Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2023-05-25 Historic Resources Board Agenda Packet
HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, May 25, 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/ ROLL CALL 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 Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.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. 2.3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage [22PLN‐00287 and 22PLN‐00288]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Community Zoning application to Allow 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 also Includes a Development Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Vesting Tentative Map. Environmental Assessment: A Draft EIR for the 200 Portage Townhome Development Project was Circulated September 16, 2022 through November 15, 2022; the Final EIR was Made Available for Public Review on May 15, 2023. The Proposed Development Agreement is Evaluated as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. Zoning District: RM‐30 (Multi‐ Family Residential) and GM (General Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. 3.Election of Chair and Vice Chair and Modification of HRB Bylaws With Regard to Elections 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 May 25, 2023 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, May 25, 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/ ROLL CALL 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 Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.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. 2.3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage [22PLN‐00287 and 22PLN‐00288]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Community Zoning application to Allow 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 also Includes a Development Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Vesting Tentative Map. Environmental Assessment: A Draft EIR for the 200 Portage Townhome Development Project was Circulated September 16, 2022 through November 15, 2022; the Final EIR was Made Available for Public Review on May 15, 2023. The Proposed Development Agreement is Evaluated as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. Zoning District: RM‐30 (Multi‐ Family Residential) and GM (General Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. 3.Election of Chair and Vice Chair and Modification of HRB Bylaws With Regard to Elections 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 May 25, 2023 HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, May 25, 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 ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC 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 Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.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.2.3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage [22PLN‐00287 and 22PLN‐00288]: Recommendation onApplicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Community Zoning application to AllowRedevelopment of a 14.65‐acre site at 200‐404 Portage Avenue, 3040‐3250 ParkBoulevard, 3201‐3225 Ash Street and 278 Lambert. The Project also Includes aDevelopment Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Vesting Tentative Map.Environmental Assessment: A Draft EIR for the 200 Portage Townhome DevelopmentProject was Circulated September 16, 2022 through November 15, 2022; the Final EIRwas Made Available for Public Review on May 15, 2023. The Proposed DevelopmentAgreement is Evaluated as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. Zoning District: RM‐30 (Multi‐Family Residential) and GM (General Manufacturing). For More Information Contact theProject Planner, Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. 3.Election of Chair and Vice Chair and Modification of HRB Bylaws With Regard toElectionsCOMMISSIONER 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. 3 Regular Meeting May 25, 2023 Item No. 1. 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: May 25, 2023 Report #: 2305-1400 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 it 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 Item 1 Staff Report Packet Pg. 4 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 Cancelled 2/09/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/23/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 3/09/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/23/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 4/13/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/25/2023 6:00 PM Hybrid Community Meeting 4/27/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 5/11/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Heinrich 5/25/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/08/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Willis 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 Rohman 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 Item 1 Attachment A 2023 HRB Meeting Schedule & Assignments Packet Pg. 5 Item No. 2. Page 1 of 16 Historic Resources Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 25, 2023 Report #: 2305-1420 TITLE 3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage [22PLN-00287 and 22PLN-00288]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Community Zoning application to Allow 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 also Includes a Development Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Vesting Tentative Map. Environmental Assessment: A Draft EIR for the 200 Portage Townhome Development Project was Circulated September 16, 2022 through November 15, 2022; the Final EIR was Made Available for Public Review on May 15, 2023. The Proposed Development Agreement is Evaluated as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. Zoning District: RM-30 (Multi-Family Residential) and GM (General Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and EIR Mitigation Measures in Attachment G. 2. Recommend that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend approval of the project, noting that the planned community rezoning, development agreement, comprehensive plan amendment and subdivision map are not subject to the HRB’s purview. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In Fall 2022, the Sobrato Organization, LLC (Sobrato) submitted a development application requesting a development agreement, rezoning, tentative map, and architectural review. The project is the redevelopment of the 14.65-acre site at 200-404 Portage Avenue, 3040-3250 Park Boulevard, 3201-3225 Ash Street and 278 Lambert. The project site is within the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) boundary. The project includes: •the partial demolition of a commercial building (formerly Bayside Cannery) deemed eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 6 Item No. 2. Page 2 of 16 •the demolition of a building containing commercial recreation use at 3040 Park •the construction of (74) new townhome condominiums replacing approximately 84,000 square feet (sf) of the historic cannery building at 200-404 Portage Avenue •the construction of a two-level parking garage •the dedication of approximately 3.25 acres of Land to the City for Future Affordable Housing and Parkland Uses •the retention of existing research and development (R&D) uses in the remaining portion of the former cannery building •the retention of office use in the existing building at 3201-3225 Ash Street •the conversion of automotive use at 3250 Park Boulevard to R&D use •a comprehensive plan amendment and subdivision map exceptions (which staff determined during the course of reviewing the application). This report includes responses to key HRB comments made during the January 12, 2023 study session, including the requested additional analysis with respect to the historic property. The project plans in Attachment G have been revised since the HRB last reviewed them. Revisions reflect feedback from staff, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), the Architectural Review Board (ARB), and the HRB between October 2022 and March 2023. An analysis of the project’s consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOIS) is included in Attachment C. A memorandum with an update to that analysis, which reflects minor revisions based on the updated plans, is provided in Attachment D. A summary of the project description and the proposed rezoning is included in the applicant’s Development Program Statement (Attachment F). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project consists of a Development Agreement between the Sobrato Organization and the City, rezoning of the site, comprehensive plan amendment, and tentative map. The project would 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 includes partial demolition (84,000 sf) of the former Bayside Canning Company building (a portion of which was more recently occupied by Fry’s Electronics). The existing building is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The partial demolition is one of the key components of the Development Agreement, which also includes: •Development of 74 market-rate townhomes in place of the removed portion •Remodel 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 •Construction of a parking garage behind the cannery Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 7 Item No. 2. Page 3 of 16 •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 •Dedication of a ~3.25-acre BMR/parkland dedication parcel (including relocation of an existing above-ground powerline) •Retention of the existing office uses of the Ash Building (no building modifications) •Conversion of the Audi Building from existing automotive uses to R&D use (no building modifications) •A ten-year term during which the City may not modify the zoning or approved uses Attachment A includes a location map. Attachment G includes links to the project plans (Development Plan) and the Draft EIR. The Draft Development Agreement was previously made public as part of the staff report to the Planning and Transportation Commission.1 Historic Review Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 16.49.050, 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 project does not meet any of these requirements because it is not a listed resource and it is not located within a historic district. However, the City evaluated the cannery building listed under the address 340 Portage and found it eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). The property is therefore considered a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Staff is bringing this to the HRB because: •The public interest in this property, particularly as it relates to its historic status •City Council will be required to make findings of overriding consideration for the impacts to this California Register eligible building. The HRB is requested to make a recommendation regarding the proposed Development Agreement and plans. The goal is for the project to make appropriate efforts to preserve and convey the site’s history to the public, despite the demolition of a portion of this resource, through: •Appropriate treatment of the remaining cannery building including both the exterior and the views of the monitor roof from the proposed retail space •Compliance with Mitigation Measures required in accordance with CEQA, including preparation of a Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), with an interpretive display •Public art installation(s) - the artist has been selected, to be confirmed by the Public Art Commission on May 18, 2023 •Public access easement and Public Park that make the site more accessible 1 A link to the November 30, 2022 Planning and Transportation Commission staff report for the proposed project is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/planning-and-transportation-commission/2022/ptc-11.30.2022-3200-park.pdf Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 8 Item No. 2. Page 4 of 16 •Nomination of the remaining cannery building and Ash building to the City’s local register and/or as a California Historic landmark following the completion of construction, subject to further evaluation and consideration. BACKGROUND On January 12, 2023 the HRB held a study session to provide input specific to the townhome design. Minutes from this study session can be found online.2 The Board’s comments and responses to those comments are summarized below. HRB Comments Response Standalone Resource. Several HRB members encouraged exploration of whether the portion of the building under the monitor roofs could be eligible for the California or local register as a standalone resource. As discussed in the Historic Resources Evaluation (HRE) prepared by Page and Turnbull, the cannery building in its entirety is an eligible resource. The property was eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1 for its association with the history of the canning industry in Santa Clara County. Its period of significance spans from 1918 when the cannery opened to 1949 when Sutter Packing’s operations ended. Compliance with the Standards requires that materials from the period of significance be retained. Demolition of a large portion of the building, even if the oldest portion of the building would remain, does not meet the Standards and the building would no longer retain sufficient integrity to be eligible for listing in the CRHR. Though the monitor roof portion of the building may be more identifiable portion of the building, it does not mean that it is more historic than other portions that were also constructed during the period of significance. There is nothing in the HRE to support that suggestion. Ash Street Office Building. HRB members also requested further evaluation of whether the 3201-3225 Ash Street Office building could be designated as a standalone resource either for the California Register of Historic Resources or on the City’s local register. The City, at the applicant’s expense, prepared the additional analysis in Attachment E to evaluate whether the building at 3201-3225 Ash Street would be individually eligible for the California Register. The analysis concludes that this resource is not individually eligible for the California Register. 