exhibit A, and shown on the map attached as Exhibit B. D. City and Owner through a City Council appointed ad hoc subcommittee conducted good faith and collaborative negotiations regarding the current and future uses of the Property, including a dispute regarding legal non-conforming uses of the property (“LNCU Dispute”) and Owner's pending application for a 91-unit residential project, including 15% moderate for sale affordable units, on a portion of the Property pursuant to certain state housing laws, including SB 330 ("SB 330 Residential Project). As a means of resolving the LNCU Dispute and as an alternative to the SB 330 Residential Project, City and Owner entered into a Tolling and Process Agreement (“TPA Agreement“), dated July 31, 2022, for consideration of this Agreement and related Approvals by City officials. The recitals of the TPA Agreement contain a more full contextual chronology. E. City desires to grant Owner vested development rights to construct and operate the Project in a manner consistent with this Agreement. In exchange for these development rights, Owner agrees the LNCU Dispute is resolved, to proceed with the Project in lieu of the SB 330 Residential Project and to provide certain public benefits, including, but not limited to, (i) transfer of approximately 3.25 acres of land to the City for affordable housing and park uses, (ii) construct a one level over grade structured parking garage to allow relocation of the existing surface parking 3 Packet Pg. 142 Page 2 of 26 #179495350_v2 on the dedication property, (iii) renovate/rehabilitate the remaining portion of the historic cannery building, including an approximately 2,600 square foot retail space to facilitate public appreciation of the interior historic elements of the cannery building and an adjacent outdoor landscaped seating area, (iv) implement a Transportation Demand Management ("TDM") plan for the existing R&D and office uses to reduce single occupant trips by 15%, (v) payment of $5 Million fee to the City to support affordable housing and open space at the City's discretion, and (vi) payment of all other applicable fees per the City's municipal code as specified herein. F. Concurrently with approval of this Development Agreement, the City has taken several actions to review and plan for the future development of the Project, including all required noticing and review and recommendation by the Architectural Review Board, Historic Review Board and Transportation and Planning Commission, and duly noticed public hearings by the City Council. These actions include the following, collectively the "Existing Approvals": a. Environmental Impact Report: The environmental impacts of the Project, including associated Approvals, have properly been reviewed and evaluated by the City pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”). Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council certified the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) for housing development at 200 Portage, which includes analysis of the Project as a project alternative, and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations by Resolution No. XXXX, adopted on [date]. As required by CEQA, the City adopted written findings and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. b. Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Resolution No. XXXX on [date], amending the land use designation of a portion of the Property in a manner consistent with the Project. c. Rezoning Ordinances: Ordinance Nos. XXXX [PC cannery], XXXX [PC Audi], XXX [PC Townhomes] and XXXX [PC Ash] [and dedication parcel to remain RM- 30] on [date], rezoning portions of the Property in a manner consistent with the Project. d. Architectural Review: Record of Land Use Action No XXXX on [date] approving of the Parking Garage, Townhomes and Historic Restoration and Rehabilitation of the Remaining Cannery. e. Tentative Map: Record of Land Use Action No. XXXX on [date] merge and resubdivide the Property into five parcels for the Remaining Cannery, the Townhomes, the Ash Building, the Audi Building, and the BMR/Parkland Dedication Parcel. G. The City is desirous of encouraging the creation of quality housing at all economic levels, thereby advancing the interests of its citizens, taken as a whole. The City has determined that the Project, with the associated approvals complies with the plans and policies set forth in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations, as amended. 3 Packet Pg. 143 Page 3 of 26 #179495350_v2 H. A primary purpose of this Development Agreement is to assure that the Project can proceed without disruption caused by a change in the City’s planning policies and requirements following the Approvals and to ensure that the community benefits Owner committing to provide in connection with development of the Project are timely delivered. Owner also desires the flexibility to develop the Project in response to the market, which remains uncertain due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and to ensure that the Approvals remain valid over the projected development period. I. These Recitals use certain terms with initial capital letters that are defined in Section 1 of this Agreement. City and Owner intend to refer to those definitions when the capitalized terms are used in these Recitals. J. These recitals are intended in part to paraphrase and summarize this Agreement, however, the Agreement is expressed below with particularity and the Parties intend that their rights and obligations be determined by those provisions and not by the Recitals. K. Following a duly noticed public hearing, this Development Agreement was approved by the City Council of the City by Ordinance No. [_____________], which was introduced on __________, and finally adopted on [____________], and became effective thirty (30) days thereafter, and was duly executed by t he parties as of [___________] (the "Effective Date"). NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT ARTICLE I — DEFINITIONS In this Agreement, unless the context otherwise requires: “Applicable Rules” means the City ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies in effect on the Effective Date, as amended by the Existing Approvals. “Approvals” means all Existing Approvals and Subsequent Approvals, as those terms are defined herein. “Architectural Review Approval” means the approval of an application for architectural review under the Applicable Rules. “Ash Building” means the existing 4,707 sf building located at 3201 -3225 Ash Street. “Audi Building” means the existing 11,762 sf building located at 3250 Park Boulevard. “BMR/Park Dedication Parcel” means the approximately 3.25 acres of land to be dedicated to the City under this Agreement, for development as affordable housing and parkland at the City’s sole cost and discretion as shown on [XXX]. 3 Packet Pg. 144 Page 4 of 26 #179495350_v2 “Cannery” means the existing historic cannery building at 200-380 Portage Avenue/3200 Park Boulevard. “Comprehensive Plan” means the 2030 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, adopted in November 2017 and in effect as of the Effective Date, as amended by the Existing Approvals. “Days” means calendar days. “Development Impact Fees” means all fees now or in the future collected by the City from applicants for new development (including all forms of approvals and permits necessary for development) for the funding of public services, infrastructure, improvements or facilities, but not including taxes or assessments, regulatory in-lieu fees such as the public art in-lieu fee, or fees for processing applications or permits or for design review. The fees included in this definition include, but are not limited to those fees set forth in Chapters 16.58 and 16.59 of the Municipal Code, fees for traffic improvements and mitigation, and fees for other community facilities or related purposes (but not including any school fees imposed by a school district); provided nothing herein shall preclude City from collecting fees lawfully imposed by another entity having jurisdiction which City is required or authorized to collect pursuant to State law. “Discretionary Action” includes a “Discretionary Approval” and is an action or decision which requires the exercise of judgment, deliberation, and which contemplates the imposition of revisions or conditions, by City, including any board, commission or department and any officer or employee thereof, in the process of approving or disapproving a particular activity, as distinguished from an activity which merely requires City, including any board, commission or department and any officer or employee thereof, to determine whether there has been compliance with applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations, or Conditions of Approval. “Effective Date” is defined in Recital K. “Existing Approvals” is defined in Recital F. “Expiration Date” means the 10th anniversary of the Effective Date, except as extended pursuant to Section 5.2. “Mortgage” means and refers, singly and collectively, to any mortgages, deeds of trust, security agreements, assignments and other like security instruments encumbering all or any portion of the Property or any of Owner’s rights under this Agreement. “Mortgagee” means and refers to the holder of any Mortgage encumbering all or any portion of the Property or any of the Owner’s rights under this Agreement, and any successor, assignee or transferee of any such Mortgage holder. “Parking Garage” means the new structured (one level above grade) parking garage shown on [XXX] that will allow relocation of most of the existing surface parking for the Cannery as required by the Approvals. “Party” means a signatory to this Agreement, or a successor or assign of a signatory to this Agreement. 3 Packet Pg. 145 Page 5 of 26 #179495350_v2 “Public Benefit Fee” means the monetary payment by Owner to the City for City’s use towards parkland improvement and/or provision of affordable housing, in the City’s sole discretion as set forth in Section ___. “Project” means proposed redevelopment of the Property in accordance with the Applicable Rules, Approvals, and this Agreement, which is generally described as follows and shown on [XXXX]: (i) Construction of the Parking Garage to facilitate dedication of the BMR/Parkland Dedication Parcel (including relocation of an existing above ground powerline); (ii) Restoration/rehabilitation of the Remaining Cannery, retaining the same area of existing R&D uses in the Cannery but relocated into the Remaining Cannery and including the Retail/Display and Outdoor Seating Area; (iii) Removal of approximately 84,000 sf of the Cannery to accommodate development of the Townhomes; (iv) Merger and resubdivision of the Property into five parcels (Remaining Cannery, Townhomes, Ash Building, Audi Building and BMR/Park Dedication Parcel) to facilitate the Project and dedication of the BMR/Park Dedication Parcel to the City for affordable housing and park purposes; (v) Retention of the existing office uses of the Ash Building; (vi) Retention and conversion of the existing Audi Building from the current automotive uses to R&D use; and (vii) Development of the Townhomes. "Retail/Display and Outdoor Seating Area" shall mean approximately 2,600 sf of new ground floor retail in the Remaining Cannery with: (1) public view opportunities to the monitor roof portion/internal truss system of the Remaining Cannery, (2) an exhibit of historic information about the Cannery, and (3) outdoor landscaped seating area as shown on [XXX]. “Remaining Cannery” shall mean that portion of the Cannery remaining after approximately 84,000 square feet are demolished on the northeast end of the building, as shown on [XXXX]. “Research and Development” or “R&D” shall mean the land use defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.04.030(a)(123) as that section read on the Effective Date. “Subsequent Applicable Rules” means the ordinances, resolutions, rules, regulations and official policies of City, as they may be adopted and effective after the Effective Date that do not conflict with the Applicable Rules, or that are expressly made applicable to the Project by this Agreement. “Subsequent Approvals” is defined in Section 4.2. 3 Packet Pg. 146 Page 6 of 26 #179495350_v2 “Switch Building” means those certain premises consisting of approximately 1,650 square feet of building space located at the end of the driveway adjacent to 270 Lambert Street, currently leased to Comcast of California IX, Inc. “Townhomes” means the 74 market rate, for-sale townhome-style 3- and 4- bedroom residential units and related infrastructure, landscaping and circulation proposed as part of the Project as shown on [XXX]. ARTICLE II - PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT; BINDING EFFECT; NEGATION OF AGENCY 2.1 Property Subject to the Development Agreement. All of the Property shall be subject to this Development Agreement. Owner agrees that all persons holding legal or equitable title in the Property shall be bound by this Development Agreement. 2.2 Binding Effect. Except as otherwise expressly provided herein, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, the Parties and their respective assigns, heirs, or successors in interest. 2.3 Negation of Agency. The Parties acknowledge that, in entering into and performing this Agreement, each Party is acting as an independent entity and not as an agent of the other in any respect. Nothing contained herein or in any document executed in connection herewith shall be construed as making City and Owner joint-venturers or partners. ARTICLE III — TERM; FORCE MAJEURE; CANCELLATION 3.1 Basic Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence as of the Effective Date and, unless earlier terminated in accordance with the terms hereof, shall continue in full force and effect until the Expiration Date. Upon the termination of this Agreement, no party shall have any further right or obligation hereunder except with respect to any outstanding obligation which was required to have been performed prior to such termination or with respect to any default in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement that has occurred prior to such termination or with respect to any obligations or rights that are specifically set forth as surviving this Agreement. 3.2 Force Majeure. Performance by either Party of an obligation hereunder shall be excused during any period of “Permitted Delay.” Permitted Delay shall mean delay beyond the reasonable control of a Party including, without limitation, war; insurrection; strikes and labor disputes; lockouts; riots; floods; earthquakes; fires; casualties; acts of God; acts of the public enemy; pandemics; epidemics; quarantine and public health restrictions; freight embargoes; legal challenges to this Agreement, legal challenges to the Project Approvals, or legal challenges to any other approval required from any public agency other than the City for the Project, or any initiatives or referenda regarding the same; environmental conditions, pre-existing or discovered, delaying the construction or development of the Property or any portion thereof; and moratorium as set forth in Section 3.3, so long as the Buyer is acting diligently and in good faith (each a “Permitted Delay”). A Party’s financial inability to perform shall not be a ground for claiming a Permitted Delay. The Party claiming the Permitted Delay shall notify the other Party of its intent to claim a Permitted Delay, the specific grounds of the same and the anticipated period of the 3 Packet Pg. 147 Page 7 of 26 #179495350_v2 Permitted Delay within 10 business days after (i) the occurrence of the conditions which establish the grounds for the claim and (ii) the affected Party's actual knowledge of such occurrence. The period of Permitted Delay shall last no longer than the conditions preventing performance. 3.3 Extension of Term Due to Moratoria. Extension of Term Due to Moratoria. In the event of any publicly declared moratorium that applies to the Project under the terms of this Agreement or other interruption in the issuance of permits, approvals, agreements to provide utilities or services or other rights or entitlements by any State, or Federal governmental agency, or public utility which could postpone the construction of improvements at the Project, the term of this Development Agreement shall be extended without further act of the parties by a period equal to the duration of any such moratorium or interruption; provided, however, the total term extension under this Section 3.3 shall not exceed a total of two (2) years. Nothing in this Section is intended, however, to confer on City or any related agency any right to impose any such moratorium or interruption. 3.4 Cancellation by Mutual Consent. Except as otherwise permitted herein, this Development Agreement may be canceled in whole or in part only by the mutual consent of the City and Owner or their successors in interest, in accordance with the provisions of the City Code. Any fees paid pursuant to this Development Agreement prior to the date of cancellation shall be retained by the City, and any sums then due and owing to the City shall be paid as part of the cancellation. ARTICLE IV — DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY 4.1 Vested Development Rights. City hereby grants Owner the vested right to develop the Project for the Term of this Agreement in accordance with and subject to: (a) the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Approvals and any amendments to any of them as shall, from time to time, be approved pursuant to this Agreement; and (b) the Applicable Rules (as defined in Section 1). Nothing contained herein shall restrict the City’s discretion to approve, conditionally approve, or deny amendments or changes to the Approvals proposed by Owner. Except as is expressly provided otherwise in this Agreement, no future modifications of the following shall apply to the Project: (a) the City Comprehensive Plan or a Coordinated Area Plan, (b) the Palo Alto Municipal Code, (c) applicable laws and standards adopted by the City which purport to: (i) limit the use, subdivision, development density, design, parking ratio or plan, schedule of development of the Property or the Project in a manner inconsistent with this Agreement and the Approvals; or (ii) impose new dedications, improvements, other exactions, design features, or moratoria upon development, occupancy, or use of the Property or the Project; or (d) any other Applicable Rules. Notwithstanding Section 18.77.090, and to the extent permitted by state law, including the Subdivision Map Act (Gov. Code §§ 66410 et seq.), the Existing Approvals and Subsequent Approvals shall be extended and shall not expire during the Term of this Agreement. In the event 3 Packet Pg. 148 Page 8 of 26 #179495350_v2 any Approval expires by operation of law during the term of this Agreement, City agrees that it will accept, process, and review in good faith and in a timely manner a new application that is consistent with the expired Approval, which application shall be governed by the Applicable Rules. 4.2 Subsequent Approvals. Certain subsequent land use approvals, entitlements, and permits other than the Existing Approvals, will be necessary or desirable for implementation of the Project (“Subsequent Approvals”). The Subsequent Approvals may include, without limitation, the following: amendments of the Approvals, final map(s), grading permits, building permits, sewer and water connection permits, certificates of occupancy, and any amendments to, or repealing of, any of the foregoing. The conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements for such Subsequent Approvals shall be in accordance with the Applicable Rules (except as otherwise provided in Section 9) and shall not prevent development of the Property for the uses provided under the Approvals, the Applicable Rules, and this Agreement (“Permitted Uses”), or reduce the density and intensity of development, or limit the rate or timing of development set forth in this Agreement, as long as Owner is not in default under this Agreement. Any subsequent discretionary action or discretionary approval initiated by Owner that is not otherwise permitted by or contemplated in the Approvals or which changes the uses, intensity, density, or building height or decreases the lot area, setbacks, parking or other entitlements permitted on the Property shall be subject to the rules, regulations, ordinances and official policies of the City then in effect and City reserves full and complete discretion with respect to any findings to be made in connection therewith. 4.3 Sequence of Development. The Parties acknowledge and agree that, given the existing uses and leases of the Property, certain elements of the Project will need to be approved, developed and implemented in the following certain order: (a) Construction of the Parking Garage (including the necessary relocation of an existing Palo Alto Power above-ground powerline) to allow the relocation of the existing surface parking serving the Cannery Building, Ash Building and Switch Building and (b) relocation of the existing R&D tenants to the Remaining Cannery, including all necessary associated interior historic restoration and existing tenant improvements to prepare for the demolition of a portion of the Cannery to accommodate the Townhomes ("Existing R&D Tenant Relocations"). It is noted that the construction of the Parking Garage will cause vibration so in the event the Parking Garage construction commences before or during the work on the Remaining Cannery, the Parties will work in good faith to review and confirm that the Remaining Cannery's condition is appropriate to withstand such vibration while construction continues as concurrently as possible. (b) Demolition of the portion of the Cannery Building necessary to accommodate the Townhomes and ensure no buildings located on the future new property line and 3 Packet Pg. 149 Page 9 of 26 #179495350_v2 completion of the exterior and any remaining interior historic restoration, Retail/Display, and Outside Seating Area. (c) Recordation of final map(s) including dedication of the BMR/Park Dedication to the City, preferably by offer and acceptance on the map, and then; (d) construction of the Townhomes (as dictated by the market). 