2 Minutes of the January 12, 2023 Historic Resources Board Hearing are available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources- board/2023/hrb-1.12.2023-minutes.pdf Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 9 Item No. 2. Page 5 of 16 Public Views/Access. Some boardmembers expressed concern about the fact that the work happening on Park Boulevard is shutting off the cannery site to the public view and losing the visual connection to the neighborhood. Consider opening up a visual avenue to the Cannery. The existing cannery building extends from Ash/Portage to Park Boulevard. The proposed project includes demolition of a portion of the structure adjacent Park Boulevard to allow for the construction of 74 townhomes. While the cannery building would be less visible from Park Boulevard, the project includes dedication of a large parcel located across from the remaining cannery building’s primary façade. 2.25-acres of this parcel would be dedicated as public park. The Development Agreement also includes dedication of a public access easement over a private street connecting Portage Avenue to Park Boulevard. This provides public access through the site adjacent the primary façade. In addition, the retail space will be made open to the public and the space is designed to have a primarily glass ceiling in order to allow for public viewing of the monitor roofs from the retail space. Alternatives. The HRB raised several questions about alternatives to the proposed project, including suggestions that the open space be redesigned to be located around the remaining cannery building, that the applicant consider repurposing as an art center or recreational center, and asking for further consideration of adaptive reuse of the site. The proposed project was a result of the Council’s formation of an ad hoc committee to create a negotiated alternative that would address key goals of both the City and the developer as an alternative to the proposed 91-unit housing project, which did not include dedication of land. The Development Agreement Alternative considers the most appropriate location to maximize the number of townhome units that could be developed while proposing the open space area adjacent the creek, which is more consistent with both goals and policies of the City’s Natural Element and takes into account the public and Council’s interests to consider future naturalization of the creek expressed as part of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Planning Process. Consideration of Alternatives that do not provide housing do not meet most of the project objectives or Council’s expressed interest for this area and therefore were not Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 10 Item No. 2. Page 6 of 16 considered further. Adaptive reuse of the building for multi-family housing is discussed further below. Designation of Remaining Cannery on Local Register and/or as a Historic Landmark. Board members appeared to be in concurrence that there would continue to be value in placing the remaining cannery building on the City’s local register, even if the site did not remain sufficient integrity for designation on a California Register. The HRB expressed an interest in designating the remaining cannery building on the City’s local register and to consider listing as a California historic landmark. A historic resources eligibility constraints analysis prepared by the City’s Historic Architect (Attachment E) concludes that designation of the property for either of these must be based on the existing conditions of the site at the time of nomination. Therefore, in order to nominate the remaining cannery building to the local register or as a landmark, the demolition and remodel would need to be completed and analysis of the existing conditions at that point in time would need to be prepared for the purposes of that nomination. If recommended by the HRB, language could be added to the terms of the Development Agreement for Council’s consideration to explore this nomination following the completion of the remodel. Public Art. Boardmembers generally noted that thought should be put into how art can be maintained and noted that there should be engagement with the Asian community in designing that art. Boardmembers asked to maximize the conveyance of Thomas Foon Chew's life with respect to themes in the public art and/or interpretive display. As discussed further below in staff’s analysis, the applicant has selected an artist, Kyungmi Shin of Shin Gray Studio, to develop the artwork for the project site. Shin has a strong portfolio of public art projects and a particular interest in examining the intersectionality of the historic and contemporary. Documentation Prior to Demolition. At least one boardmember noted that proper documentation of the existing building is critical if parts are being demolished. Mitigation Measure CR-2 (MM CR-2) requires archival documentation of the as-built and as-found condition. Prior to issuance of demolition permits the applicant is required to document the buildings and structures proposed for demolition following the general guidelines of Historic American Building Survey (HABS)- Level III documentation. This documentation is required to include high resolution digital photographic recordation, a historic narrative Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 11 Item No. 2. Page 7 of 16 report, and compilation of historic research 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 must be offered as donated material to repositories that will make it available for current and future generations and shall be submitted to the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Public Library, where it would be available to local researchers. In addition to the traditional forms of historic photo documentation included in the Secretary of Interior’s guidelines, the applicant is exploring supplemental opportunities using various methods of imagery documentation used in the building and construction industry. These methods might include digital documentation, laser scanning or building information modeling (BIM). Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Consistency. Boardmembers expressed that they wanted a clear presentation from the architect conveying the areas where the project is or is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards with respect to the remaining cannery building. In areas where the project is not consistent with the standards, an explanation of why the changes to the building are proposed. Boardmembers were generally in agreement that the monitor roofs should be first priority in terms of preservation efforts and that they wanted to see the area under the monitor roof renovated consistent with the historic photo as shown in the HRE rather than seeing all the revisions added. The applicant will provide the requested information as part of a formal presentation at the HRB hearing on May 25, 2023. The monitor roofs are retained as part of the proposed development. In the area below the monitor roofs, staff notes that the second story forms are part of the existing historic property. Modifications to the south façade are proposed and include modifications to doors and windows, in particular, to accommodate the proposed retail space. Open Days. At least one boardmember noted that the California Preservation Society has open days starting in September and asked staff/Sobrato to allow views of building for The applicant has expressed that they would be amenable to coordinating an opportunity to allow views of the building if selected by the California Preservation Society to Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 12 Item No. 2. Page 8 of 16 this before work occurs on site if project gets approved. participate in the open days in September of this year. Historic Resources Evaluation As part of the NVCAP process, the City retained Page & Turnbull to evaluate the subject property and prepare a Historic Resource Evaluation (HRE). The HRE determined that 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 are 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 more in-depth summary of the cannery building’s eligibility for the California Register and the history of the site is included in the HRE, Attachment B. Character Defining Features of 340 Portage Avenue, as summarized in the HRE, 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. •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. A separate evaluation was completed, and is included in the EIR, 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) and is proposed to be demolished as part of the proposed Development Agreement project. 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.” Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 13 Item No. 2. Page 9 of 16 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, several criteria appear relevant to the cannery building/site: (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 historic resource categories 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 as the associated Ash office building, as a contributing historic resource under local categories 3 or 4. At the January 12, 2023 study session, board members seemed to concur that, if the project is approved, there would be an interest in designating the remaining cannery building and Ash office building on the City’s Local Inventory. There was also an interest in exploring whether the Ash Street Office Building would remain individually eligible for the California Register as well as whether the site, following completion of the project, could be listed as a California Historic Landmark. The possible nomination/designation of these buildings is discussed further below. ANALYSIS This analysis discusses: •the overall response to the HRB’s comments; •the EIR findings with respect to this California Register eligible resource; •the additional analysis, completed for information purposes, based on previous feedback from Council, boards and commissions, and the public with respect to the project’s consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation; •the eligibility of the 3201-3225 Ash Street office building for individual listing on the California Register; and •the eligibility of the remaining cannery building (at the completion of the proposed work) for the City’s local register or as a California Historic Landmark. Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 14 Item No. 2. Page 10 of 16 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards (SOIS) Consistency Analysis The proposed Development Agreement project includes modifications to the existing cannery building that would not be consistent with the SOIS for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (SOIS). The project includes the demolition of the eastern portion of the historic warehouse building, resulting in a loss of approximately 40 percent of the building. This demolition was determined to result in a loss of historic integrity such that the building would no longer be eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). Accordingly, this is identified in the EIR as a significant and unavoidable impact to a historic resource. However, there has been expressed interest from Councilmembers and members of the public to treat the remainder of the building in accordance with SOIS 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. Therefore, in coordination with the City’s consulting Historic Architect, staff analyzed the proposed project for consistency with the SOIS. 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 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. Modifications are proposed that would improve the pedestrian environment along the exterior through planting and seating areas and create a more desirable interior space for the intended uses by providing windows and doors to allow for better usability, light, and air. 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. A 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 shows the area to be demolished, the area to be retained, and the area proposed for structural retrofit. The analysis in Attachment C summarizes how the proposed remaining cannery building aligns with the SOIS under the Development Agreement.3 The memorandum in Attachment D includes a brief summary of more recent modifications to the plans submitted since the January 12, 2023 study session. The project plans, as they relate to the cannery building, were revised to show removal of the angled windows that followed the slope of the roofline. The previous SOIS analysis indicated that this change introduced an embellishment to an otherwise simple façade that is not 3 An analysis of the proposed 200 Portage (91-unit) Townhome Development’s consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards was provided to the Historic Resources Board in the previous staff report for the January 12, 2023 hearing. The staff report for this hearing is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/historic-resources- board/2023/hrb-1.12-3200-park.pdf Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 15 Item No. 2. Page 11 of 16 substantiated by historical evidence. The revised windows reflect a simplified design. The project was also redesigned to retain the existing grade separation between the existing parking lot at the rear of the building and the loading docks consistent with the previous analysis’ recommendations. The monitor roofs, which are identified as a character defining feature of the property, will continue to be retained and restored, consistent with the HRB’s comments. As discussed in the analyses in Attachments C and D as well as in the EIR, these recent modifications make the project more consistent with the standards. However, the proposed demolition would still result in the material impairment of the historic building and would still result in a significant and unavoidable impact to a historic resource, regardless of whether or not all of the recommendations in the report are met, because of the proposed portion to be demolished. Individual Listing of Ash Office Building At the HRB’s request, the City’s consulting historic architect evaluated whether the Ash Office Building would be individually eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources. As detailed in Attachment E, the analysis concludes that the Ash Office Building would not be individually eligible for listing on the CRHR. Designation on the Local Register or as a Historic Landmark At the HRB’s request, the City’s consulting historic architect evaluated whether the site, as part of the proposed Development Agreement project, could be designated as a California Historic Landmark. As detailed in Attachment E, any analysis of the project’s eligibility as a historic landmark would need to be based on the conditions of the site at the time of designation. Therefore, this analysis and nomination for designation would need to occur following the completion of the proposed remodel of the cannery building. The Development Agreement could be revised at the HRB’s recommendation to include mutually agreed upon language between the property owner and the City to complete this evaluation following the remodel and to nominate the building as a historic landmark. This nomination at the State level requires the applicant’s agreement and designation requires approval from the Director of California State Parks. At the January 12, 2023 study session, the HRB noted there could be merit in nominating the remaining cannery building to the City’s local Inventory as part of the proposed project. The analysis in Attachment E similarly reflects that the nomination/designation would need to be based on the conditions at the completion of the project. Therefore, if recommended by the HRB, the Development Agreement could be revised to include mutually agreed upon language between the property owner and the City to complete this evaluation following the remodel and to nominate the building for local designation for Council’s consideration. The applicant has expressed that they would be amenable to designating the remaining building and incorporating such language if desired by the HRB and Council. Public Art Public art presents a unique opportunity to celebrate and share the history of this site and is therefore an important component of the project. The Public Art Commission (PAC) held an initial Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 16 Item No. 2. Page 12 of 16 meeting on January 19, 2023,4 as required in accordance with the public art process. Boardmember Eagleston-Cieslewicz attended the hearing on behalf of the board to express the HRB’s interest in having any on-site public art convey historic themes of the site. The PAC discussed and made suggestions regarding the potential themes and locations for the artwork, encouraging the applicant to consider incorporating public art that would celebrate themes of cultural diversity and the unique history of the project site and its nearby community. The PAC also agreed that the funds from the proposed remodel of the existing cannery building would be used on-site on/around the cannery building. However, due to the limited appropriate on-site locations for public artwork on the Townhome parcel, and the anticipated public art funds from the proposed townhome development, the PAC agreed it would be appropriate to pay those funds to the City in-lieu of on-site art placement. In this way, the funds may be used toward public art at the future public park or in other areas of the City (e.g. Boulware park, California Avenue, etc.), at the discretion of the Public Art Commission. This results in a 50/50 split of the funds, such that $420,000 is proposed to be used for the purposes of on-site public art on the cannery building parcel and $420,000 would be paid in lieu. On May 18, 2023, Sobrato and their art consultant, Jennifer Easton, was scheduled to present an update on the art program for this site to the PAC. A link to the PAC agenda is available online.5 Because this HRB staff report was released on the same day as the PAC hearing, staff will provide a short verbal summary of the PAC’s comments at the HRB hearing. Sobrato’s public art consultant will also be available to answer questions about the proposed project’s public art requirements and the proposed direction to the HRB during the hearing. The artist selected for the project is Kyungmi Shin of Shin Gray Studio. Shin has a strong portfolio of public art projects and a particular interest in examining the intersectionality of the historic and contemporary. Shin has developed both 2-D and 3-D public art pieces, utilizing many of the materials under consideration for the proposed public art. Additionally, Sobrato conducted an interview with the granddaughter of Thomas Foon Chew to hear her thoughts and feedback on the public art process. Chew’s granddaughter has done extensive research about her grandfather, including the development of his canneries and the opportunities Chew provided for low income and immigrant families. The current public art schedule assumes that conceptual artwork will begin to be developed in June 2023 with the location selection and estimation process for artwork engineering and fabrication costs in June/July 2023. The applicant is also planning a community meeting for the Ventura 4 Minutes of the January 19, 2023 Public Art Commission hearing are available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/public-art- commission/2023/january-19-2023-pac-minutes.pdf 5 A link to the staff report for the May 18, 2023 Public Art Commission hearing is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/community-services/public-art-program/staff-reports-and- docs-for-pac/pac-staff-report-interim-review-for-3200-park-may-2023.pdf Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 17 Item No. 2. Page 13 of 16 neighborhood to hear public input on the artwork design process before returning to the Public Art Commission in fall 2023. Alternatives Several comments from boardmembers and members of the public expressed an interest in better understanding adaptive reuse of the site. Some boardmembers requested that staff further explore alternatives that consider adaptive reuse of the property for residential as well as for other purposes, such as recreation or art space. An EIR must describe a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed project that could feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives. An EIR is not required to consider every conceivable alternative to a project. The alternatives must be limited to those that meet the project objectives, are feasible, and would avoid or substantially lessen at least one of the significant environmental effects of the project. As provided in Section 6, Alternatives, of the EIR the project’s objectives are to develop ownership residential townhomes to meet the needs of families; develop residential uses to help meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment; construct a cohesive development that respects the historic uses at the site; contributes to the concept of a “complete neighborhood” consistent with regional transportation and climate policy goals; and achieves a streamlined and efficient process consistent with State housing law. Therefore, Alternatives that include the reuse of the building for purposes other than housing were not discussed in the EIR. These alternatives also are not in line with the Council’s expressed interest in the project site. As discussed in the responses to comments in the Final EIR, the project objectives for residential uses could not be fully met without significant alteration of the existing cannery building. The Draft EIR includes an analysis of Alternative 2, Adaptive Reuse of Eligible Historic Resource for Housing. For Alternative 2 to feasibly attain most of the basic project objectives, and because the City Council’s preferred alternative for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan assumed a height of approximately 35 feet and 293 housing units across the project site, the City selected a three-story adaptive reuse scenario for detailed analysis. However, further documentation from the applicant in the FEIR (Attachment B of the FEIR in Attachment G) shows the substantial modifications that would be required for even a single-story remodel of the building to accommodate a multi-family residential use. It also exemplifies how even a single-story alternative would not eliminate the significant historic resources impact, due to the significant revisions that would be necessary to meet life safety requirements and provide viable residential units. Any reuse of the structure for residential units, regardless of how many stories tall the structure would be, would require all four walls of the building exterior to be modified through the introduction of window and door openings to meet residential ingress/egress building code requirements. The large open interior of the building would also have to be modified by adding light wells to provide access to light and air for all units and demised to create individual units. This contrary to the Secretary of the Interior’s standards that would discourage subdividing the building into smaller spaces. Further, to accommodate residential uses, substantial structural upgrades would be required. Additional kitchens and bathrooms would be required for residential use, such that plumbing and Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 18 Item No. 2. Page 14 of 16 electrical systems would need major upgrades to supply electricity and water. Other major upgrades would be needed for ventilation and insulation and to meet current green building and ADA requirements. It should also be noted that the building, though eligible, is not currently listed in the CRHR and is therefore not eligible for historic exemptions under the California Historic Building Code. Because of the extent of work required to convert the building to residential uses and comply with building code requirements, even if the site were to be listed in the CRHR and therefore qualify for certain exemptions for required upgrades, an adaptation of the building could not occur without altering the character-defining features. Therefore, a significant and unavoidable impact to historical resources would still result from a single-story adaptive reuse in the existing building footprint. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing to be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on May 12, 2023, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 10, 2023 which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. 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 in the previous staff report. 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, the California Department of Transportation, and the 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. 