4.4 Permitted Uses. The permitted uses of the Property during the Term of this Agreement shall be [update to match PC ordinances]: (a) Research and Development uses shall be permitted for up to XXXXX square feet of the Cannery on Parcel W, within the existing Cannery until redevelopment and within the Remaining Cannery after redevelopment consistent with the Approvals. (b) Approximately 2,600 square feet of the Remaining Cannery on Parcel W shall be dedicated to the Retail Use/Display and Outdoor Seating Area consistent with Section 7.2. (c) All uses permitted within the ROLM District (including office uses) shall be permitted for up to 4,707 square feet in the Ash Office Building on Parcel X. (d) Multiple family residential uses shall be permitted on Parcel Y in a manner consistent with the proposed Townhomes. (e) [Timing TBD] Research and Development uses shall be permitted for up to 11,762 square feet at the Audi Building on Parcel Z. ARTICLE V — OWNER PROMISES 5.1 Construction of the Parking Garage and Existing R&D Tenant Relocations. Within the deadlines set forth in Section 13, Owner will have submitted a good faith application and all applicable processing fees for the necessary ministerial permits (e.g., demolition, grading, building) to (a) relocate the existing Palo Alto Power above-ground powerline, (b) construct the Parking Garage and (c) complete the Existing R&D Tenant Relocations within the Remaining Cannery consistent with the Approvals, including all applicable compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, and (d) demolish the applicable portion of the Cannery, all consistent with the Approvals. After all necessary permits are issued, and within the deadlines set forth in Section 13, Owner will have commenced and diligently complete, as concurrently as possible, (a) relocation of the existing Palo Alto Power above-ground powerline, (b) construction of the Parking Garage and (c) the Existing R&D Tenant Relocations within the Remaining Cannery consistent with the Approvals, including all applicable compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. 3 Packet Pg. 150 Page 10 of 26 #179495350_v2 Until such time as the BMR/Park Dedication Parcel has been created and offered to the City pursuant to this Agreement, Owner will not voluntarily enter any additional extension of an Existing R&D Lease without including a clear acknowledgement and acceptance by such tenant of this Development Agreement, including the City's remedies hereunder set forth in Section 13. 5.2 Demolition of Portion of Cannery and Completion of Retail/Display and Outdoor Seating Area. After the Existing R&D Relocations and Parking Garage are complete, within the deadlines set forth in Section 13, Owner will have commenced and diligently completed demolition of the applicable portion of the Cannery and completed all related internal and external historic restoration/rehabilitation and the Retail/Display and Outdoor Seating Area consistent with the Approvals, including issuance by the City of all necessary final inspections. City and Owner will develop a recordable covenant related to the Retail/Display and Outdoor Seating Area to ensure it is open to the public for reasonable hours, but taking into account the needs of future retail tenants (to construct, host events, maintain, change hours, etc.). For purposes of this section, “complete and operational” shall mean that the City has issued final inspections or certificates of occupancy for the Parking Garage and final inspections and temporary certificates of occupancy for the Existing R&D Tenant Relocations. Final certificates of occupancy for the Existing R&D Tenant Relocations shall be issued after demolition and all related work under this Ssection 57.2 are complete. [Placeholder: Owner obligation to record a historic covenant ensuring maintenance of the Remaining Cannery in accordance with SOI standards and availability of interpretive materials.] 5.3 Recordation of Final Map and Dedication of BMR/Parkland Dedication Parcel. Promptly after the Parking Garage and demolition are both complete (removing the structure from the proposed new property line and relocating the surface parking) and within the deadlines set forth in Section 13, Owner will promptly submit and process for recordation a final map that creates, at minimum: (a) the Townhome Parcel; (b) the BMR/Parkland Dedication Parcel for acceptance by the City pursuant to the terms of this Agreement; and (c) all necessary easements for a multimodal from connection from Portage Avenue to Park Boulevard, consistent with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Conveyance to the City of the BMR/Parkland Dedication Parcel will be accomplished by acceptance of and offer of dedication on the final map. 5.4 Environmental Conditions. Prior to approval and recordation of the final subdivision map pursuant to Section 5.3 and within six (6) months of the Effective Date, Owner shall obtain a Phase 1 environmental report for the BMR/Park Dedication Parcel. If appropriate, based on the Phase 1 report, Owner shall undertake a Phase 2 sampling plan. If the Phase 2 sampling results show evidence of soil or groundwater contamination at levels that may require corrective action or the implementation of engineering controls, site use restrictions or deed restrictions (“Controls”), Owner, in consultation with City, shall prepare a work plan for corrective action and/or Controls (“Work Plan”) and a risk 3 Packet Pg. 151 Page 11 of 26 #179495350_v2 assessment to identify acceptable cleanup goals for the intended housing and parkland uses of the site. Owner shall submit the Work Plan and risk assessment to DTSC, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or any other environmental regulatory agency with jurisdiction (“the Oversight Agency”) for review and approval. The Work Plan shall be complete prior to acceptance of the BMR/Parkland Ded ication Parcel by the City. If the measures or Controls identified are not economically, technically or physically feasible or if they or the conditions expected to exist after remediation materially impact the suitability of the site for both the intended housing and parkland uses, the parties agree to negotiate in good faith to consider mutually acceptable modifications to their respective obligations under this Agreement. [Placeholder: Additional detail forthcoming regarding cleanup standards and parties’ obligations under this section]. 5.5 Switch Building. To the extent feasible and desirable to the City, Owner shall facilitate assignment to the City of any existing lease of the Switch Building. Owner shall have no obligation to modify any existing lease (other than to document an assignment to the City as the new fee owner) or incur any additional costs or liability related to the Switch Building for conveyance. 5.6 Development of Townhomes and Audi Building. Following demolition of the portion of the Cannery, recordation of the final map that includes the Townhomes and offer of dedication of the BMR/Parkland Dedication Parcel to the City, and issuance of all applicable ministerial permits, and as otherwise dictated by the market, Owner (or Owner's assignee) may begin construction and complete the Townhomes consistent with the Approvals. Owner shall make good faith efforts to effectuate development of the Townhomes as soon as commercially practical. For each year, as part of Article VIII (Annual Review), following creation of the Townhome parcel in which construction of the townhomes has not commenced, Owner provide the City with a summary of its efforts to market the Townhomes and an analysis of market conditions related to the Townhomes. Owner shall incorporate or cause to be incorporated into the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions for the Townhomes a condition prohibiting members of the homeowners’ association from participating in any Residential Preferential Parking District that includes the To wnhome parcel. [Timing TBD], Owner may complete, at any time dictated by the market, the conversion of use of the Audi Building from automotive to R&D. 5.7 Transportation Demand Management Program. New non-residential uses on the Property (applicable to new tenants/uses after the termination of the existing leases as of the Effective Date) shall be subject to a Transportation Demand Management Program that achieves a 15% reduction in single-vehicle-occupancy trips consistent with the Approvals. Owner has submitted a proposed TDM Program to the City for 3 Packet Pg. 152 Page 12 of 26 #179495350_v2 approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. The TDM Program will contain contingency provisions to ensure the program can be modified as appropriate over time. 5.8 Payment of Fees. (a) Development Fees, Assessments, Exactions, and Dedications. Except as provided herein, Owner shall pay all applicable City fees, including processing fees, Development Impact Fees, in-lieu fees, water and sewer connection and capacity charges and fees; assessments; dedication formulae; and taxes payable in connection with the development, build-out, occupancy, and use of the Project that apply uniformly to all similar developments in the City at the rates in effect at the time Owner applies for a building permit approval in connection with the Project (regardless of whether such fees, assessments, dedication formulae or taxes became effective before, on or after the Effective Date). Provided, however, Owner shall not be required to pay any new or increased Development Impact Fees adopted after the Effective Date, with the exception of increases to adjust for inflation. Additionally, Owner may elect to defer payment of Development Impact Fees for the Townhomes until construction of the Townhomes, in which case the Development Impact Fees shall be paid on a pro-rata basis (1/74th) at final inspection for each residential unit. City shall accept conveyance of the BMR/Parkland Dedication Parcel and payment of the Public Benefit Fee as full satisfaction of parkland dedication requirements under Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 21.50 and inclusionary housing requirements under Chapter 16.65. The City acknowledges and understands that the Owner intends to market the Townhomes to third party homebuilders and that the necessary credits and documentation will be assignable to such builder(s). (b) Public Benefit Fee. Owner shall also pay a $5 million ($5,000,000.00) Public Benefit Fee to the City for its use toward affordable housing or parkland improvement in the City’s sole discretion. Owner may elect to defer payment of the Public Benefit Contribution until construction of the Townhomes, in which case it shall be paid on a pro-rata basis (1/74th) at final inspection for each residential unit. However, if construction of the Townhomes has not commenced within 5 (five) years of the City's acceptance of the BMR/ Parkland Dedication Parcel, the Public Benefit Fee shall be increased in accordance with the increase in the Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area from the Effective Date to the date of payment or partial payment, until payment in full. If construction of the Townhomes is not complete by the Expiration Date, Owner shall pay the full Public Benefit Fee to the City on or before the Expiration Date. The City acknowledges and understands that the Owner intends to market the Townhomes to third party homebuilders and that the obligation to pay the Public Benefit Fee will be assignable to such builder(s) pursuant to [Section 12]Article XII. ARTICLE VI — CITY PROMISES 6.1 Processing of Subsequent Approvals Provided Owner is not in default of this Agreement, City shall promptly accept, review and shall not deny or unreasonably delay any Subsequent Approval, including all ministerial permits and 3 Packet Pg. 153 Page 13 of 26 #179495350_v2 inspections, necessary to the exercise of the rights vested in the Owner by this Agreement and all permits and approvals necessary to relocate the existing above-ground powerline necessary for construction of the Parking Garage. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the City's compliance with this obligation directly and materially relates to the Owner's ability to timely perform its obligations under this Agreement. 6.2 Acceptance of BMR/Parkland Dedication Parcel Provided Owner is not in default under this Agreement, City shall promptly review and accept Owner’s offer of dedication for the BMR/Parkland Dedication Parcel. Following the offer of dedication, City shall promptly review and act upon any Subsequent Approvals for the Townhomes, whether or not the City has completed its review and acceptance of the BMR/Parkland Dedication Parcel. ARTICLE VII - EXCEPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS 7.1 Subsequent Applicable Rules Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the following Subsequent Rules that are adopted on a general, City-wide or North Ventura Area-wide basis shall apply to development of the Property (“Subsequent Applicable Rules”): (a) Subsequent Rules that relate to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals and any other matter of procedure imposed at any time, provided such Subsequent Rules are uniformly applied throughout the City or the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan area to all substantially similar types of development projects and properties, and such procedures are not inconsistent with procedures set forth in the Approvals or this Agreement. (b) Subsequent Rules that are determined by City to be reasonably required in order to protect occupants of the Project, and/or residents of the City, from a condition dangerous to their health or safety, or both. This Section 7.1 is not intended to be used for purposes of general welfare or to limit the intensity of development or use of the Property but to protect and recognize the authority of the City to deal with material endangerments to persons on the Property not adequately addressed in the Approvals. (c) Subsequent Rules that do not conflict with the Applicable Rules, this Agreement or the Approvals, provided such Subsequent Rules are uniformly applied throughout the City or the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan area to all substantially similar types of development projects and properties; and (d) Other Subsequent Rules that do not apply to the Property and/or the Project due to the limitations set forth above, but only to the extent that such Subsequent Rules are accepted in writing by Owner in its sole discretion. 7.2 Supervening Rules of Other Governmental Agencies If any governmental entity or agency other than the City passes a law or regulation after 3 Packet Pg. 154 Page 14 of 26 #179495350_v2 the Effective Date which prevents or precludes compliance with one (1) or more provisions of this Agreement or requires changes in plans, maps, or permits approved by the City notwithstanding the existence of this Agreement, then the provisions of this Agreement shall, to the extent feasible, be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such new law or regulation. Immediately after enactment of any such new law or regulation, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith to determine the feasibility of any such modification or suspension based on the effect such modification or suspension would have on the purposes and intent of this Agreement. In addition, Owner shall have the right to challenge the new law or regulation preventing compliance with the terms of this Agreement, and, to the extent such challenge is successful, this Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect; provided, however, that Owner shall not develop the Project in a manner clearly inconsistent with a new law or regulation applicable to the Project and adopted by any governmental entity or agency other than the City, except to the extent that enforcement of such law or regulation is stayed or such law or regulation is repealed or declared unenforceable or such law or regulation is not applicable to projects as to which a development agreement has been executed. 7.3 Building Codes. The Project shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the California Building Code, Green Building Code, Mechanical, Plumbing, Electrical, and Fire Codes as adopted and amended by the City, City standard construction specifications and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, relating to building standards, in effect at the time of approval of the appropriate building, grading or other construction permits for the Project. Those codes, as modified from time to time, are Subsequent Applicable Rules. 7.4 Utility Services. This Agreement does not limit the power and right of the City to adopt and amend from time to time rules and procedures governing the provision and use of utility services provided by the City. These rules, as modified from time to time, are Subsequent Applicable Rules. 7.5 No General Limitation of Future Exercise of Power This Agreement does not limit the power and right of the City to adopt and amend from time to time rules and procedures governing the provision and use of utility services provided by the City. 7.6 Alternative Approvals. Notwithstanding any provisions in this Development Agreement, Owner may apply for, and the City may thereafter review and grant, in accordance with applicable law: (i) amendments or modifications to the Approvals; or (ii) other approvals (“Alternative Approvals”) for the development of the Property in a manner other than that described in the Approvals. The issuance of any Alternative Approval which approves a change in the Permitted Uses, density or intensity of use, height or size of buildings, provisions for reservation and dedication of land, conditions, terms, restrictions, and requirements relating to subsequent discretionary actions, monetary contributions by the Owner, or in any other matter set forth in this Development Agreement, shall not require or constitute an amendment to this Development Agreement, unless Owner and the 3 Packet Pg. 155 Page 15 of 26 #179495350_v2 City desire that such Alternative Approvals also be vested pursuant to this Development Agreement. If this Development Agreement is not so amended, it shall continue in effect unamended, although Owner shall also be entitled to develop the Property in accordance With the Alternative Approvals granted by the City, without such permits and approvals being vested hereby. ARTICLE VIII - ANNUAL REVIEW 8.1 Annual Review. The annual review required by California Government Code, Section 65865.1 shall be conducted pursuant to Resolution No. 7104 by the City’s Director of Planning and Development Services (“Planning Director”) every twelve (12) months from the Effective Date for compliance with the provisions hereof. The Planning Director shall notify Owner in writing of any evidence which the Community Development Director deems reasonably required from Owner in order to demonstrate good-faith compliance with the terms of this Development Agreement. Such annual review provision supplements, and does not replace, the provisions of Section 13 above whereby either the City or Owner may, at any time, assert matters which either party believes have not been undertaken in accordance with this Development Agreement by delivering a written Notice of Breach and following the procedures set forth in said Section 13. Owner shall pay the City’s actual costs for its performance of the Annual Review, including staff time if and to the extent that more than two (2) hours of staff time is required to perform the annual review. ARTICLE IX DEFAULT, REMEDIES, TERMINATION 9.1 Remedies for Breach. City and Owner acknowledge that the purpose of this Development Agreement is to carry out the parties’ objectives and local, regional, and Statewide objectives by developing the Project. The parties acknowledge that City would not have entered into this Development Agreement had it been exposed to damage claims from Owner for any breach thereof. As such, the parties agree that in no event shall Owner be entitled to recover any actual, consequential, punitive, or other monetary damages against City for breach of this Development Agreement. Therefore, City and Owner agree that, in the event of a breach of this Development Agreement, each of the parties hereto may pursue the following: (a) specific performance; (b) suits for declaratory or injunctive relief; (c) suits for mandamus or special writs; or (d) cancellation of this Development Agreement and Approvals, as set forth in Exhibit X. [**NTD: THIS SECTION IS A PLACEHOLDER--WILL CONTAIN DETAILS REGARDING ANTICIPATED DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE AND A SERIES OF REMEDIES AT EACH PHASE THAT WILL ENSURE FAIR OUTCOMES FOR BOTH PARTIES IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT **] In addition to the foregoing remedies, City shall be entitled to recover monetary damages with respect to monetary amounts payable by Owner under this Development Agreement. All of the above remedies shall be cumulative and not exclusive of one another, and the exercise of any one (1) or more of these remedies shall not constitute a waiver or election with respect to any other available remedy. 9.2 Notice of Breach. 3 Packet Pg. 156 Page 16 of 26 #179495350_v2 (a) Prior to the initiation of any action for relief specified in Section 9.1 above because of an alleged breach of this Development Agreement, the party claiming breach shall deliver to the other party a written notice of breach (a “Notice of Breach”). The Notice of Breach shall specify with reasonable particularity the reasons for the allegation of breach and the manner in which the alleged breach may be satisfactorily cured. (b) The breaching party shall cure the breach within thirty (30) days following receipt of the Notice of Breach; provided, however, if the nature of the alleged breach is nonmonetary and such that it cannot reasonably be cured within such thirty (30) day period, then the commencement of the cure within such time period and the diligent prosecution to completion of the cure thereafter at the earliest practicable date shall be deemed to be a cure, provided that if the cure is not so diligently prosecuted to completion, then no additional cure period shall be required to be provided. If the alleged failure is cured within the time provided above, then no default shall exist, and the noticing party shall take no further action to exercise any remedies available hereunder. If the alleged failure is not cured, then a default shall exist under this Development Agreement and the non-defaulting party may exercise any of the remedies available under this Development Agreement. (c) If, in the determination of the alleged breaching party, such event does not constitute a breach of this Development Agreement, the party to which the Notice of Breach is directed, within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Notice of Breach, shall deliver to the party giving the Notice of Breach a notice (a “Compliance Notice”) which sets forth with reasonable particularity the reasons that a breach has not occurred. 