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. Comments were also received verbally during the Planning and Transportation Commission Hearing on October 26, 2022. These comments and formal responses to all oral and written comments on the Draft EIR are provided in the Final EIR (Attachment G). 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 Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 19 Item No. 2. Page 15 of 16 the 200 Portage (91 unit) Townhome Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2021120444) which was circulated for a 60-day public comment period ending on November 15, 2022. The PTC held two study sessions during the circulation period to allow the opportunity for oral comment during the DEIR comment period. The Final EIR, which includes a formal response to all comments received on the Draft EIR during the circulation period is provided in Attachment G. Alternative 3 of the EIR evaluates the proposed redevelopment of the site in accordance with the Development Agreement. Staff provided a link to the Final EIR to members of the City Council, the HRB, and other City boards/commissions upon its release to allow for review prior to applicable hearings. 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 and will require Council adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. As noted in the previous staff report, although mitigation would not reduce impacts to a less than significant level, two mitigation measures were identified to reduce impacts on the historic resource: •Mitigation Measure CR-1 requires archival documentation of the building following the guidelines of the Historic American Building Survey (HABS)-Level III documentation requirements. •Mitigation Measure CR-2 requires an on-site interpretive display that focuses on the property’s historic to be placed in a publicly accessible location. This interpretive display is planned to be placed outside the proposed retail space. The exact design of the interpretive display is still being developed. The HRB could consider recommending a condition of approval that asks for the interpretive display to return to an HRB ad hoc once the design and exact location is resolved. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan in Attachment G and the previous HRB staff report includes the exact language of these mitigation measures. Adaptive reuse of the site is also discussed in the EIR as summarized above. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Historic Resources Board may: 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Historic Resources Evaluation Attachment C: SOI Standards Analysis for 3200 Park Development Agreement Attachment D: SOI standards Analysis updated Memorandum Attachment E: Historic Constraints Analysis Attachment F: Development Program Statement Attachment G: Links to Project Plans and Environmental Analysis Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 20 Item No. 2. Page 16 of 16 AUTHOR/TITLE: Claire Raybould, Senior Planner Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 21 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) CITY OF 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) Item 2 Attachment A _Location Map Packet Pg. 22 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 Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 23 Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 24 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 Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 25 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 26 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 27 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). Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 28 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 Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 29 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 30 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 31 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 32 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 33 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 34 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 35 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 Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 36 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 37 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 38 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 39 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). Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 40 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 41 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 42 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 43 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 44 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 45 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 46 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 47 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 Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 48 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 49 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 50 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 51 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 52 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 53 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 54 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 55 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 56 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 57 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 58 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 59 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 Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 60 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 Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 61 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 62 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/ Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 63 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 64 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 65 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 66 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.” Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 67 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 68 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 Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 69 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 70 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 71 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, Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 72 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 Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 73 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 Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 74 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). Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 75 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). Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 76 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 77 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. Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 78 417 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 Item 2 Attachment B-Historic Resources Evaluation 340 Portage Packet Pg. 79 Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 5 1 0 834 4455 O F F I C E info@rinconconsultants.com ww w .rinconcons u ltan ts .com 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. 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 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 80 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project 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. Page 2 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 81 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project 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. Page 3 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 82 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project 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 Page 4 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 83 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project 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. Page 5 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 84 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project 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. Page 6 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 85 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project 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. Page 7 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 86 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project 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. Page 8 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 87 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project 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. Page 9 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 88 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project 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. Page 10 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 89 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project 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. Page 11 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 90 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Condominium Project 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 Page 12 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 91 Attachment 1 Historical Resources Assessment and Impacts Findings 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 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 92 Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 5 1 0 834 4455 O F F I C E info@rinconconsultants.com ww w .rinconcons u ltan ts .com 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. Page 1 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 93 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). 2 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 94 Figure 1 Project Location 3 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 95 Figure 2 Proposed Townhome Project Site Plan 4 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 96 Figure 3 Work Area for Improvements to Existing Building 5 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 97 Figure 4 Rendering of Proposed View Facing Northeast Figure 5 Proposed North Elevation Design 6 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 98 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. 7 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 99 ▪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. 8 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 100 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). 9 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 101 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, 10 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 102 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. 11 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 103 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 12 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 104 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; 13 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 105 ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 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. 14 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 106 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) 15 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 107 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 16 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 108 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]. 17 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 109 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 18 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 110 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 19 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 111 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 Architectural Historian Shannon Carmack 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. 20 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 112 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 21 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 113 Attachment 2 Historic Design Guidelines Memorandum 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 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 114 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). Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 115 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Design Guidelines Architectural Resources Group Revised, July 2022 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). 2 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 116 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Design Guidelines Architectural Resources Group Revised, July 2022 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 o o Long, linear massing Composition of multiple smaller buildings Primarily one-story, double-height volumes with taller central cannery section Varied roof forms and structures o o o Prominent paired monitor roofs Arched roofs 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 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 117 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Design Guidelines Architectural Resources Group Revised, July 2022 o o Reinforced, board formed concrete Corrugated metal cladding Exterior cannery features o o o Concrete loading platforms Cooling porch at rear of building Exterior shed awnings with wood post-and-beam construction Fenestration o o o Wood frame windows Garage door openings 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 Channel of Matadero Creeko Interior features o o o Exposed wood truss ceilings Wood and concrete post and beam construction Concrete floors Careful consideration of these identified features informed the development of the following historic design guidelines. 4 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 118 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Design Guidelines Architectural Resources Group Revised, July 2022 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. 5 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 119 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Design Guidelines Architectural Resources Group Revised, July 2022 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. 6 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 120 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Design Guidelines Architectural Resources Group Revised, July 2022 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. 7 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 121 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Design Guidelines Architectural Resources Group Revised, July 2022 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. 8 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 122 340 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto Historic Design Guidelines Architectural Resources Group Revised, July 2022 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. 9 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 123 Attachment 3 Applicant Phasing Plan 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 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 124 Attachment 4 Summary Table of Recommendations 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 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 125 Description Area of DemolitionDemolish Existing Building Electrical Equipment to be Removed Electrical Equipment to Remain Existing Building to Remain R20 per Palo Alto Power Structural Retrofit EX BUILDING TOBE DEMOLISHED Temporary Building TRANSFORMER TOREMAIN FORCONSTRUCTIONPURPOSES.NEW CMU FENCE TOMATCH EXISTING EX TRANSFORMER TO BERELOCATED; ALLPLAYGROUND GLOBALELECTRICAL LOAD TO BESERVED HERE EX TRANSFORMERTO REMAIN ONTEMPORARY BASIS REMOVE EXTRANSFORMERREMOVE EXTRANSFORMER E E E EEEEEPHASE A PERMITS:E E E E1. PALO ALTO POWER FOR R20WORK INTERNALLY REROUTEELECTRICAL TO BOTHCABINETS 2. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FROMPUBLIC WORKS 50'-0" EXISTING BUILDINGTO REMAIN3. BUILDING PERMIT FOR NEWELECTRIC SERVICE FORPLAYGROUND GLOBAL (380Portage) STURCTURALRETROFIT FOREXISTING BUILDINGTO REMAIN PERMANENTLY EXISTING BUILDINGTO REMAIN ONTEMPORARY BASIS 4. DEMOLITION PERMIT FORPARKING LOT AND BUILDING TOBE REMOVED (INCLUDING PARKBUILDING)5. 340 PORTAGE BUILDING PERMITWARM SHELL & STRUCTURALRETROFIT OF BUILDING TOREMAIN (ORANGE) E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EE6. TEMP POWER PERMIT FORCONSTRUCTION7. RECONSTUCTION OF CMUFENCE AT PROPERTY LINE NOV 2022 NM MC ---- Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 126 Description Electrical Equipment to Remain Existing Building to Remain Garage Limits R20 per Palo Alto Power (completed) Temporary BuildingProposed Storm Drain MainProposed Sewer Main Proposed Water Main TRANSFORMER TOREMAIN FORCONSTRUCTIONPURPOSES. CONSTRUCTGARAGE EX TRANSFORMERTO REMAIN ONTEMPORARY BASISBUILDING PERMIT FORNEW GARAGEPREVIOUSLY RELOCATED CONSTRUCTIONTRANSFORMER; ALLPLAYGROUND GLOBALELECTRICAL LOAD TO BESERVED HERE EE INSTALL MAINLINEUTILITIESPHASE B PERMITS:1. BUILDING PERMIT - GARAGE2. ENCROACHMENT PERMITSFOR UTILITY CONNECTIONS EXISTING BUILDINGTO REMAINPERMANENTLY 340 PORTAGE EXISTING BUILDINGTO REMAIN ONTEMPORARY BASIS E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EE INSTALL MAINLINEUTILITIES NOV 2022 NM MC ---- Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 127 DescriptionElectrical Equipment to Remain Existing Building to Remain New Electrical Equipment Temporary Building TI for 340 PortageProposed Storm Drain Main Proposed Sewer Main Proposed Water Main TRANSFORMER TOREMAIN FORCONSTRUCTIONPURPOSES. EX TRANSFORMERTO REMAIN ONTEMPORARY BASIS FEED NEWTRANSFORMERFROM PARK EE PHASE C PERMITS:1. GRADING PERMIT FOR SITEWORK EXISTING BUILDINGTO REMAIN2. TI FOR 340 PORTAGE TI FOR 340PORTAGE EXISTING BUILDINGTO REMAIN ON PERMANENTLY TEMPORARY BASIS 26' WIDE AISLE ANDSITE WORK E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E BUILD OUT DRIVE AISLEAND ALL FINSIHED E SURFACE ELEMNTS. NOV 2022 NM MC ---- Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 128 DescriptionElectrical Equipment to be Removed Limits of DemolitionProposed Storm Drain Main Proposed Sewer Main Proposed Water Main REMOVE TEMPORARYTRANSFORMERS EE PHASE D PERMITS:1. DEMOLITION PERMIT FORTEMP BUILDING DEMOLISHTEMPORARYBUILDING 2. UTILITY CONNECTIONS TO340 PORTAGE EXISTING BUILDINGTO REMAINPERMANENTLY3. GRADING PERMIT FOR TEMPBUILDING TO BEDEMOLISHED CONNECT TO PREVIOUSLYINSTALLED MAINS WITHINPORTAGE AVE P.U.E.4. UPON CERTIFICATE OFOCCUPANCY FOR THEGARAGE AND TCO FOR 340PORTAGE, RECORD FINALMAP & MAKE ALL REQUIREDDEDICATIONS E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE EE NOV 2022 NM MC ---- Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 129 DescriptionR20 per Palo Alto PowerProposed Storm Drain Main Proposed Sewer Main Proposed Water Main EE PHASE E PERMITS:1. TOWNHOME PERMITS &CONSTRUCTION E E E E E E E E E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE E EE NOV 2022 NM MC ---- Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 130 Table 1 Summary Table of RecommendationsDesign Element SOIS Analysis RecommendationsProposed Demolition Does not meet Standard 1,2, 5, and 6 To conform with the Standards, the proposed design should beupdated to retain the portions of the historic building proposedfor demolition.Structural Retrofit Potential to not meetStandard 2 and 6. In order to conform with the Standards, care should be taken toretain historic materials.New Storefronts,Entries, and CanopiesSouth Elevation Entries Does not meet Standard 2,5, 6, or 9 The extant former loading door, identified as a character-definingfeature should be retained.New entries at the proposed amenity space addition should berevised to not overwhelm the historic portion of the building tobe retained. The proposed use of corrugated metal on theproposed amenity space should be updated to a different,compatible material to clearly distinguish the original historicbuilding and the proposed alteration. North Elevation Entries Does not meet Standard 2or 9 The proposed new entries should be reduced in scale, and bepulled in at least one structural bay from each end of thecharacter-defining roofline in order to retain more of the buildingmaterials and the building’s spatial relationship. The existing loading door should be retained and reused insteadof introducing new entries in the same general location.Canopies Meets the Standards atnew entriesDoes not meet Standard 2or 5 The proposed removal of existing character-defining shedawnings should be retained instead of being replaced with newcanopies.New Window OpeningsNorth and SouthElevations Does not meet Standard 2,3, 5, 6, or 9 It is recommended that the north and south windowconfiguration be updated to no longer include the fixed windowsthat follow the slope of the roofline.East Elevation andSkylights Meets the Standards Meets the Standards No recommendationIn order to comply with Standards 2 and 5, original windowsshould be retained where condition allows. If windows aredeteriorated beyond repair, they should be replaced withwindows in kind. New windows should match the historic inconfiguration and profile and be manufactured in an appropriatereplacement material. Existing WindowTreatment Existing ExteriorCladding Material Meets the Standards In order to comply with Standards 2 and 5, cladding materialshould be retained where condition allows. If it is deterioratedbeyond repair, it should be replaced with material in kind andmatch 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 variedrooflines. If structural updates are necessary to meet coderequirements, the roof’s overall form should be retained andreplaced in kind. The revised design should be updated to retain more of theloading platform, including the change in grade from the adjacentparking lot. Loading Platforms Does not meet Standard 2,5, 6, and 9 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 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 131 City of Palo Alto200 Portage Condominium Project New Construction Townhouses No recommendations Meet the Standards Meets the Standards It is recommended that the proposed use of corrugated metal onthe garage addition be revised to a different, compatible materialto make it readily distinguishable from the historic building Garage Addition Page 18 Item 2 Attachment C-SOIS Analysis Development Agreement Alternative Packet Pg. 132 Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 510-834-4455 www.rinconcons ultan ts.com May 15, 2023 Project No: 21-11331 Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Via email: Claire.Reybould@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Analysis Update 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 impact analysis update for the project at 200 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto, California. Rincon previously prepared a Historical Resources Assessment and Impacts Finding Memorandum for the proposed project in February 2022. That analysis found the proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to historical resources, due to the demolition of approximately 40 percent of the existing warehouse building, which qualifies as a historical resource under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project was found to be inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Standards) due to the demolition and removal of distinctive and character-defining features that characterize the property. Pursuant to Section 15064.5(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, projects which comply with the Standards are generally found to mitigate historical resource impacts to a less than significant level. Rincon prepared a second memorandum in December 2022 analyzing the design from the proposed Development Agreement Alternative (Alternative 3 in the Environmental Impact Report prepared for the proposed project) and found that several elements, in addition to the proposed demolition of a large portion of the warehouse building, did not meet the Standards. For instance, several elements of the proposed new design included the removal of distinctive or character-defining features or proposed alterations that would detract from the building’s historic industrial character. Rincon provided recommendations for treatment that would bring the project more in compliance with the Standards. This memorandum analyses the revised design prepared by the project applicant for the Development Agreement Alternative and considers how the proposed modifications conform to the Standards, including changes to the proposed window design and treatment of the site’s existing grade change. Methods for the current assessment included review of the Historical Resources Evaluation (HRE) prepared by Page & Turnbull in February 2019, which established the basis for the property’s historical significance and Item 2 Attachment D-SOI Standards Analysis Updated Memorandum Packet Pg. 133 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Avenue Condominium Project 2 its character-defining features and a review of revised Development Agreement Alternative project plans, prepared May 2, 2023. The Rincon team included Architectural Historian JulieAnn Murphy, who served as primary author of this memorandum. Cultural Resources Director 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). Item 2 Attachment D-SOI Standards Analysis Updated Memorandum Packet Pg. 134 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Avenue Condominium Project www.rinconcons ultan ts.com Secretary of the Interior’s Standards Analysis The following table outlines recommendations provided in the December 2022 memorandum with a review of response in the revised proposed plans. Design Element December 