9.3 Applicable Law. This Development Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California without reference to its choice of laws rules. ARTICLE X —AMENDMENTS 10.1 Modification Because of Conflict with State or Federal Laws. (a) In the event that State or Federal laws or regulations enacted after the Effective Date of this Development Agreement prevent or preclude compliance with one (1) or more provisions of this Development Agreement or require changes in plans, maps, or permits approved by City, such modifications shall be governed by the provisions of Section 4.2 and Article VII. Any such amendment or suspension of this Development Agreement shall be approved by the City Council in accordance with the City Code and this Development Agreement and by Owner. (b) In the event changes in State or Federal laws or regulations substantially interfere with Owner’s ability to carry out the Project, as the Project has been approved, or with the ability of either party to perform its obligations under this Development Agreement, the parties agree to negotiate in good faith to consider mutually acceptable modifications to such obligations to allow the Project to proceed as planned to the extent practicable. 3 Packet Pg. 157 Page 17 of 26 #179495350_v2 10.2 Amendment by Mutual Consent. This Development Agreement may be amended in writing from time to time by mutual consent of City and Owner, subject to approval by the City Council (except as otherwise provided herein), and in accordance with the procedures of State law and the City Code. 10.3 City Costs for Review. During the Term of this Development Agreement, Owner shall promptly reimburse City for costs incurred by City to have its staff, consultant, or outside counsel review, approve, or issue assignments, estoppel certificates, transfers, amendments to this Development Agreement, and the like. Owner’s obligations under this Section 10.7 shall survive expiration or earlier termination of this Development Agreement. 10.4 Minor Amendments. (a) The parties acknowledge that the provisions of this Development Agreement require a close degree of cooperation between City and Owner, and, during the course of implementing this Development Agreement and developing the Project, refinements and clarifications of this Development Agreement may become appropriate and desired with respect to the details of performance of City and Owner. If, and when, from time to time, during the Term of this Development Agreement, City and Owner agree that such a refinement is necessary or appropriate, City and Owner shall effectuate such refinement through a minor amendment or operating memorandum (the “Operating Memorandum”) approved in writing by City and Owner, which, after execution, shall be attached hereto as an addendum and become a part hereof. Any Operating Memorandum may be further refined from time to time as necessary with future approval by City and Owner. No Operating Memorandum shall constitute an amendment to this Development Agreement requiring public notice or hearing. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 10.7, and by way of illustration but not limitation of the above criteria for an Operating Memorandum, any refinement of this Development Agreement which does not affect: (a) the Term of the Development Agreement as provided in Section 1.2; (b) the right to develop, and Permitted Uses of, the Property as provided in this Development Agreement; (c) the general location of on-site and off-site improvements; (d) the density or intensity of use of the Project; (e) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; or (f) monetary contributions by Owner as provided in this Development Agreement, shall be deemed suitable for an Operating Memorandum and shall not, except to the extent otherwise required by law, require notice or public hearing before either the Zoning Administrator or the City Council before the parties may execute the Operating Memorandum; provided, that such amendment shall first be approved by Owner and the Community Development Director (or if the City does not then have a Community Development Director, then by the holder of the position which includes the majority of the planning responsibilities held, as of the date of this Development Agreement, by the Community Development Director); and provided further, that the Community Development Director (or substitute) in consultation with the City Attorney shall make the determination on behalf of City whether a requested refinement may be effectuated pursuant to this Section 6.9 or whether the requested refinement is of such a character to constitute an amendment hereof pursuant to Section 6.7. The Community Development Director (or substitute) shall be authorized to execute any Operating Memoranda hereunder on behalf of City. Minor modifications to the Project as to the location, operational design, or requirements for maintenance of improvements shall be suitable for treatment through Operating Memoranda subject to the 3 Packet Pg. 158 Page 18 of 26 #179495350_v2 provisions of this Section 6.9, and not “major modifications” subject to the provisions of Section 6.7. 10.5 Amendment of Approvals. Approval of any major modifications to the Project or Approvals requires City Council approval and the approval of Owner. Any of the following amendments to Approvals shall be deemed a “major modification” and shall require an amendment of this Development Agreement: (a) the term of the Development Agreement as provided in Section 3.1; (b) the right to develop, and Permitted Uses of, the Property as provided in this Development Agreement; (c) the general location of on-site and off-site improvements; (d) the density or intensity of use of the Project; (e) the maximum height or size of proposed buildings; or (f) monetary contributions by Owner as provided in this Development Agreement. Such amendment shall be limited to those provisions of this Development Agreement, which are implicated by the amendment of the Approvals. Any other amendment of the Approvals shall not require amendment of this Development Agreement unless the amendment of the Approvals relates specifically to some provision of this Development Agreement. ARTICLE XI — COOPERATION AND IMPLEMENTATION 11.1 Cooperation. It is the parties’ express intent to cooperate with one another and to diligently work to implement this Agreement in a manner that ensures that all Parties realize the intended benefits of the Agreement. 11.2 City Processing. (a) By City. City will not use its discretionary authority in considering any application for a Subsequent Approval to change the policy decisions reflected by this Development Agreement or otherwise to prevent or delay development of the Project. The City shall cooperate with Owner in a reasonable and expeditious manner, in compliance with the deadlines mandated by applicable statutes or ordinances, to complete, at Owner’s expense, all steps necessary for implementation of this Development Agreement and development of the Project in accordance herewith, including, without limitation, in performing the following functions to process the Project: (i) Scheduling all required public hearings by the City Council, Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, or other City bodies in accordance with the City’s regularly established meeting schedule for these bodies; and (ii) Processing and checking all maps, plans, land use permits, building plans and specifications, and other plans relating to development of the Project filed by Owner or its nominees. (b) By Owner. When Owner elects to proceed with construction of the Project or any part thereof, Owner, in a timely manner, shall provide City with all documents, applications, plans, and other information necessary for City to carry out its obligations hereunder, and Owner shall cause its planners, engineers, and all other consultants to submit in a timely manner all necessary materials and documents. 3 Packet Pg. 159 Page 19 of 26 #179495350_v2 11.3 Other Governmental Permits. Owner shall apply prior to the expiration of the Term of this Development Agreement for approvals which may be required from other governmental or quasi-governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the Project as may be required for the development of, or provision of services to, the Project. City shall cooperate reasonably with Owner in its endeavors to obtain such permits and approvals at no cost to City. If, pursuant to the Existing Standards, such cooperation by City requires the approval of the City Council, such approval cannot be predetermined because decisions are made by a majority vote of the City Council. ARTICLE XII — TRANSFERS AND ASSIGNMENTS 12.1 Transfers and Assignments. Owner may assign this Development Agreement with the express written consent of City, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. Owner may assign this Development Agreement in whole or in part as to the Property, in connection with any sale, transfer, or conveyance thereof, and upon the express written assignment by Owner and assumption by the assignee by an assignment and assumption agreement in a form reasonably acceptable to City, and the conveyance of Owner’s interest in the Property related thereto. Upon execution of an assignment and assumption agreement, Owner shall be released from any further liability or obligation hereunder related to the portion of the Property so conveyed and the assignee shall be deemed to be the “Owner,” with all rights and obligations related thereto, with respect to such conveyed property. 12.2 Covenants Run with the Land. All of the provisions, agreements, rights, powers, standards, terms, covenants, and obligations contained in this Development Agreement shall be binding upon the parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation, or otherwise), and assigns, devisees, administrators, representatives, lessees, and all of the persons or entities acquiring the Property or any portion thereof, or any interest therein, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever, including foreclosure or deed in lieu of foreclosure, and shall inure to the benefit of the parties and their respective heirs, successors (by merger, consolidation, or otherwise), and assigns. All of the provisions of this Development Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land pursuant to applicable law, including, but not limited to, Section 1468 of the Civil Code of the State of California. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act on the Property hereunder, or with respect to any City-owned property: (a) is for the benefit of such properties and is a burden upon such property; (b) runs with such properties; (c) is binding upon each party and each successive owner during its ownership of such properties or any portion thereof, and each person or entity having any interest therein derived in any manner through any owner of such properties, or any portion thereof; and (d) shall benefit each property hereunder, and each other person or entity succeeding to an interest in such properties. ARTICLE XIII — MORTGAGE PROTECTION; CERTAIN RIGHTS OF CURE 13.1 Mortgage Protection. This Development Agreement shall be superior and senior to any lien placed upon the Property or any portion thereof after the date of recording this Development Agreement, including the lien of any deed of trust or mortgage (“Mortgage”). Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach hereof shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, but all of the terms and conditions 3 Packet Pg. 160 Page 20 of 26 #179495350_v2 contained in this Development Agreement shall be binding upon and effective against any person or entity, including any deed of trust beneficiary or mortgagee (“Mortgagee”) who acquires title to the Property, or any portion thereof, by foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, or otherwise. 13.2 Mortgagee Not Obligated. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 13.1 above, no Mortgagee shall have any obligation or duty under this Development Agreement to construct or complete the construction of improvements or to guarantee such construction or completion; provided, however, a Mortgagee shall not be entitled pursuant to this Development Agreement to devote the Property to any uses or to construct any improvements thereon other than those uses or improvements provided for or authorized by this Development Agreement or otherwise under the Approvals. Nothing in this Section 13.2 shall prevent or impair the right of any Mortgagee to apply to City for the approval of entitlements to construct other or different improvements than the Project, although this Development Agreement shall not be construed to obligate City to approve such applications, and City retains full and complete discretion with respect to consideration of any such applications for approval. 13.3 Notice of Default to Mortgagee. If City receives a notice from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of default given Owner hereunder and specifying the address for service thereof, then City shall deliver to such Mortgagee, concurrently with service thereon to Owner, any Notice of Breach given to Owner with respect to any claim by City that Owner has committed an event of default, and, if City makes a determination of noncompliance hereunder, City shall likewise serve notice of such noncompliance on such Mortgagee concurrently with service thereon on Owner. Each Mortgagee shall have the right during the same period available to Owner to cure or remedy, or to commence to cure or remedy, the event of default claimed or the areas of noncompliance set forth in City’s Notice of Breach. ARTICLE XIV — GENERAL PROVISIONS 14.1 Project is a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by the parties that the development contemplated by this Development Agreement is a private development, that City has no interest in or responsibility for or duty to third persons concerning any of said improvements, and that Owner shall have full power over the exclusive control of the Property herein described subject only to the limitations and obligations of Owner under this Development Agreement. 14.2 Notices, Demands, and Communications between the Parties. Formal written notices, demands, correspondence, and communications between City and Owner will be sufficiently given if dispatched by first-class mail, postage prepaid, or overnight courier, to the offices of the City and Owner indicated below. Such written notices, demands, correspondence, and communications may be sent in the same manner to such persons and addresses as either party may from time to time designate by mail as provided in this Section: City: City Manager City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 3 Packet Pg. 161 Page 21 of 26 #179495350_v2 with copies to: City Attorney City of Palo Alto, 8th Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Director of Planning and Development Services City of Palo Alto, 5th Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Owner: SI 45, LLC Attn: Tim Steele c/o The Sobrato Organization 599 Castro Street, Suite 400 Mountain View, CA 94041 With a copy to: Holland & Knight Attn: Tamsen Plume 50 California Street, Suite 2800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Notices delivered by deposit in the United States mail as provided above shall be deemed to have been served forty-eight (48) hours after the date of deposit or if sent via overnight courier on the next business day. 14.3 Severability. Except as otherwise provided herein, if any provision of this Development Agreement is held invalid, the remainder of this Development Agreement shall not be affected and shall remain in full force and effect unless amended or modified by mutual consent of the parties. 14.4 Section Headings. Article and Section headings in this Development Agreement are for convenience only and are not intended to be used in interpreting or construing the terms, covenants, or conditions of this Development Agreement. 14.5 Entire Agreement. This Development Agreement, including the Recitals and the Attachments to this Development Agreement which are each incorporated herein by reference, constitutes the entire understanding and agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. The Attachments are as follows: Exhibit A Legal Description Exhibit B [__________________] 14.6 Estoppel Certificate. Either party may, at any time, and from time to time, deliver written notice to the other party requesting such party to certify in writing that, to the knowledge of the certifying party: (a) this Development Agreement is in full force and effect and a binding 3 Packet Pg. 162 Page 22 of 26 #179495350_v2 obligation of the parties; (b) this Development Agreement has not been amended or modified orally or in writing, and, if so amended, identifying the amendments; (c) the requesting party is not in default in the performance of its obligations under this Development Agreement, or if in default, to describe therein the nature and amount of any such defaults; and (d) any other matter reasonably requested by the requesting party. The party receiving a request hereunder shall execute and return such certificate or give a written, detailed response explaining why it is not obligated to do so within twenty (20) business days following the receipt thereof. Either the City Manager or the Community Development Director of City shall have the right to execute any certificate requested by Owner hereunder. City acknowledges that a certificate hereunder may be relied upon by transferees and Mortgagees. 14.7 Statement of Intention. Because the California Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo, 37 Ca1.3d 465 (1984), that the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development resulted in a later adopted initiative restricting the timing of development and controlling the parties’ agreement, it is the intent of City and Owner to hereby acknowledge and provide for the right of Owner to develop the Project in such order and at such rate and times as Owner deems appropriate within the exercise of its sole and subjective business judgment, subject to the terms of this Development Agreement. City acknowledges that such a right is consistent with the intent, purpose, and understanding of the parties to this Development Agreement, and that without such a right, Owner’s development of the Project would be subject to the uncertainties sought to be avoided by the Development Agreement Legislation and this Development Agreement. 14.8 Indemnification and Hold Harmless. Owner shall indemnify, defend (with counsel reasonably acceptable to City) and hold harmless City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, contractors, agents, and representatives (individually, a “City Party,” and, collectively, “City Parties”) from and against any and all liabilities, obligations, orders, claims, damages, fines, penalties and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs (collectively, “Claims”), including Claims for any bodily injury, death, or property damage, resulting directly or indirectly from the development, construction, or operation of the Project and, if applicable, from failure to comply with the terms of this Development Agreement, and/or from any other acts or omissions of Owner under this Development Agreement, whether such acts or omissions are by Owner or any of Owner’s contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees; provided that Owner’s obligation to indemnify and hold harmless (but not Owner’s duty to defend) shall be limited (and shall not apply) to the extent such Claims are found to arise from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of a City Party. This Section 10.10 includes any and all present and future Claims arising out of or in any way connected with Owner’s or its contractors’ obligations to comply with any applicable State Labor Code requirements and implementing regulations of the Department of Industrial Relations pertaining to “public works” (collectively, “Prevailing Wage Laws”), including all claims that may be made by contractors, subcontractors, or other third-party claimants pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1726 and 1781. Owner’s obligations under this Section 10.10 shall survive expiration or earlier termination of this Development Agreement. 14.9 Recordation. Promptly after the Effective Date of this Development Agreement, the City Clerk shall have this Development Agreement recorded in the Official Records of Santa Clara County, California. If the parties to this Development Agreement or their successors in 3 Packet Pg. 163 Page 23 of 26 #179495350_v2 interest amend or cancel this Development Agreement as hereinabove provided, or if City terminates or modifies this Development Agreement as hereinabove provided, the City Clerk shall record such amendment, cancellation, or termination instrument in the Official Records of Santa Clara County, California. 14.10 No Waiver of Police Powers or Rights. In no event shall this Development Agreement be construed to limit in any way City’s rights, powers, or authority under the police power and other powers of City to regulate or take any action in the interest of the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens. 14.11 City Representations and Warranties. City represents and warrants to Owner that, as of the Effective Date: (a) City is a California charter city and municipal corporation and has all necessary powers under the laws of the State of California to enter into and perform the undertakings and obligations of City under this Development Agreement. (b) The execution and delivery of this Development Agreement and the performance of the obligations of City hereunder have been duly authorized by all necessary City Council action, and all necessary City approvals have been obtained. (c) This Development Agreement is a valid obligation of City and is enforceable in accordance with its terms. During the Term of this Development Agreement, City shall, upon learning of any fact or condition which would cause of any of the warranties and representations in this Section 10.15 not to be true, immediately give written notice of such fact or condition to Owner. 