2022 SOIS Analysis December 2022 Recommendations Proposed Revision Updated SOIS Analysis 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. Unchanged Does not meet Standard 1, 2, 5, and 6 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. Unchanged Potential to not meet Standard 2 and 6. New Storefronts, Entries, and Canopies South Elevation Entries1 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. Unchanged Entries have been revised, but remain largely the same as previously proposed. Proposed use of corrugated metal also remains the same. Does not meet Standard 2, 5, 6, or 9 1 Note that updated plans have implemented a different cardinal reference than in previous plan sets. What was formerly referred to as the south elevation, for example, is now called the east elevation and so forth. Item 2 Attachment D-SOI Standards Analysis Updated Memorandum Packet Pg. 135 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Avenue Condominium Project 4 Design Element December 2022 SOIS Analysis December 2022 Recommendations Proposed Revision Updated SOIS Analysis 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. Unchanged Unchanged Does not meet Standard 2 or 9 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. Unchanged Meets the Standards at new entries Does not meet Standard 2 or 5 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. Though new openings are proposed, window configuration has been updated and more closely aligns with the configuration of existing historic windows. Does not meet Standard 2, 3, 5, 6, or 9 East Elevation and Skylights Meets the Standards No recommendation NA Meets the Standards 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. NA Meets the Standards Item 2 Attachment D-SOI Standards Analysis Updated Memorandum Packet Pg. 136 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Avenue Condominium Project 5 Design Element December 2022 SOIS Analysis December 2022 Recommendations Proposed Revision Updated SOIS Analysis 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. NA Meets the Standards 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. Unchanged Does not meet Standard 2, 5, 6, and 9 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. The revised design has been updated to retain the existing grade change from the adjacent parking lot, but existing loading platforms are still proposed to be removed. Does not meet Standard 2, 5, 6, and 9 New Construction Townhouses Meet the Standards No recommendations NA Meet the Standards 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 Unchanged Meets the Standards NA = not applicable Item 2 Attachment D-SOI Standards Analysis Updated Memorandum Packet Pg. 137 City of Palo Alto 200 Portage Avenue Condominium Project www.rinconcons ultan ts.com Conclusions As detailed in previous memoranda, the proposed demolition of a large portion of the historic building is not consistent with the Standards. Similarly, several elements of the current design, as revised, still include the removal of distinctive or character-defining features on the portion of the building proposed to be retained, including the shed awnings, varied roof forms, and garage door openings. The grade change to the existing loading platforms is proposed to be retained, but the existing platforms are still proposed to be removed. Proposed alterations that detract from the building’s historic industrial character have been revised, including the slanted windows previously proposed on the north and south elevations. However, there are still elements in the revised design that detract from the building’s historical character, including the location and configuration of proposed storefronts and the introduction of new openings and entries. The proposed demolition under the revised plans 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 Item 2 Attachment D-SOI Standards Analysis Updated Memorandum Packet Pg. 138 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 March 14, 2023 Job No. 21-11331 Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Via email: Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: Historical Resources Eligibility Constraints Memorandum - 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project EIR Dear Ms. Raybould: Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) was retained by the City of Palo Alto (City) to conduct a historical resources eligibility constraints analysis for a property located at 200 Portage Avenue, Palo Alto, California. The property is proposed to be redeveloped as part of the 200 Portage Townhome Project and would result in the partial demolition of the existing warehouse building. As described further below, the warehouse building and an adjacent, related office building at 3201-3225 Ash Street (APN 132-38-071), were previously found eligible as a single property for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); the property is therefore considered a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. As part of the project’s compliance with CEQA, Rincon prepared a Historical Resources Assessment and Impacts Finding Memorandum for the proposed project in February 2022, and found that the proposed project, 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). Rincon prepared a subsequent memorandum in November 2022 to assess the proposed design for the remaining warehouse building, which had been updated to be incorporated into the Development Agreement for the property, concluding that several elements were not consistent with the Standards. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared and circulated for public review and the City is currently preparing the Final EIR. The project was discussed by the Palo Alto Historic Resources Board (HRB) at their January 12, 2023 meeting. The Board inquired if the property could be listed in the CRHR, as a California Historical Landmark or Point of Historical Interest, and in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory following the completion of the proposed project and if the building at 3201-3225 Ash Street could be individually eligible for listing in the CRHR. This eligibility constraints memorandum responds to those inquiries. The Rincon team included Architectural Historian JulieAnn Murphy, who served as primary author of this memorandum. Cultural Resources Director 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 (36 CFR Part 61). Item 2 Attachment E-Historic Constraints Analysis Packet Pg. 139 City of Palo Alto Historical Resources Eligibility Constraints - 200 Portage Townhome Project Page 2 Regulatory Framework California Register of Historical Resources The CRHR was established in 1992 and codified by PRC Sections 5024.1 and Title 14 Section 4852. The CRHR is an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change (Public Resources Code, 5024.1(a)). The criteria for eligibility for the CRHR are consistent with the NRHP criteria but have been modified for state use in order to include a range of historical resources that better reflect the history of California (Public Resources Code, 5024.1(b)). Unlike the NRHP however, the CRHR does not have a defined age threshold for eligibility; rather, a resource may be eligible for the CRHR if it can be demonstrated sufficient time has passed to understand its historical or architectural significance (California Office of Historic Preservation 2006). Furthermore, resources may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR even if they do not retain sufficient integrity for National Register of Historic Places eligibility (California Office of Historic Preservation 2011). Generally, the California Office of Historic Preservation recommends resources over 45 years of age be recorded and evaluated for historical resources eligibility (California Office of Historic Preservation 1995:2). A property is eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets one of more of the following criteria: Criterion 1: Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage Criterion 2: Is associated with the lives of persons important to our past Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values Criterion 4: Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history In addition to meeting at least one of the above designation criteria, resources must also retain integrity. The Office of Historic Preservation recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, considered together, define historic integrity. To retain integrity, a property must possess several, if not all, of these seven qualities, defined as follows: Location: The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred Design: The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property Setting: The physical environment of a historic property Materials: The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property Workmanship: The physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory Feeling: A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time Association: The direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property Item 2 Attachment E-Historic Constraints Analysis Packet Pg. 140 City of Palo Alto Historical Resources Eligibility Constraints - 200 Portage Townhome Project Page 3 California Historical Landmark California Historical Landmarks (CHL) are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of statewide significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value. California Historical Landmarks are automatically listed in the CRHR. To be eligible for designation as a CHL, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria: ▪ The first, last, only or most significant of its type in the state or within a large geographic region (Northern, Central, or Southern California); ▪ Associated with an individual or group having profound influence on the history of California; ▪ A prototype of, or an outstanding example of a period, style, architectural movement or construction or is one of the more notable works of the best surviving work in a region of a pioneer architect, designer, or master builder. To be designated as a CHL, in addition to meeting at least one of the criteria listed above, it must also have approval of the property owner, be recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission, and be officially designated by the Director of California State Parks. California Points of Historical Interest California Points of Historical Interest (CPHI) are sites, buildings, features, or events that are of local (city or county) significance and have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other value. CHIs recommended by the State Historical Resources Commission are also listed in the CRHR. To be eligible for designation as a CPHI, a resource must meet at least one of the following criteria: ▪ The first, last, only, or most significant of its type within the local geographic region (City or County). ▪ Associated with an individual or group having a profound influence on the history of the local area. ▪ A prototype of, or an outstanding example of, a period, style, architectural movement or construction or is one of the more notable works or the best surviving work in the local region of a pioneer architect, designer or master builder. To be designated as a CPHI, in addition to meeting at least one of the criteria listed above, it must also have approval of the property owner. If approved by the State Historical Resources Commission, the CPHI is also listed in the CRHR. 