14.12 Owner Representations and Warranties. Owner represents and warrants to City that, as of the Effective Date: (a) Owner is duly organized and validly existing under the laws of the State of California, and is in good standing, and has all necessary powers under the laws of the State of California to own property interests and in all other respects enter into and perform the undertakings and obligations of Owner under this Development Agreement. (b) The execution and delivery of this Development Agreement and the performance of the obligations of Owner hereunder have been duly authorized by all necessary corporate action and all necessary corporate authorizations have been obtained. (c) This Development Agreement is a valid obligation of Owner and is enforceable in accordance with its terms. (d) Owner has not: (i) made a general assignment for the benefit of creditors; (ii) filed any voluntary petition in bankruptcy or suffered the filing of any involuntary petition by Owner’s creditors; (iii) suffered the appointment of a receiver to take possession of all, or substantially all, of Owner’s assets; (iv) suffered the attachment or other judicial seizure of all, or 3 Packet Pg. 164 Page 24 of 26 #179495350_v2 substantially all, of Owner’s assets; or (v) admitted in writing its inability to pay its debts as they come due. During the Term of this Development Agreement, Owner shall, upon learning of any fact or condition which would cause any of the warranties and representations in this Section 10.16 not to be true, immediately give written notice of such fact or condition to City. 14.13 Counterparts. This Development Agreement may be executed in one (1) or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 14.14 Waivers. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Development Agreement, any failures or delays by any party in asserting any of its rights and remedies under this Development Agreement shall not operate as a waiver of any such rights or remedies or deprive any such party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may deem necessary to protect, assert, or enforce any such rights or remedies. A party may specifically and expressly waive in writing any condition or breach of this Development Agreement by the other party, but no such waiver shall constitute a further or continuing waiver of any preceding or succeeding breach of the same or any other provision. Consent by one party to any act or failure to act by the other party shall not be deemed to imply consent or waiver of the necessity of obtaining such consent for the same or similar acts or failures to act in the future. 14.15 Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Development Agreement and of each and every term and condition hereof. All references to time in this Development Agreement shall refer to the time in effect in the State of California. 14.16 Venue. Any legal action regarding this Development Agreement shall be brought in the Superior Court for Santa Clara County, California.. 14.17 Surviving Provisions. In the event this Development Agreement is terminated, neither party shall have any further rights or obligations hereunder, except for those obligations of Owner which by their terms survive expiration or termination hereof, including, but not limited to, those obligations set forth in Sections 10.7, 14.10, and 14.11. 14.18 Construction of Agreement. All parties have been represented by counsel in the preparation and negotiation of this Development Agreement, and this Development Agreement shall be construed according to the fair meaning of its language. The rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Development Agreement. Unless the context clearly requires otherwise: (a) the plural and singular numbers shall each be deemed to include the other; (b) the masculine, feminine, and neuter genders shall each be deemed to include the others; (c) “shall,” “will,” or “agrees” are mandatory, and “may” is permissive; (d) “or” is not exclusive; (e) “includes” and “including” are not limiting; and (f) “days” means calendar days unless specifically provided otherwise. / / / / / / / / / 3 Packet Pg. 165 Page 25 of 26 #179495350_v2 / / / / / / / / / / / / 3 Packet Pg. 166 Page 26 of 26 #179495350_v2 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Owner have executed this Development Agreement as of the date first written above. “City”: CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California charter city and municipal corporation “Owner”: SI 45, LLC, a California limited liability company By: Name: ________________________ Title:__________________________ By: Name: Title: Attest: Name: ________________________ Title: ________________________ APPROVED AS TO FORM: Name: _________________________ Title:__________________________ 3 Packet Pg. 167 #179495350_v2 CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California } } ss. County of Santa Clara } On ______________________________, before me, ___________________, a Notary Public in and for said County and State, personally appeared _____________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF CALIFORNIA My Commission #_______________ Expires: _____________________ 3 Packet Pg. 168 #179495350_v2 ACKNOWLEDGMENT A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. State of California County of Santa Clara On _____________________________, before me, ____________________, personally appeared __________________________________________________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature (Seal) 3 Packet Pg. 169 1 of 6 #179495350_v2 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Real property in the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: 3 Packet Pg. 170 2 of 6 #179495350_v2 EXHIBIT X SCHEDULE OF PARTIES’ OBLIGATIONS AND REMEDIES FOR DEFAULT OR BREACH # Deadline Owner and City Phasing Obligations and Remedies Ongoing from Effective Date to completion of Townhomes. Owner to provide regular updates to the City regarding the status of the Project, permitting, construction and marketing efforts, and City to provide the Owner with regular updates regarding the status of any permits or approvals under review. Prior to Physical Work Commencing. Within 90 Days of Effective Date Owner has prepared and submitted applications, including all applicable application fees, for the necessary ministerial permits for Phase A as described on Exhibit __, including (i) relocation of the City's above ground powerline, (ii) the Parking Garage, (iii) the rehabilitation/renovation of the Remaining Cannery (including the Retail/Display and Outdoor Seating Area ), and (iv) demolition of the portion of the Cannery (the “Phase A Work”) consistent with this Agreement and the Approvals. City’s exclusive remedy for an Owner's failure to meet this deadline for this Section is termination of the Agreement and Approvals under Section ___. The City will accept and process such permit applications expeditiously and in good faith pursuant to Section 8.1. Owner's exclusive remedy for the City's Default in processing is (1) specific performance and (2) an extension to this and all remaining deadlines in this schedule pursuant to Section ___. Within 90 days of the City issuance of a permit ready letter (upon Owner’s payment of all applicable fees) to Owner. Owner has Commenced Construction on the Phase A Work. For the purposes of this Section, "Commenced Construction" means the Owner has obtained all necessary ministerial permits (including the payment of all applicable fees), entered a construction contract and started physical grading and/or site preparation work related to the Phase A Work. City’s exclusive remedy for an Owner's failure to meet this deadline for this Section 3 Packet Pg. 171 3 of 6 #179495350_v2 # Deadline Owner and City Phasing Obligations and Remedies is termination of the Agreement and Approvals under Section ___. Once Owner Commences Construction on the Phase A Work, as long as the Owner is in good faith compliance with all applicable permits related to such work, the City will no longer have the right to terminate the Approvals (as opposed to the Agreement). In the event Owner Abandons the Phase A Work, the City retains the right to terminate both the Agreement and the Approvals. For the purposes of this Section "Abandons" means the Owner has stopped all work for more than 180 consecutive days without a good faith reason, extension or Event of Force Majeure. The City will issue such permits, subject to Owner's submittal of all required plans, information and fees, expeditiously and in good faith pursuant to Section 8.1. Owner's exclusive remedy for the City's Default in issuing permits requested by Owner is (1) specific performance and (2) an extension to this and all remaining deadlines in this schedule pursuant to Section ___. After Physical Work Commences, but Prior to Recordation Final Map Creating Townhome Parcel and BMR/Park Dedication Parcel. 16 months from Commencement of Construction of the Phase A Work. Owner has completed the Parking Garage (meaning the City has issued a final inspection and cars are allowed to park in the structure in the normal course) and completed Demolition of the applicable portion of the Cannery. For the purposes of this Section “Demolition” means either that (i) the portion of the building is removed so that there is no longer a building over a new property line creating the Townhome Parcel or (ii) the City approves the recordation of the Final Map creating the Townhome Parcel with the portion of the Cannery to remain vacant and unoccupied on the property line until issuance of build permit for the Townhomes). City’s exclusive remedies for an Owner's failure to meet this deadline for this Section are (1) specific performance; (2) termination of the Agreement under Section ___, and/or (3) the City may withhold occupancy permits for New R&D uses in 3 Packet Pg. 172 4 of 6 #179495350_v2 # Deadline Owner and City Phasing Obligations and Remedies the Remaining Cannery, Audi Building and/or New office uses in the Ash Building. For the purpose of this Section "New" means a use that is not subject to an existing lease as of the Effective Date. If a New R&D use has occupied the Audi Building (subject to the required notices to such tenant of the requirements of this Agreement), the City also has the remedy to require such user to cease any R&D use of the Audi Building within three (3) years of the tenant’s initial occupancy. The City will schedule inspections and issue final inspections expeditiously and in good faith pursuant to Section 8.1. Owner's exclusive remedy for the City's Default in issuing final inspections is (1) specific performance and (2) an extension to the this and all remaining deadlines in this schedule pursuant to Section ___. With 60 days of City’s issuance of certificates of occupancy for the Phase A Work (including the Demolition of the portion of the Cannery Building as defined above). Owner has submitted a request, with all supporting documentation and applicable fees, to the City to record a Final Map that includes both the creation of the Townhome Parcel and the BMR/Park Dedication Parcel consistent with this Agreement and the Approvals. City’s exclusive remedies for an Owner's failure to meet this deadline for this Section are (1) specific performance; (2) termination of the Agreement under Section ___, and/or (3) the City may withhold occupancy permits for New R&D uses in the Remaining Cannery, Audi Building and/or New office uses in the Ash Building. For the purpose of this Section "New" means a use that is not subject to an existing lease as of the Effective Date. If a New R&D use has occupied the Audi Building (subject to the required notices to such tenant of the requirements of this Agreement), the City also has the remedy to require such user to cease any R&D use of the Audi Building within three (3) years of the tenant’s initial occupancy. The City will process such Final Map in expeditiously and in good faith pursuant to Section 8.1. The City will not withhold recordation of the Final Map for acceptance of the BMR/Park Dedication Parcel if the Final Map is otherwise ready to record consistent with this Agreement 3 Packet Pg. 173 5 of 6 #179495350_v2 # Deadline Owner and City Phasing Obligations and Remedies and the Approvals. Owner's exclusive remedy for the City's Default in processing is (1) specific performance and (2) an extension to this and all remaining deadlines in this schedule pursuant to Section ___. After Recordation of Final Map Creating Townhome Parcel and BMR/Park Dedication Parcel, but prior to Acceptance by City and/or Completion of Townhomes. N/A Once Owner has recorded the Final Map creating the Townhome Parcel and BMR/Park Dedication Parcel, including an offer to dedicate the BMR/Park Dedication Parcel to the City in fee, the City may not withhold building permits or occupancy permits under this Agreement related to the Remaining Cannery, Audi Building, Ash Building or Townhomes. The City's exclusive remedies are (1) termination of this Agreement (but not the Approvals) or (2) specific performance. The City will accept the offer of dedication expeditiously and in good faith pursuant to Section 8.2. Owner's exclusive remedy for the City's Default in accepting the offer of dedication is (1) specific performance and (2) an extension to all remaining deadlines in this schedule pursuant to Section ___. After BMR/Park Dedication Accepted by City but Prior to Completion of Townhomes. End of Term The City and Owner acknowledge the Townhomes will be constructed at the time dictated by the market, but in the event the Townhomes have not been constructed by the end of the Term, Owner will pay the full amount of the Public Benefit Fee to the City. The City's exclusive remedy for an Owner Default in the payment of the Public Benefit fee is specific performance. In addition to notice and opportunity to cure as provided in Section ___, extensions by formal written amendment as provided in Section ___, and Force Majeure, the deadlines in this EXHIBIT X may be extended by each or a combination of the following: • City Extension: The deadlines set forth in this EXHIBIT X are subject to a ninety (90) day extension, provided (1) that the Owner submits a written request for an extension prior to the deadline which shall include the rationale for the request and summary of the actions Owner has taken to satisfy the obligation prior to the deadline and (2) the 3 Packet Pg. 174 6 of 6 #179495350_v2 extension request is approved by the City Manager, which such approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. • Owner Extension. The deadlines set forth in this EXHIBIT X are also subject to a maximum of six extensions of 30 days each (no more than 180 days) upon written notice to City and an increase of $25,000 for each such 30-day extension shall be added to the Public Benefit Fee. • City Review: The deadlines set forth in this EXHIBIT X are each contingent upon the City reviewing and providing comments or approving the ministerial permit and improvement plans submitted by Owner within thirty (30) days of submission of complete plans. This 30-day period shall commence anew each time that Owner submits revised plans in response to City comments on the prior version of the permit or improvement plans. Owner shall be solely responsible for submitting complete plans that satisfy all code and City requirements. Owner shall be responsible for payment of all required City building permit fees including costs for City to retain contract plan check services. In the event that City review exceeds 30 days, the relevant deadline set forth in this Section 13 shall be extended one day for each day the City review exceeds 30 days. 3 Packet Pg. 175 Attachment F: Consistency with North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Goals North Ventura CAP Goals Development Agreement Alternative Housing and Land Use: Add to the City’s supply of multifamily housing, including market rate, affordable, “missing middle,” and senior housing in a walkable, mixed use, transit‐accessible neighborhood, with retail and commercial services and possibly start up space, open space, and possibly arts and entertainment uses. The project adds up to 149 units to the City’s housing supply including 74 market rate units as well as one acre and funding to support a 75-unit affordable housing project on the City dedication land. The project also provides 2.25 acres of open space adjacent Matadero Creek. Transit, Pedestrian and Bicycle Connections: Create and enhance well‐defined connections to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities, including connections to the Caltrain station, Park Boulevard and El Camino Real. The project creates an enhanced bikeway connection between Park Boulevard and portage Avenue, consistent with the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan and Countywide Trail Plan. Connected Street Grid: Create a connected street grid, filling in sidewalk gaps and street connections to California Avenue, the Caltrain Station, and El Camino Real where appropriate. The project would provide a private street between Portage Avenue and Park Boulevard. However, a connection (parking lot) exist there today. The change may allow for vehicular traffic to cut through; however, cut through traffic is not anticipated given that there are other options already connecting El Camino Real and Park Boulevard that would be more convenient for surrounding uses. Community Facilities and Infrastructure: Carefully align and integrate development of new community facilities and infrastructure with private development, recognizing both the community’s needs and that such investments can increase the cost of housing. The project includes community facilities, including a public park and a retail/public space that will provide public access to view the monitor roofs. Balance of Community Interests: Balance community‐wide objectives with the interests of neighborhood residents and minimize displacement of existing residents and small businesses. The project replaces vacant retail space with housing and a small retail/public space for viewing the monitor roofs. It does not displace any small businesses. Although research and development uses were not encouraged to remain at this site in accordance with the NVCAP process, the retention of existing uses would allow for other community benefits identified throughout the process, including a public park and housing. Urban Design, Design Guidelines and Neighborhood Fabric: Develop human‐scale urban design strategies, and design guidelines that strengthen and support the neighborhood fabric. Infill development will respect the scale and character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Include transition zones to surrounding neighborhoods. The project proposes to retain existing buildings (a portion of the cannery, Ash office building and Audi building) and to construct 35-foot tall townhomes. The proposed height and multi- family use aligns with existing surrounding R&D, retail-like and residential uses. 3 Packet Pg. 176 Sustainability and the Environment Protect and enhance the environment, while addressing the principles of sustainability. The new housing project building will be all electric and will comply with GB-1 plus Tier 2 requirements. Any modifications to the cannery that qualify as a substantial improvement would require upgrades to meet the new green building code. The applicant is looking to design, if feasible, a net zero cannery building in accordance with comments from the Council and commissioners. 3 Packet Pg. 177 Printed on Recycled Paper SENT VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL October 31, 2022 Ms. Claire Raybould City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR 200 PORTAGE AVENUE TOWNHOME PROJECT – DATED SEPTEMBER 2022 (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NUMBER: 2021120444) Dear Ms. Raybould: The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) received a Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project (Project). The Lead Agency is receiving this notice from DTSC because the Project includes one or more of the following: groundbreaking activities, work in close proximity to a roadway, presence of site buildings that may require demolition or modifications, and/or importation of backfill soil. DTSC recommends that the following issues be evaluated in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials section of the EIR: 1. A State of California environmental regulatory agency such as DTSC, a Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), or a local agency that meets the requirements of Health and Safety Code section 101480 should provide regulatory concurrence that the Project site is safe for construction and the proposed use. 2. The EIR acknowledges the potential for historic activities on or near the project site to result in the release of hazardous wastes/substances on the project site. Information presented in the EIR was primarily based on a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) report and a Soil Vapor Investigation 3 Packet Pg. 178 Ms. Claire Raybould October 31, 2022 Page 2 Report. Impacts related to the Project include demolition of buildings with potential hazardous materials, and hazardous materials sites on and around the Project site associated with VOCs detected below ground surface at the site that may contribute to vapor intrusion impacts during operation of the proposed project. Further studies should be carried out to delineate the nature and extent of contamination, and any potential threat to public health and/or the environment should be evaluated. The EIR should also identify the mechanism(s) to initiate any required investigation and/or remediation and the government agency who will be responsible for providing appropriate regulatory oversight. 3. Refiners in the United States started adding lead compounds to gasoline in the 1920s in order to boost octane levels and improve engine performance. This practice did not officially end until 1992 when lead was banned as a fuel additive in California. Tailpipe emissions from automobiles using leaded gasoline contained lead and resulted in aerially deposited lead (ADL) being deposited in and along roadways throughout the state. ADL-contaminated soils still exist along roadsides and medians and can also be found underneath some existing road surfaces due to past construction activities. Due to the potential for ADL-contaminated soil DTSC, recommends collecting soil samples for lead analysis prior to performing any intrusive activities for the project described in the EIR. 4. The EIR states that buildings are to be demolished on the project site. Surveys should be conducted for the presence of lead-based paints or products, mercury, asbestos containing materials, and polychlorinated biphenyl caulk. Removal, demolition, and disposal of any of the above-mentioned chemicals should be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies. In addition, sampling near current and/or former buildings should be conducted in accordance with DTSC’s 2006 Interim Guidance Evaluation of School Sites with Potential Contamination from Lead Based Paint, Termiticides, and Electrical Transformers. 5. If any projects initiated as part of the proposed project require the importation of soil to backfill any excavated areas, proper sampling should be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination. DTSC recommends the imported materials be characterized according to DTSC’s 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material. 3 Packet Pg. 179 Ms. Claire Raybould October 31, 2022 Page 3 DTSC appreciates the opportunity to comment on the EIR. Should you choose DTSC to provide oversight for any environmental investigations, please visit DTSC’s Site Mitigation and Restoration Program page to apply for lead agency oversight. Additional information regarding voluntary agreements with DTSC can be found at DTSC’s Brownfield website. If you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 255-3710 or via email at Gavin.McCreary@dtsc.ca.gov. Sincerely, Gavin McCreary Project Manager Site Evaluation and Remediation Unit Site Mitigation and Restoration Program Department of Toxic Substances Control cc: (via email) Governor’s Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse State.Clearinghouse@opr.ca.gov Mr. Dave Kereazis Office of Planning & Environmental Analysis Department of Toxic Substances Control Dave.Kereazis@dtsc.ca.gov 3 Packet Pg. 180 Santa Clara Valley Water District | 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 95118-3686 | (408) 265-2600 | www.valleywater.org Clean Water • Healthy Environment • Flood Protection ♺ File: 23143 Matadero Creek November 15, 2022 Ms. Claire Rebould City of Palo Alto Planning and Development Services Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Notice of Availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project (SCH# 2021120444) Dear Ms. Rebould: The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) has reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project, received on September 19, 2022. Based on our review of the DEIR Valley Water has the following comments: 1. Valley Water has easements along Matadero Creek within and adjacent to the project site. Figure 2-4, Proposed Townhome Project Site Plan, page 2-8 shows improvements, such as walkways and landscaping that appear to be located within Valley Water’s easement. W ork within Valley Water’s easement will require issuance of a Valley Water encroachment permit as per Valley Water’s Water Resources Protection Ordinance and Valley Water should be listed as an agency under the Required Approvals on page 2-13). Issuance of a Valley Water encroachment permit is a discretionary act and requires Valley Water to be considered a responsible agency under CEQA. 2. In the Hydrology and Water Quality section, the response to checklist question #4, which includes flood hazards, on page 4.9-15 needs to include a discussion of the flood hazards for the site. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) current Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06085C0017H, effective May 18, 2009, the majority of the site is within Zone X, areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1% annual chance flood. However, the map also shows a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) Zone A, without base flood elevations, along Matadero Creek and adjacent to the creek. The map notes the 1% flood annual chance flood discharge is contained in the creek, though the mapping does not show it aligned with the creek throughout the site. It may be necessary to have the map revised to accurately show the Zone A in order to be in compliance with the City’s floodplain ordinance since it appears that some of the homes would be within the mapped SFHA Zone A area unless the map is corrected. DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F752A7F-2520-42E2-89DD-E24E1BC7F304 3 Packet Pg. 181 Page 2 November 15, 2022 Ms. Claire Rebould Santa Clara Valley Water District | 5750 Almaden Expressway, San Jose, CA 95118-3686 | (408) 265-2600 | www.valleywater.org ♺ 3. The DEIR should include a discussion of how the site complies with the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams (Guidelines and Standards), which was adopted by the City of Palo Alto, in regard to creek setbacks and plantings. Concrete-lined channels are subject to failure as the lining ages and future construction repairs are required to maintain the integrity of the flood protection improvements. As such, setbacks from the creek for structures will allow Valley Water to do such work, as needed. While the adjacent section of Matadero Creek is concrete lined, plantings at the site should be in conformance with the Guidelines and Standards, in particular Design Guide 3, which will help ensure landscaping will be maintained in a manner consistent with the goal of protecting the local natives that may be found in downstream areas of the creek that are not concrete lined and preventing proliferation of invasive species that can impact flood improvements and channel conveyance capacity. This guide provides options for use of either non-invasive, drought-tolerant, non-native ornamental plants that will not have the potential to cross pollinate with native riparian species or else choosing non-invasive, drought-tolerant, non-local California natives (ornamental natives) with no potential to cross- pollinate with the local native species. 4. On page 4.9-22, the document incorrectly calculates water use based on estimated wastewater generation of 27,036 gallons of water per day, or 0.08 acre-feet per year. The document should be revised to show that 27,036 gallons of water per day is 0.08 acre-feet per day, which is calculated to be approximately 30 acre-feet per year. 5. Valley Water records indicate that six wells are located within the project site, three on APN: 132-38-071 and three on APN: 132-32-043. To protect groundwater quality and in accordance with Valley Water Ordinance 90-1, all existing wells affected by redevelopment of the site need to be identified and properly registered with Valley Water and either be maintained or destroyed in accordance with Valley Water’s standards. Destruction of any well and the construction of any new wells proposed, including monitoring wells, requires a permit from Valley Water prior to construction. Property owners or their representatives should contact the Valley Water Wells and Water Measurement Unit at (408) 630-2660, for more information. Please forward a copy of the Final EIR and plans for the improvements over Valley Water’s easement, when available. If you have any questions, please contact me at (408) 630-3157 or kthai@valleywater.org. Please reference Valley Water File No. 23143 on any future correspondence. Sincerely, Kevin Thai, CFM Associate Engineer Community Projects Review Unit cc: Y. Arroyo, C. Haggerty, M. Martin, K. Thai, File DocuSign Envelope ID: 2F752A7F-2520-42E2-89DD-E24E1BC7F304 3 Packet Pg. 182 City of Palo Alto Planning Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 I am writing to comment on the DEIR for the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project as someone who attended most of the NVCAP working group meetings, who has years of experience reviewing EIRs and additionally as someone who has many years’ experience working with CEQA and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards. The DEIR is deficient in a number of ways including that it does not analyze numerous potential impacts, makes assumptions based on lack of evidence, is incomplete in providing project description enough to be able to identify impacts, and does not provide a CEQA-required alternative that would reduce the significant impact to the Cannery building. 2.5.5 Comments: Landscape and Open Space 1) The DEIR states that 70 trees will be removed including 1 Coast live oak and 2 redwoods that are protected. How many of the trees proposed to be removed are protected under the current and updated tree ordinance and what are they? 2) Is the updated tree ordinance being used to determine what trees are protected? 3) What are the 176 new trees –what is the variety and size, and do they satisfy the current and updated tree ordinance requirements? 4) Are the new trees planned compatible with a naturalized creek? 5) The Historic evaluation of the Cannery property indicates one of the character defining features is the landscape. Do the trees being removed or being planned impact or positively reflect the historic landscape features referenced in the Page & Turnbull (P&T) analysis? The DEIR does not analyze/address any of these 5 prior questions. 6) The DEIR states both that there are 3.25 acres or approximately 3.25 acres of land for open space and an affordable housing project. Which is it? 7) How much open space is required by code for the amount of development being proposed? 8) Will the 2.25 or approximate 2.25 acres of open space be dedicated as parkland according to the City’s park dedication ordnance? At the end of the 10 year 3 Packet Pg. 183 Development Agreement period will the parkland be subject to development or other use? 9) It appears the open space calculation includes the new street that is being introduced. Is this accurate and if so why? 10) It appears that the creek and creek bank are being included as part of the open space but what is the amount of open space being dedicated for parkland, and does it satisfy the amount of parkland required for the proposed project? 11) Assuming the affordable housing project is built for an unknown number of units/residents, how can it be determined if the amount of parkland is sufficient to satisfy code requirements for the number of new residents (townhomes and affordable housing units) combined? 12) Figure 2-2 indicates the area of Proposed Development will go all the way to the creek. If this is accurate or if development goes within the creek setback, that is a violation of code and an impact on the creek and that may include impacts to future migration routes after creek restoration. 13) Figure 2-2 in the DEIR and Figure 1 in the August 1 staff presentation differ significantly in depicting the open space configuration and location. Which is accurate? 2.5.4 Comments: Circulation, Access and Parking 1) The Historic evaluation of the Cannery property indicates one of the character defining features is the landscape and setting. Additionally, according to CEQA and the Secretary of Interior’s Standards determination of historic eligibility is based on not just the building but the setting, the context. The DEIR ignores this in its analysis, commenting on impacts as though the historic resource is the building and only the building. This should have been addressed in the DEIR and needs to be corrected. 2) Adding a new through street in front of the building is introducing a previously non- existing element. How does this satisfy the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. The P&T HRE states “…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.” which is at the end of the period of significance. The DEIR does not analyze/address this issue. 3) Adding a parking structure behind the building is inconsistent with the context and setting. The DEIR does not analyze/address this questions or issues. 3 Packet Pg. 184 4) Adding a parking garage of unknown design is also a potential impact. Is it of a compatible design in consideration of the Cannery building? 5) Why is a parking structure, as opposed to one-level unenclosed parking, being added and why in this location so near the Cannery building? Again, it introduces another potential impact on the Cannery building that is unaddressed in the analysis. 6) What is the proposed one-story parking structure providing parking for….the R&D or the townhomes? It is on the same proposed parcel as the R&D. If any is for the townhomes, how will that provision be penned as it will be on a separate parcel? 7) How many parking spaces are being provided and are parking requirements satisfied for either the R&D and/or the townhomes? 8) How can an affordable housing project/building (mass, scale, etc) that has not been even preliminarily designed, be analyzed for traffic impacts? 4.2 Comments: Cultural Resources 1) The DEIR concludes multiple impacts to the Cannery property. And the DEIR indicates that the “renovation” to the remaining Cannery building does not satisfy the Secretary of Interior’s Standards. However, it does not consider there is a Cumulative Cultural Resources Impact as this one of the last remaining Cannery properties as part of the Valley of Hearts Delight. This is not considered in the DEIR. Why was this not considered/analyzed? “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.” Page 45 Page & Turnbull HRE 2) It should be made clear that the period of significance for the Cannery building “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.” (Page 45 of P&T HRE) The additions and joining of the cannery buildings were all accomplished under the Sutter Company and during this period of significance. The character-defining features of the Cannery Building include its 3 Packet Pg. 185 • Long, linear massing • Composition of multiple smaller buildings • Primarily one-story, double-height volumes with taller central cannery section • Varied roof forms and structures None of the above character-defining features are included in the DEIR analysis but need to be included in the analysis as they are lost (impacts on the Cannery building) due to the proposed demolition. All of these features listed are impacted by the proposed development and need to be included and analyzed. 3) The building is eligible for the CA Register “Criterion 1 for its association with the history of the canning industry in Santa Clara County” and retains integrity in its Design, Materials, Workmanship. All of these are impacted by the demolition as part of the proposed project and need to be listed as impacts. 4) The DEIR finds significant impacts due to the amount of demolition (89,639 sq ft, approx. 40% of the building) that includes “removal of canning platforms, and cooling porches, and several character-defining features such as form and massing and varied roof forms and structures…Additionally, the proposed treatment of the building would not be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards….including the introduction of new window and door openings, the addition of new canopies are not consistent with the building’s historic character and would obscure historic materials that characterize the property.” However, the DEIR does not consider the impacts according to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards as a result of a) the addition of a parking garage and its proximity to the canning platforms, cooling platforms and proximity to the remainder of the Cannery building. b) the mass, scale, location/proximity and design of the new proposed townhomes including its location in front of the remainder of the Cannery building (Fig 2-2). c) the mass, scale, location and design of the new affordable housing project including its location in front of the remainder of the Cannery building. All of the above need to be analyzed and included in the DEIR comment responses. 5) The staff presentation to the Council on August 1 states under Retail Space/Historic Preservation • Renovate Cannery Building • Consistent with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards • Consistent with CEQA Why are these assurances not represented by the proposed development in the DEIR? The DEIR confirms the proposed renovation of the remainder of the Cannery does not satisfy the Standards. Will the proposer be required to satisfy the assurances indicated in the staff presentation and listed again here? 3 Packet Pg. 186 6) It should be made clear that Mitigations CU-1 and CU-2, while commonly referred to as mitigations, do nothing to mitigate the loss of the historic resource as the building will still be significantly impacted by the demolition of 40% of the building and numerous other impacts both identified in the DEIR and herein and will no longer be eligible for the CA Register. 7) How can an affordable housing project/building (mass, scale, etc) that has not been even preliminarily designed, be analyzed for compatibility with or as an impact on the Cannery building? 6.4 Comments: Environmentally Superior Alternative and 6.2 Adaptive reuse of Eligible Resources for Housing 1) The DEIR remarkably concludes that a project that would preserve the Cannery building would have a significant and unavoidable impact on the historic building based on no evidence presented. “…because no development plans are available and it’s unclear whether proposed development would comply with the secretary of the interior’s standards for rehabilitation, this analysis conservatively assumes…” Rather than starting with preservation of the Cannery building using the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for historic properties as the basis for an alternative, the DEIR concludes that, in the absence of any drawings or other evidence, there will be a significant and unavoidable impact to the historic status of the Cannery. In other words, there is no analysis presented that could practically result in a conclusion. Nor is there an alternative that would satisfy the requirement of CEQA. “The range of alternatives required in an EIR is governed by a ‘rule of reason’ that requires the EIR to set forth only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice. The alternatives shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project” (15126.6[f]). (emphasis added) The alternative presented that “preserves” the Cannery starts, for unstated reason, by adding another story to the building which would in and of itself likely have a significant impact. There is no alternative presented that avoids the significant impact to the historic property as is required by CEQA. 2) What professional consultants and/or studies were performed that evaluated the feasibility of adaptive reuse of the building to inform what uses are feasible including structural, economic and preservation feasibility? Any studies used to evaluate these preservation alternative options should be provided. 3 Packet Pg. 187 3) What other uses were considered for adaptive reuse of the Cannery building besides housing? Alternatives do not necessitate housing as the use in the building. 4) What information was used to conclude another story would be necessarily added to the building? 5) Was housing within the Cannery and a single story addition to the Cannery building considered to reduce or eliminate impacts to the historic resource? 6) The Cannery is 232,383 sq. ft. with 142,744 sq. ft. now in R&D. Fry’s previously occupied 84,000 sq. ft. The 89,639 not currently in R&D use I the Cannery building should be studied to provide a) housing and b) housing and retail/services. What considerations were given to this/these alternatives? How many housing units could be created in that 89,639 sq ft of existing unutilized space? This information needs to be provided in order to understand the how the significant impacts might be avoided. 6a) What could be accomplished with a one-story housing addition at the back of the Cannery building or a detached low profile housing building using either to add to any housing that could be provided inside the Cannery building such that a significant impact might be avoided? 7) How many square feet are proposed in the new townhomes development? Why was this size and type of housing proposed as opposed to smaller units that could have eliminated or reduced impacts to the historic resource? No such alternative is presented. Questions 2-7 are a few examples but not an exhaustive list of questions that need to be answered to perform a preservation alternative to the proposed project that would avoid a significant impact to the Cannery. Again, reference the CEQA requirement for a preservation alternative that would reduce below the threshold of significant impact or that would eliminate the impact is required. Zoning comment: The proposal identifies Planned Community (PC) as the future zoning for at least some of the parcels proposed. 1) Which parcels will be governed by the PC ordinance? 2) Given the flexibility of that zoning, what will be the governing standards to provide assurance of maximum heights, minimum setbacks, e. g. as the project proceeds through the various design review steps to assure the project aligns with the environmental analysis and provides assurances to the community? 3 Packet Pg. 188 Timing/sequencing comment: It appears that the design review of the proposal will be conducted prior to the FEIR. What assurances are in place to assure that issues raised in the DEIR will not be for naught as the proposal goes through the design review process? Missing elements of the DEIR: The List of Preparers is the final entry in the DEIR. Missing are the Tables, Figures and Appendices. (Figure 2-2 that is referenced is provided on Page 2-3.) Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the DEIR. Karen Holman 3 Packet Pg. 189 City of Palo Alto Planning Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Hi, Claire, I have the following additional comments on the 200 Portage DEIR. Comment: Table 4.8-5 Intersection Operations under Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions and Table 4.8-6 Intersection Operations under Background and Background Plus Project Conditions Tables indicate in several locations that the LOS is already at an F performance level. It does not, however, indicate the current seconds delay as is provided for the other LOS rated intersections and ratings. The current and future conditions both need to be provided to ascertain what the anticipated delays will be and if mitigations are warranted consistent on City policy. Why are these number not provided and please provide them. Comment: Areas of known controversy The DEIR does not include the preservation of the Cannery as an area of known controversy even though it was a common and high-profile topic of discussion at NVCAP Working Group meetings and in the community at large with a number of presentations about the Cannery, Thomas Foon Chew, and Bayside Cannery’s role in the canning industry as well as Mr. Chew as an important business man. See the P&T HRE for more information about Mr. Chew and the CA Register eligibility that were basis for these community presentations and Working Group discussions. Regards, Karen Holman 3 Packet Pg. 190 From:Arthur Keller To:Raybould, Claire Subject:Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration/Draft Environmental Impact Report 200 Portage Date:Tuesday, November 15, 2022 4:19:51 PM You don't often get email from arthur@kellers.org. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. "Pursuant to Section 10564.5(b) of the CEQA guidelines a project may result in substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource if it causes physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired. Material impairment is defined as demolition or alteration “in an adverse manner [of] those characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the [CRHR].”3 "Additional guidance on assessing impacts to historical resources is defined in Section 15064.5(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, states that impacts to historical resources are generally considered mitigated to a less than significant level when they meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary’s Standards) (Attachment 3). The Secretary’s Standards establish professional standards and provide guidance on the preservation and protection of historic properties. The intent of the Secretary’s Standards is to provide for the long-term preservation of a property’s significance through the preservation of its historic materials and features. These historic materials and features are commonly referred to as character-defining features and are indispensable in a historic property’s ability to convey the reasons for its historical significance. The Bayside Canning Company’s character-defining features were assessed by Page & Turnbull in their historic resource evaluation, as outlined above. To ensure a proposed project’s compliance with the Secretary’s Standards, a historic property’s character-defining features should therefore be identified and preserved as part of the final design. "In consideration of impacts to the 340 Portage Avenue property, the most substantial impact would occur through the demolition of 89,639 square-feet of the eastern portion of the Bayside Canning Company canning/warehouse building, constituting a loss of approximately 40 percent of the building. The proposed demolition would result in the removal of distinctive materials, the loss of several character-defining features, and would, therefore constitute material impairment to the historical resource. The proposed demolition would be in an adverse manner of those characteristics of the historical resource that convey its historical significance and justify its eligibility for listing in the CRHR. Additionally, the proposed treatment of the building would not be consistent with the Secretary’s Standards which recommends avoiding loss of historic materials through demolition and removal and encourages the retention of distinctive materials that characterize a property. The proposed would cause a loss of several of the the property’s character-defining features outlined above, including its form and masing and varied roof forms and structures through the proposed demolition. Additionally, the treatment proposed for the portion of the building that is to remain and be rehabilitated for continued use also does not meet the Standards. That Standards provide that the removal of distinctive materials should be avoided, alterations should not destroy historic materials, and that deteriorated features should be repaired or replaced in kind, where necessary. The proposed project includes the removal of distinctive materials like the character-defining exterior cannery features such as the loading platforms and cooling porches. The proposed changes to the building’s fenestration, most notably the addition of new window openings and the alterations to the entrances on the north and south elevations also do not meet the Standards. The addition of the proposed aluminum canopies above the entries and the proposed addition to the warehouse’s south elevation are not compatible with the warehouse’s historic character and would obscure historic materials that characterize the property and is, therefore, inconsistent with the Standards. Additionally, the proposed bisection of the canning/warehouse building would result in unknown and undefined treatment of a substantial portion of the building. The unidentified treatment of the remaining portion of the warehouse building could result in additional material impairment. Furthermore, the proposed demolition of the portion of the building included in project site would impair the building’s physical characteristics that convey the property’s historical significance such that the historic resource would not retain sufficient integrity for listing. "The goals of rehabilitation are to make possible the compatible new use of a historic property while preserving those portions or features that convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values. The project, as proposed, would result in material impairment to the resource and would not preserve the building’s historical value. The proposed project would result in substantial changes to the historic canning/warehouse building and would destroy distinctive materials, features, and spatial relationships that define its historic character. The partial demolition of the building and the proposed exterior updates would result in the removal of distinctive building materials. Finally, the proposed new additions and adjacent construction are proposed in a manner that requires the demolition of part of the historic building. If the proposed new construction were removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic building and its environment would be impaired and would not, therefore, meet the Standards. The proposed partial redevelopment of the warehouse building fails to meet the Standards for the reasons outlined above. The project as proposed would result in significant impact to a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. "Recommendations 3 Packet Pg. 191 "To inform the alternatives analysis for CEQA compliance and identify measures to mitigate potential impacts, Rincon has provided the following recommendations. "In order to meet the Standards, thereby avoiding a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, the project would have to be redesigned to avoid subdivision of the historic resources on separate parcels as well as the partial demolition of the historic resource at 340 Portage Avenue. The buildings could be rehabilitated for a new use that would require minimal change to their distinctive features. For a successful rehabilitation, the design would have to retain the building’s character-defining features, as previously outlined.” Appendix C, pp. 17-19. "Alternative 2: Adaptive Reuse of Eligible Historic Resource for Housing "6.2.1 Description "Consistent with the City Council’s selected alternative for the NVCAP, Alternative 2 assumes that , the parcels across the project site would be merged and that development would occur across the entire project site, including parcels 132-38-071 and 132-32-036, -042, and -043, not just on the area of proposed development as identified in the description of the proposed project. The eligible historical resource at 200 Portage (also known as 340 Portage) would remain, would be increased in height to three stories, and the interior of the building would be developed with 281 residential units under this alternative. Although adaptive reuse would retain more of the historic integrity of the existing building by retaining it, it is unclear whether adaptive reuse of the building for housing could be completed in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Treatment of in Section 6.2.2(b) below and further study may be required if this alternative is selected. "An additional residential townhome building up to 35 feet in height with 12 units would be constructed in the current parking area east of the 200 Portage building. Overall, this alternative assumes up to 293 residential units across the project site. The existing commercial space in the 200 Portage building would be reduced and only 7,400 square feet of commercial space would remain. The building at 3040 Park Boulevard and the auto uses east of Matadero Creek would not be demolished and would remain. Figure 6-1 shows the conceptual layout of this alternative. "Alternative 2 would meet most of the project objectives, though further study may be required into how this alternative could be achieved.” pp. 6-4 to 6-5 "6.4 Environmentally Superior Alternative "Table 6-9 indicates whether each alternative’s environmental impact is greater than, less than, or equivalent to that of the proposed project for each of the issue areas studied. Based on the alternatives analysis provided above, Alternative 1 (No Project) would be the environmentally superior alternative. However, Alternative 1 would not achieve the basic project objectives as stated in at the beginning of this section. This alternative does not involve housing development in the near term to help the City meet its housing supply and affordability goals and would not contribute towards the concept of a “complete neighborhood” consistent with the NVCAP. "Under Alternative 2 (Adaptive Reuse of Eligible Historic Resource for Housing), the CRHR-eligible building at 200 Portage would not be demolished. However, because no development plans are available and it’s unclear whether proposed development would comply with the secretary of the interior’s standards for rehabilitation, this analysis conservatively assumes that impacts related to cultural resources would remain significant and unavoidable. But it is assumed to be less impactful than the proposed project because demolition of a portion of the building would not occur. Because this alternative would result in fewer vehicle trips than the proposed project, associated impacts including air quality, energy, GHG emissions, and traffic noise would be reduced compared to the proposed project and would remain less than significant, the same as the proposed project. Alternative 2 would meet most of the objectives for the 200 Portage Avenue project. However, as with the proposed project, Alternative 2 may conflict with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan since an enhanced bikeway traversing the site is not included as part of the project description or site plans. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T-1 would still be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. "Under Alternative 3 (Development Agreement), a portion of the CRHR-eligible building at 200 Portage would still be demolished and the unavoidably significant impact related to cultural resources would occur. Alternative 3 would meet all the objectives of the 200 Portage Avenue project. Although it would increase the number of housing units from 91 to 149, and accordingly would result in increased air quality, energy, noise and GHG emissions, the net new total emissions for air quality and GHG would still be below BAAQMD thresholds, and impacts related to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, and noise would be less than significant. Additionally, Alternative 3 would include a provision dedicating land to the City and a public easement for ingress/egress across the identified area for an enhanced bikeway. Because this would be documented in the Development Agreement and is therefore part of the proposed project, Mitigation Measure T-1 would no longer be required and impacts on transportation would be less than significant without mitigation. "Although none of the Alternatives (other than the No Project Alternative) would reduce the significant and unavoidable impact on a 3 Packet Pg. 192 historic resource to a less than significant level, because Alternative 2 would slightly reduce impacts related to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, and traffic noise, and transportation in comparison to proposed project and Alternative 3, Alternative 2 would be considered the Environmentally Superior Alternative.” pp. 6-20 to 6-21 Alternative 2 must be studied in order to determine whether the alternative development meeting most of the project alternatives can be built while retaining the features of the historic building. A delay in approving the project must occur in order to allow such a study to occur. 3 Packet Pg. 193 From:Jeff Levinsky To:Raybould, Claire Subject:DEIR Comments for 200 Portage Avenue Date:Monday, November 14, 2022 10:45:28 PM You don't often get email from jeff@levinsky.org. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Claire: Here are some questions for the DEIR: 1. Page 2-4 cites 18.70.030(b)(2)(E). Should that be 18.70.070(b)(2)(E)? 2. Is it correct that City staff’s interpretation of the current Municipal Code has been that the legal options on the main site are RM-30 use (the underlying zoning) or the ratio of retail, research and development, warehouse, and storage uses as existed when special rule 18.70.070(b)(2)(E) for the site was enacted? 3. Does the proposed project comply with these two options? 4. Would even a change in parcel lines be able to bring all of the resulting parcels into compliance with staff’s interpretation? In particular, even if one parcel were all RM-30, is it correct that the other would have acres of research and development without the retail space required to balance that? 5. The DEIR says, “The proposed project would not require amendments to the City’s Comprehensive Plan or the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC).” However, with the non-complaint research and development space, won’t the proposed project require amending the Municipal Code.to be legal? In particular, won’t 18.70.070(b)(2)(E) need to be modified or repealed to allow the research and development space to remain? 6. Why is this issue not listed under “Areas of Known Controversy” in the DEIR, given that the parcel owner has objected in writing to the staff’s interpretation of the municipal code? 7. Is a project that will not comply with allowed uses under our zoning laws eligible to use SB 330? 8. If this project is eligible to submit under SB 330, why can’t the City reject it as non-compliant with the current zoning laws based on the proposed mix of uses? 9. Can the density bonus the applicant hopes to use to increase the FAR overcome the non- compliance with the site usage? If so, how would that work? 10. Are any parcel line changes discretionary, especially as they would make the remaining portion of the cannery building less compliant with the allowed uses? 3 Packet Pg. 194 11. The DEIR says on page ES-2 that, “On the eastern boundary of the project site at 3250 Park Boulevard and 276 Lambert Avenue are one-story office and accessory buildings.” Isn’t 3250 Park Boulevard most recently an auto repair facility? Note that Table 6-1 of the DEIR itself calls it “Auto Care Center space,” which is not the same as “office.” 12. Table 4.6-1 of the DEIR evaluates “Project Consistency with the City of Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan.” However, is it correct that the table omits all mention of Comprehensive Plan Goal L-7, which is entitled “Conservation and preservation of Palo Alto’s historic buildings, sites and districts?” 13. Furthermore, some policies from Comprehensive Plan Goal L-7 are on page 4.2-6 of the DEIR but not all. Why was policy L-7.8 “Promote adaptive reuse of old buildings” omitted? 14. Why was Comprehensive Plan Policy L-7.11 omitted? In particular, it requires that proposed exterior alterations to designated Historic Landmarks make findings that the changes comply with the Secretary of the Interior standards. Although the two historic buildings on the site are not currently designated Historic Landmarks, the DEIR indicates they are eligible. Demolishing part of a historic structure seems like an exterior alteration – in fact, a rather extreme one. 15. Why was Comprehensive Plan Policy L-7.12 omitted? 16. Why was Comprehensive Plan Policy L-7.13 omitted? 17. Given the above, how does the DEIR conclude in its discussion immediately after Table 4.6-1 that the project is compatible with the Comprehensive Plan when (a) relevant parts of the Comprehensive Plan are missing from that table and (b) the project does not appear to comply with Comprehensive Plan Goal L-7, which calls for conservation and preservation of Palo Alto’s historic buildings and sites? 18. The Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code both call for inclusionary housing. Under Alternative 3, will there be inclusionary housing among the townhomes? 19. The plans for the ARB dated August 12, 2022 on page A1.0.2 say that the parking needed for the “office” space is 476 spaces, based on one per 300 square feet. However, Table 1 in 18.52.040 of the Municipal Code, which the plans cite, seems to say that required parking in RM-20 is one per 250 square feet for Administrative, Medical, Professional, and General Business Offices. What is the explanation for the discrepancy? 20. If the answer is that the space to be parked is for Research and Development, as it requires only one space per 250 square feet, then shouldn’t the DEIR say that explicitly, as Research and Development is not an office use? That is, the DEIR seems wrong to say the cannery building will house offices and instead should say that the building will house only Research and Development (along with retail) – and that an office use such as a legal, accounting or non-profit firm could not presumably occupy the building because parking would be insufficient. 21. On this same topic, how does the City determine that a tenant’ use is Research and Development vs. an office use? Are these rules clearly established and enforced? There is a concern that a 3 Packet Pg. 195 firm in the cannery building is dubbed Research and Development, but were it to move to a zone that doesn’t allow that use, it is then dubbed an office use. 22. The DEIR says “Alternative 2 may conflict with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan since an enhanced bikeway traversing the site is not included as part of the project description or site plans.” Why would it not be able to have an enhanced bikeway? 23. Why is a third floor needed for Alternative 2? 24. What would be the approximate average residence size in the cannery building if no third floor is added under Alternative 2? 25. In Alternative 3, a large parking garage would be built between the cannery building and the homes on Olive. What about putting homes where the garage would be built and converting the portion of the cannery building thaw would be demolished under Alternative 3 into parking and personal storage area for residents? The cannery building would likely allow for more than one level of parking in places and little to no exterior modifications would be needed. 2,600 square feet of the building could still be converted to retail space, and that space would front onto Park, which would be more pedestrian-friendly than Alternative 3’s plan to place it behind the condominiums. Trees could be used to screen the homes on Olive from the new housing that would be their rear neighbors. 26. Would this variant to Alternative 3 be more consistent with Goal L-7? 27. How would this variant to Alternative 3 differ in number of housing units from Alternative 3? 28. Does Table 6-1 on DEIR page 6-2 clearly distinguish between proposals that would demolish part of the cannery and ones that won’t? 29. Where that table says Alternative 2 would remove R&D and warehouse space, should it instead say that it would preserve the entire building but convert the space in the building to new uses? 30. Can the impacts on the jobs/housing imbalance for the different alternatives be added to that table? 31. What are the criteria for listing items in the section called “Areas of Known Controversy?” 32. Considerable controversy has existed in Palo Alto over special zoning granted to individual projects. These grants have been known as PCs, development agreements, and spot zoning. The controversy instigated a cover story in a local newspaper and the Council subsequently opted to cease granting PCs. They later brought PCs back in a limited way for housing projects but have not been encouraging even those in and near existing residential areas. Since the proposed project, Alternative 1, and Alternative 3 would require continuation of R&D uses on an RM-30 lot, which is likely a major concession to the owner of the property, why is that not listed under “Areas of Known Controversy?” 33. Furthermore, in response to the many criticisms of special zoning, council members asked that 3 Packet Pg. 196 future proposals be accompanied by an economic analysis of the benefits to the public versus those to the developer. Shouldn’t the absence of that analysis for this project be listed under “Areas of Known Controversy?” 34. Palo Alto was also criticized several years ago by the Santa Clara County Grand Jury for entering into non-public discussions of potentially substantial benefits being granted to private developers. The 27 University project, which was scuttled once the public and press found out about it, was in particular called out by the Grand Jury report. Why aren’t the private negotiations associated with this project, which the public had no ability to follow or comment on, listed under “Areas of Known Controversy?” 35. Can EIRs include analyses of the public and private benefits that will accrue from proposed developments? 36. Does any law preclude Palo Alto from conducting such a financial analysis and making it public? 37. Is it correct that the traffic analysis modeled future nearby traffic using a city annual growth rate of 1.62% for morning peak hour traffic and 1.58% for evening peak hour traffic (per page 12 of Appendix H)? 38. Is that rate of growth cited in Appendix H consistent with the NVCAP plan projecting 670 housing units compared to the 142 that exist now in North Ventura and no actual reduction in R&D and other office uses? I appreciate that some of that growth in housing units will occur on the project site itself, but by no means all. 39. Is the rate of growth cited in Appendix H consistent with office size shrinkage, which increases the number of workers even when office space is not increasing? 40. Is the rate of growth cited in Appendix H consistent with the overall RHNA goals for Palo Alto to add over 6,000 residences? 41. Is the rate of growth cited in Appendix H consistent with the nearby projects listed in Table 3-1? 42. Although the discussion above Table 3-1 says, “These projects are considered in the cumulative analyses in Section 4, Environmental Impact Analysis,” are they actually included in the traffic analysis? 