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. Per Chapter 16.49 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, properties can be added Historic Inventory if it meets at least one of the following criteria for designation: 1) The structure or site is identified with the lives of historic people or with important events in the city, state or nation; Item 2 Attachment E-Historic Constraints Analysis Packet Pg. 141 City of Palo Alto Historical Resources Eligibility Constraints - 200 Portage Townhome Project Page 4 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. The inventory is organized under the 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. Background - Previous Evaluation The former Bayside Canning Company property at 200 Portage, inclusive of the warehouse building and the related office building at 3201-3225 Ash Street (APN 132-38-071), was evaluated in a Historical Resources Evaluation (HRE) prepared by Page & Turnbull on behalf of the City of Palo Alto in February 2019. It was recommended eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1 (Events) for its association with the canning industry in Santa Clara County. The HRE followed best practices for how to record historical resources, as provided by the California Office of Historic Preservation’s (OHP) Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. The HRE correctly recorded the warehouse and related office building as a single property because it is a “historically and functionally related unit”. OHP guidelines clarify that a comprehensive approach for recording historical resources is one where “all historically associated and/or physically superimposed resources are documented together.” The HRE also provided an in-depth historic development and significance discussion, which outlines the property’s association with the Bayside Canning Company (and later Sutter Packing Company), established as the second location of the operation on the subject property in 1918 by Chinese immigrant Thomas Foon Chew. It also provides a detailed chronology of the changes to the property over time. Finally, the HRE presents an evaluation of the subject property against the criteria for listing Item 2 Attachment E-Historic Constraints Analysis Packet Pg. 142 City of Palo Alto Historical Resources Eligibility Constraints - 200 Portage Townhome Project Page 5 in the CRHR. The evaluation describes why the resource is significant within the relevant historic context and recommended the subject property eligible under Criterion 1 for its association with the canning industry in Santa Clara County. It defines the period of significance from 1918 when the subject property was first developed to 1949, when the Sutter Packing Company canning operations ended. Eligibility of 3201-3225 Ash Street for listing in CRHR Previous Historical Documentation As described above, the HRE prepared by Page & Turnbull in 2019 recorded and evaluated 200 Portage, inclusive of the warehouse building and the former office building at 3201-3225 Ash Street as a single property and found it eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1 at the local level for its association with the history of the canning industry in Santa Clara County. Methods Site Visit On September 15, 2021, Rincon Architectural Historian JulieAnn Murphy, MSHP conducted a site visit to the project site. 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 site visit included a detailed inspection of 3201-3225 Ash Street to document any changes since its last evaluation and to assess its 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. Archival Research Additional archival research completed for this evaluation was limited to a review of historical aerial imagery and historical newspapers. Information on the building’s construction and historical development was otherwise extracted from the 2019 HRE. Findings Physical Description The subject property at 3201-3225 Ash Street consists of a one-story wood frame building. The building features a rectangular plan, varied gable roof, and a wood plank exterior. The building is made up of three sections – the western portion, the eastern portion, and an addition. The western portion of the building includes the building’s primary, north, elevation which fronts the parking lot adjacent to the warehouse building. It has a porch that continues for the width of the elevation, which recedes for a portion at the south end. It has a central entry door flanked by two, three-over-three rectangular windows on each side and has a circular louvered vent below its roofline (Figure 1). The three portions of the building are visible at the south elevation, which fronts Ash Street (Figure 2). The western portion of the building continues at this elevation and features a projecting bay and a recessed porch that covers two secondary building entries. Windows at this portion of the building are eight-over-eight double hung windows. The eastern portion of the building has a gable roof that rises above the roof of the western portion of the building. Its south elevation has punched openings with six- Item 2 Attachment E-Historic Constraints Analysis Packet Pg. 143 City of Palo Alto Historical Resources Eligibility Constraints - 200 Portage Townhome Project Page 6 over-six windows. The south elevation continues to the addition portion of the building, which is inset from the eastern portion of the building and has the same six-over-six window configuration previously described (Figure 3). The building’s north elevation is characterized by more window openings than the south elevation. Windows at the western portion of the building are generally eight-by-eight casement windows grouped closely together. Windows at the eastern portion of the building are mixture of horizontal slide and double hung aluminum replacement windows. The north elevation of the addition portion of the building repeats the same configuration as the south elevation. Figure 1 3201-3225 Ash Street Primary Elevation, View East Item 2 Attachment E-Historic Constraints Analysis Packet Pg. 144 City of Palo Alto Historical Resources Eligibility Constraints - 200 Portage Townhome Project Page 7 Figure 2 3201-3225 Ash Street South Elevation, View Northwest Figure 3 3201-3225 Ash Street South Elevation, View Northwest Developmental History As described in the 2019 HRE, 3201-3225 Ash Street is believed to have been built in the 1930s as an office related to the cannery operations for the Sutter Packing Company (Page & Turnbull 2019). The Sutter Packing Company leased the active cannery site, which spanned from present-day Park Boulevard to Ash Street, between the rail line and Portage Avenue, from Thomas Foon of Bayside Packing in 1928 and immediately planned to triple the cannery output (Peninsula Times Tribune 1928). In support of Item 2 Attachment E-Historic Constraints Analysis Packet Pg. 145 City of Palo Alto Historical Resources Eligibility Constraints - 200 Portage Townhome Project Page 8 their increased output, Sutter Packing expanded the site with a new warehouse building at 310 Portage Avenue in 1929. Their expansion continued with subsequent warehouse additions in 1937 and 1940. It appears that the building at 3201-3225 Ash Street was built during this period of development leading up to World War II. Historical newspapers from June 1940 describe that site improvements included “relocating the office building from Portage to a site fronting on First street.” Historical aerial images from 1941 confirms the building was in its present-day location by this time. The move is further confirmed by a 1945 Sanborn map of the site, which includes a portion of subject building. Despite the increased output and extensive development of the complex following Sutter Packing taking over the site in 1928, operations declined following the end of World War II and it, the largest employer in Palo Alto at the time, closed in 1949. In 1959, the Dura Bond Engine Parts Company moved its headquarters to the building at 3201 Ash Street and used the adjacent warehouse for its factory operations (Peninsula Times Tribune 1959). A 1960 newspaper article describes that Dura Bond shared the warehouse space with a subsidiary foundry company, Sandshell corporation and described the office as “keeping with its suburban environment,” noting it was a “single-floor residential ‘ranch type’ design with wood-paneled walls and attractive landscaping” (Figure 4) (Peninsula Times Tribune 1960). Figure 4 1961 View of 3201 Ash Street, Dura Bond Headquarters Source: Peninsula Times Tribune Item 2 Attachment E-Historic Constraints Analysis Packet Pg. 146 City of Palo Alto Historical Resources Eligibility Constraints - 200 Portage Townhome Project Page 9 Dura Bond was founded in Palo Alto in 1947 and by the early 1960s, was the nation’s leading manufacturer of replacement camshaft bearings for automotive engines (Peninsula Times Tribune 1961). Historical aerials show that the building received an addition at its east end by 1965 (Figure 5). Dura Bond occupied the property, including the building at 3201-3225 Ash Street and a portion of the adjacent warehouse, until 1987 when they moved their operations to Carson City, Nevada (dura- durabondhearing.com). The property appears to have had a number of tenants in the years following their departure. For a short period in the early 1970s, it was also used by McQuary, Norris, Yale and Towne, who made Eaton stationary. In the early 2000s the building was occupied by the California Family Foundation (Idaho Statesman 2000). In more recent years, it has been as the offices of WSJ Properties, a real estate management firm and Sight Glass Vision, among others. Figure 5 Historical aerials – 3201-3225 Ash Street Outlined in Red, 1941 (left) and 1965 (right) Source: UCSB Historical Resources Evaluation of 3201-3225 Ash Street The property at 3201-3225 Ash Street is recommended ineligible for individual listing in the CRHR under any significance criteria. A simple, vernacular style building, it was constructed by Sutter Packing Company in the years leading up to World War II, when the plant considerably expanded their production and operations. When the plant closed in 1949, it was the largest employer in Palo Alto. The trajectory of cannery operations at the plant, beginning in the early twentieth century peaked in the 1920s before the construction of 3201-3225 Ash Street, and quickly declined as residential developments and new industries began to replace agricultural industries in the postwar period, corresponding to the broad pattern of development of the history of canning in Santa Clara County. Though the property, inclusive of the warehouse and 3201-3225 Ash Street are representative of that history, the building at 3201-3225 Ash Street does not, by itself possess individual distinction to convey Item 2 Attachment E-Historic Constraints Analysis Packet Pg. 147 City of Palo Alto Historical Resources Eligibility Constraints - 200 Portage Townhome Project Page 10 that historic context and derives its significance from its functional relationship to the warehouse building, which served as the property’s main building. It, on its own, does not retain sufficient integrity of setting to convey its significance related to agricultural industries in Santa Clara County. In the years following the closure of the Sutter Packing Company, the building was used for a period of time as the office headquarter for Dura Bond Engine Companies. Though the national leader in the production on camshaft bearings for automotive engines during this time, the crux of their operation included the adjacent warehouse, where materials were manufactured. The building at 3201-3225 Ash Street does not, therefore, sufficiently convey that history. The property is not eligible under Criterion 1. Research conducted for this study did not suggest that any owners or occupants of the property have made significant historical contributions to national, state, or local history. It is not eligible under Criterion 2. 3201-3225 Ash Street is a simple, vernacular building. Featuring a simple one-story plan and a residential exterior design, it does not represent a distinguished example of any architectural style. There is no evidence that the design represents the work of a master and it does not possess high artistic value. In light of this, the property does not embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, and is recommended ineligible under Criterion 3. Research for this study did not uncover any information that yielded or is likely to yield information important to prehistory or history and is recommended ineligible for listing under Criterion 4. Potential Eligibility Following Completion of Proposed Project Best practices and guidance provided by the National Park Service (NPS) and OHP provide that an evaluation for eligibility should include a description of its current physical characteristics and appearance, including any features that are associated with the resource (OHP 1995). Both the NRHP and the CRHR require that an eligible property must meet at least one of the criteria of significance and retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. For those reasons, properties must be evaluated with consideration of their existing condition at the time of evaluation. As outlined in the memoranda completed by Rincon in February and November 2022, the property’s proposed design would include large scale demolition of the warehouse building, resulting in a substantial loss of historic material. Furthermore, the proposed warehouse design does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and would not therefore retain sufficient integrity to continue to be eligible for listing in the CRHR. The property’s eligibility for listing as a California Historical Landmark, a California Point of Historical Interest, or in Palo Alto Historic Inventory after the project’s completion cannot be determined before the proposed project is completed. Even though each of the above designations treat the question of integrity differently than the NRHP and CRHR, their evaluation requirements all must include a description of the resource’s physical appearance at the time of evaluation. Since the proposed project is not completed, an accurate description of the physical condition cannot be provided. Even if the anticipated design conceptually met the eligibility requirements for listing for one of the above designations, the course of construction may change the subject property’s condition. It is not uncommon, for example, for structural issues related to partial demolition to not be realized until the time of construction. Furthermore, construction-related incidents like fires and collapses are possible. It