43. Can traffic analysis use external growth rates derived from plans for the immediate surrounding area rather than city-wide? That is, many parts of Palo Alto are low-density residential and likely have very low rates of traffic growth. Other parts of the city have new office buildings, densified offices, new hotels, and/or new multi-unit housing and likely are experiencing much faster traffic growth. Thank you! Jeff Levinsky 3 Packet Pg. 197 From:Rebecca Sanders To:Raybould, Claire Cc:Lait, Jonathan Subject:Comments of the DEIR for 200 Portage Date:Tuesday, November 15, 2022 10:28:15 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Ms. Raybould: Please find my comments and questions concerning the DEIR for the proposed development at 200/340 Portage. An overarching concern I have is the dismissing of Alternative 2 with no numbers, comparison or analysis provided. Thank you. Becky Sanders 1. Regarding 4.2-12 Impact CUL-1, the proposal would “involve partial demolition” of the cannery building. We don’t have to lose this significant resource if we explore Adaptive Reuse. Why has there been no serious consideration of this option? Why no studies done? Why is this option being ignored when it should, by law, I believe. be as deeply studied as the third alternative with results included in the DEIR? 2. Regarding 4.4.2 Impact Analysis: When we examine all projects proposed for this area of Palo Alto, doesn’t it make sense to work to minimize all environment impacts for each project thereby bringing down the considerable cumulative impacts on climate change.? We just had a Climate Summit at Gunn High School this past weekend. We want to model reduce, reuse, and recycle. Again, why is there no study for adaptive reuse for this building when it is environmentally more favorable of the two, and when climate action is a stated core value of Palo Alto? 3. Table 4.4.2 p. 4.4.16 a. This math doesn’t add up as expected, please explain what appears to be 388-40=377 b. The proposed project will reduce annual emissions of MTCO2e from 2 (existing use) to 0, but we are adding people and new homes to the site. Is this realistic? How will this decrease in energy use be accomplished when we have intensified uses at the site? A decrease seems counterintuitive. Please explain. 4. Regarding P 4.5-8 - The site’s toxicity is well-known, but the extent to which the 3 Packet Pg. 198 site is suitable for excavation which exposes highly toxic chemicals is not known. Shouldn’t significant ground studies including soil and water analyses be undertaken to make sure that the exact nature of the threats to humans are understood? Diffusion of toxic vapors is almost a certainty. Other hazards like the possible deterioration of underground storage tanks also have not been studied. Excavating and construction of underground parking garages might well expose workers and future residents continuously to toxins. The EIR should not be deemed complete until we know the toxicity levels we are dealing with. I believe that construction has come to a standstill at the old Foot Locker site for just these reasons. Please don’t break ground without conducting comprehensive toxicity studies complete with recommendations for protecting workers and residents at the site. 5. Policy N.2-10 How many trees exactly are being proposed to be removed? How many protected trees are on the site and how many will be removed under current proposal.? Could we see a comparison of tree removal and retention between the as- yet to be done Adaptive Reuse Design and the Proposal before us? I assume that fewer heritage trees and protected trees will be removed if we adopt the more environmentally friendly approach to developing this site. Please provide the comparison chart and the exact numbers of trees removed. 6. Regarding Section 4.8-6, report page 187 – According to the Highway Design Manual, Caltrans, 2017, El Camino, Page Mill and Park Boulevard are classified as “Class II Bike Lane - A striped and signed lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.” a. The Class II implies that El Camino is just as safe as Park Boulevard which it observably is not. Have any studies been done on bicycle traffic along ECR versus Park? Bicyclists do ride mostly on the sidewalk on ECR from my own observation and my personal experience jumping out of the way of cyclists as I happen to live nearby and walk this area. I don’t resent the kids on the sidewalk; although I wish I could guarantee my own safety. Biking on ECR is hazardous, so to imply that this is a bikeway is misleading. b. Park Blvd has a bike lane but is still dangerous as we have a preponderance of cars and RVs parked up and down in the Bike Lane at all hours. Park Boulevard is supposed to be a “Bike Boulevard”, improvements to which bike commuters and Venturans have been waiting for years. This EIR should not misrepresent or glorify biking conditions near the proposed site along Park Boulevard or ECR. c. Additionally, having Portage accommodate cars from ECR all the way to 3 Packet Pg. 199 Park hands Ventura another cut-through traffic nightmare. Cars going through on Portage is not what the NVCAP working group recommended for the site. Having a bikeway or pedestrian way on Portage is preferred by residents. Why not have new families reach the site via Park Boulevard and Page Mill, and direct traffic away from ECR and Page Mill, the worst intersection in Palo Alto? Please perform a study of traffic patterns modeling this more people friendly use of Portage. 7. Regarding Policy T-5.1: I do not understand this sentence: “As demonstrated parking demand decreases over time, parking requirements for new construction should decrease.” What proof can the EIR cite to support this claim? 8. Regarding Policy T-5.6 which promotes “the use of below-grade or structured parking… where feasible,”, I challenge the feasibility of providing underground parking that relies on excavating a toxic site. Again, please perform in-depth toxicity studies as part of the Environmental Impact Report. We want to provide a safe environment in which families will live safely. 9. Regarding Section 4.8-12, Report P.195, it is noted that “no trip credits for the Research and Development or warehouse uses were applied since their size and function is anticipated to remain unchanged from existing conditions. As shown in Table 4.8-3, the proposed project could generate up to 596 daily vehicle trips, including 40 during the a.m. peak hour and 47 during the p.m. peak hour.” Where can we see the Research and Development trip numbers? Why omit the total number of trips? Why include only the residential use? Don’t we require a TDM? The report doesn’t say what the TDM will be? Will the TDM apply to the housing or the office use or both? How will it be reported and enforced? 10. Regarding Section 4.8-14, Report p. 197, the “project is located within a 0.5-mile walk to VTA bus stops for routes 22, 89, 522, Rapid 522, Express 101, Express 102, and Express 103, and is located approximately 0.6 miles away from the nearest Dumbarton Express Route DB1…therefore, the project would be adequately served by transit.” The buses do not run often enough nor connect with other buses to make bus service in North Santa Clara County along ECR a meaningful and reliable way to get to work. These buses should not be included here, or at least if they are, should be qualified as not expected to contribute significantly to car trips reduction, as is currently implied. This is misleading and not accurate. 11. Regarding Tables 4.8-5, 6 & 8: 3 Packet Pg. 200 a. Traffic delays will increase during peak morning and evening hours in the area, but by nearly 10% during peak evening hours at and around the City’s worst intersection, Page Mill & ECR. This intersection goes from E+ in the mornings to E in the evenings. Is a 10% delay not considered significant enough to drop this intersection to an F? b. Other intersections go from “A” to “B.” What can be done to mitigate this downward trend? c. Please provide the numbers underlying each “**”. It is hard to compare the numbers when up to a tenth of the data can’t be known or is defined as more than 120 seconds delay. Please show us the true numbers. d. Could you please define “background conditions?” e. Please provide a TDM for the proposed project. f. Please provide a TDM for Alternative 2. g. Please provide a side-by-side comparison of the TDMs for the two alternatives. 12. Regarding Report p. 200, “The project would therefore conflict with the City’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan and Countywide Trails Plan since an enhanced bikeway traversing the site is not included as part of the project description or site plans. This impact would be potentially significant.” Portage should not be extended for cars, only for bikes and pedestrians. One of the values stated by the NVCAP working group was for a walkable, bikeable neighborhood. This proposal goes in the wrong direction, preferring cars to people and bikes. 13. Regarding Section 4.9.9 a. “Therefore, the ratio of urban parks to residents in the City is 2.6 acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents…” Please provide a parkland-to-resident ratio for Ventura only, which will help us see the immediate impact of the project on Ventura. Will this project lower or raise the ratio of parks to people in Ventura? b. “The park closest to the project site is Peers Park” – correction: the closest park in Boulware 14. Regarding p.234, Alternative 3 is a “well-designed ownership residential townhome project that adds diversity to the City of Palo Alto's ownership housing supply and will meet a variety of residents' needs by providing a mix of 3- and 4- bedroom units to meet the needs of families.” a. Please define “diversity” in this context b. Will there be inclusionary housing within the boundaries of the town home 3 Packet Pg. 201 complex in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan? c. Will the inclusionary units have the same design and layout and materials as the market rate units? d. There is some discussion of the applicant donating some amount of property for a below market rate development and parkland. i. How will this land be divided between parkland and homes? ii. This will be in addition to including inclusionary housing in the Town Home complex, yes? iii. Shouldn’t the townhome project be tied to this BMR and park expansion project in some way, whereby plans for both are discussed. 15. Regarding Alternative 2: Adaptive Reuse of Eligible Historic Resource for Housing 6.2.1 a. Alternative 2 is “consistent with the City Council’s selected alternative for the NVCAP", therefore, why is there no comprehensive DEIR data with comparison tables included as part of this report? b. Wouldn’t adding a third story to the Cannery building also negatively impact the Cannery’s eligibility for inclusion as a registered California Historic Resource? c. “Although adaptive reuse would retain more of the historic integrity of the existing building by retaining it, it is unclear whether adaptive reuse of the building for housing could be completed in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards, etc.” i. Why is it unclear? The answer can be found by checking in with the Secretary of the Interior. Please make this clear and include a comprehensive study of Alternative 2 as part of the EIR ii. Why has no design been brought forward for adaptive reuse of the Cannery building as is, without affecting height or footprint. This report circles around this topic but provides no data to prove or disprove feasibility of Adaptive Reuse. We have no costs, no impacts, no comparison tables presented to help us compare and evaluate Alternative 2 with Alternative 3. Therefore, this DEIR is incomplete and must include as much detail on Alternative 2 as is offered for Alternative 3 iii. “Alternative 2 would meet most of the project objectives, though further study may be required into how this alternative could be achieved.” – Exactly, please proceed with further study to demonstrate how this alternative could be achieved, 3 Packet Pg. 202 iv. I believe it is considered best practices to begin with an alternative that would satisfy the Secretary’s requirements and to proceed from there v. It makes no sense to say that Alternative 2 can’t be done or shouldn’t be done without data to support such a claim. 16. Regarding Report Page 244, h. Transportation a. “Alternative 2 would involve construction and operation of more housing units compared to the proposed project, includes a 7,400-sf retail component, and removes 142,744 sf of R&D uses.” More housing is a good thing, consistent with our Housing goals. Less R&D is a good thing as the net will help reduce the city’s jobs/housing imbalance, correct? So, this is a desirable outcome, correct? b. “Since construction would not involve demolition and would include adaptive reuse of the existing building on site, trips generated from construction would be reduced compared to the proposed project.” Another bonus here is we will be engaging in the environmentally sounder of the projects vis a vis construction practices, less soil removal, less pollution, etc. This is a desirable outcome, correct? c. “Operation of Alternative 2 would result in an increased number of residential trips… the project would result in an estimated 24 new PM peak hour trips and a net reduction in AM peak hour trips since the new housing and retail would replace existing R&D and warehouse uses…” It goes without saying that more homes will generate more residential trips. Is this piece of the report suggesting that we should not build more housing (Alternative 2) because it will result in more residential trips. Wouldn’t the impacts of this traffic pattern be studied in a TDM? When will a TDM for both alternatives be produced so that we can compare the two? 3 Packet Pg. 203 From:holzemer/hernandez To:Raybould, Claire Subject:DEIR Comments, 200 Portage Date:Tuesday, November 15, 2022 4:57:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Claire, Below are my DEIR questions that I would like responses to: 1) 2.5.5 Trees -- why is a need to remove so many mature trees on the property for development? There should be effort made to remove less trees, especially mature ones that have been growing for maybe tens or hundreds of years. The proposed replacement trees are not identified, nor are they listed where they would be placed. Why is there no information on either the type of replacement trees nor the potential growing period of these trees or how quickly they could replace the existing mature trees. Why isn't there any involvement by the public in deciding why these trees should be kept or destroyed? 2) 3.3 Cumulative Development -- Why was there no cumulative analysis done that included the 231 Grant Avenue project, which will be built less than a mile from 200 Portage? This is a project clearly on the development map to be built in the next few years and it is totally ignored in the DEIR. Why? 3) 4.2 Historical Preservation of the current Cannery building. -- Under the City's own 2030 Comprehensive Plan, there are several questions to ask: 1) Under Policy L-7.1, it's states that the City should encourage (not discourage) public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have historic merit." If this is so, why is the City not supporting the fact that 340 Portage is a valuable historic resource that should be preserved? All facts point to this building be of historic and regional importance, just as the HP Garage is today -- Why isn't this building on the City's own Historic Registry? There is no excuse for it not being there. 4) 4.2 Changes to the remaining Cannery building, after demolition -- how would modifying the existing, remaining cannery building (after 40% is demolished) effect the historic features or future historic status of the building? How does the idea of adding skylights, gable windows and new corrugated siding, which was not present in the original structure, change the historical status? 5) Demolition of 40% of a historic resource -- explain why does this destroys the historic status of this building? What protections would the remaining building have after the demolition is complete, if any? 6) 4.6, Land Use & Planning -- under Table 4.6.4, Project Consistency with the NVCAP vision. The table does not accurately reflect the goals and work done that the NVCAP Working Group, which I was a member of, for two years. Why is there no mention or effort to include the work or goals of the Working Group or what we stated in our final report to Council. No office development in this neighborhood, retail that is neighborhood serving, truly affordable housing (below 120 AMI) for those who need it most in our community, and the infrastructure to go with it. Why were these objectives, which we outlined to City Council and Staff not included in your analysis? 3 Packet Pg. 204 7) 4.8 Transportation -- Why was there no cumulative analysis done of the various project or planned projects in the area, especially regarding the one intersection which is largely impacted by commuter traffic now -- Park & Page Mill? Often this intersection has delays for traffic going down Park to get on to Oregon Expressway. With the new Public Safety Building, the proposed 231 Grant project, the 123 Sherman building, and several other commercial buildings along Park, how will traffic be handled at this one bottleneck intersection, which is already seeing traffic return from Pandemic days? These projects are not included in the Cumulative Traffic Analysis and need to be. 8) 6.2, Adaptive Reuse. This is the best alternative, but it not clear or explained why there is a need for a third story on a historic building? Would you put a second or third story on the HP Garage? There are ways to adaptively reuse the Cannery building for housing, without increasing height. if you say, it is "unclear" as to whether you could adapt the building in conformance with the Interior's Standards, then why are you not studying it? Explain why this study is not being done now? 9) Lack of Traffic Control Plan -- I don't know where this is outlined, if anywhere, in the DEIR. During construction, Park Blvd. is likely going to be the main entrance/exitway to project site, given that El Camino Real is a major thoroughfare and traffic impacts must be kept at a minimum. However, what is the Traffic Control Plan for Park Blvd,, who will manage it, and it must have community involvement, especially for those Ventura and Mayfield residents who use Park Blvd. on a regular basis. Where is this plan, who will administer it and who do residents report complaints to? 10) Hazardous Materials Plan -- How will residents be notified of hazardous materials/chemical exposure during construction? It's clear this site is near a Federal Super Fund site where exposure to chemicals used in the manufacture of silicon chips are present. If construction exposed the air or water to these hazards, how will residents know or be informed about that exposure and health impacts. No plan is outlined or identified in the DEIR. 3 Packet Pg. 205 If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org Attachment H Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to boardmembers for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Environmental Document An Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project in accordance with the authority and criteria of the California Environmental Quality Act. The 3200 Park Boulevard Development Agreement was evaluated as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. This document was made available for a 60-day circulation period beginning September 16, 2022 and ending on November 15, 2022. Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “200 Portage Avenue” or “3200 Park Boulevard” and click the address link 3. On these webpages you will find a link to the project plans for the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project and the 3200 Park Boulevard Development Agreement Alternative accordingly as well as other important information. The DEIR is provided on the 200 Portage Avenue project webpage. Direct Link to 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/200-Portage- Avenue Direct link to the 3200 Park Boulevard Development Agreement Alternative Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/3200-Park- Boulevard 3 Packet Pg. 206 Item No. 4. Page 1 of 2 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: January 12, 2023 TITLE Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of November 10, 2022 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION BACKGROUND Attached are minutes for the following meeting(s): •November 10, 2022 ANALYSIS FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 4 Packet Pg. 207 Item No. 4. Page 2 of 2 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: HRB Draft Minutes November 10, 2022 AUTHOR/TITLE: Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate 4 Packet Pg. 208 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Caroline Willis; Vice Chair Christian Pease, Board Members Michael Makinen, David Bower, Gogo Heinrich, and Alisa Eagleston-Cieslewicz Absent: Margaret Wimmer 1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Historic Resources Board During Covid-19 State of Emergency Board Member Bower moved to approve the Resolution. Seconded by Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz, the motion carried (6-0) by voice vote. Oral Communications Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions City Official Reports 2. Historic Resources Board Schedule of Meetings and Assignments The next meeting would be cancelled due to the Thanksgiving holiday. The December 22nd meeting will also be cancelled. At the second January meeting there will be more on the agenda, and there will also be a big agenda for the first meeting of December. Action Items 3. Historic Resources Board By-Laws Discussion Regarding Remote Attendance in 2023 Chair Willis noted that with change in the COVID situation, they would be moving away from the Zoom meetings. The by-laws were discussed regarding remote attendance in 2023. The Brown Act requirements are a consideration. Chair Willis invited discussion on how many meetings there should be and how attendance should be framed. Ms. French explained that if a member publicly posts on the agenda in advance his or her location and states that they are unable to attend in person for a particular reason, this option is allowed under the Brown Act. She added there is no limit on this, per her understanding, as long as the Brown Act is adhered to, but it is the Board’s prerogative to discuss this subject as a Board policy for the by-laws. Chair Willis questioned the exception under AB 2449, “may not be used by a member of the Board for more than three consecutive months or more than 20 percent of the regular meetings in a calendar year.” She questioned what the definition of a “regular meeting” is because there have been meetings scheduled that have not actually occurred. Should all 24 scheduled meetings count towards this? Board Member Bower commented that, as he read the materials, AB 2449 adds another exception to in- person meetings. He asked if this is part of moderation of the Brown Act, and whether the Board should incorporate this in the by-laws, or just assume it is another option for remote meetings. HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: November 10, 2022 Council Chamber & Virtual Zoom 8:30 A.M. 4 Packet Pg. 209 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Ms. French said she needed to study this question and polish the statement in the by-laws under consideration which would refer to AB 2449. The main point is that without making your location available to the public the requirements of “just cause, emergency,” et cetera do apply. However, if a board member makes their location known, then the restrictions do not apply. Training on the new procedure will be held on December 13th. Board Member Bower recommended that that Board adopt a statement saying that the new policies should be incorporated in some manner into the Board’s by-laws, particularly pointing out that if their location is made available to the public and the City lists it on the agenda, then there would be no limit under state law as to how often a member attends meetings remotely. Ms. French added that the Board may also add any nuance to this outside of state law. For example, a desire to limit the frequency of remote attendance could be written into the by-laws. Chair Willis shared her hesitation in incorporating this into the bylaws in that the policy could change. Remote meetings are new, and she felt it might become more stringent or more relaxed depending on circumstances. She thought referencing this section in the by-laws would be fine, but she would be hesitant to incorporate the specific wording into the by-laws. Board Member Bower felt that by-laws could be subsequently changed, so anything put in today, could be taken out. By default, all by-laws must comply with the Brown Act, and since this is a modification to the Brown Act, they don’t necessarily have to do anything. If they are going to do something to the by-laws, this statement could be used as a bullet point and if things change, it could be changed or removed. Ms. French thought it would be sufficient to refer to AB 2449, as long as the Board is fine with following state law with no further restrictions to it. If there was a desire for further restrictions, there could be other wording added to reflect that. Chair Willis said there are other sections of the by-laws that she would advocate for re-visiting as well. She suggested coming back to this subject at a later meeting to assess the options and discuss anything else they might want to change in the by-laws, perhaps on an annual basis, on a set date. Board Member Bower suggested that at the same time they look at the calendar and the scheduled meetings and eliminate those that occur on or near holidays. He noted that this year that would have included May 26th, September 8th, November 24th and December 22nd. Chair Willis said this is a good suggestion and if anyone else have other suggestions in regard to the operating agenda it would be good to talk about them at a set meeting near the beginning of the year. Ms. French advised that feedback on the by-laws and other policy matters for discussion would require advance notice so that staff could prepare for such discussion. Chair Willis mentioned the question of whether the Board would function better as a five-member Board rather than a seven-member Board. She suggested collecting their thoughts on this in preparation for discussion at a January meeting. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz inquired about typical schedules for other boards and commissions, what they look like, when they meet, et cetera. Ms. French explained that that ARB and HRB are, as far as she knows, the only morning meetings. The ARB is a five-member board, meeting twice monthly on opposite Thursdays from the HRB – 1st and 3rd. They have a large workload but do cancel meetings as well as needed. The Planning and Transportation Commission meets the second and last Wednesday of the month. She did not know the schedule of other boards, but said that most of them are in the evening. Chair Willis asked if the Board would like to put scheduling details up for discussion. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz said she would be interested in this. Ms. French said in the past when she had young children it was occasionally moved from 8:00 to 8:30 which was helpful for members with children. High schools are now starting later in the mornings, so there may be interested candidates out there who can’t be at meetings that early, so it would be worth consideration and discussion. Board Member Eagleston- Cieslewicz thought it would be a valuable discussion, to consider potential participation of people who may have a conflict during business hours. Vice Chair Pease agreed and thought there may also be more possibilities for the public to view the meeting and comment. Ms. French noted that the potential conflict becomes staff availability and scheduling of other commission meetings, although most of them are evenings. She added that it is possible to have two meetings occurring simultaneously. Chair Willis wondered if Zoom meetings could be set up for the conference room. Ms. French said they have had Zoom meetings and public hearings in the community meeting room. Chair Willis advocated 4 Packet Pg. 210 City of Palo Alto Page 3 adding this consideration to the agenda for discussion. Vice Chair Pease said if they were planning two meetings per month, perhaps one of them could be other than an early morning meeting. Ms. French thought this would be a possibility and would just require coordination with Mid-Pen media, who records all meetings. Generally, management in attendance would not be a problem, although hourly staff would be paid overtime to attend meetings. Those meetings could be the morning meetings to avoid that extra expense. Board Member Bower thought that making one meeting in the morning and one at some other time would be confusing and likely to diminish the appeal of any change. He said he did not have a real preference regarding time, although late afternoons are not his best time of day. Traffic is worse in some respects, but later in the morning would be fine. He commented that perhaps they don’t need 24 meetings a year since there isn’t that big of a workload. Also, he was not in support of reducing the number of Board members from seven to five, because it is difficult enough if there is a divided board. When there are only four people on a seven-person board making a decision, which has happened, it is not a good signal to the community that the Board is agreeing on enough of the issues. If the Board were to go to five members, then only three people would be making decisions which could significantly affect city residents. He felt that the City needs to find ways to encourage people to sit on the Boards. Making boards smaller may solve a problem of filling the boards, but he did not necessarily feel it is good government. Chair Willis appreciated Board Member Bower’s perspective, being a long-time member of the Board. Her feeling was that a five-member board might strengthen their decisions and make the meetings go more quickly. She appreciated the good points and said it is nice to have people in the community involved. She hoped, with the inventory update, that they can reach out more to the community and make the need for Board members more widely known. Ms. French noted that one option regarding the evening meeting proposal was that that they could keep the by-laws as is. The normal, regular meetings are 8:30 on second and fourth Thursday. They could cancel the fourth Thursday a certain month and have a community meeting like they will be having on their update. That could be a special meeting, and as long as it’s posted 72 hours in advance, they would be able to do this outside of the regular meetings. Chair Willis said it is good to analyze where they are and what works best for the Board. As situations change, it’s a good time to have that discussion, and it would be good to take a moment or two before that discussion to think about how things work and how they might work better. Her inclination was to not take any action currently. Board Member Bower said he felt fine with that. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Willis spoke on the need for a Mills Act, citing the property that is being auctioned off on the 17th. She felt that it did not bode well for the property, but also thought it was too soon for the Board to have an impact on it. She hoped they could perhaps approach the new owners at the beginning of the year to in hopes that they might work with the Board to implement the Mills Act and request this from Council. Board Member Bower stated that there is no Mills Act in Palo Alto. There is only one Mills Act contract, which is for the Squire House, and he wondered what they would apply to. Ms. French said this is correct. The Squire House was from many years ago. It was renewed several years back when the owner wanted to remove the requirement for interior house tours every year. That was a moment at Council and that property was almost lost as well. She said they need to be clear and careful in proceeding because the success of a potential program depends on how they proceed. Board Member Bower asked if someone wants to apply for Mills Act benefits, whether there is any kind of application or program. Ms. French said there is no application or program. She thought Chair Willis’s reference was to the concept for a pilot program, including going to City Council with a recommendation, with hope that the Council would accept and support it. There could then be next steps. Board Member Bower said the work that Board Member Wimmer and he did in the subcommittee and Brendon Corey, former Board member, did four years ago, the bulk of the work was defining what would qualify in a Mills Act contract. He assumed the rest of the information would be provided by the City Attorney. There are questions that need to be answered, such as how to verify what was done. Board Member Bower said they do have something they could put forward to the Council as a potential Mills Act pilot program, but there has been no interest in moving it forward in his experience. 4 Packet Pg. 211 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Willis said she has some interest now. She felt the de Lemos property on Cowper is at risk, especially with the upcoming auction. She felt the Council could be highly motivated, especially with it being combined with the number of units currently on the property. She felt it could be a very good opportunity to go Council and propose a pilot, as there is much to be gained and not much to be lost. If the new owners have any interest, she would like to encourage it. Chair Willis reported that Vice Chair Pease has spoken with some people involved with the train trestle, which is also at risk. Vice Chair Pease shared that he spoke with Dan Lieberman, the Public Affairs Specialist for Cal Train and works for SamTrans. Cal Train is governed by three entities through the Peninsula Joint Power Board, the PCJPB, consisting of agencies from Santa Clara, San Mateo and San Francisco. The governance sits in San Mateo County. He spoke to Mr. Lieberman of their interest in how the bridge is at the end of its service life. There is to be a program for intensive testing for the next couple years for safety reasons, but it looks like they will eventually replace it. The design phase is slated for 2025. Vice Chair Pease asked Mr. Lieberman to consider the idea of preserving the bridge in some way, or repurpose it. He was met with skepticism on this, because when the bridge is taken out and the new one put in, they will keep the train running, so it will be complicated. He asked for clarification of who owns the bridge. It turns out that it will be Cal Train and Union Pacific will be a “tenant railroad” for the section where the bridge is. Vice Chair Pease also asked if there are historic documents or archival materials on the bridge, and he received some interesting documents, close to 100 years old, primarily engineering and planning documents. He said his next step will be to follow up with Mr. Lieberman on more materials, or whether the personnel managing the document search would be willing to find more materials. Beyond that, he was not sure what the next steps should be. Ms. French shared images from the plans Vice Chair Pease referenced. Chair Willis and Ms. French commented that El Palo Alto, the tree, is number two on the state landmarks. Vice Chair Pease said he was happy to pursue this but if anyone else on the Board has any suggestions on how to add value to the idea that the site is special, he would appreciate input. Board Member Bower gave a bit of recent history. When Caltrans proposed electrification of the right-of- way they came before the HRB, and they were fully aware at that time of how important the tree is and that it is a landmark status item. They spoke in detail of how they would protect it, and he suspected they would still do that. He said when they were originally proposing that the high-speed rail run all the way up the Peninsula from San Jose to San Francisco and widening the right-of-way, it would have jeopardized the Palo Alto Train Station on University Avenue which is a historic landmark building. However, they are exempt from CEQA on that, and can do whatever they want on this right-of-way. Board Member Bower therefore thought the best they could do is try to get them to preserve it and perhaps turn it into a pedestrian crossing somewhere adjacent to this. He felt it would not stand up because it is a safety issue and way past its expiration time. Anything they could do to figure out a workable solution to preserve it for some other use would be the best they could do, but he didn’t know how that could be done if the trains continue to run. He asked Ms. French if she recalled the hearing. Ms. French responded that JPB/Cal Train prepared an EIR, impact report, with considerations for the impacts. Part of the environmental impact report mitigation measures was to visit the ARB and HRB for input on some of the color considerations. They are a higher agency than Palo Alto and can do what they want, especially after the environmental impact report said, yes, there is an impact. But there is the overriding consideration of public transportation. She did not recall what was said about the train station. Board Member Bower thought it was farther back when they were first talking about high-speed rail coming all the way to San Francisco, which was abandoned. Ms. French said the electrification project was the project she was referring to. In that environmental impact report, there were topics of potential significant impacts, and historic resources were among those. All of the resources listed on the California Register, such as the El Palo Alto and the train station, a couple of underpasses, are viewable on the JPB Cal Train site. Chair Willis asked if the EIR from years ago could be located for them to view in order to learn more about it. Ms. French said it would be on the HRB web pages, and there are links to all of the EIRs. She thought it was around January of 2018. Chair Willis said someone could take the lead in finding it and send a link to it. Ms. French volunteered to do this. 4 Packet Pg. 212 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Vice Chair Pease said they will be complying with Section 106 of the Historic Preservation Act. Chair Willis said this basically just means that they will read it and do whatever they want. Board Member Bower said they had the same problem with the original Stanford Hospital built in 1960, which was designed by Durell Stone, who also designed the City Hall. It was a situation where, for safety reasons, the hospital could not be upgraded, so the new hospital had to replace it. At the time, more than ten years ago, that they were reviewing all of the hospital expansion plans, they were talking about tearing down the old hospital even though it was a National Register qualified building. There was nothing they could do because state law surpassed them as a Board. He brought this up because when dealing with a health and safety issue of an historic property or structure, the health and safety will triumph every time, because no one wants an unsafe structure that could cause injury or worse. Chair Willis agreed but hoped there may be an opportunity to use the bridge for pedestrian purposes and maintain the look and feel of it. Board Member Bower agreed it was worth pursuing and noted that there are many repurposed structures. The High Line in New York City being one example. Approval of Minutes 4. Approval of Historic Resources Board Draft Minutes of September 22, 2022 Vice Chair Pease moved to approve the minutes of the September 22, 2022, meeting. Seconded by Board Member Heinrich, the motion carried (5-0-1) by voice vote. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Board Member Bower spoke on the President Hotel subcommittee, consisting of himself, Board Member Heinrich and Board Member Wimmer. He noted that they met at least twice at the site, the first time with the planner, owners and construction crew. They looked at the proposed colors, and the subcommittee members found that they were too stark, and inconsistent with other Birge Cark type buildings. Board Member Wimmer went to great effort to find other colors, which were presented. They went back out again individually to look at colors and make sure their first impression was valid. Each of them made some color suggestions. In the end, the Director of Planning, with out talking to any one of them, simply said via an email that the Board had approved the colors at the original meeting, so he approved the original colors. Board Member Bower said this was not the case. What the Board approved was the project, under the condition that the subcommittee approve the colors. He said that Board Member Heinrich, Board Member Wimmer and he spent much time on this, and it was ignored without the courtesy of a comment. He felt there was no reason to have subcommittees if that is the way the Director will perform. He said the Director has not been before the Board in a decade, in his memory. He felt this was inexcusable misbehavior on the part of City staff, and he wished to register this with the rest of the Board, because there is no purpose of them being there if their work is to be overruled, inaccurately, by Planning. Board Member Bower shared that he is very unhappy about this. He felt Board Member Wimmer was unhappy as well. Chair Willis was sorry to hear this report. She offered that all they can do is move forward. When they do have subcommittees, they may just need to stay in closer contact with staff about where they are and how progress is going and how they understand things. She felt it was frustrating and unfortunate that they had spent their time only to be ignored. Ms. French interjected to share that this was not something that the Director was involved. It was staff and her having conversations. Some emails were sent out to the subcommittee to which there were not responses within ample time to respond. The City Planner said she waited several weeks to hear back and did not hear back, and finally emailed the property owner. Her final inspection will be on the following Monday. Ms. French said that they did get feedback, but there is a lot that goes on outside of the moments they were there onsite looking. She offered thanks to Board Member Wimmer for sending in her materials and said that a lot was considered, but the Director was not involved in the final decision. Ms. French said that if it is important to Board Member Bower, she would be happy to have a conversation with the subcommittee members about this. Board Member Heinrich said she did not remember receiving emails on this. They had sent in their emails, and she did not see any response from the City on them, until the final conclusion. Ms. French reiterated that there were responses, and suggested they proceed with a meeting about this between the Planner, herself and the subcommittee members. 4 Packet Pg. 213 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Chair Willis said the emails might have been sent to the Board at their City emails, which they don’t get unless they are forwarded to them. Ms. French will do an investigation as to dates sent and will explore the public record on this. Board Member Bower thanked Ms. French for correcting this. He said it doesn’t matter who it was, but his disappointment and frustration was that the one email that came out after they had made explicit suggestions simply said, “Here’s what you said,” without direction. He did not think that a response to that email was required. He thought they would have a full meeting again with all involved, to look at their suggestions, and it didn’t happen. He said he knows how important it is to move it forward, and the last thing he would want to do as a Board member is thwart a project of that importance in the City, but now they will be looking at a building with colors that he feels are totally inappropriate. He wanted an opportunity to have the final say on which colors were selected. Ms. French said the final say in this meeting is not reachable to the folks that made the decision. She offered again to have a meeting to fully discuss the issue so it can be understood. Board Member Bower agreed they could do that. Board Member Eagleston-Cieslewicz reported that Inventory Update subcommittee has been evaluating options for getting the inventory digitized and accessible on the website, discussing potentially reaching out to the IT Department to see what might be feasible and also exploring the idea of recruiting some volunteers to help with things like data entry and photography, and potentially research and how they might find those folks and what would be possible there. Chair Willis added that they currently have PDF’s of the original inventory and hope to coordinate with staff to link them to the list of properties that are on the current inventory on the web. Chair Willis thanked Board Member Heinrich for being their liaison with the PAST Board. She was glad PAST was open to that and appreciated Board Member Heinrich’s willingness to take it on. Board Member Heinrich said she attended the meeting the prior evening and reported it was a great meeting. They are very enthusiastic about historic structures and have a lot of work that they perform. One thing they have just completed is to write a book on Birge Clark. The book will be for sale for $20. They discussed the venues where they would be able to sell them. Board Member Heinrich passed the book around for the Board members to view. The book is primarily Palo Alto and does not go into the Stanford Birge Clark residences. It will be available at Bell’s Books in the future. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 4 Packet Pg. 214