is not possible, therefore, to accurately evaluate and determine the subject property’s eligibility for Item 2 Attachment E-Historic Constraints Analysis Packet Pg. 148 City of Palo Alto Historical Resources Eligibility Constraints - 200 Portage Townhome Project Page 11 listing as a California Historical Landmark, a California Point of Historical Interest, or in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory after the project is complete, before construction is complete. It is recommended that, if the City is interested in potentially pursing listing for the property as a California Historical Landmark, a California Point of Historical Interest, or inclusion in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory, that an updated evaluation be undertaken after the 200 Portage Townhome Project is completed. It should be noted, that both listing as a California Historical Landmark and a California Point of Historical Interest, require consent of the property owner and approval by the State Historical Resources Commission. Listing in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory does not require owner consent and properties listed in the Palo Alto Historic Inventory are subject to project review, meaning that any future changes to the building exterior will be reviewed by the HRB. Conclusions The property at 200 Portage Avenue, inclusive of the warehouse building and 3201-3225 Ash Street was previously found eligible for listing in the CRHR under Criterion 1 for its association with the agricultural industry in Santa Clara County. The proposed 200 Portage Townhome Project, which includes partial demolition of the warehouse building and the construction of new residential and retail space would result in material impairment, does not meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and would therefore result in a significant and unavoidable impact to historical resources for the purposes of CEQA, as previously outlined. In response to HRB’s inquiry, and as detailed above, 3201-3225 Ash Street is recommended ineligible for individual listing in the CRHR under any criteria. Furthermore, the anticipated eligibility of the property for listing as a California Historical Landmark, a California Point of Historical Interest, or in Palo Alto Historic Inventory after the project’s completion cannot be determined before the proposed project is completed. Per guidance from OHP and NPS which require evaluations be based on existing conditions, any future eligibility would have to be determined through a new evaluation effort after the proposed 200 Portage Townhome Project is completed. Should you have any questions concerning this study, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 510-834-4455 or at jmurphy@rinconconsultants.com Sincerely, Rincon Consultants, Inc. JulieAnn Murphy, MSHP Architectural Historian Project Manager Steven Treffers, MHP Cultural Resources Director Item 2 Attachment E-Historic Constraints Analysis Packet Pg. 149 City of Palo Alto Historical Resources Eligibility Constraints - 200 Portage Townhome Project Page 12 References “Auto Industry Has Growing Importance Here.” Peninsula Times Tribune, February 15, 1960. Accessed via Newspapers.com. “Bayside Cannery is Leased.” Peninsula Tribune Times, May 5, 1928. Accessed via Newspapers.com. Classifieds. Idaho Statesman, February 27, 2000. Classifieds. Peninsula Tribune Times. June 24, 1972. Accessed via Newspapers.com. “Engine Parts Company Moves to New Offices.” Peninsula Times Tribune, October 30, 1959. Accessed via Newspapers.com. Page & Turnbull. 340 Portage Avenue Historic Resource Evaluation, Palo Alto, California. Prepared for the City of Palo Alto, February 26, 2019. University of California, Santa Barbara. Historic Aerials via FrameFinder. Accessed March 2023. Item 2 Attachment E-Historic Constraints Analysis Packet Pg. 150 200 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 Item 2 Attachment F- Development Program Statement Packet Pg. 151 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. Item 2 Attachment F- Development Program Statement Packet Pg. 152 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 1 6 5 6 Attachment G Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans (Development Plan) 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 A Draft Environmental Impact Report was circulated for the 200 Portage Avenue Townhome Project in accordance with the authority and criteria of the California Environmental Quality Act for a 60-day circulation period beginning September 16, 2022 and ending on November 15, 2022. The 3200 Park Boulevard Development Agreement was evaluated as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. The Final EIR, which includes responses to all comments received on the Draft EIR as well as revisions to the Draft EIR is now available. Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Search for “200 Portage Avenue” or “3200 Park Boulevard” 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 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 Item 2 Attachment G- Project Plans (Development Plan) and Environmental Documents Packet Pg. 153 Item No. 3. 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: May 25, 2023 Report #: 2304-1302 TITLE Election of Chair and Vice Chair and Modification of HRB Bylaws With Regard to Elections RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Historic Resources Board (HRB): 1. Elect a new Chair and Vice-Chair to serve beginning May 25, 2023 2. Adopt the revised HRB by-laws modifying when Chair and Vice-Chair elections are held BACKGROUND The current Chair and Vice Chair were elected September 9, 2021, and have served in their positions for 20 HRB meetings. HRB memberships previously began in January and ended in December. However, with Council adoption of the "City Boards, Commissions and Committees Handbook1“ of November 2020, appointments for complete terms are made in the Spring. The existing HRB By-Laws were consistent with the previous term commencement, in January. By-Laws Section 3.1 states: “The offices of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be elected from among the appointed members of the Board, and the person so elected shall serve for a term of one year or until a successor is elected. Elections shall be held at the first meeting in January of each year, or as soon thereafter as possible.” The attached HRB By-Laws delete this last sentence in strike-out format and replace it will the below sentence in underlined format: ”Elections shall be held at the first regular meeting in April of each year or as soon thereafter as possible.” 1 Handbook https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/city-clerk/palo-alto-boards-commissions-and-committees- handbook_final_2022.pdf Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 154 Item No. 3. Page 2 of 2 The new HRB member was appointed in April and present for the April 13th HRB meeting. The May 11th HRB meeting would have been the selected date for elections; however, due to a planned member absence, the May 25th meeting date has been selected to enable full participation. There is no express procedure for Chair and Vice Chair elections. Where the HRB’s By-Laws and procedural rules are silent, the presiding officer may decide questions of procedure, though any board member may appeal a decision to the HRB as a whole. The process for the most recent past election practices is summarized below: 1. Nominations for Chair are made from the floor. Boardmembers may nominate anyone, including themselves. A second is required for the nomination. 2. The nominee states whether they will accept the nomination. 3. The Boardmembers who moved and seconded the nomination make a brief statement on why they support the nomination. 4. Nominees may also make a brief statement regarding their candidacy. 5. Other Boardmembers may give comments or ask questions to the nominees. 6. The HRB will take a vote after all nominations have been made, seconded, and the nominees have stated whether they will accept. 7. A majority vote is required for confirmation. 8. The entire process is repeated for Vice Chair election. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Draft Updated HRB Bylaws AUTHOR/TITLE: Amy French, Chief Planning Official Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 155 011415 cs 0131565 1 Rev. February 27, 2023 1 4 6 8 RULES AND REGULATIONS AND BY-LAWS OF THE PALO ALTO HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD ARTICLE I NAME Section 1.0 The name of this board shall be the PALO ALTO HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD (HRB) ARTICLE II Section 2.0 This board shall perform any duties imposed upon it by Ordinances of the City of Palo Alto and by applicable State and Federal law, or as requested by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto. ARTICLE III Officers Section 3.0 The officers of the Board Shall consist of a Chairperson, a Vice Chairperson, and a Secretary who shall be a non-voting member. Section 3.1 The offices of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be elected from among the appointed members of the Board, and the person so elected shall serve for a term of one year or until a successor is elected. Elections shall be held at the first meeting in January of each year, or as soon thereafter as possible. Elections shall be held at the first meeting in April of each year or as soon thereafter as possible. Section 3.2 The Director of Planning and Community Environment of the City of Palo Alto or his/her designated representative shall be the Secretary of the Board. Section 3.3 The duties of the offices of the HRB shall be as follows: Section 3.31 It shall be the duty of the Chairperson to preside over all meeting of the Board, to appoint committees and to serve as an ex-officio member of the committees so appointed, to call special meetings of the Board and to designate the time and place of such meeting, to set the date and time for the public hearing held by the Board, to sign documents and correspondence in the name of the Board, and to represent the Board before the City Council, its commissions and committees, and such other groups and organizations as may be appropriate. The Chairperson may designate the Vice Chairperson, or in the Vice Chairperson’s absence, another member of the Board to act in his/her stead. Section 3.32 It shall be the duty of the Vice Chairperson to assist the Chairperson and to act in his/her stead during his/her absence. Item 3 Attachment A Draft Updated HRB Bylaws Packet Pg. 156 011415 cs 0131565 2 Rev. February 27, 2023 1 4 6 8 Section 3.33 It shall be the duty of the Secretary to keep a record of all meeting of the Board, to accept in the name of the Board documents and correspondence addressed to it, to present such correspondence to the Board, and perform other staff functions as deemed necessary by the Board. The Secretary will determine the agenda for all public meeting of the Board, based upon an assessment of the applications made to the City requiring historic architectural review, and based also upon the desirability of hearing such other matters as may be deemed, by the Chairperson or by the Secretary, to be of concern to the Board. ARTICLE IV Committees Section 4.0 The Chairperson shall appoint special committees as they be desired or required. ARCTICLE V Quorums and Voting Section 5.0 Four members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the purposes of conducting business. Section 5.1 All actions taken must be by affirmative vote of majority of those Board members present, except to adjourn or continue for lack of a quorum. A tie vote constitutes a denial of an item, except that a member of the Board may then move that the item be reconsidered or continued to another meeting. A majority of the Board may then vote to reconsider or continue the item to another meeting ARTICLE VI Meetings Section 6.0 Regular meetings of the HRB shall be held twice a month or at the pleasure of the Chairperson. The Chairperson shall establish the dates of the meetings. Meetings shall be held on Thursday at 8:30 A.M. in the Palo Alto City Hall. HRB regular meetings shall occur on alternate Thursdays from ARB regular meetings. Regular meetings may be adjourned and reconvened upon a majority vote of the members present. Section 6.1 Special meetings may be called at any time by the Chairperson, or at the request of three members, by a written or oral notice given to each member at least 48 hours before the time specified for the proposed meeting. Item 3 Attachment A Draft Updated HRB Bylaws Packet Pg. 157 011415 cs 0131565 3 Rev. February 27, 2023 1 4 6 8 Section 6.2 Boardmembers may attend remotely to the extent permitted by State law. ARTICLE VII Rules Section 7.0 All meetings of the Board shall be conducted in accordance with a modified Robert’s Rules of Order. THE FOREGOING BY-LAWS WERE ADOPTED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE PALO ALTO HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015. Amended: January 6, 2017 March 9, 2023 Item 3 Attachment A Draft Updated HRB Bylaws Packet Pg. 158